I am a creationist, but other than briefly mentioning it as an alternative viewpoint, I don’t want creationism taught in public schools. I could teach very effectively about evolution, but subtle, subconscious words and intonations I would use would probably steer someone emotionally. In the same way, a teacher who is required to mention creationism will probably mis-teach the belief, even if not on purpose.

As for this specific specimen, there is nothing challenging to creationism in a possible common ancestor between frogs, toads, salamanders, and maybe newts. They are very similar as it is, and the Bible does not teach that all the animal species that exist today existed in the same state at creation. Rather, it teaches that certain kinds of animals were each created, and from those kinds, various species arose (which is what we observe in nature today). In this case, if this fossil truly is a common ancestor, that means that frogs and salamanders have diverged through speciation from a common ancestor, which is consistent with creationism because it shows only a decrease and reshuffling of genetic material, not an increase in material. Going from “frogmander” to “frog” is subtracting the “-mander” part of the animal, and vice versa. That is exactly what the creationist theory predicts of a fallen world in which mutations and other factors change the original face of creation.

A male lion breeds with a female tiger, makes a liger of great size!
2

a male leopard breed with a female lion brings forth a leopon. Which not only has the size and strength of the lion but also has the climbing abilities of the leopard.
3

All that has so far been said, is recognized by science.
4

Now into the realm of what has not yet been ‘validated’ (by science).
5

All the other cats are said to interbreed
from time to time.
6

The division of Species is based on the idea that, only members of the same ‘Species’ can indeed breed.
But if all cats ( including the Egyptian house cat) can breed, they are not different Species but only subspecies of the original cat.

Now, if the liger is bigger and the leopon is of the same size and better. Then it comes to reason that the original cat from off the Ark was a super cat.
Scientists say that the “extra” abilities that come out of these ‘hybrids’ are caused by “recessive genes”
Recessive Genes are created by inbreeding.

Now here is the part that might interest a historian.

Gen 7:2

“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.”

In this I think that the clean animals were allowed to descend without inbreeding and therefore pure. While the others were forced into inbreeding, which caused their abilities to go into ‘Recessive genes’. The ancients had enough trouble with the lions, tigers, etc. So this might have been set to preserve man. Did you know that in India they breed the wild dog with the wolf to get a bigger breed. This alone means nothing, except that there is a story whcih appeared shortly after the flood. No later that 500 years, or 600, or 700, etc, after the flood. The story told of a great king who had wolves so great that his men were able to ride upon them, for they were far greater than any horse.

Maybe I’m going nowhere, but if only two cats, two dogs, two bears, etc, walked off the Ark. Then I say that it would immediately force inbreeding, which in turn would force abilities to go into recessive genes. And (to the point) would force the super Cat to degenerate into the lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah and house cat that we have today.

I’m sorry I couldn’t help joking and calling the lion and tiger a degenerate.

“In the production of pure breeds of sheep, cattle, hogs, and horses inbreeding has frequently been practiced extensively, and where in such cases selection has been made of the more vigorous offspring as parents, it is doubtful whether any diminution in size, vigor, or fertility has resulted. Nevertheless it very frequently happens that when two pure breeds are crossed, the offspring surpass either pure race in size and vigor.”

Sudden Origins by Jeffrey H. Schwartz

The tiger is either a pure breed are a degenerate species!
Or I say.
They are one and the same..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Else, the reason why the clean were in sevens as opposed to the others.

Genetic research (and this basic reasoning and breeding) has shown that every type of wolf, dog, fox and coyote etc. came from the 1 original wolf.
Scott, John Paul and John L. Fuller Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog
Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canines (Hardcover) by Michael W. Fox

Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca)

“Mitochondrial Eve is the ………..common ancestor (MRCA) of all human via the mitochondrial DNA pathway . In other words, she is the MRCA found when ancestry of all living humans is traced back in time, following only the maternal lineage. Mitochondrial DNA pathway is equivalent to maternal lineage, because Mitochondrial DNA is only passed down from mother to child, never father to child. [1]”

Camel-Llama-alpaca

All known subspecies of the “horse” are known to breed!

1 Last thing.
this theory is observable & testable, in that you can breed new ‘breeds’ of dogs in just a few years. But each of these will have less ‘ablities’ than the last.

Just take 2 dogs (of your choice) & place them in a zoo. Now there children will be fine but as there children breed with each other you will see the same thing happen. Only it will go ten times further than before.

Kentish Son

I am sending this into the world because I want to get the word out.

Every time I see a “proof” of Evolution in school, it’s something like the butterfly having different colors or a bird getting a longer beak. Maybe frogs and salamanders are related, but when the frog starts to grow feathers and fly I might be impressed. Until then this is perfectly in line with what creationists teach (except for maybe the time difference).

“How did life come about anyway?”
No one knows for sure yet but again evolution does not and has never claimed to explain this.

“When abiogenesis was proposed (it was also debunked long ago by pasteur), they had no idea how complex one cell was. If one cell can be created by chance, how come we can’t create a single cell in the lab???”
There are several different hypothesis’s within abiogenesis all were proposed after Pasteur’s death so he didn’t debunk any of them. What Pasteur debunked was spontaneous generation, the idea that mice, rats, maggots etc spontaneously arose from decaying organic matter. As for why can’t we recreate a single cell from scratch in the lab thats because we don’t yet know how the first living cells arose, we can’t recreate processes we’ve not identified.

“Although I am a young earth creationist,”
Then your problem is not just with evolution its with just about the whole of modern day science.

“I don’t think there is reason to teach either of our religions (yes, yours is a religion too, you have to have lots of faith to think that we all came from rock soup, the spawn of an exploding dot)”
Science is not a religion.

“All you have evidence of is that animals adapt, creationists don’t argue that.”
There is far more evidence than that, everything from genetics to fossils all support evolution.

“We argue that cows don’t change into whales and rocks don’t change into fish – which should be obvious to a second grader.”
Evolution does not teach that, you have created a strawman to argue against.

“If you were so confident about your theory, you would be willing to look at the MOUNDS of evidence to the contrary”
And these mounds are where exactly? lol.