Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[DogmaHunter]

That is just a belief you have. Show me the evidence, please. Can you give an example of a sub species of a so called dog that is a dog?

I have no idea what argument you are trying to make here. Or are you being sarcastic / satirical?

I'm not following at all.

 

[In situ]

1. 
   See all images
   Liger
   The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger. Thus, the liger has parents of the same genus but

Is the liger a dog? Where is your evidence for this? Show me Liger that give birth to an Irish setter or a Golden Retriever, or Labrador or a German shepherd or a Rottweiler or Dobermann etc...

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea what argument you are trying to make here. Or are you being sarcastic / satirical?

I'm not following at all.

Poe thread, IMO.

 

[In situ]

I have no idea what argument you are trying to make here. Or are you being sarcastic / satirical?

I'm not following at all.

Creationist makes the claim that there exists a dogs that can make more dogs and that dogs only can make dogs and that this disproves the theory of evolution. So I am asking creationist for the evidence that their claimed dog exists:

If A is dog and B is dog then A can make B-kinds and B can make A-kinds. However we know that A-kinds only make more A's and B-kinds only make more B's after their own kinds. Therefore neither A or B is a dog but two different kinds and kind only give raise to the same kinds in agreement with the the theory of evolution.

However, as I understand it now, it seams like creationists believe there exists a transitional dog C that can make both A-kinds (say Iris setters) and B-kinds (say Dobermans). So it is not a Iris setter nor Doberman they refer to but a transitional dog we not seen before that can make more dogs. So I am asking the creationist to show me their transitional creationist dog, but so far no creationist has been able to present evidence that a transitional creationist dog exists, they have only shown me more Labradors, Golden retrievers etc, which are not transitional dogs but kinds, therefore they have not yet refuted the theory of evolution as they claim they had done.

 

[In situ]

Poe thread, IMO.

No this is serious. Creationist notes that dogs only make dogs and nothing else. I agree to that. Then they claim this disproves the theory of evolution.

Okay, the argument is sound and the argument is accepted. But then where is the evidence that such dog exist? Where is their transitional creationist dog that disproves the theory of evolution?

 

[In situ]

No such things as dogs?
You have to be an evolutionist.

Creationist have come up with this argument; dogs only makes dogs. And if dogs only makes dogs then the theory of evolution must be false. The logic in this argument is flawless, except for one things:

It assume there exists a dog of kind A and a dog of kind B and that kind A can give birth to kind B and v.s. However we know A kinds only make more A kinds and B kinds only make more B kinds, therefore neither A or B are dogs. In fact according to the creationist dog-argument there cannot exists such things as dogs that can make more dogs.

But I am willing to grant creationist the possibility of a hypothetical transitional dog C that can make A-kinds and B-kinds and C-kinds. Even though A kind and B kind not are dogs but only some kind of dog-ish-kind dog kind, C kinds are dogs so C is a dog and that will be fine as evidence for me. But then I also want evidence that this transitional dog C exists before I accept it.

And no it wont help if you name C as a wolf. There is no evidence that a wolf ever made A kinds or B kinds. Wolfs only give birth to wolfs (C-kinds). Therefore wolfs are not a dog kind, but their own kind, the wolf-kind.

and so on and so on until you have billion and trillions of kinds, a new kind for every new individual that ever has and will been born, it never stops.....

The correct way to say it is; a dogs make dogs because dogs are wolfs. Only wolfs that are dogs can make wolfs that are dogs. That means that a dog is not only a wolf to the name but it is actually a wolf that is a dog - literally. A wolf that is a dog, is also a mammal - not only to the name but dogs ARE mammals! Humans ARE also mammals. And because both humans and dogs ARE mammals it follows that humans are related to dogs. But we are mammals that are primates that are apes that are human that only makes mammals that are primates that are apes that are humans. That is why we cant make dogs and that is why dogs only makes dogs.

We say 'dog' and 'humans' when we speak because it would take all day to say "only a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human can make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human and that is why a mammal that is a canine that is wolf that is a dog cannot make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human". So it is then easier to say "dogs cant make humans because dogs are not humans. Dog can only make the same kind - namely dogs". But then a creationist wont understand what it means and start to believe it must be evidence against evolution, while it is not.

These long names are known as the nested hierarchy of life and they can uniquely identify any "kind" of "kind" in a tree-like fashion. The point is, these nested hierarchy, or "trees", are evidence for evolution, and the only way to prove that a dog exist is to accept that the theory of evolution is true (because only then does it make sense to talk about dogs that makes dogs). But that was what they tried to refute. Therefore it follows the dog argument cannot disprove the theory of evolution, because the dog argument is a proof in favor of the theory of evolution.

The second point is that this is exactly the same silly methods creationist uses all the time when they ask for - and then deny - a transitional form.

But hell will freeze before a creationist understand logic.....

 

[AV1611VET]

No this is serious. Creationist notes that dogs only make dogs and nothing else. I agree to that. Then they claim this disproves the theory of evolution.

Okay, the argument is sound and the argument is accepted. But then where is the evidence that such dog exist? Where is their transitional creationist dog that disproves the theory of evolution?

As I understand it, the dogs→dogs argument is an argument for the definition of "kind."

According to Gail Riplinger, the KJB has a built-in dictionary; and according to Kent Hovind, the definition of "kind" is:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

That would seem to make "kind" mean "species."

Then along comes Carl [Wise Man] Linnaeus, who evidently argued for classifying coyotes as "dogs;" and the rest is history.

Now, thanks to him, scientists can scratch their heads and wonder why non-macroevolutionists don't get in lockstep with their philosophy.

It looks like you're arguing that, since coyotes eventually produced the domestic dog, why don't domestic dogs eventually produce coyotes -- since, after all, they're both "dogs"?

Is this correct?

 

[DaisyDay]

I suggest you read the forums guide lines (found as the first post in this forum) before you post again. Calling a person stupid is a direct violation of the rules. I can opt to report you to an admin, but I wont. Unless I see you do it one more time.

In situ, he didn't call you stupid, he said the question was stupid - that is not the same thing at all.

 

[DaisyDay]

If a dog produces a cat then evolution would be something to consider. Since that doesn't happen and what the Word of God says is actually observed then we can conclude that the Bible is true and evolution is false.

If a lizard produced a bird then evolution could be considered but that does not happen so we are left with the reality of God's Word and the myth of evolution is just a fairy tale for grown ups.

This isn't hard and it is backed up by every observable, repeatable and scientific test known to man.

Kinds change over time, this was built into their programming by the Creator and is a horizontal change. Kinds do not change kinds which would be a vertical change, from simple to more complex. Variation with the kinds is a fact but there is no observations of a kind changing into a different kind. That's just reality and what the Bible says.

It's clear that you simply don't understand what evolution actually is and what it predicts because if a dog produces a cat, then evolution is false.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In the words of Hillary Clinton, "What difference does it make!"

 

[mmksparbud]

I really just get more confused about what this poster is trying to say, the more explanation is made, the worse it is!
But I'm old school and maybe that is the problem. When I was in school evolution was explained as all species came from the ocean, and all evolved from some sort of fish---all meaning all plant and animal life. It was taught that a fish gradually morphed into a human and basically everything morphed into something else. I believe now they teach that there are different species that developed so that only a certain species came from that one species---or something like that. I am easily confused as to what evolutionists believe now. Creationists always maintained that only species of the same family can produce offspring, which, in my time, evolutionists laughed at. Now it seems they are saying the same thing as us so I do not get the posters' statements. Less words in the explanation would be helpful?
All the pictures posted are of crossbreeds within the same family. It used to be that if somebody could find a pig that produced a dog, that would be proof of evolution---now they are saying that if that could happen it would disprove evolution??? It seems as though we're both saying the same thing now???

 

[DaisyDay]

It used to be that if somebody could find a pig that produced a dog, that would be proof of evolution

No, it was never that - just the opposite, it has always been that that would totally falsify evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

/facepalm

If a dog would produce a tiger, evolution would be falsified.
In fact, if a dog would produce anything but a dog or sub-species thereof (which would still be a dog), evolution would be falsified.

It's hilarious how every creationist seems to not realise this.



Right. Evolution is a branching process. Species evolve into sub-species. It's a vertical line, not a horizontal one. Species don't jump branches.
Tetrapods produce tetrapods.
Mammals produce mammals.
Dogs product dogs.

But dogs are still mammals and tetrapods.



Humans ARE apes. Just like they are mammals.



Perhaps you should get a clue about evolution theory.

An alleged single life form (unknown) allegedly produced both pine trees and humans.

 

[Lulav]

A common argument heard form creationist is that a so called dog can give birth to a dog.

Well, so they say at least. I am raised with Golden retrievers. They are said to be dogs, but they are also Golden Retrievers. My parent bread Golden retrievers, so I seen quite a few Golden Retrievers puppies in my days. We also had another dog, a single German shepherd. Curiously enough, even though German shepherds are dogs, I never seen any German shepherd be born! Not once - not ever! Like I said I seen a lot of Golden retriever puppies been born, but never ever seen even a single German shepherd been by a Golden retriever. And I have seen many, many Golden retrievers been born.

So what is the problem you may ask. Well the problem is that creationists claims a Golden Retrievers and German Shepard both are so called dogs. So I asked myself if a dogs can give birth to a dog, then why did our Golden retrievers never give birth to a German shepherd? Maybe I had not waited long enough for it to happen.

Then it so happen I learned that no German shepherd has ever give birth to anything else than German shepherds either. I was amazed when I heard this, so I started to investigate the claim that dogs give birth to other dogs. I took me some years because I have investigate this issue very careful. At every instance I checked out a so called dog it turns out that this so called dog never give birth to another dog. Not once in the entire written record of dog breeders have it ever happen! Not in a single case have I been able to verify that a claimed dog can give birth to another dog!

This really started to bothered me. Where is the missing dog that can give birth to another dog? Where is it? Where are all the dogs creationist claims exists? I have asked people to show me a dog. But it have not happen yet - not even once! They showed me an Irish setter. I said I could not verify that an Irish setter was a dog. I told them no claimed dog has ever been verified to be a dog. I told them they believed in a myth. They told me I was an idiot. But I know I am right. I explained I have checked it myself, but they did not want to know the truth. They was happy to believe in their lie.

The truth must get out! There is no dogs! Because if dogs exists, then where are all the dogs? Where are the dogs that can give birth to another dogs? ? I never seen one, not a single one! I tell you it will never happen because they are no such things as dogs or a dog kind! The truth is that creationists just made that up!

Then I investigated cats, birds, everything.... same story there. Every time I check. A tiger has never been reported to give birth to a lion. Nor has a mallard ever given birth to a golden eagle. There was no bird kind or cat kind either... it is all a lie!

Dogs, cat and birds does not exists! And there is no evidence they ever have existed! Dog, cats and birds are fictions of the mind - in the minds of the creationists! The only reason these kinds are claimed to exist is so they can use it to prove the theory of evolution is false. But it is a lie! There are no dogs! The theory of evolution is still true! Creationists only believe dogs exists! Creationism is a religion!

Creationist: SHOW ME YOUR DOG! Show me the evidence! Prove a dog exists!

Just one dog please!

Are you familiar with genetics? Animal kingdom classifications?

What you are saying can be said this way too.

An oak will never grow apples yet they are both trees. One doesn't look like the other and it has other major differences, height, leaf shape, bark, just to name a few.

Why a dog will never give birth (naturally) to a cat

Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


​

 

[Loudmouth]

I've always been told there's no such thing as a stupid question. You've proved the people that said that wrong.

Whether you realize it or not, you've made the argument against evolution and for creation. Shepards produce Shepards, retrievers produce retrievers, but neither would ever produce a Tiger.

Then where did shepherds and retrievers come from?

 

[Loudmouth]

If a dog produces a cat then evolution would be something to consider.

If a dog produces a cat this would falsify the theory of evolution.

This is how messed up these discussion are. Creationists have no idea what the theory of evolution actually says, yet they are sure it is false.

 

[Dig4truth]

In situ wants to suggest that if a dog gave birth to a cat that would falsify evolution. However, he/she also believes that all life came from an original organism.

An original organism would necessarily have to change into many different forms if all life came from it.

So the question is, which is correct? Do you believe that all life originated from a common ancestor or that animals do not change their kind?

It really is much simpler to just believe the truth; God created animals to reproduce after their kind.


The biological familyCanidae/ˈkænɨdiː/[2] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈkænɨd/, /ˈkeɪnɨd/).[3] The Canidae family is divided into two tribes: the Canini (dogs, wolves, jackals, and some South American "foxes") and the Vulpini (true foxes).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae


Is this difficult? All of these animals are the same kind. The path that led to dogs has LOST information and cannot produce anything other than dogs unless new DNA is introduced.

Like this;

A wolfdog (also called a wolf–dog hybrid or wolf hybrid) is a canidhybridresulting from the hybridization of a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) to one of four other Canis species, the gray (Canis lupus), eastern timber(Canis lycaon), red (Canis rufus), and Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog

 

[Loudmouth]

In situ wants to suggest that if a dog gave birth to a cat that would falsify evolution. However, he/she also believes that all life came from an original organism.

Why is that a problem? Is it possible for someone to have both grandparents and cousins? Are your cousins also your grandparents?

An original organism would necessarily have to change into many different forms if all life came from it.

Just as retrievers, shepherds, and Chihuahuas are all different forms of dogs.

Do you believe that all life originated from a common ancestor or that animals do not change their kind?

That would require you to tell us what criteria you are using to determine which species belong to which kinds.

It really is much simpler to just believe the truth; God created animals to reproduce after their kind.

In evolution, animals also reproduce after their kind.

Humans are in the primate kind. Chimps are in the primate kind. Our common ancestor was also a primate. All within the primate kind.

Humans are in the mammal kind. Bears are in the mammal kind. Our common ancestor was also a mammal. All within the mammal kind.

Humans are vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was also a vertebrate. All within the vertebrate kind.

The biological familyCanidae/ˈkænɨdiː/[2] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈkænɨd/, /ˈkeɪnɨd/).[3] The Canidae family is divided into two tribes: the Canini (dogs, wolves, jackals, and some South American "foxes") and the Vulpini (true foxes).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

You forgot out about the Carnivora kind.

http://tolweb.org/Carnivora/15971

Dogs and cats both belong to the Carnivora kind.

The path that led to dogs has LOST information and cannot produce anything other than dogs unless new DNA is introduced.

New DNA is introduced with every birth. Mutations happen in every generation.

 

[Dig4truth]

Why is that a problem? Is it possible for someone to have both grandparents and cousins? Are your cousins also your grandparents?

They are all the human kind.

Just as retrievers, shepherds, and Chihuahuas are all different forms of dogs.

But all one canidae kind.

That would require you to tell us what criteria you are using to determine which species belong to which kinds.

A general indication is reproduction although some genetic drifts are so bad that the same kind can no longer reproduce. This is a loss of information.

In evolution, animals also reproduce after their kind.

I'm glad you think so.

Humans are in the primate kind. Chimps are in the primate kind. Our common ancestor was also a primate. All within the primate kind.

Humans are in the human kind. This is where you seem to have a major problem.
Oh, a common ancestor, so evolution does believe that kinds change?

Humans are in the human kind. Humans cannot procreate with any other kind.

Humans are in the mammal kind. Bears are in the mammal kind. Our common ancestor was also a mammal. All within the mammal kind.

Again, humans are in the human kind. Ever notice that we only produce other humans? Ever wonder why?

Humans are vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was also a vertebrate. All within the vertebrate kind.

Humans have vertebrae but they are classified as human. Fish have vertebrae but are not classified as human.

Fish do not become human. I find it laughable that I have to actually say that. But that is where the myth of evolution leads.

You forgot out about the Carnivora kind.
http://tolweb.org/Carnivora/15971
Dogs and cats both belong to the Carnivora kind.

That is not a kind but a group of kinds with similar physiology and habits.

New DNA is introduced with every birth. Mutations happen in every generation.

So you are claiming that mutations are the driving factor in evolution? Do you really want to go there?

If our DNA didn't have an ability to rebuild or destroy mutations we all would cease to exist in a short amount of time. Mutations are copying mistakes and do not produce new specific complex information. Mutations can never turn a ant into an astronomer.

 

[mmksparbud]

Then where did shepherds and retrievers come from?

Are you serious?? I do not understand this line of thought---all dogs come from wolves--that is known--how come you don't know that??

No, it was never that - just the opposite, it has always been that that would totally falsify evolution.

This is what is so very confusing--no--it never was this from the beginning. It definitely would have proven evolution. It certainly can not, in any way shape or form, prove creation as God says after it's kind so a dog can not produce a pig, but it would prove evolution. That is what I was taught in school and please do not tell me that I wasn't taught that when I was!! Like I said, when I went to school, everything morphed from some primordial sludge and everything came from fish---the fish thing is still in vogue--we all evolved from fish--even the apes and even corn came from the sea.




PBS series explores evolution of 'Your Inner Fish'
Traci Watson, Special for USA TODAY 11:01 a.m. EDT April 8, 2014
48 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 4 COMMENTEMAILMORE
Paleobiologist Neil Shubin digs up the fossils of extinct animals. Now television is bringing those fossils to life.

In an episode of Shubin's new PBS series, Your Inner Fish, based on his best-selling book of the same name, he cups a tiny Jurassic reptile called a tritheledont in his palm before it jumps off his hand and meanders across a tabletop. No flesh-and-blood tritheledont has scuttled the Earth for at least 150 million years. But 21st-century computer animation has resurrected the little animal in all its lithe, long-tailed glory for a star turn in Shubin's series, premiering April 9. (Check local listings.)

The tritheledont's appearance is a moment of wonder, but Shubin and his collaborators have greater ambitions than making a more factual Jurassic Park. They want viewers to realize that their own bodies are directly related to those of fish and reptiles that lived millions of years ago. And, in a tougher sell, the show's creators want viewers to be enraptured not just by scientific results but also by the halting, messy, failure-ridden scientific process itself.

"I didn't go into science to memorize note cards. I went into science to discover, to go into the unknown," Shubin says. "I want (viewers) to see the joy of discovery in science."

That philosophy also pervaded Shubin's 2008 best-selling book, Your Inner Fish, which makes a point of telling readers not only what scientists know but also how they know it — and how they learn to know anything at all. The book chronicles Shubin's own evolution, from naive graduate student who couldn't spot a fossil even when he was staring right at it to skilled paleontologist whose fossil expeditions have uncovered groundbreaking new specimens. Along the way, the book introduces a throng of scientists whose work contributed to the book's central thesis: that our own anatomy bears the traces of animal ancestors that lived eons ago.

Shubin didn't write the book with a film treatment in mind. But when the production company now called Tangled Bank Studios came calling in 2011, Shubin was persuaded that executives there wanted to "elevate the conversation … but also make it entertaining," as he did. Shubin agreed to host a documentary based on his book, an agreement that would eventually find him baking on the plains of Africa, shivering on the tundra in the Arctic and climbing a tree with monkeys despite a lifelong fear of heights.


So if we both believe that one species can not produce a litter of a different species (not naturally anyway)--what are we arguing about???