Re: Do you actually BELIEVE THAT?

Dana Tweedy wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
snip


OK, now how about addressing the rest of the question, to wit: 'How
do you tell if two living things share an ancestral kind?'
Apparently dogs and wolves do. How about housecats and bobcats?
Horses and zebras? Right whales and sperm whales? How do you
determine the 'genetically impossible' limits?`

If they cannot mate and produce a fertile, viable, healthy offspring
--that would be a strong indicator.

That's reproductive isolation, not genetic impossilbity. Mules, for
example are viable, healthy animals, but they are usually not fertile.
That would indicate that horses and donkeys have speciated, but are
still genetically compatable to a certain extent. There's no clear
divinding line as to what is "genetic impossiblity".


If you cannot graft two plants together ---that would be another.

Many very closely related plants can't be grafted together. That's
meaningless.


I fail to see what part of genetic compatibility is so hard to
understand regarding this topic.

You don't seem to be able to explain it yourself. You also seem to
be ignorant about the degrees of genetic compatability between
closely related species.

Each after His own Kind. Exactly as
the bible describes.

"each after his own kind" is biologically meaningless. It's well
known that populations split off from parent stocks, and don't turn
into widely diverse species in one step. Cats don't give birth to
dogs, and grass doesn't produce seeds that grow into geraniums.
However, cats and dogs do have a common ancestor, and so do grasses
and geraniums. Repeated speciation has produced different
populations from the common ancestor.

Nothing has been observed to diverge outside of genetic
compatibility.

Wbenever a species becomes genetically isolated from it's parent
population it diverges "outside of genetic compatiblity". It's
only matter of degree. Horses and donkeys are partialy compatable.
Wolves and dogs are more completely compatable, Chimps and humans
appear to be incompatable now, but evidence shows that the different
populations were compatible in the past.

On /occasion/, a species such as the dog may develop a
reproductive isolation from it's ancestor.

That's the norm, actually. All species become reproductively
isolated from their parent population. That's how species are
defined.
When that isolation
develops, it will prolly be time for the wolf to go extinct.

Or not. There's no reason why the parent population must go extinct
when it produces a daughter species.

Latter
down the line, dogs will prolly give rise to the next in line and
then go extinct themselves. Same with plants. But they are still of
the original and created "Kind".

The evidence indicates there is only one "kind". There isn't any
evidence of individually created "kinds".


To make up mumbo jumbo about a fish eventually giving rise to a man
or a dog is nonsense.

Fish and dogs, and humans are all vertibrates, and share a common
ancestor. It's no more "mumbo jumbo" to understand that dogs have
diverged from wolves, than it is to understand that tetrapods such as
humans and dogs have diverged from lobe finned fish. It's only a
matter of time since divergence. Humans are "fish kind".


And most of you know that.

No, you just assume that, based on your own ignornance.


You just want a reason to close your eyes and say there is no God.

I believe that there is a God. Even for those who don't, it's the
evidence, not wanting to believe in God which makes the case.


Guess what. God is real. And you can run from that fact for a while.

I believe that God is real, and he uses evolution as his means of
creation. There's no need to "run" from God.


But you cannot hide from him forever.

Why do you imagine that anyone is hiding from God by accepting God's
means of creation?

God did not create with evolution.

Thinking so goes against every shread of the bible and his word.



DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do you actually BELIEVE THAT?
    ... I fail to see what part of genetic compatibility is so hard to ... Cats don't give birth to dogs, ... speciation has produced different populations from the common ancestor. ... You just want a reason to close your eyes and say there is no God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you actually BELIEVE THAT?
    ... Apparently dogs and wolves do. ... I fail to see what part of genetic compatibility is so hard to ... However, cats and dogs do have a common ancestor, and so do grasses ... You just want a reason to close your eyes and say there is no God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: King David and his son, King Solomon --case closed
    ... day example would be dogs. ... owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little ... 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: ... meaning that simply is not there, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: King David and his son, King Solomon --case closed
    ... day example would be dogs. ... Consider the following list of dog like animals: ... owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little ... 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fact -- a useless concept
    ... I'm not defending creationism. ...  A creationist might argue that God exists and that God ... mutation appears to be a random process ... God arranged for dogs to appear a few thousand years ago. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading