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

i am thinking in terms of 'variety'it was said earlier by nuggin: "You can NOT apply the word "kind" to both the supergroup "cow" and the subgroup "gernsey".I didnt explain it but in terms of the different breeds, which i'm told are different species, then any two cows could be taken on the ark and we could still end up with the same number of breeds we have today because all cows are the same 'kind'

why would there not be?Why would other animals experience the phenomenon of 'ring species' but not humans?Do we not breed as much as any other creatures on the planet? (apart from insects of course)Do we not have groups of people who breed in insolation from outsiders? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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 kindhe 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???

but it doesthe 'kinds' are those animals that could 'multiply'And when you add genetics to the equation, the kinds could multiply and produce a great variety within thier specific genus.I cant go any further then this because genesis does not individually name all the different kinds. But there certainly were multiples of kinds created as can be seen in the fossil record by the burst of life that we see in the early days.And further evidence of how these kinds can diversify in features is seen in the human kind. We are now made up of many different nationalities with different traits, different sizes and colours.

the old testament talks about dogs, but not in the domestic sense....if you read any of the mentions in the Ot about 'dogs' you'll see that back then they were spoken of as wild scavangers, not family pets....isrealites didnt even keep them as working dogs for this reason.So its all well and good trying to define the animals we have today, but we cant assume that the animals in ancient times were the same as we have today. If dogs have come from wolves, then it is in perfect harmony with the bibles description of them as being wild scavanger animals.And if they did come from wolves (which they likely did) then Noah needed only take two wolves on the ark and as those two wolves bred, they could have produced the great variety we now have.

Ok great, so because science defines all creatures with a spinal cord surrounded by a backbone as a vertebre, it has to mean that all vertebres are related and decended from each other.Why should that be the case? If God decided to create fish, they would all need to be able to breath underwater, but it doesnt imply that they must all be related for that reason. Same with land animals, just because they all breath air and walk on land does not have to mean they are all related.the Special Theory of Evolution states that while limited
change within groups can be observed, such change always remains within phylogenetic boundaries. It was coined by Dr Kerkut in this way We know and understand that change occurs...anyone who liks dogs can see how new breeds can be developed. But the real question is do the changes that occur cross phylogenetic boundaries?I dont think that just because a whole range of species have a spinal cord surrounded by a backbone proves that these all developed from long unbroken chain.