Creationist conundrum: Cats

[Speedwell]

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

Who knows? The chart was made up by a Creationist organization.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cause it's dead?

More like it was never alive.

(Until paper came along.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Who knows? The chart was made up by a Creationist organization.

Which doesn't surprise me.

Look at your icon.

It reminds me of tares growing among the wheat.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence points clearly to the existence of missing links ...

Suuure it does.

Like a kid pointing to the monster under his bed.

 

[Heissonear]

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?

You present conjecture to conclude similar genes but different Kinds of creatures.

Did you consult with the Creator on this to assure your correlation is correct as an evolutionary fact?

Just as I thought, you lack information to assure that they were not Created with similarities.

What you have done before us is set aside the Creator to make your conclusions of differences and similarities. Many are doing such today. The Creator not needed realm of "science".

The connect the dot by genome similarities.

Where are the fossils to make your conclusions concrete. If they never happened in nature it is all genome similarities speculations.

 

[Speedwell]

Which doesn't surprise me.

Look at your icon.

It reminds me of tares growing among the wheat.

The earliest archaeologically verifiable use of the cross as a Christian symbol.

 

[USincognito]

Now if housecats came from tigers, why are there still tigers? To "evolve" one species replaced the former. I guess unless it Doesn't line up with the theory.

Housecats didn't "come from" tigers. They share a common ancestor. Also new species don't always replace existing species.

The seat he is taking was held by a middle of the road judge. They cannot stand that a conservative might replace him. Especially one chosen by Trump.

Wrong subforum.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Because on every single chart for every single split those common ancestors are "missing".

Now one might buy it if they even had just a few examples, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them are missing where the claimed split takes place.

But, several of those listed can interbreed, and just like dogs I certainly do not expect the removed offspring to resemble the original (pug vs wolf).

The error is in evolutionary fantasy land where they have Tigers and Lions listed as separate species because they once thought they couldn't interbreed, but have failed to correct it knowing they can.

Incorrect classification after incorrect classification, uncorrected error after uncorrected error is the ToE

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Because of their flawed classification system to support their flawed beliefs.....

Just as their are still wolves even though we have 100+ breeds of dogs that came from them.

The flaw would be in thinking Wolves (evolved) into anything or even at all....

Likewise the flaw is to believe Tigers (evolved) into anything or even at all....

Don't fall into their flawed thinking. The Tiger never evolved into anything, just as the wolf never evolved into anything..... Dogs are the same species as wolves, through crossbreeding for tameability is how we got what we see, not evolution.....


Man's new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox domestication

They want you to forget the reality.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Because on every single chart for every single split those common ancestors are "missing".

If teeth went missing like their links did, dentists would be out of a job.

(But that's a poor analogy, as it assumes teeth were there in the first place.)

 

[Kaon]

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

MWHAHAHAHAH!

How can you make a hurricane in Taiwan by stepping on a butterfly in New York?

Mathematical Chaos.


If we assume there is God, then His initial conditions to the system incredibly affect the overall outcome at any time t. This would also be ignoring that he made every animal after their kind. If you can mate with it, it is after your kind. If you mate and produce with something similar to your kind, but you produce a mule, then that is a built-in natural way to prevent the error in sexual judgment.



On another note, is it a requisite that creationists believe the earth has an age? Or, that things were just created by the Most High God?

 

[tas8831]

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

And presents no mechanism...

 

[tas8831]

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...

Yup.

Even with exceptionally generous leeway, they have nothing.

 

[tas8831]

Ok, Ok... A certain group of people do not see why I started this thread.

It is a creationist slogan that humans and chimps cannot be related via descent because our genomes differ by ~2-5%, depending on what is being compared.

Cats, all of which creationists accept as belonging to the same "Kind", can differ by as much as humans and chimps.

Double standards.

Or fake YEC 'science'?

Get it now?

NOPE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Found a fossil? label it and stick it somewhere between lines A & B and call it a "transitional."

You can always change it later.

For example:

Found a pig's tooth?

Label it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii and stick it between Hespero this and Homo that.

Later, after giving the public a good dose of how true evolution is, claim closer scrutiny shows it needs to go on another line between two other dots.

 

[Speedwell]

Found a fossil? label it and stick it somewhere between lines A & B and call it a "transitional."

You can always change it later.

For example:

Found a pig's tooth?

Label it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii and stick it between Hespero this and Homo that.

Later, after giving the public a good dose of how true evolution is, claim closer scrutiny shows it needs to go on another line between two other dots.

Except that's not what happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that's not what happened.

That's exactly what happened.

"Nebraska Man was a name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world," and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth found by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in Nebraska in 1917; haroldcookii was given as the species name in reference to Cook. The discovery was made around ten years after the finding of Piltdown Man, another possible human ancestor, that turned out to be a hoax. Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake."

SOURCE

1. Found a pig's tooth.

2. Labeled it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.

3. Stuck it between Hespero this and Homo that.

4. Later, after giving the public a good dose of how true evolution is ...

5. Claimed closer scrutiny shows it needs to go on another line between two other dots.

 

[Heissonear]

What a silly assertion. With genetics we don't need a single fossil to reconstruct the history of life on earth. The many thousands of transitional fossils we do have are just a bonus.

You have it backwards.

Without historic physical fossil record proof evolution cannot be said to occur.

What is presented today from evolutionary biology is all interprestations. Pure interpretations. They apply to the same degree as if all creatures were Created.

Evolutionary Biology is not just of evolution, but the same biological sciences and findings apply to Created creatures.

Only evolutionists isolate the biological sciences for their interpretation of Earth's past history.

Easy to see the bias interpretation.

 

[Heissonear]

All of the biological sciences of genetics and genomics are rightfully applicable to a Creator forming the life we see.

And you have errantly tossed to the side not only the Creator and creatures He has made, but tossed aside fossils that should prove evolution happened. Of all the fossils found all are either different creatures or variations creatures of the same Kind.

What the fossil record shows in 2018 is a Creator made creatures, since evolution from one morphologically distinct creature changing into another distinct creature cannot be found.

All we see in the fossil record are the same shown in paleontology texts and publications, which are macro-assemblages. Without fossils that show the graduations of morphological changes from one macro-assemblage to the next.

It is fossil based proof that is suppose to prove evolution ever happened. And genetics is wide open to interpretation of how the Creator has made different lifeforms. Evolutionists are trying to hijack such, as your post is an example.

 

[Speedwell]

That's exactly what happened.

"Nebraska Man was a name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world," and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth found by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in Nebraska in 1917; haroldcookii was given as the species name in reference to Cook. The discovery was made around ten years after the finding of Piltdown Man, another possible human ancestor, that turned out to be a hoax. Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake."

SOURCE

1. Found a pig's tooth.

2. Labeled it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.

3. Stuck it between Hespero this and Homo that.

4. Later, after giving the public a good dose of how true evolution is ...

5. Claimed closer scrutiny shows it needs to go on another line between two other dots.

Yes, it was a mistake--uncovered by scientists shortly after and never that important or widely accepted in any case. You need to read the rest of the article. But I suspect you don't care because you like the spin you can put on it in item #4, just like you blame the crash of the Hindenburg on "scientists." Science never touted Nebraska Man as proof of evolution.