Evolution For Whatever, etc...

mark24, Cladistic evolution, does not have merit, because creatures with different chromosome numbers, have problems reproducing, etc...P.S. The reason different creatures have similar characteristics is a common designer, the very fact creatures only produce new species within kind (microevolution), and no new kinds of creatures (macroevolution), is evidence supporting Intelligent Design, if creatures are not macro-evolving in the natural then Cladistic evolution never happened, I don't know what fossils are in what layers, so going to pass on getting into liquefication, but if species are not evolving through cladistic means, then it all infers design, and all life not coming from a common ancestor![This message has been edited by whatever, 01-30-2004]

mark24, I accept all the pleistocene extinctions, but don't agree on the dates ascribed to when these events occured, likely the ocean ridges were erupting continually circling the southern hemisphere buffered the glaciation in the southern hemisphere, supporting the excess glaciation in the northern hemisphere, etc...http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/baseball.htmlIt is interesting that the southern hemisphere the ocean ridges go primarily latitudinally and two londitude ridges and the northern hemisphere primarily only one main ocean ridge erupting sediments and water (hydroplate theory) londitudinally, possibly explaining why more glaciation happened in the northern hemisphere, if what you say is true, less glaciation in the southern hemisphere then this supports the glaciers were not formed by the earth going through a cooling phase, it might actually be supporting evidence supporting the biblical deluge, etc...P.S. Its time for me to take a break, already explained that the chromosome numbers are not supporting creatures came from common ancestors, to make kind a bit clearer, flies chromosome don't breed with birds chromosomes, its because they have different chromosome numbers, not that they don't have a common designer, expressed in some similar (characteristics) genetic information, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-30-2004]

It does seem that your mongolian horse can breed with the common horse, but when the donkey and the horse breed it produces a sterile offspring, yet the mule can at time breed with the donkey, supporting all these are simply different species within the expressed biblical kind, etc..."I don't know" about your tree fossils, heard though that some of the tree fossils are represented in the massive coal deposits, one example being the Massive Rocky Mountain coal deposits, believed to of floated in mass, being buried by mud flow sediments, as the waters rushed by the mountains, kjv psalm 104, etc...How do you explain these massive coal fields, how is not these massive coal fields not supporting evidence of the biblical flood, etc...http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ines/docs/v22n3_liger.aspP.S. Do you have examples where different kinds of creatures are interbreeding, like a fish breeding with a bat, or a whale breeding with a fish, etc...It would appear cladistic evolution has to explain these problems, not to simply agree with the bible, the bible even talks about the mule, what you have to show is where different kinds of creatures are reproducing, it appears mutations don't answer the problems why unlike creatures are not reproducing, but simply answering how creatures drifted genetically, explaining how the mule can breed at times with the donkey, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-31-2004]

I would think a lion and a tiger are the same kind, but a snake and a tiger are two different kinds of creatures, a zebra and a donkey are the same kind, but a donkey and salamander are two different kinds of creatures, the whale and the fish are two different kinds of creatures, the fish and birds are two different kinds of creatures, etc...P.S. Not sure this helps, but no new kinds of creatures are being formed, and different kinds are not reproducing offspring, seagulls are not different kinds even if they lose the ability to have offspring from A to D species, but a bird doesn't become a fish, they don't breed, they are a different kind, etc...

JonF, I knew some creatures could reproduce with different chromosome numbers(like the mule), however, after reading answers in genesis article, I no longer feel different chromosome numbers within kind, are not reproducing as its seen in the natural, however, even if creatures like the seagull, or salamanders can't reproduce, this doesn't make them a new kind of creature, only a new species within kind.P.S. The flood waters could of piled up the trees, like snow drifts as the waters washed over the Rocky Mountains.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-31-2004]

In a sense I too agree with the principle of a common ancestor, but only within kind, but agree at times it seems hard to define kind, yet seems easier than trying to define different species as a new kind of creature, however, all other similarities between kinds, too me, are due to a common designer, reposting this link, supporting different species within kind, etc...
Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My! | Answers in Genesis P.S. I feel that too much differences between obvious different kinds of creatures, for them all to have the same common ancestor, so I'm just going to agree to disagree, that we all came from a common ancestor, but agree that there are many different species within kind, etc...

crashfrog, It sure does make one think, this is how at this point in time how I would define kind, making reclassification possible, as more information of the creatures genonomes becomes available.Defining KindDefining different kinds of creatures are expressed through visual design information and by the creatures genetic blueprint expressed within its chromosome bundles, if both visual and genetic information are similar, it suggests common ancestry, if not, an uncommon ancestry, as more genetic information becomes available, it will define common & uncommon ancestry.P.S. When God created man, molded our face, to be in his image, gave us special abilities, to beable to subdue the earth, which is visual designed information, that shows were a different kind of creature, from all the other creatures, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-01-2004]

crashfrog, Canis lupis and Thylacinus cynocephalus are not the same kind of creature by my definition, there genetic information suggests a different ancestorial root(a different kind), though like the platapus it suggest a common designer. The dolphin, the Ichtyhosaur, the shark also have similar design but different genetic information suggesting different ancestrial root, but a common designer.jonF The apes are too bent over, different rib cage, too long of arms, curved hands for climbing, they were designed differently, there facial features are different, too. If you look in the mirror they are a different kind of creature, visual design differences, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-01-2004]

crashfrog, I feel chimps show a common designer, but not a common ancestrial root, when they map the chimp genonome, they will likely find intelligent designed information differences, genes not shared by any other creature, to explain our facial features, intelligence, our upright bearing, and defining what makes us a different kind of creature, new genes are not being created, so different genes will eventually define the different kinds of creatures.

Trixie/crashfrog, I feel that in time they will map the chimp genonome, whatever, I take the bible to mean that our kind came into being with Adam, I believe in only one God, that the Word of God is God, so by Jesus Christ all things came into being, if he rearranged the chimps genetic blueprint to create man, the rearrangement would be the point in time man came into being, a new kind of creature, leaning when the chimps genonome is mapped, you will find different genes to define their a different kinds of creature, as they map all the different creatures genonomes, they should have more needed information to define kind, etc...P.S. Its like they can tell by your genes if your a Jew, or an Arab, etc...even though you have the same genes, if they determine this, they should in time beable to determine the different kinds of creatures by the genes, chromosome bundles, etc...

Its interesting you say evolutionists don't believe the chimp or man evolved one from the other, but that they believe there is a common ancestor, its possible both were created without a common ancestor, the genesis event, think what going to happen is your going to have is the different creatures point to different common ancestors, not to the same common ancestors, supporting the different biblical kinds of creatures, etc...P.S. I'm going to take your advice, to chill out a bit, and well its time to watch the Super bowl, etc...

Trixie, It does work for me, God knitting "them" creatures, I've filed it all under Intelligent Design, etc...P.S. I'm chilling out, not planning on posting, but thanks for your imput, that your still looking for a common ancestor, actually that your still looking, is supporting Intelligent Design, and the creationists biblical kinds(different common ancestors), etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-02-2004]