Originally posted by scottishinnzAhem. Don't let your vitriol run away with you. They are certainly of the same genus, but not necessarily of same species (depending on which wolf-type you are talking about):
Dogs and wolves are the same species, numbnuts.
Domestic Dog: Canis familiaris/Canis lupus familiaris
Timber/Grey Wolf: Canis lupus
Red Wolf: Canis rufus
Eastern Canadian Wolf: Canis lycaon
If you specifically talking about the Grey Wolf, it could admittedly be argued that the Domestic Dog is a sub-species (see second classification of DD).
Originally posted by HalitoseDomestic dogs haven't been classified as Canis familiaris in about a hundred years. It is true that there are several species of worlf, but my point is that his division is false.
Ahem. Don't let your vitriol run away with you. They are certainly of the same genus, but not necessarily of same species (depending on which wolf-type you are talking about):
Domestic Dog: Canis familiaris/Canis lupus familiaris
Timber/Grey Wolf: Canis lupus
Red Wolf: Canis rufus
Eastern Canadian Wolf: [i]Canis lycaon[/i ...[text shortened]... admittedly be argued that the Domestic Dog is a sub-species (see second classification of DD).
Originally posted by LhinsdaleThe universe is a closed system, but the earth is not. Life, as we know it is confined to this solar system. The second law of thermodynamics deals with the whole universe, but makes no judgement about the components of a system. If the second law of thermodynamics was totally correct, water could not be pumped up hill. The reason that the entropy of the water goes down (i.e. it's energy increases) is because somewhere else that entropy has been increased, perhaps by breaking apart the chemical bonds of hydrocarbons in a generator. LIkewise, the increasing entropy of the sun is more than enough to counter the tiny decrease in entropy by the sun.
Actually, the Universe is a closed system. But thanks for playing.
Creationists often use this 2nd law as an argument against evolution, but don't realise that it merely argues against existance per se.
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseAccording to Wikipedia, the species of the common domestic dog is canis lupus.
Ahem. Don't let your vitriol run away with you. They are certainly of the same genus[/i], but not necessarily of same species (depending on which wolf-type you are talking about):
Domestic Dog: Canis familiaris/Canis lupus familiaris
Timber/Grey Wolf: Canis lupus
Red Wolf: Canis rufus
Eastern Canadian Wolf: Canis lycaon admittedly be argued that the Domestic Dog is a sub-species (see second classification of DD).
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAs Wikipedia is the only source offered in this thread which answers this question, I consider it the best authority available. You're welcome to offer a different source.
According to Wikipedia? How many sources of knowledge are there
when it comes to what is what kind of speices?
Kelly
Here is an alternative:
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=121246
How many different holy texts and religious traditions are there?
Originally posted by KellyJayConsidering that there are about a dozen different definitions of the word "species" then I'd say quite a few. You still haven't defined your "kinds" yet, nor shown why the "kind barrier" is immutable.
According to Wikipedia? How many sources of knowledge are there
when it comes to what is what kind of speices?
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy understanding of 'kinds' is that each is able to reproduce within its own and not with any other 'kind'. For example, a wolf may mate with a domestic dog. The end result is still a form of dog. However, if a wolf tried to mate with a cat the end result would be a sore cat.
Considering that there are about a dozen different definitions of the word "species" then I'd say quite a few. You still haven't defined your "kinds" yet, nor shown why the "kind barrier" is immutable.
That the 'kind barrier' cannot be changed is shown by the fact that there has never been documented a solid example of one type of creature becoming another or one 'kind' producing with another 'kind'. Now, it is foolish to think that just because it hasn't been documented doesn't mean that it hasn't or can't happen. You need other evidences for that.
Now understand that this is only my understanding and is subject to flaw.
Originally posted by LhinsdaleThat definition of 'kind' is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. From what I understand there is more to it than that for creationists. It's almost like you're just replacing 'species' with 'kind'.
My understanding of 'kinds' is that each is able to reproduce within its own and not with any other 'kind'. For example, a wolf may mate with a domestic dog. The end result is still a form of dog. However, if a wolf tried to mate with a cat the end result would be a sore cat.
That the 'kind barrier' cannot be changed is shown by the fact that there has n ...[text shortened]... that.
Now understand that this is only my understanding and is subject to flaw.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungQuite right. There isn't a word for 'species' in ancient Hebrew and therefore it couldn't be in the Genesis account of creation. The correct translation would be 'kind' although its context could fit the word 'species'. I would argue, however, that this definition isn't consistent with the evolutionary model in that the end result is always what you began with. In the evolutionary model, the end result is different to the extent of producing an entirely new species or kind. I don't know what more a creationist would add to the definition I gave. Perhaps someone could shed some light?
That definition of 'kind' is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. From what I understand there is more to it than that for creationists. It's almost like you're just replacing 'species' with 'kind'.
Originally posted by LhinsdaleI would argue, however, that this definition isn't consistent with the evolutionary model in that the end result is always what you began with.
Quite right. There isn't a word for 'species' in ancient Hebrew and therefore it couldn't be in the Genesis account of creation. The correct translation would be 'kind' although its context could fit the word 'species'. I would argue, however, that this definition isn't consistent with the evolutionary model in that the end result is always what you began ...[text shortened]... creationist would add to the definition I gave. Perhaps someone could shed some light?
That's what evolutionary theory says too. You start with cells, you end up with cells. The difference is that creationists think dogs and cats were independently created without having a common ancestor. To me, this is similar to saying Chihuahuas and German Shepherds were independently created with no common ancestor. In evolutionary theory, new species can come into being, but they are still part of the group the descended from. Chihuahuas are Chihuahuas, but they are also dogs, mammals, vertebrates, and cellular organisms.