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

Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.

the definition of genus in an ancient language may not be the same as the modern day evolutionists definitionThere are no specifics except that the animals of the same kind/genus could reproduce.

i havnt officially heard of the modern synthesis, expecially not on evc. When i say 'i think its more to do with genetics' i mean exactly that. I think populations become diverse due to genetics...not because evolution is creating something new or because animals change from lower life forms to higher life forms. i'll give you an example of how genetics have been proved to be a force in how life developswe know that insects and microorganisms are able to develop resistance to pesticides, in time they can become immune and unaffected. This has often been cited as evidence of evolution occuring yet research has shown that immunity is a genetic factor already built into living things. In the 60/70s a genetist named Milislav Demerec, at Carnegie Institution in Cold Spring Harbor, New York conducted experiments using colon bacteria and Streptomycin. His findings showed that no change in heredity was brought about by the streptomycin treatment. What it did was killed the bacteria that did not have any immunity. He found that about one cell in every thousand million was naturally resistant in every generation he produced whether they had been exposed or not.When the nonresistant strains died out, the resistant cells lived and brought forth progeny and dominated the population growth. But among them about thirty-seven cells out of every thousand million produced were of the basic type, sensitive to streptomycin. When he reversed the experiment by removing the surviving population into untreated broth, the nonresistant strain began to flourish again and dominated the population while the resistant strain continued to appear as at the start, about once every thousand million times.His experiments explain why disease epidemics can wipe out most of a population, yet leave some untouched due to their having a natural resistance to the particular disease germs involved. Its all about genetics. What if something has genetical defects which prevent them from reproducing? There are many humans who need fertility treatment because they have genetic flaws...this can happen among the same kind. Again, I would point to genetics. I said it earlier it could be that the chromosomes are not compatible and prevent fertilization. as with most things in life, there are exceptions to the rules. Personally i dont think that just because some humans are infertile, they are not humans... exceptions will always be found, the question is 'WHY' are they an exception.in the case of human interfertility there is almost always a genetic reason behind it for both men and women. I'm not so sure about that conclusion for the reason that there is no pattern of increasing chromosome numbers along any chain organisms. If a continual development of life were true, then as life became more complicated, you would expect to see a pattern of increasing chromosomes.We are at the top of the ladder i assume and we have 46 chromosomes.
Yet the one-celled protozoa called aulacantha has 1,600 chromosomes! Other animals such as the deer mouse has 48, the striped skunk has 50, the cebus monkey 54, the cow 60 and the donkey 62! Even potato's have more then we do with 48!this doesnt show a slow gradual progression to complexity...it shows that each group of living things has its own special chromosome structure and without the very specific number of chromosomes, the animal cannot reproduce viable offspring. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

hi BritericanI brought up the chromosome point because evolution describes life as starting off as ‘simple’ single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba, developing into many-celled organisms. This implies that they gradually became more and more complex.If an increase in complexity actually happened, then it should show itself in the cell structure. We should expect to find some pattern reflecting this as cells advanced 'up the ladder' because that is what the theory states.The chromosomes are the key because they carry the information that creates the traits of the life form. A simple life form such as an ameoba does not have all the traits of more complex life forms (ie no eyes, ears or legs etc) so it stands to reason that it would not need as many chromosomes as a life form that has more traits.As you pointed out: "I think it can be said that the drop in total chromosomes does not represent a corresponding drop in overall complexity....the actual number of chromosomes does not correlate to the complexity of the organism."and I agree, but i take it further because I think the chromosome structures show that life was created separately and then multiplied "according to their kinds" rather then what the ToE states, that life developed gradually from single celled to more complex life forms.

Hi Bluejay i find it hard to imagine how the two can really compliment each other. Darwins theory says that all life developed unaided and from lower forms to higher forms in a gradual process via random mutations.Mandel discovered the laws of hereditry that explained how plants and animals had factors in their genetic makeup that passed on certain traits from parent to offspring... a process that creates great variety, but not new species.If one says traits are inherited, and one says traits are the result of random mutations that lead to new species, how can they be complimentary? You know the fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, no amount of mutation has been shown to change species from their parents form. When Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 says life would bring forth 'according to its kind', it fits the scientific facts. that may be the case now, but it wasnt originallyDo you believe that humans evolved from the apes? Thats not a problem for the genesis definition of 'kinds'
For example there are hundreds of different dog breeds but none of these varieties is another kind. Its not separated so removed from the original that its reproductive cells are unable to combine with cells of other a different breed. The only thing that can prevent fertility is size. But still, even these are genetically of the same kind. I dont really know, but we know it happens because humans with chromosome problems are generally handicap.

yes your right, Darwin called it "descent with subsequent modification"he also said I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings. His theory was that over vast periods of time, these original simple life-forms, slowly evolvedby means of extremely slight modifications into the millions of different forms of life on earth. why? They are relevant because some dogs cannot breed with other dogs due to differences in size/shape/genetics...but they are still the same kind.If other kinds also cannot breed as in the ring species, then why should it be considered as an entirely new species? ok, so its mutations.However, mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism. They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now.So this is back to what i thought evolution was about to begin with...decent with modification by way of random mutations

Hi Rhain, depends what you mean by perfect.
in humans the number of chromosomes of the newly replicated individual consist of 23 from each parent, so the new individual should have characteristics of both parents which gives them their individuality.If thats not perfect, then what is? prehistoric creatures are still alive today and havent changed their form...the frill shark and goblin shark are recent examples of being found alive.So why havnt they mutated after millions of years? perhaps the same way a wolfhound and a chihuahua does. That is exactly what we see. If a human gets 1 extra chromosome, it becomes a down syndrom with sever mental retardation and many physical abnormalities. Spontaneous abortions are believed to be the result of the fetus lacking a chromosome. So, in humans, it is impossible to be born with an incorrect chromosome number and be fitter then ones parents. Yes i realise that, but I also have exactly 46 chromosomes which is why I am capable of reproducing...anything less and i wouldnt have survived, anything more and I wouldnt be able to reproduce.

This is exactly how genetics work and i gave a similar example in Msg 183:"Milislav Demerec, at Carnegie Institution in Cold Spring Harbor, New York conducted experiments using colon bacteria and Streptomycin. His findings showed that no change in heredity was brought about by the streptomycin treatment. What it did was killed the bacteria that did not have any immunity. He found that about one cell in every thousand million was naturally resistant in every generation he produced whether they had been exposed or not.When the nonresistant strains died out, the resistant cells lived and brought forth progeny and dominated the population growth. But among them about thirty-seven cells out of every thousand million produced were of the basic type, sensitive to streptomycin. When he reversed the experiment by removing the surviving population into untreated broth, the nonresistant strain began to flourish again and dominated the population while the resistant strain continued to appear as at the start, about once every thousand million times.His experiments explain why disease epidemics can wipe out most of a population, yet leave some untouched due to their having a natural resistance to the particular disease germs involved. Its all about genetics." the problem is that this isnt an example of 'mutation' its an example of how 'genetics' work and how its presence in one individual can show up in some but not all at different times.You call it mutation, i call it genetics. Yes, I sure do.

thats not truecreationists simply adhere to the model of genetics and hereditary that comes from the parent paira dog will always produce a dog and a cat will alway produce a catthey will not morph into some new kind of animal...they will continue to be dogs and cats. Evolution would have us believe that these animals will eventually go thru so much change that they will become a different type of animal with different traits and different habits, instincts and dietsCreationists accept that variety exists within the different 'kinds' of animals, and this is due to genetics. this is factual and has been proved beyond doubt that its an accurate description of life and why it changes. Its in harmony with the Genesis account and its in harmony with what we see in nature.

bluejay, did you even read what happened in the experiment?every new generation, whether they had been exposed to the toxin or not, had a number that were naturally resistantthe conclusion of the experiment wasnt mutation, it was hereditary that was causing some to have immunity.Much like traits that show up in a family line, one person may have blonde hair, but it doesnt show up in the decendents until some stage down the track...then every now and then the someone gets the blonde hair.But hey, if you want to call it mutation, i'll call it mutation for the sake of it.

im not sure if thats true or notbut it certainly sounds familiar...when people began to realise that life does not spontaneously generate, evolutionists changed tact too great, so now genetics has nothing to do with evolution either? i think your equation would be more accurate like this:1a + 1b = 1cand im not sure what you're trying to imply with your 2nd equationEdited by Peg, : No reason given.

absolutely i understand thisso did the scientist who conducted the experiment and it was concluded that genetics was the key factor that gave some bacteria immunity...not mutation.This conclusion was drawn because even the immune bacteria continued to produce offspring that were NOT immune.

Im sorry that you are finding this annoying bluejay,but i didnt draw the conclusion in the experiement I posted, the scientist did. If anything is annoying its that not all scientists are in agreeance. This makes it very hard to know who to believe....i'm sure they can't all be right.

does this happen in human populations? but as i said earlier, genesis speaks of both domestic kinds and wild kinds, therefore, there would have been a domestic cat kind along with the wild cat kinds created. Genesis does not imply that only one kind of cat was created.More evidence of this is with the birds. Noah had on the ark numerous birds of different 'kinds' and we know this because he was said to let our of the ark a 'raven' and a 'dove'both birds but two different kinds of birds. perhaps you should ask those who have tried to cross breed monkeys with humans and dogs with cats....the embryos do not succeed. Saying there is no species barrier is fanciful talk with no substance to it...its well and trully proved that there is a species barrier. Ok, and what are the examples in the human population of a ring species?

ok point taken.so can you tell me if the bacteria are still bacteria?and how long should it be before the see the bacteria going thru so much change that it is no longer a bacteria?