How much is too much evolution?

I don't see how a common ancestor seems more likely than having life startup with several different kinds and from there small alteration within kinds would take place over time. It isn't like God was somehow bound to only do it one way, and it not the way His Word declares.

How much code?  Not much code at all.  You continue to be ill informed about how genetics works.  Also, 'code' in computer programming is not the same thing as code in biology.

You also seem to be continuing to misunderstand my question and answer different questions that I have not asked.

My question is about your 'specific boundaries' and 'several different kinds'.   You still have yet to precisely identify what constitutes a 'kind' and how you objectively identify a 'kind' and quantitatively distinguish 'kinds'.

My contention is that your 'boundaries' with regard to what makes a 'kind' are fuzzy and subjective.  I have yet to see you present any quantitative measure or objective criteria for distinguishing various so-called 'kinds'.

How do you distinguish an evolutionary lifeform from a non-evolutionary lifeform?

I've repeatedly told you one small alteration in code could be enough to do major damage and you want to suggest several at once is purely acceptable and practically a given? I'm not going to continue this conversation, we disagree, and I'm going to leave it there.

Why can’t both be true?

That's not the question.   You accept some ('limited') evolution but not all.  The question is where *specifically* do you draw the line?  And on what *objective* measurable basis do you do so?  I still have yet to see any YEC answer this question.  YECs say they only accept evolution 'within kinds', but I have yet to see any YEC provide any rigorous criteria to distinguish 'between kinds' and 'within kinds'.  

What exactly is a Genesis 'kind'?  A Genesis 'kind' used to be equated with 'species' but most YECs recognize this doesn't work and have abandoned such an association, leaving Genesis 'kind' a fuzzy category.

Perhaps this may seem insignificant, but it is, in fact, one of the most significant problems YECs have when it comes to belief coherency and consistency.  

***For how can YEC be made intelligible when adherents don't even know the meaning of their central tenet!?  'I only believe in evolution 'within kinds'" they say, yet they have no clear, objective definition of what a 'kind' actually is.

People continue to perpetuate the myth that 'most mutations are harmful', when this is simply not true.  Most mutations have no noticeable effect, and even 'harmful mutations' in genes can be switched off or their transcripts degraded to prevent phenotypic effects.  *CAN* one small alteration have major, even detrimental consequences?  Of course.  Absolutely.  But does that mean *ANY & ALL* small alterations do this?  Absolutely not.  Again, most mutations have no noticeable effect at all, so your statement is not simply a difference of opinion, it is an inaccurate description of reality.  As I have repeatedly told you (and repeatedly provided you research articles on), genomes are actually very dynamic and routinely incorporate new genetic variation without detrimental consequences.  Genomes are much more 'malleable' and capable of being shaped and altered than the static, fixed 'code' myth you continue to perpetuate.

A single bad mutation can alter a life, and as mutations build within systems you think they can cause limbs to grow over time into species that didn't have them before, as well as hearts, eyes, ears, and the list goes on. Years ago people use to think the gods arose in the universe and caused things to occur, now its genetic code modifications building life. The story is the same just the actors in it are different.

A single 'bad' mutation can be silenced.  Most mutations are neither 'good' nor 'bad' but neutral.  Cells have mechanisms that rearrange and acquire new genetic material.  Genomes are dynamic, not static.  Every person is born with around 75 new mutations on average.  Mutations don't cause limbs or eyes 'to grow over time'.   Such things can be effectuated (instantaneously in some cases) by small (NOT large) changes in regulatory genes or developmental rate or timing.  This isn't an idea or something I think.  Such things have been demonstrated experimentally.

I'd need you to define what you mean by 'an evolutionary lifeform' in order to answer that.

As far as I'm aware all life on Earth is subject to evolution.

All life is and that's a good point that is relevant to this thread.  All life is subject to change (evolution).  YECs on the other hand distinguish between evolution 'within kinds' (which they accept) vs. evolution 'between kinds" (which they reject).  They speak concretely, as if there is some physical barrier between the two that makes evolution possible only up to a certain point.  But not only do they never identify where this barrier is nor provide any evidence that such a barrier actually exists, they have no clear, objective, concrete definition of 'kind' to begin with.

That's the kind of example of (certain) believers starting with the conclusion they favour and working back towards the process(es) that caused it, that I was alluding to earlier.

Yes, assuming what needs to be proved.  We see the same with abiogenesis.  Unwarranted acceptance by 'non-believers' without question.  Assuming as true what has yet to be demonstrated.  The same type of thing happened with Darwinian gradualism, which was assumed to be true for a century, despite the lack of evidence, and any contradiction or disparity was explained away or force-fit into the paradigm of gradualism, which was taken for granted as a given.

As a non-believer I can speak only for myself but my belief in abiogenesis is founded on just one thing - the continued confidence experts in the field appear to have that a purely naturalistic explanation will eventually be found.

I wouldn't describe that as blind faith in the belief, rather trust in the specialist knowledge of those who work in the field. It's difficult for me as a lay person to tell if those experts have blind faith or not.

I'm fine with small changes that take place in a lifeform, larger beaks, denser fur, taller, smaller, and so on. What changes I don't buy into are the kind that would take one lifeform without legs and over time acquire them no matter how much time you think was required to do that.

There is no reason to believe it will occur since the more we learn the more difficult we realize that is. So if you are going to say you believe, you believe in spite of not because of what we know.

@stephen_33: I agree it's not blind faith (for theists or non-theists).  Both have their reasons.  But assuming what needs to be proved is poor practice either way.

That's an improvement but the problem is it's all still subjective, imprecise, and arbitrary.  There are no clear boundaries.  Where exactly is the barrier that prevents change above 'kinds'?  It's an arbitrary, subjective decision not based on factual knowledge.  YECs have yet to demonstrate there even is a 'barrier' or limit to change.  Changes in beaks, fur, height *seem* reasonable to YECs.  Modifying fish fins to legs does not *seem* reasonable.  But such distinctions are not based on anything objective.  They are subjective and arbitrary.  Fins to limbs *seems* more difficult, but without knowing the underlying genetic and developmental causes, how can you be so sure?   How can you make any definitive, decisive conclusions one way or the other?  As it turns out, such a change is not as difficult as you seem to think.  A *single* altered gene can make fish fins more like limbs.

You are asking for something that cannot be given! A single small change in the worse place at the worse time can cause all types of trouble or death, while a host of them can do nothing as you have pointed out. So what number can be given, none in my opinion. Can we build if we are not properly set up to do so, if we are properly set up, how did that happen, and when did it occur.? 

And yet we observe such changes happening experimentally and in nature, so it must not be a problem