|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes: Now, silly me, I thought you were a creationist who believed that god made kinds as set, specific, unchanging Kinds (dogs always make dogs, you said - and wolves always make wolves) and that evolution therefore cannot ever happen through any known mechanism. I am a creationist. Just not your average creationist. I believe in the begining God created the heaven and the earth. All things found in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24 took place prior to Genesis 1:2. In Genesis 1:21-25 God called forth fish, birds, animals, all living creatures after their own kind out of the water and the ground. These creatures He called forth had existed prior to this time.
greyseal writes: Now you're telling me that dogs and wolves - two DISTINCT kinds - can have hybrid babies, and THOSE babies can have babies, and produce...NEW KINDS? Yes except I think I refered to the offspring as hybrids.
greyseal writes: As, and I'll ask you once again to answer the darned question, WHAT IS THE OFFSPRING OF A WOLF AND A DOG? IS IT A WOLF? IS IT A DOG? IS IT A NEW KIND? it must be a, b or c. Pick one. answer the question. do not bring up any other strawmen until you have. IS IT A WOLF? NO IS IT A DOG? NO IS IT A NEW KIND? NO IT IS HALF WOLF AND HALF DOG. THAT MAKES IT A HYBRID.If you take these half breeds and breed them to half breeds and continue to do so you can blurr the lines until they almost disappear competely. There will be thousands of hybrids created in the process. But they will all be a hybrid of a wolf and dog cross. And the dog and the wolf will still exist. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science.
Science follows the empirical evidence where it leads, even when it contradicts someone's religious beliefs. Religious believers must follow their scriptures or other sources of belief even when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary. So let's all just agree to disagree, eh? But that means you don't try to teach your religious belief in schools or have it mandated by some governmental agency, and I won't demand equal time in your church. Fair enough? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi hooah,
hooah writes: Hi ICANT. I posted two things I'd like a response about. In Message 271 you quote a sciencemag article that states domestic dogs existed 12,000 years ago. It did not state but I assume the wolf existed also. That being the case if the earth was covered with water some 6000 years ago and God did a restoration project and called all the creatures we have today from their kind what is your queston? What is your problem with the different kinds that exist today? In Message 275 you reference an extinct carnivorous marsupial and ask me if it is a Dog? Wolf? Kangaroo? Tiger? It is none of those but was a carnivorous marsupial hybrid. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
In Message 271 you quote a sciencemag article that states domestic dogs existed 12,000 years ago. It did not state but I assume the wolf existed also. Try reading the article, ICANT. It says dogs are descendants of wolves. Wolves were bred/tamed to be dogs. {ABE} I said article. It's not an article. It's a PAPER. A scientific paper published in a, accredited journal.
In Message 275 you reference an extinct carnivorous marsupial and ask me if it is a Dog? Wolf? Kangaroo? Tiger? It is none of those but was a carnivorous marsupial hybrid. I asked you WHAT KIND IS IT? Did god put a carnivorous marsupial hybrid kind on the ark? Is that a kind now Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : clarified article=journal Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
IS IT A NEW KIND? NO
Why not? if it is no longer of the wolf kind and no longer of the dog kind then it must be of the wolf-dog kind It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science. Well, that's not entirely true. The concept of "kinds," types of living things that can be distinguished from other types, is certainly not unscientific. The problem is simply that there is more than one level of classification. Scientific "kinds" are Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. In science, we call it "taxonomy." The classification is done according to morphology. In fact, its even true that "kinds" do not turn into other "kinds." A vertibrate will never give birth to an invertebrate, for example - evolution specifically predicts that this just won;t happen. What will happen is that existing "kinds" will give rise to new subdivisions. The result is the nested hierarchy of known life represented by modern taxonomy: For example, all plants are part of the plant "kind," or Kingdom. No descendant of the plant kingdom will ever be anything other than a plant - but there are separate phylum, classes, species, etc of plants, divided and subdivided according to their morphology as divergent populations form from common ancestors. A common Creationist misconception is that we should expect organisms from one classification to cross over into another, pre-existing classification - that is, that dogs will turn into cats, or snakes will become plants. Evolution predicts no such thing - but it does predict that within existing populations, subgroups will diversify and become distinct from their common ancestors. THis is exactly what we see when we examine modern life and the fossil record. For example - the earliest known vertebrates formed around 525 million years ago. All modern vertebrates can be traced back to these originals - including humans, dogs, cats, snakes, birds, and everything else with a backbone. No vertebrate has ever produced invertebrate offspring. After the rise of vertebrates, they subdivided into new classifications - cartilaginous versus bony, different types of jaw, and so on. New "kinds" were created as populations of vertibrates diversified from each other and became distinct "kinds" of their own. Human beings are of the "human" kind. We are also of the "ape" kind - because we are hominids. We are also of the "monkey" kind because all apes are monkeys. We are also of the "mammal" kind because all monkeys are mammals. You see how this goes - it's simply a hierarchical model of classification determined by the morphology of a given organism. No "kind" turns into another "kind" - all new "kinds" remain forever members of the classification that gave rise to them, and are simply distinct from other members of the same class. The direct observation of morphology and the way it easily (not just easily, but perfectly) fits into a hierarchical model by which new subdivisions arise from the diversification of existing populations as well as the fact that the fossil record and all manner of dating methods show that indeed new subdivisions always arise in order (for example, in the fossil record eukaryote precede vertebrates which precede mammals which precede monkeys which precede apes which precede homo sapiens) is perhaps the best evidence supporting the modern Theory of Evolution. The issue with Creationism is more one of an incorrect usage of terminology and simply misunderstandings as to what the Theory of Evolution actually predicts, as well as the layman's typical ignorance of how taxonomic classifications actually work. ICANT is somewhat correct. All "dogd" will be of the "dog" kind. No dog will ever become anything other than a dog. But dogs are classified into finer subdivisions according to their morphology - chihuahuas, retrievers, etc. And all dogs are in fact wolves: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3923 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
But dogs are classified into finer subdivisions according to their morphology - chihuahuas, retrievers, etc. And all dogs are in fact wolves I actually have some questions about this, if you or someone smart about this could help me? Namely, those African wild dogs who wander across my screen whenever I get addicted to the Discovery channel -- are they also descended from wolves? Or a separate species of canis? How did they get to be so different from lupus? Are they domestic dogs who have gone feral? Or was there a different isolation process? Thanks! PS: I see now they are not only a separate species but a distinct genus. This seems weird to me, they look more like mutts than wolves do, by far. But I note that are important morphological differences too, like a difference in claw construction. I wonder if there is homology at work here? Edited by Iblis, : AbE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Iblis writes: PS: I see now they are not only a separate species but a distinct genus. This seems weird to me, they look more like mutts than wolves do, by far. But I note that are important morphological differences too, like a difference in claw construction. I wonder if there is homology at work here? i just want to say, as i have already a number of times in this discussion, there is no reason to believe that God made only 1 of the dog/wolf kind he may have made several different varieties of this genus of animal...genesis does not limit itself to any number of 'kinds' so why are we assuming there was only ever one dog/wolf kind created???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
ICANT writes: greyseal writes: Now you're telling me that dogs and wolves - two DISTINCT kinds - can have hybrid babies, and THOSE babies can have babies, and produce...NEW KINDS? Yes except I think I refered to the offspring as hybrids. ... IS IT A WOLF? NO IS IT A DOG? NO IS IT A NEW KIND? NO IT IS HALF WOLF AND HALF DOG. THAT MAKES IT A HYBRID.If you take these half breeds and breed them to half breeds and continue to do so you can blurr the lines until they almost disappear competely. There will be thousands of hybrids created in the process. But they will all be a hybrid of a wolf and dog cross. And the dog and the wolf will still exist. I'm really, really disappointed with that answer, because it is a complete and total copout. you tell me that wolves and dogs are distinct kinds, yet they can interbreed. you also tell me that they'll always be a non-kind animal you call a "hybrid" (something never mentioned in the bible). you accept animals can change - apparently to quite a large degree although you're unhappy with falabella's and shire horses all being the same "kind" equally as much as you dislike wolves and dogs being the same kind - yet you don't see the problem with calling a chihuahuah (sp?) and a great dane both "dogs" despite the fact there's a real problem with breeding them "naturally". so you accept no real limits on inter-Kind relationships (i.e. if it happens, it happens), you obviously don't have a problem with animals going extinct (or are you seriously telling me that dinosaurs never existed? I don't care WHEN you think they existed...) despite the fact you said that "there will always be dogs" and "dogs will always make dogs" - both of which are obviously lies from what you've already said you believe in. let's play a little game: dogs and wolves interbreed somewhere, and create a viable breeding population of dog-wolf/wolf-dog hybrids which are neither dog nor wolf. some big McGuffin happens to all the wolves and all the dogs, same as the dinosaurs - boom, no more dogs or wolves. but magically we still have the hybrids. you can accept change in a population, so imagine these hybrids change again - some get bigger, some get smaller and bam! you've got something like the great dane and chihuahuah problem. now, a creationist very much like yourself, but two thousand years later sees this succession of micro-evolutionary occurences and says what? Step forward now, be brave, what would he say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
coyote writes: I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science. Science follows the empirical evidence where it leads, even when it contradicts someone's religious beliefs. Religious believers must follow their scriptures or other sources of belief even when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary. Oh I agree, it was just a good opportunity to see how far a creationist can put their foot in their mouth and still claim they don't taste the sole. "kinds" are entirely religious, and not only that but MUST bow down to the scriptures in any and all cases, even when the answer is nonsensical and self-contradictory (as in the case of ICANT and his inability to understand the difference between hybrids, "micro-evolution" and the change he says he is very much used to a what is, essentially, exactly what science is telling us happens). the IDiots who would have us all listen to their badly-thought-out sad and pathetic excuses for what passes for "creation science" theories haven't done the first bit of work to make sure any of what they propose to teach even passes the first hurdle of being self-consistent a theory before it gets anywhere near being tested in the field. not only is it not self-consistent, it is a swiss-cheese escher painting, and suggesting it has any merit whatsoever just sandpapers my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Peg writes: i just want to say, as i have already a number of times in this discussion, there is no reason to believe that God made only 1 of the dog/wolf kind I'd take that a step further and say that there is no reason to believe that God made any kinds.
Peg writes: he may have made several different varieties of this genus of animal...genesis does not limit itself to any number of 'kinds' If that is the case, it simply causes further ambiguity. It there are "several different varieties of this genus of animal" and these count as different "kinds", then we have moved even further away from any clear cut definition of kinds.
Peg writes: so why are we assuming there was only ever one dog/wolf kind created??? As pointed out before, I certainly don't make that assumption. But if you wish to presume that god made multiple "dog/wolf" kinds - then it begs the question of why they are separate... what makes them separate? On what basis would you conclude that there was more than 1 dog/wolf kind? And what differentiates one particular "dog/wolf kind" from another "dog/wolf kind"? To me this whole thing is a non-issue. The Bible doesn't clearly define "kinds" - the word is used in this sense only a handful of times, and yet such great weight is being placed on it. Despite valiant efforts to put any clear definition to the term, there really is no definitive way to say "that's it, that's right, that's what a kind is".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
As far as Genesis and the creation is concerned, that's not where the real problem is. The problem comes in when you guys try and fit them all on the ark.
Different "kinds" of wolves/dogs? Well, the same must be true for ALL animals. How do you fit them all on the ark? How do you dispute the finding in the paper I posted up thread? 1 wolf "kind" and 1 dog "kind"? Ok, then you accept evolution. Now explain how genetics have traced dog origins to wolves, as I posted upthread. Real, bonafide, scientific studies have been conducted on tracing origins of most animal lineages. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So every animal is a kind in and of itself? Pretty big friggin ark they had. Adam must have been a busy guy. Spent his entire 900 years of life just naming animals.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes: yet you don't see the problem with calling a chihuahuah (sp?) and a great dane both "dogs" I don't remember calling them both dogs. Did I? There are over 500 different hybrids that man has created over the past 6,000+ years that is commonly refereed to as dogs. None of them are purebreds.
greyseal writes: you accept animals can change - apparently to quite a large degree although you're unhappy with falabella's and shire horses all being the same "kind" I see you looked at my avatar. Those both are hybrids. There was much breeding, cross breeding and inbreeding to get to those extremes. When that picture was taken that was the tallest and shortest living hybrids refereed to as horses.
greyseal writes: let's play a little game: I thought that is what you was doing from the beginning.
greyseal writes: you can accept change in a population, so imagine these hybrids change again - some get bigger, some get smaller and bam! you've got something like the great dane and chihuahuah problem. So if some 3700 years ago there was a pair of domestic dogs that was on an ark along with a pair of wolves and each of these was the only living survivors of their kind. They replenished the earth with their offspring. Man gets involved and breeds dogs and wolves and produces a wolf dog. Then these wolf dogs produce offspring. At the same time man is breeding dog with dog and producing dogs. The wolf dogs are uncontrollable so man breeds dogs with the wolf dogs getting more dog in the offspring than wolf until he gets and offspring with very little wolf in it which is more controllable such as the German shepherd. In the meantime we have created thousands of hybrids that have created thousands of hybrids.
greyseal writes: now, a creationist very much like yourself, but two thousand years later sees this succession of micro-evolutionary occurences and says what? I would have to make a guess as to what someone would say to your example. But we don't have to guess what I would say. Because after 3700 years I have just said, we have a lot of hybrids we call dogs. Which in fact have been created from a pair of domestic dogs. With a little wolf bred into the hybrids.
greyseal writes: "there will always be dogs" and "dogs will always make dogs" If I said there will always be dogs, I TAKE THAT BACK. I did say dogs will always produce dogs. The wild dogs in Africa will always produce wild dogs. Wild wolves will always produce wild wolves. If the last dog and wolf cease to exist there will be no dogs or wolves to produce their kind. Just as there are no dinosaurs today as they ceased to exist. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Which in fact have been created from a pair of domestic dogs. Wrong, ICANT. Please see my Message 271. I pointed this out already. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024