you may have a point on that depending on what a 'species' actually is. Have we made the correct determination of what a 'species' is? I dont know.
We were talking about kinds though, not species.
What i said earlier is that the boundary between "kinds" should be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur because in Genesis, a 'kind' was mentioned along with 'go forth and muliply'
Then cats and lions are a different kind, since they cannot "go forth and multiply".
as far as i'm aware, the basic meaning of a "species" is a sort, a kind or a variety.
No, not really. Like I said every "variation" of dog is of the same species.
But then in biologic terminology they apply a species to any group of interfertile animals that have one or more distinctive characteristics. So really, a moggy is the same species as a lion because they have one or more distinct characteristics, yes?
No. That's not how species is determined. The one I personally like is "a group opf organisms that live in a certain area and breed together and have fertile offspring". Bear in mind there are always exceptions, since nature is never either black or white. But we're not talking about species, we're talking about kinds.
but if we take it back to hybridization, some cats of different varieties can be hybridized, but there is a complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family...therefore apes and man cannot be from the same 'kind'.
Than neither can the common housecat be of the same kind as the lion, since they are completely unable to hyberdize with eachother. As are ostriches and chickens.
We may look similar and have similar characteristics, but those characteristics do not mean we are from the same species so the biologic terminology of what a species is cannot be 100% accurate either.
Humans are apes of a different species as other apes. No one has said otherwise.
it would seem that chromosomes play a role in successful reproduction.
Genetic compatibility, like Wounded King said, yes.
If you looked at the link re hybridized cats, they show how cats with a certain number of chromosomes are not compatible with cats of a different number. But the point is that even though they have different numbers of chromosomes, they are still cats.
But, according to your own definition, not all are the same kind of cats.
What I'd like to focus on here is how kinds are defined (according to Peg, they must be interfertile). The current definition however, means that common housecats and lions are not of the same kind, as they aren't interfertile.
So, Peg, would you like to change your definition, or was there more then one cat kind on the ark?
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
Hmm, yes, it's a bit difficult to place this. I guess "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution", then?
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
I'll leave the "wild cat" thing between you and Meldinoor alone for now. Perhaps I'll comment later.
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.
Ok... Then what about ostriches and finches, for example. They're both birds, both wild animals, and aren't interfertile. Were there more "wild kinds" of birds as well? Also, I don't think all wild cats can hyverdize with eachother, what's the explanation for that one? Lynxes and jaguars for example, don't think they are interfertile.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
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.
It's also in harmony with what evolution predicts.
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.
That's not the argument I am making though. I'm asking you for a good definition of kind. You said kinds are interfertile. This poses a problem, because many species which you put in one kind are not interfertile. I'm trying to get a workable definition of kind here.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
So, how many kinds did Noah take on the Ark then? One for every species? That'll never fit.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
Why is it that ten year old kids can see that the Noah's Ark narrative is a myth yet many adults cannot (or refuse to admit)?
Probably because they've told themselves they must believe it, or else Jesus's teachings are worth nothing.... Or something like that.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
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.
Ok. That makes Cheetahs a different kind of cat. However, if species that are not interfertile are not of the same kind, Noah runs into a problem...
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
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.
Of course all humans have a common ancestor. This is also exactly what evolution predicts. However, you're a bit wrong in your assumptions about this mitochandrial eve and y chromosome adam. I'll post a video that explains this nicely this evening. It's something like this:
If there were say three women who gave birth to our ancestors, yet in two of those lines after that at one time there are no female offspring, the mitochandrial dna of those two women is lost, and the one remainng woman is then mitochandrial eve. The same goes for the men, if there were three men and in two lines there are at one point only female offspring, then those two y chromosomes are lost, and the one remaining line becomes y chromosome adam.
Edited by Huntard, : Just saw something went wrong when copying text
Edited by Huntard, : Added video
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
Actually, I was referring to the space problem. All species that are interfertile with one another (which are your kinds) could never fit on the ark.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
Peg, I've just thought of another problem with your "kinds are interfertile" position. What about ring species?
This is where there are let's say species A, B, C, and D in one area. Species A is interfertile with species B, but not with C and D. Species B is interfertile with species A and C, but not with D. Species C is interfertile with species B and D, but not with A. And species D is interfertile with species C, but not wit A and B.
Now, to what Kind do these belong?
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
According to Creationism's finest Barimimologists, they'd all be one species. I linked to some classic papers by these fine academics in a previous post Go on, have giggle or a cry (not sure which).
Yes, according to them. According to Peg however, kinds need to be interfertile. This poses a rather interesting problem here, doesn't it?
Oh, and it's most likely laughing (very hard).
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
Not really. I am actually basing it on the data we do have. Like say the fact mitochandrial Eve lived 170,000 years ago and Y nuclear Adam 70,000 years ago. That can't be what the bible means...
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.
And that they lived 100,000 years apart, and that the woman was here first. Or is the research not reliable in those instances?
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?
Really? Then deal with the fact the evidence shows your Eve lived 100,000 years before your Adam. And that evolution is true. And that no evidence at all for your god exists. Or do the facts suddenly become irrelevant then?
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
some people have estimated that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals alive today could have been reduced to a comparatively few family kinds.
Some have estimated that the billions of species living today can't be reduced to a few family "kinds". Empty assumption leave no impression on me.
2 of the big cats (lion/tiger/lynx/jaguar etc) could have produced the variety we see today.
Not according to you. A kind must be interfertile and not all big cats are. Therefore, there must have been more kinds.
remember, if they can interbreed, then they are of the same kind...
Not all can, therefore they are not all of the same kind.
and evolution does predict that animals can speciate when they become isolated.
So, evolution's true now?
So its likely that the animals Noah took on the ark may not have looked like the ones we have today.
Sounds like you accept evolution. Welcome to the club!
IOW, he probably didnt take 2 'lions' as we know them.
No, that wouldn't have fitted.
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.
But not all big cats are interfertile. Therefore, by your definition, they are not of the same kind.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
the fact that some of them can still breed with certain ones surely shows they are still members of the same species/kind.
According to your definition of kind, if it's not interfertile, it's not the same kind.
i 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.
It's a eason to doubt your definition of kind, however.
For all we know, genetics was created to allow for great variety.
Yes. Though nothing points to that.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
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.
That's not what the data shows, Peg. Again, you misunderstood.
something is not quite right about it...perhaps they need to check their figures.
What? They need to check their figures? Do you think scientists just make shit up, Peg? That don't "check their figures" very very very thoroughly?
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.
Actually, the fossil record does just that.
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.
So, the research is reliable when it fits your religious views, but it isn't when it contradicts it. Nice standards there, peg.
I thought you said that evolution has nothing to do with God or creation?
Oh, i must have been imagining it lol.
It doesn't Nor do I say that here. I wonder how you came to that conclusion?
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
™ Version 4.2