quote:
Humans and chimpanzeez are not the same kind. Humans are homosapiens, chimps are apes. If a human has sex with a gorilla, will the gorilla get pregnant? No it wont.
OK, but are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same cat "kind"?
They cannot interbreed at all.
quote:
Man was made to rule, have dominion, over the animals. Do we observe this kind of "law" in the present?, yes we do.
That's a nice religious view, but not relevant to the discussion of the dividing line between creation and evolution.
quote:
Various kinds of animals and plants were also created individually. Animals were to reproduce offspring, 'after their kind' meaning that plants would produce plants, cattle would give birth to cattle etc. And that is all that we see in the present.
So, all plants are the same "kind", and all cattle are the same "kind"?
"Plants" seems to be a much larger "kind" than "cattle", and you have put what scientists would call a single species,
homo sapiens, in it's very own "kind".
So, what are the rules for all of the millions and millions of species on the planet WRT what "kind" they are? How many "kinds" are there, IOW, and what system is used to determine if they go into a huge "kind" grouping (plants) or a tiny "kind" grouping (humans)?
quote:
We do not see different kinds interbreeding because over millions of yrs and chance, one could change into the other anyway.
This is extremely vague. How do I know which "kinds" are single "kinds", subgroups of other "kinds", or really enormous uber"kinds" groupings?
quote:
This defuncts a major part of the ToE because they claim that in the premeval pasts millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. Can we believe it all happened on its own? No we cant.
But where is the dividing line between creation and evolution in any of the progressions you mentioned?
Start with equus, and work your way backwards. Where does creation kick in?
quote:
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts.
Gee, why do scientists call the melding of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology "The Modern Synthesis", then?
Why do they use that term, Almeyda?
quote:
Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
So, have you done the exercise yet?
Start with equus, and work your way backwards. Where does creation kick in?
quote:
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts...(snip)
Almeyda, is it OK in your religion to plagarize someone else's work?
You lifted the next several paragraphs from an article at AIG, except you edited it slightly to remove some of the more flowery language in the hopes that we would think you wrote it. Not only is this very much in violation of the forum guidelines, it is realy sleazy and utterly lazy on your part.
I guess that makes you a Liar for Christ, right?
Genetics: No Friend of Evolution
| Answers in Genesis
For example, the article reads:
"Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the
fiction of evolution."
You changed it to read:
"Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain
the ToE."
What defines an "offshoot kind"? How do I know it is an offshoot kind and not a new species?
quote:
As long as they can interbreed. Then the chances are that they are the same kind.
The "chances are" they are the same kind? Don't you have anything less vague than that?
quote:
Like i said before, we dont see cats interbreeding with dogs, because they are not in the same kind. And yes your cat is in the same kind as a bengal tiger. They have huge variations, but they are both feline.
But my housecat and a Bengal tiger
cannot interbreed. Why are they considered the same "kind"?
Also, genetically, my housecat and a Bengal tiger are much, much more different than a human and a Chimpanzee, but you put the two cats into the same "kind" and separate the human and the Chimp into separate "kinds"?
What role does genetics play in determining what "kind" a creature is?
quote:
We see kinds all around us, reptiles, birds, plants, mammals, amphibians, insects, felines, canines etc the list goes on.
Wait, you say that mammals are a "kind", but then you list felines and canines as "kinds" as well.
Does the Bible list "mammals" somewhere?
What about things that don't breed to reproduce such as viruses?
Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps you could explain to me where the ToE proposes that cats could interbreed with dogs? Be specific.
quote:
It tells us to believe that these different 'kinds' which cannot interbreed or give rise to each other no matter how many magic wands of billions of yrs and chance are waved.
Unresponsive.
Please go to TalkOrigins or another science-based site and look at explanations of the ToE and cut n paste the parts about cats interbreeding with dogs back here.
quote:
All we observe is that they are each constant. Just as God said in Genesis. Millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. This is what evolution tells us happened, from the a single cell, through chance and time, and by itself.
Did you do the exercise?
Start with equus, and work your way backwards. Where does creation kick in?
Archie isn't a true bird. It has both bird characteristics and dinosaur characteristics, which makes it a transitional.
quote:
The ToE predicted millions of transitional fossils to be found, yet none have been found.
Archaeopteryx has feathers, wings, a long, bony tail, and teeth.
Why is this not to be considered a transitional between a dinosaur and a bird, since it has characteristics of each?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-10-2004 10:15 AM
™ Version 4.2
