Originally posted by RJHindsSo the question about pigeons breeding with penguins, that you though would resolve the matter did not actually resolve the matter and you cannot actually say for sure that they are different kinds?
It is also possible that the same specific kind can not breed due to an
abnormality.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe fact is that penguins do not mate with pigeons so the possibility
So is it possible that a flaw in the genes of the penguin has resulted in it being unable to reproduce with the pigeon?
that flawed genes might prevent them from reproducing a side issue
that is not relevant since there is no attempt at mating.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes a bloodhound is a kind of dog just like a poodle is a kind of dog.
No, I have not 'got it now'. You still seem very uncertain about what level of biological category to equate with 'kind'. For example you now use the word 'bloodhound' as if it was a kind, when we both know that by your definition it cannot possibly be a kind.
You would be more comfortable using the breed I am sure. So that
is okay with me. I will agree with that. I just don't agree that there
is any evolution here.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou were just on the edge of understanding and then you suddenly
No, I have not 'got it now'. You still seem very uncertain about what level of biological category to equate with 'kind'. For example you now use the word 'bloodhound' as if it was a kind, when we both know that by your definition it cannot possibly be a kind.
get amnesia and can't remember what you just wrote. I only said
what you said in the reverse order. Both ways are correct. And
you can use "breed" for the bloodhound if you like, but it still
reproduces after its own "kind". You must at least see that.
Don't you?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou asked a lot of questions while I was gone. Trying to get
So the question about pigeons breeding with penguins, that you though would resolve the matter did not actually resolve the matter and you cannot actually say for sure that they are different kinds?
everything answered. I know that a pigeon is not a penguin
so it is a different kind in that sense of the word. Pigeons
and peguins to not mate so there is no reproducing involved
so the most likely reason for this is that they are different kinds.
The point is that the penguin did not evolve from a pigeon or
pigeon-like bird that could fly. There is no evidence that it evolved
at all.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAccording to Webster's New World Dictionary a "bird" is any of a class
But what is a 'bird'? You don't know. So how can you decide whether a penguin is a bird or not?
You also talk of 'fish' and 'bird' as if they are examples of 'kinds' yet you have made it clear that 'bird' is not a kind as it contains both pigeons and penguins (which you claim are separate kinds.)
These are the inconsistencies I was complaining about.
of warmblooded, two-legged, egg-laying vertebrates with feathers and
wings. So according to that definition a"penguin" falls short of being a
bird since it does not have feathers or wings. In all other respects it
appears to be a bird. A fish is defined as any of a large group of cold-
blooded animals living in water and having backbones, gills for breathing,
fins, and, usually, scales. The "peguin does not fit that description at all.
So I still say it is not a fish. So there must be an exception that the
dictionary definition did not include in its bird definition.
The Holy Bible does not differentiate between the lower and higher order
of kinds. A fish is a kind of animal, but at a higher order than a salmon,
which is a kind of fish. A bird is a kind of animal at the same order of
a fish, but of a different kind. A pigeon is a kind of bird at a lower order.
Do you get it now?
Originally posted by RJHindsI really don't know what you are saying any more. Is 'bloodhound' a kind or isn't it?
Yes a bloodhound is a kind of dog just like a poodle is a kind of dog.
You would be more comfortable using the breed I am sure. So that
is okay with me. I will agree with that. I just don't agree that there
is any evolution here.
You say "Yes a bloodhound is a kind of dog", but that contradicts your earlier claim that members of different kinds can interbreed. A bloodhound can definitely interbreed with other dogs or even wolves. The Bible is therefore proved false.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you say, though you have no reason other than personal stubbornness for saying it. The Bible doesn't say that, biology doesn't say that. You made it up.
The point is that the penguin did not evolve from a pigeon or
pigeon-like bird that could fly.
There is no evidence that it evolved at all.
After all this time you still don't want to accept the meaning of the word 'evolution'. Everything evolves all the time by definition. Denying it is like saying 1+1 is not equal to 2.
I suspect too that you don't realize that there are many species of penguin.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Bible does not say that a bloodhound can not breed with a
I really don't know what you are saying any more. Is 'bloodhound' a kind or isn't it?
You say "Yes a bloodhound is a kind of dog", but that contradicts your earlier claim that members of different kinds can interbreed. A bloodhound can definitely interbreed with other dogs or even wolves. The Bible is therefore proved false.
wolf or another dog. These are all within the canine kind and
can reproduce after their own kind. As you should know by
now there is more than one meaning to the word "kind", which
depends on the context in which it is used.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know that there are different species of penguins, but
So you say, though you have no reason other than personal stubbornness for saying it. The Bible doesn't say that, biology doesn't say that. You made it up.
[b]There is no evidence that it evolved at all.
After all this time you still don't want to accept the meaning of the word 'evolution'. Everything evolves all the time by definition. Denying it ...[text shortened]... qual to 2.
I suspect too that you don't realize that there are many species of penguin.[/b]
they are all still called penguins. They did not evolve
into some other kind so I don't see any evolution there.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo how does one know what context you are using it in?
The Bible does not say that a bloodhound can not breed with a
wolf or another dog. These are all within the canine kind and
can reproduce after their own kind. As you should know by
now there is more than one meaning to the word "kind", which
depends on the context in which it is used.
Originally posted by RJHindsEvolution is merely change over generations. It is not necessary for one to call them something different for them to have evolved. This has been explained to you over and over and over. You are just pretending to be dense, when in fact you are being dishonest.
I know that there are different species of penguins, but
they are all still called penguins. They did not evolve
into some other kind so I don't see any evolution there.
Originally posted by RJHindsHow did this 'flaw' come about?
A flaw has occurred in their genes that prevents interbreeding.
There is no flaw in the "kind scenario" however.
Even though there are people who believe in God that think evolution is
possible, they are mistaken. So you don't need repeating this over
and over.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are using the definition for adaptation to replace
Evolution is merely change over generations. It is not necessary for one to call them something different for them to have evolved. This has been explained to you over and over and over. You are just pretending to be dense, when in fact you are being dishonest.
the definition for evolution since you know evolution
is a false teaching.