Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

Yes, it seems you are right and in looking into this further I realise that, in regard to cats, i did not take into consideration that Genesis diferentiates between the 'domestic' and 'wild' animals. Genesis 1:24-25 "And God went on to say: Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.therefore Genesis is once again seen to be in agreeance with what we see in regards to kinds.a house cat and a lion certainly cannot breed and hybridize as you've pionted out. Wild cats of different varieties can though, and domestic cats of different varieties also can...this would imply that they are 2 different kinds...one domestic kind and one wild kind of cat.and thanks for pointing that out...its always good to be corrected when the correction makes the bible account more clear. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

which ones?I searched and the information I found was the house cats cannot be cross bred with lions as Huntard said.Which wild cats did you find that can?

thanks for the links melindoorhowever, we were specifically refering to the crossbreeding of lions and domestic catscan it be stated with certainty that 'wild cats' were not from domestic cats that have become feral?If these two can cross breed, then perhaps they are the same 'kind'

It is clearly stated that many bird species were created, not just one wild and one domestic. Genesis 1:21And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.winged creatures were obviously made in great variety and in different 'kinds' so the fact that we have ostraches and chickens and pelicans and finches etc also shows that genesis is in harmony with what we see. as was mentioned in the other thread that chromosomes play a role in fertilization success...inbreeding can cause problems for humans and im sure it causes the same problems for animals. Why some can mate and others cant does not prove that new species are being created.

thats true and as i said, i wasnt taking into consideration that the genesis account mentions many different 'kinds' being createdso, we may never know exactly what a genesis 'kind' is because they are not individually named, however they are spoken of as being able to reproduce.So I guess if a number of animals, such as lions/tigers etc, are able to cross breed, they can be considered to be of the same kind.

not only according to me Mr Jack.geneticists have found evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, their studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female and we've all got it. They've also found that the genetic material on the [Y] chromosome which all humans have today, came from one original man.

no it doesnt because Noah was told to take 2 of 'each' kindtrue, we have no way of knowing what those kinds were but that does not present a problem because whatever they were, they are still around today.

Hi Huntard you are basing this off speculation alone.The facts are that there is most definately one man and one woman to whom we are all related....just as the genesis account shows.we 'creationist scumbags' seem to be more interested in facts then the evolutionsists who are coming up with all sorts of ideas to discredit the genesis account. Why is that?

some people have estimated that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals alive today could have been reduced to a comparatively few family kinds2 of the big cats (lion/tiger/lynx/jaguar etc) could have produced the variety we see today.remember, if they can interbreed, then they are of the same kind...and evolution does predict that animals can speciate when they become isolated. So its likely that the animals Noah took on the ark may not have looked like the ones we have today. IOW, he probably didnt take 2 'lions' as we know them. The 2 big cats he took may have been very different to what we have today but their reproduction likely produced the great variety we now have. ie lions, tigers, jaguars, lynx etc etc etc.

dishonest of me?there is science and there is evolutionary science. Is it honest of evolutionary scientists to weave their ToE into the data collected by other scientists and use that data to back up their theory???i dont think so.

chromosomes? genetics?the fact that some of them can still breed with certain ones surely shows they are still members of the same species/kindi accept that its a phenomenon that we see, but it's no reason to doubt the validity of a creator making many kinds of animals. For all we know, genetics was created to allow for great variety.

im not sure if it would need all the kinds today.we know that animals can produce great variety within their kinds such as dogs and cats for instance.Noah would not have needed to take one of each variety of dog onto the ark, nor would he have needed to take one of each cat variety. The genes make it possible for one pair to reproduce a great diverse vareity of animalsjust as humans have become very diverse in our features, so have animals.

Hi ICANT im sure Gods wisdom would have put on the ark exactly what was needed. What i mean by 'big cats' is the large wild variety of cat...i call them 'big cats' because we really dont know what it was...it could have been something similar to a lion or a tiger but we have no way of knowing.so its a big cat as opposed to the smaller domestic kind.

well the bible doesnt discuss mtDNA, but it is in agreeance with known science that there was one human mother & father for all people living today. something is not quite right about it...perhaps they need to check their figures. well the physical evidence of human existance shows us that there were no records of any prehistoric man. All writing and language and artworks etc dont go beyond 6,000 odd years. The fossil records in the earth provide no link between man and the animals and there is nothing documenting subhumans in mans earliest records.So, while i'm happy to see the evidence they have found with regard to our earliest female ancestor, I dont believe the dating is accurate.
. I thought you said that evolution has nothing to do with God or creation?Oh, i must have been imagining it lol.

we've already discussed this and i'm not going to chase my tail going over it again.,that link i provided in an earlier post to 'hybrids' shows that many of the big cats can cross breed. (many more then i had realized prior)