EVOLUTION is SACRED Because GOD Used It As His Tool For Creating the Great VARIETY of Species

I like it. I enjoyed  the repeating of "according to its kind" and the twist on evolution from the stand point of creation not Darwinism. It is very clever.

Thanx so much for commenting - and so fast !! Yes, i think i have a point worth making. Im glad u c the merit to what im saying. I will look up your work.

Yes microevolution but science does not prove macro evolution. Like you said everything begets its own kind. A duck can not evolve into a tiger. God created each species suddenly from scratch and even the atheistic Richard Dawkins acknowledged the sudden appearance of new life forms and species right from the Cambrian era. Nothing evolved into something else and the way I read it the bible attests to that and science proves that still even if the evolutionists prefer conjecture.

Macro is nothing more than micro on steroids. I mean once u accept micro, its like cancer before the stage 4 metastasis. I mean once the cancer has begun, the metastasis is just a later stage. I mean macro is simply micro squared. It is the LOGICAL extension. I mean the earliest mammal is the miotreme (?) which secrets milk but has no real breasts, but then the later mammals evolve breasts.

Take the reptilian duck-billed platypus. It obviously is half reptile, half mammal. Clearly evolution is caught red-handed on MACRO level !!  The incarnation of Christ at (actually before) Christmas = God manipulating the female gene in the ovum of Mary, turning it into an X chromosome. Otherwise Jesus would have been female. Anyway God is exposed as willing to stoop to gene manipulation in that case !! Showing what He is capable of.  The miracle of the incarnation supports evolution - macro level. If boys start out as girls but then change when the X chromosome is turned on, doesnt that demonstrate a little change can have big effects.

Finally i would guess that macro is like a 10 story building compared to a 2 story building - micro. Seems to me macro is simply "more of the same." But getting back to Gen. 1.20, 24: the only mechanism given therein is reproduction "according to kind." But the context is what? The creation of many species. SPECIATION is presented as COMING FROM "reproduction according to kind." So speciation is a byproduction of THAT !! I am not making this stuff up. It is IN THE BIBLE !! Speciation comes WITH WITH WITH reproduction according to kind. It is THE BIBLE that is teaching this connection between reproduction on the one hand and SPECIATION on the other hand !! The two processes are occurring TOGETHER !! They go hand in hand !! The BIBLE ITSELF TEACHES COMMON ANCESTRY: the first lifeforms producing all the subsequent lifeforms !! THAT = EVOLUTION - MICRO EVOLUTION !!

Glory to God in the highest !! This naked endorsement of macroevolution in Gen.1.20,24 = what ?? PROOF of DIVINE INSPIRATION. PROOF IT IS THE WORD OF GOD !!!

I feel you are contradicting yourself. And again you simply showed and proved microevolution which is the stages in which an animal changes but remains the same animal and NEVER changes into another animal however much the changes. That's what the bible also says and proves, ' that animals only reproduce their own kind. The mammal you mention you should have named it so I would have showed you that that mammal remained the same. You must have heard of living fossils, these are aimsls that didn't change much over millennia yet survived all those millions of years.
The duck billed platypus may have parts of different animals but it is not a transitional form. It is a unique animal with features from different animals. It does not prove macroevolution. The only fact would prove macroevolution would be if a dog etc is documented evolving into say a duck etc , a different animal. No such macroevolution ever happens or observed. What has been observed SCIENTIFICALLY is ONLY MICROEVOLUTION on an animal yet the animal remains the same. To say a chimp evolved into man would be macroevolution but that never happened and the evolutionists I debated with had to admit that that never happened. The bible is correct in what it says but you are interpreting it to the evolutionist view, forcing that interpretation. Evolution is rejected by many Christian scientists my friend.

Thanx so much for commenting on my comment and poem. At least we DO agree that microevo is valid. I have a lot of ammunition or weapons to use "against" you. (Not really against YOU, but against your view.)  
ONE, there is the "story" which human gestation tells: the sponge-level human embryo (like the animal called a sponge which is mass of undifferentiated cells) is mass of undifferentiated cells. It goes from that level to fish- level with the beginning of gills. Then to reptile level with 2 or 3 chambered heart (no longer the one (or 2) chambered heart of fish. Then it passes over to mammal features, etc. !! This is all for OUR benefit. We are to LEARN from it. Learn what?? That sponge evolves into fish, reptile, then mammals. This is an example of what is called "General Revelation" of GOD by GOD. Paul the apostle plainly tells us NATURE (actually the STUDY of Nature) reveals stuff about God (or the things of God) - Romans 1.19-20.  
I mean the phases of human gestation = part of NATURE. So we are to accept these steps as valid truth coming FROM GOD !!  
 
TWO, the 2 cherubim in the Holy of Holies on top of Ark of Covenant are COMPOSITE figures combining bird and mammal features with human ones: wings of eagle, torso of bull with claws of lion, topped off with head of man !! This is for us to LEARN from!! Learn what??!! That reptiles (represented by eagle), produced the mammals, which are followed up by the creation of humanity by God. My point here the CONNECTEDNESS of lowly reptile to mammal to humans. Plus the LOCATION of these composite figures is extremely telling: the Holy of Holies is the equivalent of the uterus of a woman. See my poems about this: ("The Cherubs in Holy of Holies Reveal the Truth of Evolution," August 30, 2018; "Connection Between Holy of Holies And the Womb: Evidence for Theistic Evolution," June 25 2018). The message herein is MACRO-EVOLUTION is authorized BY GOD !!  
 
THREE, Gen.1.20,24 gives only reproduction "according to kind" and then an "abundance" of species is presented or alluded to. The implication herein is that reproduction "according to kind" is ENUFF to produce NEW species !!  
There is NO additional mechanism given that accounts for speciation!!  
Other than Repro-Accord-To-Kind  (RATK). So speciation MUST come forth from RATK !!  
Really !! I am not making this stuff up!! And, practically speaking, that means that every one thousandth (?) or one millionth(?) birth is DIFFERENT from the norm !! Mutations in genes create flukes - which by God's GRACE turn out to be positive changes as opposed to negative. God's GRACE is the only thing that makes macroevolution successful !!

Hello sir! Sorry the holidays keep me busy but here I am. You see it is with deep extensive investigative research and scientific proofs that I side and hold the views that many even Christian scientists profess. The fish gills similarity  was disproved scientifically and the old fashioned view that human gestation stages resemble ancestral stages was long rejected. What you were pointing to was the theory of ontology recapitulates phylogeny  which has long been disproved. I copy paste the relevant proofs for that. And I will be back with more. I have argued this several times and it always seems the Christian scientists who oppose evolution theory always win with more scientific proofs on their side.


Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts. While often seen as rejecting Darwin's theory of branching evolution for a more linear Lamarckian view of progressive evolution, this is not accurate: Haeckel used the Lamarckian picture to describe the ontogenetic and phylogenetic history of individual species, but agreed with Darwin about the branching of all species from one, or a few, original ancestors.[9] Since early in the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" has been refuted on many fronts.[10]

Haeckel formulated his theory as "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The notion later became simply known as the recapitulation theory. Ontogeny is the growth (size change) and development (structure change) of an individual organism; phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species. Haeckel claimed that the development of advanced species passes through stages represented by adult organisms of more primitive species.[10] Otherwise put, each successive stage in the development of an individual represents one of the adult forms that appeared in its evolutionary history.

For example, Haeckel proposed that the pharyngeal grooves between the pharyngeal arches in the neck of the human embryo not only roughly resembled gill slits of fish, but directly represented an adult "fishlike" developmental stage, signifying a fishlike ancestor. Embryonic pharyngeal slits, which form in many animals when the thin branchial plates separating pharyngeal pouches and pharyngeal grooves perforate, open the pharynx to the outside. Pharyngeal arches appear in all tetrapod embryos: in mammals, the first pharyngeal arch develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus and the stapes.

Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory, such as its possible application to behavioural ontogeny, i.e. the psychomotor development of young animals and human children.[11]

Contemporary criticism   Edit

Drawing by Wilhelm His of chick brain compared to folded rubber tube, 1874. Ag (Anlage) = Optic lobes, matching bulges in rubber tube.
Haeckel's drawings misrepresented observed human embryonic development to such an extent that he attracted the opposition of several members of the scientific community, including the anatomist Wilhelm His, who had developed a rival "causal-mechanical theory" of human embryonic development.[12][13] His's work specifically criticised Haeckel's methodology, arguing that the shapes of embryos were caused most immediately by mechanical pressures resulting from local differences in growth. These differences were, in turn, caused by "heredity". His compared the shapes of embryonic structures to those of rubber tubes that could be slit and bent, illustrating these comparisons with accurate drawings. Stephen Jay Gould noted in his 1977 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny that His's attack on Haeckel's recapitulation theory was far more fundamental than that of any empirical critic, as it effectively stated that Haeckel's "biogenetic law" was irrelevant.[14][15]


Embryology theories of Ernst Haeckel and Karl Ernst von Baer compared
Darwin proposed that embryos resembled each other since they shared a common ancestor, which presumably had a similar embryo, but that development did not necessarily recapitulate phylogeny: he saw no reason to suppose that an embryo at any stage resembled an adult of any ancestor. Darwin supposed further that embryos were subject to less intense selection pressure than adults, and had therefore changed less.[16]

Modern status   Edit
Modern evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) follows von Baer, rather than Darwin, in pointing to active evolution of embryonic development as a significant means of changing the morphology of adult bodies. Two of the key principles of evo-devo, namely that changes in the timing (heterochrony) and positioning (heterotopy) within the body of aspects of embryonic development would change the shape of a descendant's body compared to an ancestor's, were however first formulated by Haeckel in the 1870s. These elements of his thinking about development have thus survived, whereas his theory of recapitulation has not.[17]

The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct.[18] Embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures, but that means only that they resemble other embryos at that stage, not ancestral adults as Haeckel had claimed.[19] The modern view is summarised by the University of California Museum of Paleontology:

Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development.[20]

Continued/...NO GILL SLITS IN HUMAN EMBRYOS : A science journal on Wikipedia notes in research latest;
"The slightly gill like feature in human embryos are actually visceral arches. The human embryo has no gill openings similar to those of cold-blooded animals. The folds in the neck region of the human embryo are erroneously called gills, but are not gills and never have anything to do with breathing. They are merely flexion folds or wrinkles in the neck region. These folds eventually develop into a portion of the face, inner ear, thymus, parathyroid, and tonsils. No reputable medical (or scientific) embryology text claims that there are gill slits in human or mammal embryos.''

Another a biologist, Dr. Jonathan  Wells states: '' What earlier Darwinists called gill slits are infact pharyngeal pouches and not gills. They're not even gills in pharyngular stage fish embryos (who have them too).''

Tom mitchell, medical obstetrician writes '' The so-called 'gill slits' of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water(or amniotic fluid) as fish do with gills. The human embryo is supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord. Infact these gill ''slits'' in human embryos are not even slits or openings like fish gills at all! Actually they are nothing but folds in the embryonic neck area. By the 28th day of life the embryo's brain and spinal cord seem to be having a faster growth than the rest of the body parts forcing the body to curl and flexing the neck area forward (to bend). So just as many people show or develop a double chin (folds) when bending the neck forward, the embryo has folds in its neck area due to this flexing. (gill slits in fishes are cuts like openings while the human ones are merely folds giving the illusion of gills.) The human ear, bones, muscles and glands
develop from these folds (and not our lungs).''

Thus from this rationally detailed info I understand that the so called gills are not even gill like openings, they are simply folds resulting from a baby's neck being hunched in an arched  position so its more like layers of flab like what u would see if u try to squeeze down a baby's neck.
It's actually more a case of seeing things when u so badly want to see it. An illusionary glimpse, that's all.