Descent with limited modification is NOT a new concept and I'm interested in where you got your information claiming that it is.

This following is from Answers In Genesis and please refer to the link below for more detailed information:

"Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp


I would only add that God also created variation for our pleasure of seeing even more examples of His visible attributes.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."
- Romans 1:20,21

WIYC:

This is excellent, and I agree completely. Genetic variation falls under the rubric of God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28. This suggests that for that to happen, there needs to be built into all living things the ability to adapt to a changing environment, but without changing so much that one animal actually becomes another animal.

That Scripture in Romans that you quoted goes on to say:

"Professing to be wise [homo sapiens, man-wise], they became fools,

and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man [humanism]--and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things." vs. 22-23.

Along that line, note how the argument is being made here and elsewhere that the supposed ancestors of man are found, previous to ape genetic lines, to be "mice," and before that, reptile-like creeping things, according to Arneson.

The true purpose of this multiplied silliness is to deny the Creator His just due as the progenitor of the human race. What a waste of time, money, and energy, all to turn the truth into a lie.

How much better it is just to worship and serve the Creator, who is blessed forever.

Thank you for your superb clarification.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Descent with limited modification is NOT a new concept and I'm interested in where you got your information claiming that it is.

This following is from Answers In Genesis and please refer to the link below for more detailed information:

"Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp


I would only add that God also created variation for our pleasure of seeing even more examples of His visible attributes.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."
- Romans 1:20,21

"Genetic variation falls under the rubric of God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28. This suggests that for that to happen, there needs to be built into all living things the ability to adapt to a changing environment, but without changing so much that one animal actually becomes another animal."

Then my question to this is: how do you tell one animal from another animal? What are the qualifiers?

Example: Is the thylacine a different "animal" than a canine? Was it on the ark along with canines, or was the pair of canines on the ark the ancestor to the thylacine (ignoring for the sake of argument, of course, the modern taxonomy)?

They certainly look like they'd be of the same "kind", don't you think?

1. This board is for evolutionists to defend a theory that is taught as fact in education. If creation is ever taught as fact, we'll talk about the ark.

2. You sound confused about variation. Are you asking us to educate you in modern taxonomy?

3. Please explain the genetic difference between the thylacine (marsupial) and canines (placental) and why you think that they might be related.

2. Please explain in detail how convergent evolution works to create the Tasmanian Wolf and grey wolf in a separate independent manner?

"This board is for evolutionists to defend a theory that is taught as fact in education. If creation is ever taught as fact, we'll talk about the ark."

Exactly. So why did this thread start in the first place? So we can debunk "common descent with limitations"? What does that have to do with evolution?

"You sound confused about variation. Are you asking us to educate you in modern taxonomy?"

Nope, I need no education from you with regards to taxonomy. What I DO need is education regarding the *Biblical* difference between "animals", my example being canines and thylacines.

"Please explain the genetic difference between the thylacine (marsupial) and canines (placental) and why you think that they might be related."

In terms of genetics I cannot tell you - I am not qualified to answer that. In terms of TAXONOMY I can certainly answer that question. Are you still interested in the answer, or is that not the point?

"Please explain in detail how convergent evolution works to create the Tasmanian Wolf and grey wolf in a separate independent manner?"

Convergent evolution is easy:

'convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches' -wikipedia

So the tasmanian wolf and the gray wolf each evolved their own traits based on their environment (ToE), but the traits happened to be similar because their environments to which they were adapting are similar. However, they are still fundamentally different animals in many respects.

Why do you want me to explain this to you? What is so hard about this?

1. This thread is here to clarify that there is proof for variation and that creationists (most) believe it occurs.

2. Beyond variation, there is no proof, no observation of, and no facts substantiating common descent with unlimited modification.

3. Monday morning, we'll start a new round of the "Let's See How Evolution Works" game and it will cover convergent evolution. You'll have ample time to explain it to us