3) Why does science demonstrate that all animal species have strict limits as to how much they (or their DNA) can change into something else, yet Darwinists continue to insist that animals can in fact change over time into almost anything?
Here, Kirk misunderstands DNA at a fairly fundamental level, apparently thinking it’s immutable. The first part of this question, ”Why does science demonstrate that all animal species have strict limits as to how much they (or their DNA) can change into something else” is flat out wrong. Science demonstrates no such limits. All life on Earth is based upon DNA, and there’s not that much difference between the various species. Kirk’s question claims a limit that is not there. Chromosomal fusion, for example, is a major change that can occur in a species that can have a profound impact upon the resulting organism. Genetic mutations, driven by copying errors, radiation or chemical interference, can have a major impact upon an organism.Kirk’s question has to be discarded, because it assumes a limitation upon DNA’s flexibility that simply is not there. The base assumption in the question is so divorced from reality it’s not even wrong.
Return to the Index
Continue to the Fourth Question for Darwinists