I don't know. It's the definition I've had in mind all along here. What makes it Kinds rather than evolution is that it has to do with BUILT-IN genetics with built-in limits for each Kind.
======
so it's an issue of potential.
Well, take any two animals and you'll see that in a few generations they don't look the same any more. And that's true to some extent even with highly overbred animals.
(btw: you're still wrong. i think you'll find that birds are "birds of the air" and crocodiles are "beasts of the field." not only separate kinds, but created on different days.)
We know there were flying reptiles, don't we, quite apart from archaeopteryx. Unless all the flying types are birds. Why does it matter? I'm not hung up on which is which Kind.
The enormous varieties of dogs alone ought to be an example of how much potential there is in one Kind, though, and that's a modern Kind -- The varieties of dogs before the Flood must have been astonishing.
all dogs are one species, canis familiaris. interesting trivia, i know. but it's why you can cross breed just about any two dog varieties within the realm of, ahem, physical possibility.
And even if they lose the capacity for interbreeding in my book they are still the same species. But the point is the VARIETY you can get from a single Kind.
If there are birds in the dinosaur layers, fine, I heard there weren't any and that that was one reason for the idea they evolved from the reptiles.
nope. we know that birds evolved from reptiles because their homology to theropod dinosaurs, their genetic links to crocodiles, their remaining crocodilian homologies (especially the scale), and because we have a very large selection and range between more reptilian, dinosaurian forms, and modern birds. there's actually enough evidence to classify birds as a subgroup of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs as a subgroup of sauropsida, or "reptiles." oddly, in scientific circles, the evidence is SO good that birds are sauropsids that most people feel the term "reptile" is outdated.
Oh brother. And all this accord with the Linnaean tree? Genetic similarities being called links, homologies of design being taken for descent. What a bunch of ...
it appears the fork happened in about the late jurassic, maybe a little before. both dinosaurs and birds continued past them co-existing during the entire cretaceous period, until the dinosaurs were killed off in the k/t event.
The fantasies you guys can concoct from a layer of dirt. As if time marked itself off in discrete layers of particular sediments with particular contents. How absurd.
it's really quite fascinating. i can recommend a good book or two on the subject for you.
I'm busy reading other things at the moment, thanks anyway.
Feathered dinosaurs, fine. I haven't been keeping up. To my mind they can have all the feathers they want and even wings and still not necessarily be related to birds.
did you catch the distinction i made above? the difference between what we call "bird" and what we call "dinosaur" is made on stuff like the proportion of the maxillary and premaxila bones.
I have to admit I don't pay close attention to such stuff. All it means is that there are similarities that I explain by design and you explain by descent. There is no evidence in such things, it's all just preferring to see it the one way or the other.
we're talking stuff that *I* barely know the details of. and i suspect if i showed you with a diagram, you'd say "so what?" in other words, we have dinosaurs on one side of the line, and birds on the other. and the difference between the two is "micro" evolution.
Huh? MICRO evolution has nothing to do with this. There is no relationship whatever.
maybe only 5% of the genome reflects the difference but it's a definitive difference nevertheless.
far, far, less. we share something like 50% of our dna with plants.
That's funny. Interesting. Shows just how meaningless the percentages are when it comes to the idea of descent.
But yes, if the Kinds were originally as genetically rich as I think they were, then descent of some pretty widely diverging types is possible from one original.
again, how is this different than common descent?
I don't see any similarity myself. Kinds are Kinds. They don't produce anything except varieties of the Kind.
I believe it very likely that ALL the cats that ever lived descended from one original cat Kind for instance.
if i were to use the example above as an analogy for the other example i was using, your "original cat kind" would include cats, hyenas, mongooses (mongeese?), seals, racoons, bears, walruses and dogs.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
that's the degree of a shift we're talking about with crocodiles and birds. the group that encompasses them is one of the very basal groups in sauropsida.
Huh? YOU are the one saying they are related, not I.
I wonder what Adam and Eve looked like. Every single human type came from them. Every skin color, every hair type, every size and shape from the pygmy to the Neanderthal to the giants of the Bible. Actually all that came from NOAH and his family. Wonder what HE looked like.
well, i can tell you that one of noah's sons was semitic, and another black.
Not necessarily. I think the black groups developed from Ham, and the European groups from Japheth and the Semitic groups from Shem, but the patriarchs didn't need to have all the characteristics of those who descended from them. All you need for that is geographically isolated gene pools, Shemites going one way, Hamites going another, etc., not a particular phenotypic original.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
