| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
17th April 2004, 07:12 PM
| | Regular Member
25    
| | Join Date: 19th February 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 197
Blessings: 91,364
Reps: 37 (power: 0) | | | Yeah
horses and donkeys produce a mule when they interbreed
the mule is usually born sterile but there have been some cases where the mule has been able to reproduce |
17th April 2004, 07:15 PM
|  | Veteran
25  
| | Join Date: 15th September 2003 Location: Auckland
Posts: 1,433
Blessings: 91,165
Reps: 887 (power: 0) | | [edit] Wheres the delete post button when you need it D: Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch I seem to recall that horses and donkeys can produce fertile offspring on rare occasions. Does anyone know for sure?
Yup, It's very rare though. |
17th April 2004, 07:46 PM
|  | GondolierAce
30 
 | | Join Date: 9th February 2003
Posts: 4,293
Blessings: 99,190
Reps: 6,626 (power: 20) | | Originally Posted by Aggie All I want is one intelligent, educated, and reasonable creationist to debate with about the origin of birds. Is that really so much to ask?
Perhaps you and GFA could take turns pretending?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
High Priest, Infallible Interpreter, and Official Smitether of Justineianity
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
17th April 2004, 09:07 PM
|  | Believer in the Invisible
53   
| | Join Date: 1st August 2003 Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 694
Blessings: 90,898
Reps: 114 (power: 0) | | A statement made in my Organic Evolution textbook (Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, 3rd edition, 2004) on page 24: Originally Posted by Freeman & Herron Viruses, like other organisms, only come from reproduction of their own kind.
These guys are definitely evolutionists. They did not define "kind" either!
__________________ Jesus Christ is Lord of all.
Acts 10:36 ...Abraham believed God (not his priest, pope, pastor, favorite radio preacher, or parents), and it was counted unto him as righteousness. - Romans 4:3
We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well to take heed. - II Peter 1:19 |
17th April 2004, 09:38 PM
| | Senior Member
46  
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by kenneth558 A statement made in my Organic Evolution textbook (Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, 3rd edition, 2004) on page 24:
These guys are definitely evolutionists. They did not define "kind" either!
Perhaps not on page 24 of that book. But at least biologists do have definitions for the various taxonomic terms.
The problem with Creationists is they NEVER define kind, or if they do they rapidly change it or run away. |
17th April 2004, 11:17 PM
| | Believer in the Invisible
53
| | Join Date: 1st August 2003 Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 694
Blessings: 90,898
Reps: 114 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Captain_Jack_Sparrow Perhaps not on page 24 of that book. But at least biologists do have definitions for the various taxonomic terms.
The problem with Creationists is they NEVER define kind, or if they do they rapidly change it or run away.
Believe that if you want to. You show me where evolutionists define kind. Did I not start a thread about how evolutionists redefine their terms? Take the term "vestigial". Some say "vestigial" means an organ that is no longer being used, blah blah blah. Then they point to the human appendix as being vestigial. To do that they have to redefine the term "vestigial" because the human appendix is most definitely used in the human body. It is part of our lymphoid system.
__________________ Jesus Christ is Lord of all.
Acts 10:36 ...Abraham believed God (not his priest, pope, pastor, favorite radio preacher, or parents), and it was counted unto him as righteousness. - Romans 4:3
We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well to take heed. - II Peter 1:19 |
18th April 2004, 12:36 AM
|  | Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related
38
| | Join Date: 26th December 2002 Location: Southeast of Disorder
Posts: 5,840
Blessings: 85,275
Reps: 2,470 (power: 17) | | Originally Posted by kenneth558 Believe that if you want to. You show me where evolutionists define kind. Did I not start a thread about how evolutionists redefine their terms? Take the term "vestigial". Some say "vestigial" means an organ that is no longer being used, blah blah blah. Then they point to the human appendix as being vestigial. To do that they have to redefine the term "vestigial" because the human appendix is most definitely used in the human body. It is part of our lymphoid system.
Why would evolutionists define "kind"? It's not an accepted taxonomic term. Besides, viral reproduction is wacky. It's not remotely similar to reproduction in more complex organisms.
And whoever claims "vestigial" refers only to structures no longer used is wrong. You're attacking a strawman thereby. "Vestigial" generally describes a rudimentary or degenerate structure. Functionless structures can be called "vestigial" but not all vestigial structures are functionless.
A cool example of vestigial structures I just learned about is vascular tissue in mosses. Apparently, they evolved alongside ancestors to modern land plants when both were beginning to emerge from the water. The land mosses, however, were less efficient at transporting water and minerals and were out-competed by land plants.
__________________
It's party time for the guys in the tower of Babel
Sodom meet Gomorrah, Cain meet Abel
~Elton John
I couldn't if I tried. |
18th April 2004, 01:01 AM
|  | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 4th March 2004
Posts: 264
Blessings: 91,287
Reps: 85 (power: 0) | | | Definition 1: I guess "kind" would be best described as being nice, friendly and generous to your fellow man. LOL
Definition 2: "Kind" would be best desribed as belonging to the same Genus, Species or Sub-Species. |
18th April 2004, 01:11 AM
|  | Legend
  
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by 4Jesus4ever Definition 1: I guess "kind" would be best described as being nice, friendly and generous to your fellow man. LOL
Definition 2: "Kind" would be best desribed as belonging to the same Genus, Species or Sub-Species.
OK, by that definition, which of these is a kind and which is larger or smaller than a kind?
If it is smaller than a kind, what kind is it part of?
If it is larger than a kind, how do we tell where one kind ends and another begins?
rhinoceros, rabbit, beaver, armadillo, spider, platypus human, frog, bat, cabbage |
18th April 2004, 01:19 AM
| | Senior Member
46
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by 4Jesus4ever Definition 1: I guess "kind" would be best described as being nice, friendly and generous to your fellow man. LOL
Definition 2: "Kind" would be best desribed as belonging to the same Genus, Species or Sub-Species. And your definition 2 is why Creationists are not take seriously. Which of those is it?
Oh - I get it - it's whichever is convenient - right? | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
