Originally posted by Proper KnobI'm telling you how I break it down, if they can have off spring or could at one time
If who can produce offspring with each other? Who is 'they'?
I understand the possible permutations of this scenario, i'm asking which one you think is likely. Evolutionary theory tells us that Canids, Pinnipeds and members of the Ursidae family all share a common ancestor, i'm asking if you accept this.?
that would be how I define them as having a common ancestor. Biblically and in
science I believe both agree to this, the rules were sent down Biblically that was
the one rule life had when it was created, it would produce only after its kind. Now
I can guess if some can or did at any time could have off spring. That is going to
be "the answer" in this line of questioning. If want to continue this by all means,
I about done if that is all your going to ask.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf want to continue this by all means, I about done if that is all your going to ask.
I'm telling you how I break it down, if they can have off spring or could at one time
that would be how I define them as having a common ancestor. Biblically and in
science I believe both agree to this, the rules were sent down Biblically that was
the one rule life had when it was created, it would produce only after its kind. Now
I can guess if some ca ...[text shortened]... If want to continue this by all means,
I about done if that is all your going to ask.
Kelly
Goodness grief, keep your pants on Kelly!! I'm only asking you some questions, how many pages and threads contain you asking questions?
if they can have off spring or could at one time that would be how I define them as having a common ancestor
But every animals lineage, if you trace it back, obeys that rule, that's whole point of evolution. Yet if i was to ask you if you accept that all mammals had a common ancestor you would say no, yet your reasoning above says yes??!!
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo, my reasoning above is the same. Simply because two creatures may look alike
[b]If want to continue this by all means, I about done if that is all your going to ask.
Goodness grief, keep your pants on Kelly!! I'm only asking you some questions, how many pages and threads contain you asking questions?
if they can have off spring or could at one time that would be how I define them as having a common ancestor
B ...[text shortened]... that all mammals had a common ancestor you would say no, yet your reasoning above says yes??!![/b]
in several areas of their make does not mean they could have at any time shared
the same lineage for example cats and rabbits skinned look a lot alike that does
not mean they were ever one creature that split in two. We can guess if some
groups were really of a single lineage, but that is what we are doing.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think what Proper Knob is trying to ascertain is where you reach a stumbling block. ie where do you draw the line at common ancestry and why.
No, my reasoning above is the same. Simply because two creatures may look alike
in several areas of their make does not mean they could have at any time shared
the same lineage for example cats and rabbits skinned look a lot alike that does
not mean they were ever one creature that split in two. We can guess if some
groups were really of a single lineage, but that is what we are doing.
Kelly
So far you seem to be saying you see nothing ruling out a common ancestor for some groups of animals, though you cannot be sure which groups are related and which are merely similar but unrelated.
Do you see any reason why all mammals could not have a common ancestor?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Holy Bible clearly indicates that there is no common
I think what Proper Knob is trying to ascertain is where you reach a stumbling block. ie where do you draw the line at common ancestry and why.
So far you seem to be saying you see nothing ruling out a common ancestor for some groups of animals, though you cannot be sure which groups are related and which are merely similar but unrelated.
Do you see any reason why all mammals could not have a common ancestor?
ancestor to all creatures. He seperated the different "kinds"
when He made them, so they reproduce after their own
"kind". They may have common ancestors within their own
"kind", but not from another "kind". Just as we have common
ancestors from "mankind", but not from anyother "kind".
Originally posted by RJHindsYour Bible is wrong.
The Holy Bible clearly indicates that there is no common
ancestor to all creatures. He seperated the different "kinds"
when He made them, so they reproduce after their own
"kind". They may have common ancestors within their own
"kind", but not from another "kind". Just as we have common
ancestors from "mankind", but not from anyother "kind".
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, my reasoning above is the same.
No, my reasoning above is the same. Simply because two creatures may look alike
in several areas of their make does not mean they could have at any time shared
the same lineage for example cats and rabbits skinned look a lot alike that does
not mean they were ever one creature that split in two. We can guess if some
groups were really of a single lineage, but that is what we are doing.
Kelly
But i'm unsure what that reasoning is?! For instance, you agree with me that Canids (wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, and domestic dogs) share a common ancestor. But what about that ancestors ancestor, and that ancestors ancestor? If we take the lineage back then surely we'll end up at the common ancestor of all mammals. But you don't believe that's possible and you have yet to explain why? You even said yourself that -
if they can have off spring or could at one time that would be how I define them as having a common ancestor
What's stopping the ancestor having an ancestor?
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“...Your the one that thinks things had to evolve over millions of years, not me. ...”
Your the one that thinks things had to evolve over millions of years, not me.
It would depend on the starting point, what needed changed, if little than next to
no time is required. We can breed dogs into all kinds of shapes and sizes in little
time.
Kelly
does that mean that you believe a different new species could evolve from another species in a few thousand years?
If so, then I would be in partial agreement with you! BUT I should point out that while this could and does sometimes happen to, say, insects, it is highly unlikely that most mammal species could evolve that fast ( there is certainly little evidence that most can do so that fast ) .
“...We can breed dogs into all kinds of shapes and sizes in little
time. ….”
yes, but that so far falls just short of a species change because that would require at least about a million years for a mammal species (and a few thousand years for a typical insect species dew to larger populations and higher reproductive rates ) but they have only been selectively bread for some thousands of years.
You have already agreed that it is “highly likely” that wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc share a common ancestor.
So, tell us at which point you would disagree with us;
1, would you agree that wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc are different species?
( I know that there is a gray area as to how different and in what way different two breeds must be before they can be defined as different species but surely you agree that wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc are sufficiently different that you would say these are different species -right? -I mean, just for starters, most (not all) of them cannot interbreed )
If yes, then;
2, would you agree that it would take millions of years for such evolution to change the common ancestor of wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc to wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc because wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc are different species and not just different breeds?
Originally posted by RJHindsHow can you separate "kinds" if they were never together in the first place?
The Holy Bible clearly indicates that there is no common
ancestor to all creatures. He seperated the different "kinds"
when He made them, so they reproduce after their own
"kind". They may have common ancestors within their own
"kind", but not from another "kind". Just as we have common
ancestors from "mankind", but not from anyother "kind".
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI did not seperate them, God did it at the time he made them.
How can you separate "kinds" if they were never together in the first place?
He made one "kind" then He made another "kind" and so on.
They were separate "kinds" when he made them. For example,
what we call Caucasian, Negro, Hispanic, etc. are all one "kind"
or "mankind", as we say.
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhat's stopping the ancestor having an ancestor?
[b]No, my reasoning above is the same.
But i'm unsure what that reasoning is?! For instance, you agree with me that Canids (wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, and domestic dogs) share a common ancestor. But what about that ancestors ancestor, and that ancestors ancestor? If we take the lineage back then surely we'll end up at the common ancestor of ...[text shortened]... hem as having a common ancestor[/quote]
What's stopping the ancestor having an ancestor?[/b]
The starting point.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobI believe that everything started fully formed, so there was a starting point where
You're going to have to expand a little there Kelly. The starting of point of what?
everything did not have an ancestor, you believe everything began at the same
point going through the process of evolution until everything that is alive now is
here.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo did all animals that are alive today start at the same point? If so, when was this?
I believe that everything started fully formed, so there was a starting point where
everything did not have an ancestor, you believe everything began at the same
point going through the process of evolution until everything that is alive now is
here.
Kelly