Oh heavenly father, deliver me from your followers...
First off, upon your return I'm going to have to ask you to define 'kind.' I find the term irritating and ambiguous. If you mean animals that are capable of interbreeding, just use the term 'species.'
"1. The Law of Genetic Barriers:
The amount of genetic flexibility allowed for with in a DNA molecule may never exceed the Genetic Barrier of Adaptation in a given Kind, unless the law of mutation takes effect.
2. The Law of Genetic Specialization:
A Sub-Kind may continue to diverge from the original Kind as long as it never reaches the Kindís Genetic Barrier, unless the law of mutation takes effect.
I'm a bit puzzled by this statement. Are you suggesting that beyond a certain point, any further change in the genetic structure of an animal is impossible? This is dubious. If what you mean to say is that we could never breed dogs selectively enough to make one give birth to an apple, that is true, but this is not saying the same thing. Dogs and apples are different branches on the same tree, so there is no linear connection between dog and apple. However, this evolutionary limitation does not mean that there is a limit to how much a species can adapt in the 'forward' direction, as long as the adaptation provides an advantage of some sort.
Define your genetic barrier. Give me an example of an animal that cannot possibly evolve any more.
"3. The Law of Mutation:
A Sub Kind can mutate, but will never mutate into a new Kind only into a new Sub Kind. This Sub Kind might change the position of the Genetic Barrier, with in itís Sub Kind, however it will never remove the Genetic Barrier and thus never be a new kind."
Again, define 'kind' here. I suspect you're just playing word games. Your use of the terms 'kind' and 'sub kind' belie your flawed assumption that there is some kind of platonic ideal out there that fundamentally seperates a dog and an apple, but there is no such thing. There is no universal standard that draws sharp distinctions between what animal is which, they're just human models.
"4. The Law of Changing Barriers:
A change in the position of the genetic barrier may increase the chance of disease and will likely limit further Sub Kind adaptation."
Whatever. Any proof for this? Or for the existence of a genetic barrier? A theory is not just a guess.
"5. The law of Kind Reproduction:
The greater genetic variance there is between a Sub Kind and the Original Kind or other a different Sub Kind the harder it will be for the two to create a new member of that Kind."
Yeah, and so logically the 'sub kind' eventually breaks off copulation-wise from the 'original kind' and produces a new species.
And please deal with the flood thing with Rich eventually. He's asked both you and Sam to at least deal with it a bunch of times.
And, to cap it off, a Zappa quote:
"The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your @#!$ing mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.
-- Frank Zappa,"