Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
369 online now:
DrJones*, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 367 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,428 Year: 1,176/23,288 Month: 1,176/1,851 Week: 300/320 Day: 0/72 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 30 of 126 (538542)
12-07-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peg
12-07-2009 6:40 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

why dont scientists present a Theory of Creation???


Because there is no theory of creation.

Is it because they refuse to believe that a God could exist???

Yes, all those religious scientists refuse to believe a god exists....


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:40 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:51 PM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 126 (538545)
12-07-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peg
12-07-2009 6:51 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

or perhaps they would be laughed out of the lab if they proclaimed belief in creation?


Yes, since there's nothing scientific about creation.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:51 PM Peg has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 44 of 126 (538578)
12-08-2009 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
12-07-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

well lets be realistic here...genetics dictates evolution becuase its genetics that creates variety and change.


Natural Selection is also needed.

the are not disctinct because logically, you cannot have evolution without first having origins.

Again: The origin of life is irrelevant to the question of how lifeforms develop (ie evolve). What part of the word irrelevant don't you understand?

What you and others are saying is tantamount to me saying, God and the supernatural are completely separate issues.

No it isn't. Since god is supernatural. yeyt evolution isn't origins.

I can understand your frustration.

The why not take in the simple fact that origins are completely irrelevant to Evolution?

Perhaps you can try to understand mine. Evolution is only 1/2 of the picture. For evolution to be true, it requires the 'origins' to be true...

Yes, but how they came about is, repeat after me, irrelevant.

this is not something that scientists can test or prove by any amount of scientific manipulation.

Not yet, no.

If they could prove that life can come from an organic 'soup', then the picture would be complete.

For the origins yes. The picture of evolution has long since been "complete" (well, you know, as complete as something can be in science).

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 11:50 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:27 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 53 of 126 (538677)
12-09-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
12-09-2009 5:27 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

And this is exactly why evolution is so illogical. How can something just be here without having a beginning?


But life has a beginning, it just isn't adressed by evolution. How hard is that to understand.

no God = no supernatural

but

no origin = evolution


There is an origin, it's just not adressed by evolution. Also, god could've been that origin. That is playing god of the gaps however.

how life came about may be irrelevant to some, but to others its the most important question they'll ever ask.

You misunderstood me. It is irrelevant pertaining to evolution.

So if scientists want to say that we got here by evolution...then they need to also explain what started evolution off.

The first life started evolution off. How that came about is completely utterly and totally irrelevant. God could've created it, aliens could've made it, abiogenesis could be the explanation. It doesn't matter.

This they cannot do because they cannot reproduce it. That tells us something very important about living matter...it doesnt happen by chance.

Because we can't yet reproduce some form of abiogenesis in the past what, 50 years? It couldn't happen "by cahance" at all?

only because they believe the origins is irrelevant.

They don't. It is irrelevant to evolution however.

IMO, they have been sucked into a hole that they cant get out of because they cant get life to evolve in the lab.

They have seen life evolve in the lab. They haven't seen life originate in the lab. There is a difference, Peg.

Therefore they cant test and prove their theory so rather then admit that the theory may be wrong, they simply ignore origins and say its irrelevant to evolution.

The theory of evolution doesn't involve the origins. How many times have you been told this now? Really, why doesn't it register with you that the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life, and that it doesn't matter one bit how life came about.

There are many people who refuse to buy into it.

Because they apparently don't understand the two things are independent of one another. It's like discussing the developmental history of planes starting 60 years ago and on to today. the Wright brothers don't even need to be mentioned here, yet we can still discuss this developmental history. It's the same with evolution it starts when there is life. Before that, it's not evolution.

Please make it register this time, Peg. Pretty please?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:27 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 59 of 126 (538687)
12-09-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion

Peg writes:

If life evolved, then the beginning of life must have occured naturally as evolutionists claim.


Why? God could've made the first life (which evidence shows are not the "created kinds"). And it could've evolved from there. In fact, even if it were the "created kinds" evolution (or adaptation or variation as creationists like to call it) is still a fact.

But if God created life, then the life forms that appeared on earth billions of years ago could not have evolved.

So, you are asying there is absolutely no variation of any kind occurring?

This is why its hard (ok impossible) for me to separate evolution from origin.

But why? You seem to be taking a completely ilogical position here. Look at my plane development example. Would you insist on talking about the Wright brothers there?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:13 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 82 of 126 (538805)
12-10-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
12-10-2009 6:13 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

know ther are many prominent Christian religious groups who accept that God used evolution to create life.


Then they are wrong. Evolution isn't about the origin of life. Peg, please, write it down on a post it and stick it to your screen, perhaps then you'll remember. Why does it not register, why?

Some teach that he preprogrammed the universe to develop on its own...this is theistic evolution.

If it's about evolution, then yes.

Jesus Christ did not believe in theistic evolution and we know this becuase he used the genesis account to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage specifically mentioning the creation of Adam and Eve.

Argument from authority. Did he believe in the germ theory of disease? Did he believe in the Theory of general and special relativity?

His disciple Luke also believed the Genesis account for in his Gospel he traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam.

Argument from authority once more, which prompts the question: So?

If anyone knew about how life got started it was Jesus for he was the one who worked along side the Creator at the founding of the universe. I trust that he knew what he was talking about.

None of this is relevant to evolution. Like I said, even if god started all life, and even if it was the "created kinds" then evolution would still hsppen. Or do you deny "variation"?

no, thats just me not being able to separate 'evolution' from 'origins' again. To put it another way....if the 'origin' of life was by non living matter coming to life, then those creatures that first appeared were not direct creations by God.

Oh? And you know this how? Because the bible says so? But ok, for sake of discussion, let's go with the "created kinds" here. Do you deny they can have "variation"?

Im aware that animals can become varied over time...they diversify in their features.

Then you accept evolutiopn. Really, that's basically all it is saying, things change over time. That's all, that's it, nothing more, simple as that.

I dont believe they develop into new species though (depending on what you define as a species).

You don't think small steps will eventually lead to something evtirely different?

For example, i was watching a nature program just tonight and they were looking at how the females are the ones who propel'evolutionary change' (as he called it) because they choose mates with the best traits.

Sexual selection, yes. This by no means drives all evolutionary change, keep that in mind.

Fair enough i can go along with that. But then he showed an example of a particular african fish where the male comes in a huge variety of colours. (not sure of the name of the fish)

Then he goes and spoils it all by calling every different coloured male a 'new species' ... "a brilliant example of evolution at work"

seriously, what is a species these days??? And why would he call the different colored males a new species???


No idea, I did not see the show, so can hardly comment on what he said. If all that was different was indeed the colour, and he did indeed say what you said he did, then I would have to question the programme's scientific accuaracy. But like I said, I didn't see it, so can't really comment.

{ABE}:After reading Wounded King's Message 75 seems I was rght, colour isn't the only difference. If it were indeed these fish.

So, we're now at this stage, you basically accpet evolution (your eally do Peg, evolution isn't what creationists say it is), yet you doubt it's ability to change things radically over a very long time. Now, why is that?

Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:13 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 6:54 PM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 93 of 126 (539092)
12-13-2009 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Peg
12-12-2009 6:54 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

not at all

we know what guides variation - genetics. We can see it and test it.


Not only genetics, Peg. Natural selection plays an important role here too. Or do you think the variation is purely random, with no benefit to the population at all?

No i dont because its been proven over and over again as impossible.

Actually, what has been proven that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely different.

Here's a test for you. Go out into the street, have a good look around, nice surroundings eh? Now, take a single step. Take another good look around, not much has changed. Now, take another step,and another, and another.... After 1 million steps, have your surroundings not changed completely? And only by taking small steps!

Darwin did believe that animals could go in any direction and he believed that new species could be created by selective breeding.

And they are. We have created new species through selective breeding.

but centuries of cross breeding have not produced any new species...none whatso ever.

Cross breeding is not selective breeding. Cross breeding is breeding one species with another. Selective breeding is breeding a single species, looking at the offspring of that, and selecting those offspring that hold the characteristics you want in your "end-species".

If we cant do it deliberately, what makes you think nature can do it accidently?

First of all, we have done it. Second, nature has far more time than we do.

because there is a species barrier....an internal law that stops a cat breeding with a dog or an ape breeding with a man.

And this means that through small steps and after many many many generations, the offspring cannot be different from the "original species" how? Remember, each step in this process has the ability to breed with their own parents. brothers/sisters and other members of the population, only after 1 million generations, the "end-species" would not be able to breed with the "original species". Also, would you like to point out this "barrier or law"?

and as this paper shows, breeding experiments bring animals to definite limits of improvement but no further.

First of all, that's not a paper. It's more like an essay, second, where are the tests he's done to confirm this? All he relies upon are quotes from works of other scientists, who I doubt share his views (which make it quotemining), like Gould.

Here's one of my favourites:

quote:
He notes that "despite the efforts of breeders," the winning times of thoroughbreds in the English classic horse races "have not fallen substantially over the past fifty years"

Yes, it's of course impossible that there is an actual physical limit to how hard something can run.... And that this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution being wrong.

also the fossil record shows animals unchanged for millions of years, and a sudden appearance of life in many forms in the Cambrian period.

So, you're a punctuated equilibrium advocate? That's still evolution, you know...

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 6:54 PM Peg has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 94 of 126 (539093)
12-13-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Peg
12-12-2009 7:25 PM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Peg writes:

Yes, i do get the point. Evolution is the development of the species after life somehow appeared on earth.

But do you also understand that life must have begun on the molecular level before natural selection could have selected any animals to survive and reproduce offspring?isnt a natural origin what evolution is all about? Isnt that why evolution is so fiercly contested by creationists?


It isn't. It's contested because they somehow think it is. But they are wrong....again....

And if, by evolution, you are refering to the 'variations' found within a species, then i dont have a problem with it.

Then you accept evolution. Now, all you have to realize is that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely Differnt, given enough steps have been taken.

I know species of animals develop over time and show different features.

And that's all evolution is about. Every other thing is a logical consequence (no, not the origin, that's irrelevant).

But if your version of evolution includes the idea that species can develop so much change that they become a new species, then i dont believe that there is any evidence for that.

So, all the evidence we have does not exist? You can even find the evidence on wikipedia, or google scholar, jus type in speciation, and voila, there you go (on google scholar, there are currently 324,000 articles about speciation, that's a lot for something we don't have evidence of).

I agree that many creation storys are rediculous...but not so with the bibles creation account which is why I accept it over other stories such as Brahman for instance.

Yes, completely arbitrarily believing one account over another makes that one account true....

The bible creation account shows animals created according to their 'kinds' and going forth to multiply. this is in perfect harmony with what breeding projects have found with regard to species. Species reproduce according their parents.

Of course, just like evolution says they will. The children will be a bit different from their parents though, as will their children be. This difference is never big enough to stop them looking very much like there parents, yet never completely so. Look at yourself, you don'texactly look like your mother and father, do you? Now then, after a million generations, what makes you think all those small changes could not have added up and there is a very different species then the "original species", but very similar to it's own parents?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 7:25 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 12-13-2009 4:20 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 98 of 126 (539104)
12-13-2009 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
12-13-2009 4:20 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Peg writes:

that is pure speculation


No it isn't. Look up "speciation" on google scholar (324,000 articles) and then tell me there's no evidence for it.

No one had been around long enough to see an entirely new species develop.

We've seen them develop, both in the wild and in the lab.

Everything we have today is the same as it was millions of years ago.

Yes, like Modern humans... Who weren't around millions of years ago...

perhaps the evidence you have has been fitted into the existing theory.

Not really no.

with all the billions of people who have ever lived on this earth, we still all look the same.

No we don't. We look differnet from homo sapiens of 200,000 years ago. Not by much, but there hasn't been much pressure on humans to evolve further, since we can fit adapt the environment to fit our needs, bu still, there are some differences between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens.

We have not changed our physical form, we still have 1 head on our sholders and 2 legs beneath our torso and 2 arms with 10 fingers on each hand.

Of course, there's not been much pressure. Just like evolution predicts.

show me where we have changed dramatically? (and dont show me an ape)

Ok.

No, that's not an ape, and yes, that is our ancestor. Now, tell me we haven't changed from that?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 12-13-2009 4:20 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 2:43 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 106 of 126 (539213)
12-14-2009 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Peg
12-14-2009 2:43 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Peg writes:

I know about speciation...there was a discussion on it here recently where I pointed out that the Golapogas finches were said to have developed into new species...but the facts are that the finch's are still finch's


As they are also still birds, vertebrates, and so on, does this mean all vertebrates are the same "Kind"? If no, then where do you draw the line?

Each 'kind' of animal has the genetic potential for great variety, thats why there are more then 400 different breeds of dogs. You might call it speciation, but the reality is that they are all still dogs.

All dogs are of the same species.

so a skull with a thick brow means a different species?

Amongst other things, yes.

Im sure you could still find some people with very thick brows

Not as thick as this one, and that's not the only difference, Peg.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 2:43 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 4:10 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 108 of 126 (539216)
12-14-2009 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
12-14-2009 4:10 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Peg writes:

this is a good question in light of 'speciation' and im not sure what the answer is

Lets say, for arguments sake, that the bible account is accurate with regard to the existence of life.


Ok, for arguments' sake.

A Genesis 'Kind' refers to life-forms with the ability for cross-fertility within its limits. We've seen how a lion and a Tiger can reproduce, but they go no further. This would make the lion and tiger the same kind...they belong to the same family and can breed to a point. The boundary between 'kinds' then should be drawn at the point where fertilization does not occur.

So, lions and housecats are not the same kind? Or lions and cheetahs? Just lions and tigers, as they can interbreed? Then what kind are cats,or cheetahs, or lynxes?

When God instructed Noah to collect two of each animal together to put on the ark, it was animals according to their “kinds” that were collected.

With that description of “kind” in mind, we know that there is a huge potential for great variety in one such 'kind'


Not really, since only lions and tigers are apparently the same kind, since they're the only ones that can interbreed. Also, are ostriches and chickesns a differnt kind, as they have no interfertility? I don't think interfertility is a very good boundary to pick.

So, Noah could have taken only 2 cats as representative of the cat kind, and from them all the cats alive today could have developed thru genetics....perhaps what you call 'speciation'

According to you, kinds are only of the same kind when they are interfertile. Most cats cannot interbreed with others, meaning most cats are a kind all of their own.

This guy has a thick forebrow.

Not as thick as the skull's, and like I said that isn't the only difference.

These guys are completely different but still the same species.

That picture doesn't seem to work, so I can't comment.

And the different shapes of these three are testament to just how much variety there is in the human frame

The only reall difference between those thre is their size, the rest of their anatomy is very similar.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 4:10 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 4:39 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 110 of 126 (539219)
12-14-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Peg
12-14-2009 4:39 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Peg writes:

no because they are all types of cats...


So? You said that kinds are only interfertile within their own kind. Meaning that if one cat (say, a lion) cannot be interfertile with another cat (say, a comon housecat), they are not of the same kind. Or is it perhaps not the best way to determine a kind, interfertility? Or, let's look at birds, is a bird of paradise a different kind as a chicken?

what i'm saying is there is no reason why the two cats taken on board the ark, could not have speciated to become all the many kinds of cat we see today.

Then you accept evolution. Though a much much faster version of evolution then has ever been seen. Also, why would the changes stop at a certain point, as you seem to be thinking?

leopards and juguars have been cross bred to produce whats called a Jaglion. Actually, while looking into this, i never realized just how much cross breeding has been experimented with. Here is a site with links to many hybrid cats.

I'll look at the site this evening, since I can't access it at this time. I'll edit my reaction in this post.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 4:39 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 7:03 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 121 of 126 (539234)
12-14-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Peg
12-14-2009 7:03 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Peg writes:

you may have a point on that depending on what a 'species' actually is. Have we made the correct determination of what a 'species' is? I dont know.


We were talking about kinds though, not species.

What i said earlier is that the boundary between "kinds" should be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur because in Genesis, a 'kind' was mentioned along with 'go forth and muliply'

Then cats and lions are a different kind, since they cannot "go forth and multiply".

as far as i'm aware, the basic meaning of a "species" is a sort, a kind or a variety.

No, not really. Like I said every "variation" of dog is of the same species.

But then in biologic terminology they apply a species to any group of interfertile animals that have one or more distinctive characteristics. So really, a moggy is the same species as a lion because they have one or more distinct characteristics, yes?

No. That's not how species is determined. The one I personally like is "a group opf organisms that live in a certain area and breed together and have fertile offspring". Bear in mind there are always exceptions, since nature is never either black or white. But we're not talking about species, we're talking about kinds.

but if we take it back to hybridization, some cats of different varieties can be hybridized, but there is a complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family...therefore apes and man cannot be from the same 'kind'.

Than neither can the common housecat be of the same kind as the lion, since they are completely unable to hyberdize with eachother. As are ostriches and chickens.

We may look similar and have similar characteristics, but those characteristics do not mean we are from the same species so the biologic terminology of what a species is cannot be 100% accurate either.

Humans are apes of a different species as other apes. No one has said otherwise.

it would seem that chromosomes play a role in successful reproduction.

Genetic compatibility, like Wounded King said, yes.

If you looked at the link re hybridized cats, they show how cats with a certain number of chromosomes are not compatible with cats of a different number. But the point is that even though they have different numbers of chromosomes, they are still cats.

But, according to your own definition, not all are the same kind of cats.

Edited by Huntard, : Clarifying last sentence

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Peg, posted 12-14-2009 7:03 AM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020