Originally posted by wolfgang59I don't see why you find this so difficult to understand. Remember that species is a classification kind that comes within and below the level of the family classification kind. So the donkey, zebra, mule, and horse are all of the same family classification kind. However, a zebra and horse are not the same species classification kind.
So zebras are the same kind as horses and also not the same kind.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy do you think it difficult to understand?
I don't see why you find this so difficult to understand. Remember that species is a classification kind that comes within and below the level of the family classification kind. So the donkey, zebra, mule, and horse are all of the same family classification kind. However, a zebra and horse are not the same species classification kind.
The Instructor
Let me clear this up with this:
"KINDS"
The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.
The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”
Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.”
From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” p. 153This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”
Originally posted by galveston75Yeah, I agree with that one.
Let me clear this up with this:
"KINDS"
The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of l ...[text shortened]... h the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”
The Instructor
Originally posted by galveston75The problem here is you don't know the difference between a 'rule' and a 'definition'.
The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged.
You have defined 'different kinds' as 'those animals that cannot cross'. Then you have claimed that nobody has ever shown that two kinds can cross. But it would be impossible to show that as it would violate the definition. Its not a biological principle, its a definition.
From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants.
Except that by your definition above, 'dogs' are not a 'kind', as they can interbreed with wolves and wolves can interbreed with coyotes, so in actual fact dogs have not always been dogs.
Originally posted by galveston75Its you that gave up. You couldn't even respond to my very first post, it took you a while to define 'kind' and now that you have, it is evident that your claims with regards to 'kind' are simply true by definition and hold no real content.
Hello.....everyone give up? Can't simply show some kind of proof, anything?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe dogs, coyotes, and wolves are all of the canine kind. Cats are of the feline kind.
The problem here is you don't know the difference between a 'rule' and a 'definition'.
You have defined 'different kinds' as 'those animals that cannot cross'. Then you have claimed that nobody has ever shown that two kinds can cross. But it would be impossible to show that as it would violate the definition. Its not a biological principle, its a definit ...[text shortened]... wolves and wolves can interbreed with coyotes, so in actual fact dogs have not always been dogs.
The Instructor
Originally posted by wolfgang59That is answered by this quote by g75:
Poke your head into the science forum.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Continued_interbreeding_not_a_barrier_to_speciation&threadid=156195
The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsTell it to Galveston who quite clearly said that "From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs". He didn't say 'canine kind are still canine kind'.
The dogs, coyotes, and wolves are all of the canine kind. Cats are of the feline kind.
This just shows that given a counter example you will just change the boundaries of your 'kinds'.
If I found a feline that could interbreed with a canine you would invent a new 'kind' that includes both.
Originally posted by twhiteheadG75 poste the following:
Tell it to Galveston who quite clearly said that "From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs". He didn't say 'canine kind are still canine kind'.
This just shows that given a counter example you will just change the boundaries of your 'kinds'.
If I found a feline that could interbreed with a canine you would invent a new 'kind' that includes both.
From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants.
Do you know of any human record that provide evidence that a dog reproduced something other than another dog?
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsA dog produce something other than a dog? 🙄
G75 poste the following:
[b]From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants.
Do you know of any human record that provide evidence that a dog reproduced something other than another dog?
The Instructor[/b]
It's like asking - did you wake up one day and found yourself to be old?
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen I said that dogs can interbreed with wolves were you not paying attention? Oh yes, you actually respond to that post. So maybe you don't know what 'interbreed' means?
Do you know of any human record that provide evidence that a dog reproduced something other than another dog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackal%E2%80%93dog_hybrid