Creationist conundrum: Cats

[tas8831]

Seems that the Tiger genome has been sequenced and compared to several other cats including snow leopard, lion, and house cat.

Of interest, we see that:

"The tiger genome sequence shows 95.6% similarity to the domestic cat...from which it diverged approximately 10.8 million years ago (MYA)..."

Male domestic cats average ~9 pounds , male tigers average ~400 pounds.

How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 10.8 million years????

Or, in creationist parlance, How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 4,500 years?

 

[durangodawood]

....Or, in creationist parlance, How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 4,500 years?

Obviously they were created separately.

 

[Petros2015]

Or, in creationist parlance, How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 4,500 years?

Just think how big we can make it with only a 10% difference!

MWHAHAHAHAH!

 

[Speedwell]

Now if housecats came from tigers, why are there still tigers? To "evolve" one species replaced the former.

Wrong. Nothing in the theory of evolution requires or implies any such thing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The tiger is not literally on there, but it's clear that AIG supports hyperevolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Seems that the Tiger genome has been sequenced and compared to several other cats including snow leopard, lion, and house cat.

Of interest, we see that:

"The tiger genome sequence shows 95.6% similarity to the domestic cat...from which it diverged approximately 10.8 million years ago (MYA)..."

Male domestic cats average ~9 pounds , male tigers average ~400 pounds.

How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 10.8 million years????

Or, in creationist parlance, How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 4,500 years?

Actually, its even less than 4500 years when you consider the fact that both small cat and large tiger/lion statues and ancient artwork exist from ancient china and ancient egypt dating back thousands of years ago.

For example:
Cats in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia

Here we see a small house cat statue dating back to at least 300 BCE

Tigers are also well recorded in chinese history dating back at least to 1000 BCE, ancient chinese generals would even have names for themselves made after tigers and dragons as these were considered fierce and mighty beasts.
Sun Jian - Wikipedia
Sun Jian also known by the name of the tiger of jiang dong


So literally, the 5% difference would have had to have occurred instantaneously or perhaps within a generation or two or negative generations depending on how far back in time we push history.

And the only the young earthers can do is say "well they must have been created separately". But then we run into an issue of...if everything (5% difference and more) was created separately, then we would have millions of animals on the ark, which doesn't make any sense.

But as we all know, nothing in young earth creationism makes any sense, so lets not act surprised...

 

[AV1611VET]

The tiger is not literally on there, but it's clear that AIG supports hyperevolution.

One of God's pet projects.

If He can create a trillion stars in one day, I'd say He took His time with the plants and animals.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Seems that the Tiger genome has been sequenced and compared to several other cats including snow leopard, lion, and house cat.

Of interest, we see that:

"The tiger genome sequence shows 95.6% similarity to the domestic cat...from which it diverged approximately 10.8 million years ago (MYA)..."

Male domestic cats average ~9 pounds , male tigers average ~400 pounds.

How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 10.8 million years????

Or, in creationist parlance, How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 4,500 years?

Isn't a cat coming from a tiger the same as a dog coming from a wolf, the same as an elephant coming from a mammoth? Same kind, different species.

Evolutionists really grasp at straws to try to justify their absurd theory, don't they?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn't a cat coming from a tiger the same as a dog coming from a wolf, the same as an elephant coming from a mammoth? Same kind, different species.

Evolutionists really grasp at straws to try to justify their absurd theory, don't they?

Says the guy who literally has no idea how absurd his above statement was...

psssst: cats and tigers are more distantly related then humans and chimps

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Says the guy who literally has no idea how absurd his above statement was...

psssst: cats and tigers are more distantly related then humans and chimps

Says the guy who actually has no idea how absurd his above statement is, but believes it because he read it in one of his Evolutionary tomes.

[Cats and tigers look more similar than humans and cats, or humans and tigers. Some might even go so far as to argue that a cat is just a weedy kind of tiger].

 

[Job 33:6]

Isn't a cat coming from a tiger the same as a dog coming from a wolf, the same as an elephant coming from a mammoth? Same kind, different species.

Evolutionists really grasp at straws to try to justify their absurd theory, don't they?

The question at the end of the post is stated as:


"Or, in creationist parlance, How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 4,500 years?"

But really the 4,500 should be lowered to perhaps 1000 or less given that tigers and house cats were recorded to have existed at least 2000-2500 years ago or more.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The question at the end of the post is stated as:


"Or, in creationist parlance, How can a 4.4% nucleotide difference explain a 44x difference in size in only 4,500 years?"

But really the 4,500 should be lowered to perhaps 1000 or less given that tigers and house cats were recorded to have existed at least 2000-2500 years ago or more.

It surely depends on how you define 4.4% difference. I hold that 2 identical discs are mostly the same as 1 disc. An evolutionist might argue they are either 50% or 100% different, as 2 is double the information of 1 (even though the information is the same, or duplicated).

 

[Job 33:6]

So basically, what we are left with is that cats and tigers originated from a single ancestor, then the rate of divergence would have occured at 4.4 percent per 500-1000 years. Which is pretty crazy when you think about.

At this rate in 5000 years, humans would change perhaps 5-10 times 4.4%, or perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of our genome would change between now and the times of Adam.

 

[Job 33:6]

It surely depends on how you define 4.4% difference. I hold that 2 identical discs are mostly the same as 1 disc. An evolutionist might argue they are either 50% or 100% different, as 2 is double the information of 1 (even though the information is the same, or duplicated).

5 percent is what it is, whether you call things disks or you refer to DNA.

Doesn't matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Says the guy who actually has no idea how absurd his above statement is, but believes it because he read it in one of his Evolutionary tomes.

[Cats and tigers look more similar than humans and cats, or humans and tigers. Some might even go so far as to argue that a cat is just a weedy kind of tiger].

It's a genetic fact that humans and chimps are more closely related then housecats and tigers.

 

[AV1611VET]

* animal chart *

I don't know who made this chart (okay, I do), but we have a problem here:

First of all, you have some unknown animal ... typical of evolution ... being the common ancestor of a lion, a cheetah, a housecat, and a jaguar.

A lion is Panthera leo.

A cheetah is Acinonyx jubatus.

A housecat is Felis catus.

A jaguar is Panthera onca.

There are THREE different genera (kinds) represented here.

So now we have a ghost animal giving rise to three different kinds.

If indeed, Linnean science is correct ... cough ... then that means the panthera, the cheetah and the housecat were all in the Garden of Eden as separate kinds.

Ghost animals didn't give rise to different kinds, as that picture shows.

All the different kinds were a direct creation of God.

HOWEVER ... keeping in mind that scientists can't get anything right the first time ... I suspect that these animals are mislabeled.

To correct Satan's poster, I submit the following:

Let's assume that ghost animal is a satyr.

Thus the other animals should be labeled as follows:

Satyr lion

Satyr cheetah

Satyr housecat

Satyr jaguar

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't know who made this chart (okay, I do), but we have a problem here:

First of all, you have some unknown animal ... typical of evolution ... being the common ancestor of a lion, a cheetah, a housecat, and a jaguar.

A lion is Panthera leo.

A cheetah is Acinonyx jubatus.

A housecat is Felis catus.

A jaguar is Panthera onca.

There are THREE different genera (kinds) represented here.

So now we have a ghost animal giving rise to three different kinds.

If indeed, Linnean science is correct ... cough ... then that means the panthera, the cheetah and the housecat were all in the Garden of Eden as separate kinds.

Ghost animals didn't give rise to different kinds, as that picture shows.

All the different kinds were a direct creation of God.

HOWEVER ... keeping in mind that scientists can't get anything right the first time ... I suspect that these animals are mislabeled.

To correct Satan's poster, I submit the following:

Let's assume that ghost animal is a satyr.

Thus the other animals should be labeled as follows:

Satyr lion

Satyr cheetah

Satyr housecat

Satyr jaguar

The evidence supports the evolution hypothesis. The evidence does not support the creation hypothesis. The evidence says it, that settles it.

Now the evidence for my assertion can be found in many hundreds of textbooks and tens of thousands of research papers. If you can produce a similar volume of quality evidence, go ahead. Otherwise cease the pathetic attempts to use pseudo-science to support what should be a faith based position.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence supports the evolution hypothesis.

Then why some ghost animal at the bottom of the chart?

 

[46AND2]

Then why some ghost animal at the bottom of the chart?

Cause it's dead?

 

[Ophiolite]

Then why some ghost animal at the bottom of the chart?

The evidence points clearly to the existence of missing links (your fatuously named "ghost animal") and hundreds of examples of such have been identified. The compelling structure of the evidence for evolutionary theory makes it unnecessary to identify every single missing link. (And since every generation is itself a link the idea that all could be found is simultaneously juvenile and ludicrous and ignorant.)