Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThey may or may not be of different species. That depends on which
Hang on; would you also agree that wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes are different species?
definition of species you use. If you use the definition of species as
meaning "a kind, like the Holy Bible uses it" then the answer is probably
no. But they may be considered different species as man has broken
them down into the different categories.
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't think anyone uses the word species to mean "a kind, like the Holy Bible uses it".
They may or may not be of different species. That depends on which
definition of species you use. If you use the definition of species as
meaning "a kind, like the Holy Bible uses it" then the answer is probably
no. But they may be considered different species as man has broken
them down into the different categories.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy? Surely that only leads to confusion? I am not dictating how you use words, but if you are the only one using a word under a given definition, then it becomes laborious as you have to explain every time you use it what you mean, and even then can lead to some confusion.
I do.
Originally posted by KellyJayCool.
I'd say if they can mate and produce off spring, odds are good odds.
Kelly
Next one, Pinnipeds or fin-footed mammals. To you and me that compromises the walrus, eared seals (16 species) and earless seals (18 species).
Do you think it's possible they could all have a common ancestor?
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobWe can run down the lists if you'd like, you have a point? My point has been that
Cool.
Next one, Pinnipeds or fin-footed mammals. To you and me that compromises the walrus, eared seals (16 species) and earless seals (18 species).
Do you think it's possible they could all have a common ancestor?
several species have a common ancestor, when the kinds separated they did so
and after a time specilized due to X factors, this is the part of evolution I agree with
nothing new here. Where we part company is when you start attempting to blend
all of these into one common ancestor.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not going to run through all mammals that are alive today. Not even i'm that pernickety!!!
We can run down the lists if you'd like, you have a point? My point has been that
several species have a common ancestor, when the kinds separated they did so
and after a time specilized due to X factors, this is the part of evolution I agree with
nothing new here. Where we part company is when you start attempting to blend
all of these into one common ancestor.
Kelly
I'm just trying to ascertain what specifics we can agree on, and then find out where it is we disagree. We agree so far that all Canids share a common ancestor and also all bears.
Pennipeds, or fin-footed mammals. Common ancestor?
Originally posted by Proper KnobJust go to the eye lets look at all the things said about how that process occured.
I'm not going to run through all mammals that are alive today. Not even i'm that pernickety!!!
I'm just trying to ascertain what specifics we can agree on, and then find out where it is we disagree. We agree so far that all Canids share a common ancestor and also all bears.
Pennipeds, or fin-footed mammals. Common ancestor?
Since we both agree that there is some measure of the evolutionary process
where many creatures have a common ancestor due to a common kind, I imagine
we will find quite a few that we can agree on. If you want to look at where we
can disagree bring up jelly fish, grass, and zerbras something along those lines.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayJust go to the eye lets look at all the things said about how that process occured.
Just go to the eye lets look at all the things said about how that process occured.
Since we both agree that there is some measure of the evolutionary process
where many creatures have a common ancestor due to a common kind, I imagine
we will find quite a few that we can agree on. If you want to look at where we
can disagree bring up jelly fish, grass, and zerbras something along those lines.
Kelly
Nope, i'm not going to the eye. I'm asking the questions this time, you've had countless threads where you ask the questions. This is my time to examine your thinking.
So we have Canids, Ursidae and Pinnipeds all of which you accept have a common ancestor related to each group (although you haven't said yes or no with regard to seals, but if you can accept bears have a common ancestor i'm sure you can with seals.)
So do you accept that those three groups all share the same common ancestor? If not why not?!
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds-the common ancestor of the gray wolf and what?
What is the common ancestor of the gray wolf?
unless you are asking which species the gray walf directly evolved from? In which case:
http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfOrigins.html
“...The Evolutionary history of the wolf is not totaly clear, but many biologists believe that the wolf developed from primitive carnivores known as miacids. ...
note that evolution normally takes time (but not always because of the occasional hybridisation and very drastic mutation) and usually tends to produce seamless changes from one species to another making it hard or, more often than not, impossible to define exactly which individual was the “first” one of a new species to exist.
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“...My point has been that several species have a common ancestor, …..”
We can run down the lists if you'd like, you have a point? My point has been that
several species have a common ancestor, when the kinds separated they did so
and after a time specilized due to X factors, this is the part of evolution I agree with
nothing new here. Where we part company is when you start attempting to blend
all of these into one common ancestor.
Kelly
so does that mean you agree that macroevolution CAN and DOES occur?
If so, and you agree that macroevolution HAS occurred for SOME linages from a common ancestor those lineages share, then what is so wrong/improbable for macroevolution to have occurred for ALL lineages from a common ancestor those lineages share?
Also, if you accept the evidence that, say, that wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc evolved from a common ancestor ( do you? ) then that begs two more questions:
1, would you agree that it would take millions of years for such evolution to occur?
2, what is the reason why you would not accept the evidence that, say, all land vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor that was a fish?
( Evidence of that includes, among many other things, the fact that land vertebrate embryos all briefly have redundant fish-gills as part of their development. The cells that make up those fish-gills commit suicide as soon as those gills fully form! But the biological cost of developing such a tiny and pointless structure to only waste it must be so incredibly minuscule that evolution has never got round to getting rid of it altogether )