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

Hi jason, Just what did that link you quoted from say? Your quote found in Message 270

quote:

---

Other groups such as the German shepherd showed a closer relation to wolf sequences than to those of the main dog group, suggesting that such breeds had been produced by crossing dogs with wild wolves.

---

That statement says the German shepherd shows closer relation to the wolf than other dogs of the main dog group.It does not say the German shepherd is more wolf than dog as you claim.The same article tells us that according to DNA the wolf and domestic dog/wolf took place 100,000 years ago. The problem then arises that the fossil record of domestic dog/wolf only goes back 14,000 years.The certainty of domestic dog/wolf goes back to 7,000 BC.The rest of message 327 has nothing to do with kinds, and is off topic.In Message 284 you state: In Message 272 They are different hybrids we call dogs.Domestic Dog is a creature that has been said in this thread is a wolf that has been domesticated by mankind.If that is the case there is no such thing as dog. They are only domesticated wolves.That rules out my dog kind and makes them only a wolf kind.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

That statement says the German shepherd shows closer relation to the wolf than other dogs of the main dog group.

​

It does not say the German shepherd is more wolf than dog as you claim.

---

That's exactly what it says.We are talking about a spectrum with the wildest pure wolf on one side and the min-pin (I'm just assuming that the min-pin is the least wolf. It could be the pug or the chihuahua, dunno for certain).The Sheppard falls somewhere on the wolf side of the middle line. It is, on average, more "wolf" than "dog".It's not as though there's a "50%" dividing line. Most wolves have some domesticated dog DNA in their line as well. There has been cross breeding between populations for longer than written history.

quote:

---

The same article tells us that according to DNA the wolf and domestic dog/wolf took place 100,000 years ago. The problem then arises that the fossil record of domestic dog/wolf only goes back 14,000 years.

​

The certainty of domestic dog/wolf goes back to 7,000 BC.

---

I suspect that you are being deliberately dense here on purpose.Let's say it's 100,000 years ago. Our hunter gatherer band has rescued a little of wolf pups and decided to keep them. We raise them. A few or the more wild ones leave us. A few of the more tame ones stay.The docile/tame wolves (the ones who wouldn't get to mate at all, much less with each other in pack life) mate and produce a population of more docile wolves. That's the first step of domestication.For the next 1,000 generations this is occurring, but ALL MEMBERS OF THE GROUP are still morphologically identical to wolves. AND, there's still regular cross breeding with wild wolf populations.If every single one of these dog/wolf early domesticants were to die and leave a fossil - how would YOU determine which group they belong to? The fossils are the exact same as wolves.

quote:

---

That rules out my dog kind and makes them only a wolf kind.

---

What about coyotes, foxes and bushdogs and maned wolves. These are not wolves. Are they each a different "kind" or are all canids one kind?Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Hi Nuggin, Question, "What about coyotes foxes and bushdogs and maned wolves"?Your words, "These are not wolves".Then they are not of the wolf kind.Question, "Are they each a different kind"?Maybe, maybe not.Question, "are all canids one kind"?Your statement, "These are not wolves", answer that question.Though all may be hybrids.But all of that would preceed the statements made in Genesis 1:11-25 taking place, some 6,000 years ago.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT,What, to you, distinguishes one "kind" from another?Personally, I would say that you are of the human (homo sapiens sapiens) kind. But I would also say you are of the ape kind. And the monkey kind. And the mammal kind. And the vertebrate kind. And the animal kind. And the eukaryote kind.I say this because, according to both genetics and morphology, all humans are apes are monkeys are mammals are vertebrates are animals are eukaryotes.Would you disagree with any of those assessments? If so, why?

Why is, do you think, that science considers all creatures with a spinal cord surrounded by a backbone to be related but does not consider all creatures with wings to be related? Or all filter feeding creatures with shells in two parts related?Do you believe these distinctions are merely arbitrary?

Under your definition of "God," we're talking about an omnipotent being. He can do whatever he wants.Science, however, "calls it like it sees it." Observation is all that drives science. And there's a bit more to it than "everything with a backbone is a vertebrate, ergo all vertebrates are related." The presence or absence of a backbone is simply the morphological distinction that qualifies an organism as a vertebrate or an invertebrate. Alone, you're quite correct - it doesn't suggest common ancestry and more than it suggests "re-used templates" or somesuch from a "designer."But taken into the greater context of all observed extant and fossilized life, a different picture appears. We're not jsut talkign about vertebrates here - we're talking about all of taxonomy.The morphological distinctions that differentiate one "kind" of organism from another very clearly becomes a hierarchial tree. The farther back in time we go, the less variance within individual "kinds" we see.Lets use human beigns as an example. According to our morphology, we can be classified not only as human, but also as apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes. There are a lotmore classifications we fit into, but let's keep the list short for brevity's sake.Human beings are apes - we belong, morphologically, in the family "Hominidae." Apes are primates, but are a distinct subgroup of primates due to a few morphological differences:

quote:

---

Both great apes and lesser apes fall within Catarrhini, which also includes the Old World monkeys of Africa and Eurasia. Within this group, both families of apes can be distinguished from these monkeys by the number of cusps on their molars (apes have fivethe "Y-5" molar pattern, Old World monkeys have only four in a bilophodont pattern). Apes have more mobile shoulder joints and arms due to the dorsal position of the scapula, broad ribcages that are flatter front-to-back, and a shorter, less mobile spine compared to Old World monkeys (with caudal vertebrae greatly reduced, resulting in tail loss in some species). These are all anatomical adaptations to vertical hanging and swinging locomotion (brachiation) in the apes, as well as better balance in a bipedal pose. All living members of the Hylobatidae and Hominidae are tailless, and humans can therefore accurately be referred to as bipedal apes.

---

All apes are primates, but not all primates are apes. The above quote lists some of the distinctions that mark a given primate as an ape or another type of primate - the presence/absence of a tail, their tooth structure, skeletal structure, etc.Similarly, all primates are mammals, but not all mammals are primates (obviously). The distinction is morphological - primates are typically classified as mammals that use hands, have varied locomotion (not entirely quadropedal - tree-swinging, bibedal, knuckle-walking, etc), and establish social groups.All mammals are vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are mammals. Mammals are vertebrates who (among other things) give birth to live young, possess mammary glands to feed their young with milk, and possess hair follicles. Reptiles and birds are examples of vertebrates that are not mammals.All vertebrates are animals:

quote:

---

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. All animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.

---

But not all animals are vertebrates. Worms, slugs, snails, insects, arachnids, and many other organisms are animals that do not have a backbone and so are not vertebrates.You see how this hierarchial classification works? We can point to a given feature on an organism, and link it to other organism that share that feature.But again, the simple commonality of features is only suggestive of common descent.It becomes more clear as we look at dates and the fossil record. There were no humans before there were other apes. There were no apes before there were other primates. There were no primates before there were other mammals, and so on. Even more specifically, the feature set that distinguishes a group appears at a specific point n teh fossil record, and then diversifies over time. There were very few vertebrates at first, for example, but then the population diversified in teh extreme into many, many sub-populations, each with their own distinct morphology.It's not simply that the classification system results in a tree where diversity increases over time - the fossil record shows the exact same thing. Populations, over time, diversify until thre are multiple distinct subgroups of the parent populations. Then, each of those subgroups diversifies into its own set of distinct subroups. Over time, some branches stop as species die out, and others continue to diversify.The hierarchial classification of modern taxonomy perfectly fits the fossil record...and both fit perfectly with the Theory of Evolution, which predicts that existing features will be slightly modified to create distinct new groups from their parent populations. It all fits without even trying. They don't - but evolution does not predict that they should.We don't predict that a mammal will produce an invertebrate. We don;t predict that an ape will produce a reptile. What we do predict is that within a given population, existing features will undergo small incremental changes and the population will diversify into subgroups that are morphologically distinct from each other. Vertebrates, for example, will diversify into fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Mammals will diversify into Prototheriates (monotremes like the platypus, mammals that do not give birth to live young but have the other features of mammals) and Theriates (mammals that give birth to live young); Theriates will diversify into Metatherids (marsupials) and Eutherids (placental mammals); Eutherids will diversify into Afrotherids (elephants, manatees), Xenarthrids (armadillos, anteaters), Laurasiatherids (cattle, whales, bats, cats), and Euachontoglires (monkeys, rats, bats); Euarchontoglires will diversify into Glires (rodents, rabbits) and Euarchontids, which includes Primates, which includes apes, which includes you and me. Not by itself, it doesn't. But when you look at the full variety of life, the "big picture," and see the timelines of the developments of new features and classifications, it all starts to fit together. Each individual population, regardless of the scale at which you look at from the entire Kingdom of Animalia to the Class Mammalia all the way down to even just the Order Primates or the Family Hominidae, diversifies over time into multiple sub-populations that are morphologically and genetically distinct from each other but are still members of the older, higher classification.The easily observable diversification over time from the rise of a basic feature, the progression from very few very similar organisms to ever more diverse variations of the same class and the development of new sub-categories, is what shows common ancestry most clearly.Note - all sources were Wiki, I'm afraid I don't know all of my taxonomic classifications off the top of my head. Sue me

Hi Rahvin, Sure I would and do.If I am not mistaken you believe life started from whatever by whatever means it came to exist and that life form has evolved into all life forms on the earth today and all those that has become extinct.If that was correct, then your assessments could possibly be correct.I believe that in the beginning God created all living creatures on the face of the earth.An extinction event took place about 10,000 years ago after which God called certain creatures and plants into existence after their kind. These creatures being called forth after their kind which had already existed is the reason for the kinds of the Bible. None of those animals had to be pure breds. They could have been as well as hybrids. The Bible only says they came forth after their kind.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Okay, all living (and extinct) creatures got called forth after their kind. And some of them, you say, could be hybrids. Does that mean that hybrids don't have their own kind? For example, I still don't recall getting a clear answer about whether the offspring of a wolf and a dog is of the wolf kind or of the dog kind. I'll ask again. Is it of the dog kind, since one parent was a dog? Is it of the wolf kind, since one parent was a wolf? Is it neither? If it's neither, then does that mean that it's of a new kind? Or of no kind at all? How is a dog giving birth to a non-dog not an example of one kind giving birth to another kind, exactly what you say can never happen?

Let's recall the comments you're disagreeing with:I misspoke when I said monkey - I meant primate. My apologies.I'm sure you agree that you're human.Do you disagree that you're a eukaryote? because eukaryotes are any organism whose cells include a nucleus. I'm pretty certain your cells (except the red blood cells) have nuclei.Do you disagree that you're an animal? Animals are members of the Kingdom Animalia - eukaryotes that are multicellular, and digest food internally. You are a eukaryote, you are multicellular, and you digest food internally (as opposed to metabolizing through photosynthesis). You're neither a plant nor bacteria - you don;t fit other classifications, so you must be an animal.Do you disagree that you're a vertebrate? This one's easy - if you have a backbone, you're a vertebrate. You must have a backbone - I've never met a person who didn't (well, in the literal sense anyway).Do you disagree that you're a mammal? Mammals are warm-blooded animals that have sweat glands, (which includes mammary glands, which are just adapted sweat glands), and have a double occipital condyle - two bulges at the base of the skull where it meets the backbone (non-mammals only have one bulge). I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that I don't have that you have sweat glands, that you're warm blooded, and that your skull has that double-bulge. You are not a reptile, or a bird, or a fish, or any other class, so you must be a mammal.Do you disagree that you're a primate? Primates have several distinguishing characteristics that separate them from other mammals. They have five digits on all four limbs; they have two pectoral mammary glands; the penis in males hangs freely with testes in a scrotum (other animals tend to have a penis bound to the rest of the body - see your local dog for an example). I'm dead certain that all of these characteristics describe you. By those features, you must be a primate.Do you disagree that you're an ape? Apes technically include the families Hylobatidae and Hominidae; Hominids are distinguished from other primates by their lack of tails, their formation of social groups, and they are able to use their forelegs as hands, often able to manipulate tools. Do you have a tail, ICANT? Are you a social animal? The fact that we are having a discussion points to the fact that you are. You're typing, so you must have hands. I;m pretty sure you meet the requirements of being an ape.So which of those classifications do you disagree with? Why? Please be specific. Do you actually have a tail? Do you lack a backbone? Do your cells lack a nucleus? Are you actually cold-blooded? Do you not have sweat glands? This isn;t about what I believe; this is about whether you agree with the above classifications. Do you agree or disagree? Why? be specific. Are you not a vertebrate? Not a mammal? Not a primate? Not an ape? Not a human? Not an animal? Not a eukaryote? Even if he did, those classifications still seem to work just fine. Since, you know, modern biology seems to function using such classifications. I mean, do you disagree that we can group all of the creatures that have backbones together and identify them as vertebrates?And don't you find it odd that all mammals, all reptiles, all birds are vertebrates? That all primates, all rodents, are mammals? That everything fits directly into groups and subgroups? Evidence or retract, ICANT. These are the science forums. So...magic? God just said "Poof!" and all the extant species came back?More relevantly, what distinguishes in your mind a "kind" from a "hybrid?" If I take any organism at all, how can I tell if that organism is a "hybrid" or an actual "kind?" Why do the classifications based on morphology used by modern taxonomy not work?Please, be specific.

Hi Rahvin, I would not agree that I am the kind of human you are talking about.I was created in the image/likeness of God. I have a mind, a body and a spirit. I can think, reason, and make decisions and draw conclusions based on that thinking and reasoning. I can then sit in front of my monitor and type these things so you and others can read them.That makes my kind of creature different from any other kind of creature on the face of the earth.After you ask the above question you go on to ask several which has nothing to do with the discussion of kinds. I refuse the bait.Now back to kinds.A male and female human breeding will produce a human.
Do you agree or disagree?A male and female ape breeding will produce an ape.
Do you agree or disagree?A male and female dog breeding will produce dog pups.
Do you agree or disagree?The list could go on until you had every creature on earth included that reproduces by mating.The same Kind of male and female will produce the same kind that they are and will never produce any other kind of a creature.
Do you agree or disagree?It has never been documented otherwise. It has been postulated that millions of little changes over a long period of time will produce all the different kinds we have today.
Do you have such documentation?It has been said there are mountains of evidence of such taking place. I have been waiting for almost 3 years for some of that evidence to be presented. None has been presented yet.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ZenMonkey, Where did I say a dog could not produce a hybrid?I did say and do so again:A female dog and a male dog will produce dog pups and nothing else.A female wolf and a male wolf will produce wolf pups and nothing else.Can a male dog and a female dog produce something other than dog pups? Yes/No would do fine.Can a female wolf and a male wolf produce something other than wolf pups? Yes/No would do fine.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So how are kinds different to species in your view?And did Noah have a pair of every breeding species on his ark?

Fine. Now add in imperfect replication and a million years. Or ten million.The evidence clearly shows that change of species, genera, and more can occur over time. And have occurred. Given the above: yes. Given the above: yes.And since this thread is in the Science Forum, I would hope that you would include at least some passing references to science in any reply.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Rahvin,I kept this separate. The event I referred to is the North American terminal extinction event Here You find a study that says:

quote:

---

Recent evidence for extraterrestrial impact, although not yet compelling, needs further testing because a remarkable major perturbation occurred at 10,900 B.P. that needs to be explained.

---

Here You find a paper with many paper and studies linked to it concerning the extinction event of 10,000 to 12,000 YBP

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Is this BS still going!This must be about the one hundredth thread about 'kinds', how many does there have to be before you guys realise these fundies do not have a clue?All you will succeed in doing is giving yourself a migraine.