Originally posted by KellyJaySo you do admit that:
I believe you can breed like kinds, and some times get off spring.
1. you can get a something other than a dog from a dog. This is because:
a. all members of a kind are descended from a common species.
b. dogs can breed with wolves.
c. dogs and wolves are therefore of the same kind.
d. dogs and wolves must have a common ancestor.
e. that common ancestor would not be called a dog.
f. hence dogs game from non-dogs.
You have a cat breeding with a dog or bird something along those
lines and getting off spring?
I wont play the 'along those lines' game because it is too vague to me meaningful. If I show you a cat breeding with a bird (the owl and the pussycat for example) then you will simply say 'cats and birds are the same kind'.
The problem is that your definition of kind is based on an unknown. It is fine as a definition but you cannot then use it to claim that cats cannot breed with birds because you have not established that cats and birds are different kinds.
3 edits
I think you guys have gotten this backwards. A kind and a species are the same thing. Cats and birds are not of the same kind because they cannot successfully breed fertile offspring. If they could breed, they would be of the same kind. It's the breeding that defines the term, not visa versa.
Variation within a species does not imply evolution btw. That's adaptation. The variants were all inherent within the gene pool of the species (witness the immense variations of dog, yet they are all still dogs - a wolf is a breed of dog, as is the dingo etc., although it has been argued that all dogs came from wolves).
Originally posted by twhiteheadI had just said that kinds are the very first type of life form, so like
So you do admit that:
1. you can get a something other than a dog from a dog. This is because:
a. all members of a kind are descended from a common species.
b. dogs can breed with wolves.
c. dogs and wolves are therefore of the same kind.
d. dogs and wolves must have a common ancestor.
e. that common ancestor would not be called a dog.
f. hence dog ...[text shortened]... t breed with birds because you have not established that cats and birds are different kinds.
creatures coming from the same kind would have the same common
ancestor, that is the point of kinds as I defined them.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have not ever read the article, so exactly how am I throwing them
So you throw out the multiple lines of evidence shown in this article? For what reason do you discount each?
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
out? I already owe you one article, let get to that one first.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou know KJ, I think that you and I agree!
I had just said that kinds are the very first type of life form, so like
creatures coming from the same kind would have the same common
ancestor, that is the point of kinds as I defined them.
Kelly
If all life on Earth is the same 'kind', there would be one common ancester.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ
Yes, I believe in micro-changes over time that can be called
evolution, not macro whole sale ones that take life from something
like a single cell to where changes occur over time and we get whales,
grass, loins, butterflies, ants, eagles, armadillos and so on, all living
in niches where there is typically some balance. I do not see life in a
struggle ...[text shortened]... ix days and rested from that
work so that process has been moving along since that time.
Kelly
Apologies if my previous posts have seemed /or been personal attacks, I just find vague answers frustrating. Thank you for your last post I appreciated your clear answers / opinions. I have no hidden agenda I just want to understand how and why your belief system works in light of what I consider "scientific fact". If you don’t mind I have some further questions.
If you accept micro evolution; can you not see how the accumulation of micro changes lead to macro evolution over greater periods of time? I.e. whereas 1+1+1+1+1...... (Continue repeating) when considered individually is only a small change, if you compare the start point to the end point it is vastly different. I can start to provide some peer reviewed articles if you wish to see evidence for macro evolution; your call?
Also let’s assume god did create all creatures within 6 days and then rested as you state. For this to be true the fossil record would have to display all the phyla within the same layers of rock? I will agree that we have not analysed every piece of rock on this planet (nor will we ever) so the fossil record can be considered incomplete. However there is still a plethora of evidence against all species / kind being created at the same time; the various layers show succession rather than a single point of creation. Lets not argue in this thread about dating rocks etc, the above just works on the premise that older layers are underneath more recent layers.
Originally posted by KellyJayJust two more point for clarity KJ:
Yes, I believe in micro-changes over time that can be called
evolution, not macro whole sale ones that take life from something
like a single cell to where changes occur over time and we get whales,
grass, loins, butterflies, ants, eagles, armadillos and so on, all living
in niches where there is typically some balance. I do not see life in a
struggle ...[text shortened]... ix days and rested from that
work so that process has been moving along since that time.
Kelly
Again I don't want to bring a dateing / timescale arguement into this but how long ago do you believe the 6 day creation event occured? If you say 6,000 years ago...... that's fine, it may help me understand why you accept the micro but not macro evolutionary process?
Also do 6 god days = 6 ted days? If not whats the equivalent?
No more attacks I just want to understand your belief. I'm not asking you to prove your belief either.
Regards
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, you already stated your opinion that one "kind" cannot change into another "kind". I'm guessing you'd classify a whale and a land dwelling proto-whale as two kinds. Thus, despite the fact that this is well backed up with evidence, of various different kinds, you;d be forced to throw it all out.
I have not ever read the article, so exactly how am I throwing them
out? I already owe you one article, let get to that one first.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, that's so vague as to be no use. In fact, the whole of evolutionary biology, and every organism that has ever existed, fits nicely into that definition!
I had just said that kinds are the very first type of life form, so like
creatures coming from the same kind would have the same common
ancestor, that is the point of kinds as I defined them.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you agree that your claim "you start with dogs you end with dogs" is false and that what you meant to say is "you start with Kind A, you end with kind A and you may get a number of new species along the way".
I had just said that kinds are the very first type of life form, so like
creatures coming from the same kind would have the same common
ancestor, that is the point of kinds as I defined them.
Kelly
Do you also admit that you do no know which animals in the world today belong to a given Kind. ie you have not identified and named any Kinds. So your question about a cat breeding with a dog is actually irrelevant as you do not know whether they are of the same kind or not.
Do you think that you and a chimpanzee are of the same Kind?
Originally posted by timebombtedNo worries. Not much time now, but I'll get to this.
KJ
Apologies if my previous posts have seemed /or been personal attacks, I just find vague answers frustrating. Thank you for your last post I appreciated your clear answers / opinions. I have no hidden agenda I just want to understand how and why your belief system works in light of what I consider "scientific fact". If you don’t mind I have some furth ...[text shortened]... etc, the above just works on the premise that older layers are underneath more recent layers.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, that is what I said I believed when it comes to the beginning
But you agree that your claim "you start with dogs you end with dogs" is false and that what you meant to say is "you start with Kind A, you end with kind A and you may get a number of new species along the way".
Do you also admit that you do no know which animals in the world today belong to a given Kind. ie you have not identified and named any Kinds. ...[text shortened]... y are of the same kind or not.
Do you think that you and a chimpanzee are of the same Kind?
isn't it? With regard to wolves and dogs, it is what it is, so I guess
I could/should take your advice since I believe you have a point.
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedYes, a day equals a day and I am a young earthier too.
Just two more point for clarity KJ:
Again I don't want to bring a dateing / timescale arguement into this but how long ago do you believe the 6 day creation event occured? If you say 6,000 years ago...... that's fine, it may help me understand why you accept the micro but not macro evolutionary process?
Also do 6 god days = 6 ted days? If not whats ...[text shortened]... st want to understand your belief. I'm not asking you to prove your belief either.
Regards
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou know he can. It is well documented in many Biology Text books.
Can you show me where birds and trees had the same ancestor?
Kelly
Can you show that they don't have the same ancestor? So far you have not made any such claim as you have not specifically stated that birds and trees are different Kinds or explained how you know that.