Try school with its evolutionists teachings.....
Not confusing at all - as long as one has not been brainwashed with religion.
All canidae are of the same species/Kind. You may if you wish divide them into subspecies if it helps you keep track of them.
There was no plan to have so many similar Kinds.
So now you speak for the Creator?
There is only one Kind of canidae. The reason they contain such variability built into the genome is surviveability.
Assertion? Check.
Evidence for assertion? BZZZZZZZT
Dismissed.
What disease may decimate one subspecies may not affect them all. What genetic degradation leading to a dead end that affects one may not affect them all.
Assertion? Check.
Evidence for assertion? BZZZZZZZT
Dismissed.
Nice ad hoc nonsense - but you should actually try to address the questions/issues at hand.
I asked:
Yes, all domesticated dogs are of one species.
What about foxes?
Jackals?
Are they their own Kind?
And you prattle on about diseases and God's lack of a plan.
Those that couldnt even bring themselves to call races subspecies....
All are subspecies (races) of the original African humans.
But that doesn't jive with your version of the bible tale, I'm sure. uh oh!
Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?
PUMA/OCELOT HYBRIDS
Dont know, why dont you try it?
I didn't know that ocelots are pumas.
Right - THEY AREN'T.
Nice sleight of hand - dishonest and/or incompetent, but nice nonetheless. You were either hoping I wouldn't see that or, more likely, just didn't know any better.
CHEETAH HYBRIDS
"The two species could only meet in a zoo or menagerie and I have found no reported attempts to breed cheetah/puma hybrids."
AGAIN, I had asked:
"Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?"
Ocelots are not Pumas.
It is so cute how you think you scored a GOTCHA! So many such attempts by you backfire, but you keep trying. What is it they say about trying the same thing over and over?
No, they are the same Kind/species, not several.
By your personally preferred definition. There is disagreement about it among biologists. You are picking one side because you think it props up your bible tales, not for any real biological reason.
Speaking of birds, is "kind" at the level of the Finch? Or are ALL birds of one Kind?
Can parrots breed with emus?
If not, why not?
You contradict yourself.
Where? Not sure that questions count as contradictions.
You see finches interbreeding right in front of the reasearchers noses, yet refuse to accept that they are the same species. Then want not being able to interbreed to be an indication they are separate species. You must first make up your mind and be willing to accept one or the other. If interbreeding is not indicative of same species, then not interbreeding is not indicative of separate species.
Um... it would have been nice if you had replied to what had ACTUALLY been written, rather than prattle on with some rehearsed mumbo jumbo that has no bearing at all on what I did actually write.
To be clear:
"Speaking of birds, is "kind" at the level of the Finch? Or are ALL birds of one Kind?
Can parrots breed with emus?
If not, why not?"
So, are ALL BIRDS one 'Kind'? Or is it just Finches that are all one 'Kind'?
Can parrots and Emus interbreed - are they one species? Or not?
And in anticipation of you googling 'parrot hybrids' and declaring victory, please remember what I am actually asking, not what you hope I am asking.
No, my Bible classifies a bat as a flying creature. You chose to put the term bird in the Hebrew word for flying creature in its place.
I merely report what Online Bible sites tell me:
Leviticus 11:13-19New International Version (NIV)
13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
or
Leviticus 11:13-19King James Version (KJV)
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
[/URL]
Sorry, I forgot - all creationists on the internet, in addition to being experts in all areas of science, are also bible scholars.
Please forgive my oversight.
But I have a question - if the bible writers meant 'flying creature' - why no mention of flying squirrels? Phalangers? Sugar gliders? Flying insects?
And each was made according to its Kind.
Assertion? Check.
Evidence for assertion? BZZZZZZZT
Dismissed.
Whats cute is your repeated denial of what is right before your eyes.
I do not reject evolution, you do.
Yet the only change in form in the species you have ever observed is when two mate and produce a new form...
And the expert on What Science Is speaks!
Defining speciation
Have you observed a subkind being produced?
Oh - still waiting for an example of a created Kind.
An observational fact. And all you assert is that one can split into two, even if never once observed in the real world.
Never observed an atom splitting, either, but I am pretty sure it happens. Due to the evidence that it does.
Where did the variation come from if they were 'created' AS a 'kind'?
From the genome, where that variation already existed. Variation is nothing but what already existed copied into a different format.
No - there is but one format.
If you are implying that variation comes from copying errors - then that is mutation and that is the basis for evolution. Co-opting evolution is something that creationists often do, not understanding that they have done so.
Thanks for another example of how creationists operate.
All canidea are of one kind. All felidae are of one Kind. Surely you can figure out the rest.
So there is a Cheetah kind? After all, hybridization is, according to you, the only way to get a new species (or is it copying errors? you can't seem to make up your mind), so that would only explain how we get a different species - subKind - not what the original is.
Is there an ostrich kind?
Does the Bird Kind contain Archaeopteryx, too?
Are there any living examples of common ancestors or even any fossils of them? How can you tell?
I am not the one declaring that such things must be found - that is YOUR schitick. So thanks for admitting that you cannot produce for creationism what your ilk demands from evolution.
However, if evolution were true, we EXPECT that these things would be difficult since evolution posits life as a continuum.
Whereas, creationism posits living things are discreet 'kinds.'
Here is a phylogenetic tree depicting the phylogeny of many representative groups of mammals.
Such a thing should not be possible if creationism were true, unless all mammals are 1 'kind'.
Agreed, this is what evolutionists are fond of doing.
More projection.
Why should it, they were all created from the same dust. The same protons, neutrons and electrons.
Um, golly - maybe because phylogenetic analysis does not use protons or neutrons?
I have posted several times evidence on the tested methods used to analyze phylogeny, and each time you bail and or misrepresent what I show you.
I suspect that, like many creationists, you don't WANT to understand this stuff.
Allies...
Sort of like you refuse to rethink your position about finches, declaring as above they are many species, even when presented with the DNA evidence they were never reproductively isolated?
It is a funny thing - I have not once brought up finches - YOU did. because you think you've got a winner there, for some reason. That and your repeated ad nauseum 'Asians breed Asians...' nonsense.
The Galapagos finches are a very nice examples of selection.
You cant admit to the truth of the mistake in classification with finches, even with the DNA evidence.
I have not seen you once present or link to ANY DNA evidence, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Given your obvious lack of even a basic understanding of genetics, I have my doubts that you would even know what DNA evidence means.
As stated in my post above, if they cant or wont admit to what is before their eyes, when it is clear they are lying, how are you going to convince me anything else they say has any truth?
Who is lying?
Creationist Jeff Tomkins? Henry Morris? Duane Gish? They've all been caught in many lies, yet they keep or kept on stating them.
Not sure who you are referring to. Disagreements are not lies, by the way.
There are evangelicals that accept that the earth is very old - are they lying?
What about
this creationist with a doctorate:
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
What do you know that he doesn't?
Havent copied or pasted a single sentence. I am just forced to retype Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is a new form seen in the species.
And there you go.
It is pretty funny, really, that you contradict yourself, even as you accused me of doing so.
Can't see how?
Here you go:
"There was no plan to have so many similar Kinds. There is only one Kind of canidae. The reason they contain such variability built into the genome is surviveability. What disease may decimate one subspecies may not affect them all. What genetic degradation leading to a dead end that affects one may not affect them all....
Where did the variation come from if they were 'created' AS a 'kind'?
From the genome, where that variation already existed. Variation is nothing but what already existed copied into a different format."
but
"African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species."
So.... How did we get all this variation from some mythological "created Kind"?
Hilarious.
Believe me I am tired of having to retype it every other post, but it still doesnt seem like you understand or accept the truth of direct empirical evidence. Dont blame me because you all cant understand from empirical observation that it takes two, not just one to morph into a new variation. And even when a mutation might change the number of hairs, shape of nose, etc, the creature still remains exactly what it was. This is what you wont admit to yourself.
Why would I admit to nonsense? "Morph" into a new variation?
Man, you are too much.
