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
I am course glad to see issues being put into a new thread, so I'm inclined to promote this despite not being entirely happy with the title (I can't put my finger on exactly why).
Anyway - where would you like this? Bible Study or Biological Evolution (or somewhere else?)
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
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?
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.
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
I refer you to my previous post on this The Kind: Comedy Gold discussing the silliness that equating kind with interbreeding leads to according to Creationism's finest bariminologists
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.
Ha ha ha! So wild and domestic can't interbreed? Dogs and wolves? Domestic Cats and the Wild Cat? Lab rats and wild rats? Domestic goats and mountain goats? Horse and Zebra? The list trots on and on and on.
Ok... Then what about ostriches and finches, for example. They're both birds, both wild animals, and aren't interfertile.
It is clearly stated that many bird species were created, not just one wild and one domestic.
Genesis 1:21 And 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.
Huntard writes:
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.
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.
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
inbreeding can cause problems for humans and im sure it causes the same problems for animals.
Yes, it does. Which is yet another reason why the Ark story is silly. According to you every human on earth traces their entire genetic lineage to a handful of people 4000 years ago, as does the entire variety of life on earth. Every individual "wild cat" comes from just two individuals. Think about it. Not only did this miraculous pair somehow manage astounding evolution producing dozens of radically different species that mysteriously seperated around the globe but also somehow managed to avoid any harmful effects of inbreeding.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
