Creationists: Demonstrate that wolves and dogs weren't created independently

[pitabread]

How would creationists be able to demonstrate that wolves and dogs were not created independently?

 

[KWCrazy]

How would creationists be able to demonstrate that wolves and dogs were not created independently?

Who said they were?
Go forth and multiply, remember?
Prove cats and carrots have common ancestry.

 

[pitabread]

Who said they were?

I'm asking if creationists can demonstrate that wolves and dogs were not created independently. If you can demonstrate that, great. If not, oh well.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm asking if creationists can demonstrate that wolves and dogs were not created independently.

In order to do that, we would, first, have to assume that Canis lupus and C. lupus familiaris were once two different species. Why would we do that?

By Linnaeus' standards, they are the same species because they produce fertile young. DNA taxonomy may give us more precise insights.

 

[pitabread]

In order to do that, we would, first, have to assume that Canis lupus and C. lupus familiaris were once two different species. Why would we do that?

It's a thought experiment. Is there any way to demonstrate that wolves and dogs were not created independently?

By Linnaeus' standards, they are the same species because they produce fertile young. DNA taxonomy may give us more precise insights.

But how does that demonstrate they weren't created independently?

 

[Sabertooth]

The Biblical narrative says that all the land animals were created on the same day [#6]. The onus of proof otherwise would be on a challenger, not those who accept that model.

 

[pitabread]

The Biblical narrative says that all the land animals were created on the same day [#6]. The onus of proof otherwise would be on a challenger, not those who accept that model.

I'm going to wager right now that the question I posed in the OP goes unanswered...

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm going to wager right now that the question I posed in the OP goes unanswered...

And I'm going to agree with you, if you expect Christians to adopt and defend its premise.

 

[Hank77]

By Linnaeus' standards, they are the same species because they produce fertile young. DNA taxonomy may give us more precise insights.

Wolfs, coyotes, jackals, dingos, and domesticated dogs when crossbred all produce fertile young.

 

[pitabread]

And I'm going to agree with you, if you expect Christians to adopt and defend its premise.

What I expect is that creationists can defend their ideas. Which means if one wants to argue that dogs and wolves are the same "kind" (even though I still have no idea what that means), it means they need to demonstrate that they weren't created independently.

 

[Sabertooth]

What I expect is that creationists can defend their ideas.

That onus lies with one who would challenge Genesis 1:24-25, not those who accept it.

 

[pitabread]

That onus lies with one who would challenge Genesis 1:24-25, not those who accept it.

Except there is nothing in there that specifically says dogs and wolves were not created independently.

Not only that, but if a creationist wishes to argue that they were not created independently (i.e. wolves and dogs share a common ancestor), then they need to necessitate why that is the case.

 

[Sabertooth]

Except there is nothing in there that specifically says dogs and wolves were not created independently.

Or even that they are distinctly different creatures. We have different names for the various breeds of C.l. familiaris. Must we produce different prototypical origins for them, too?

 

[Job 33:6]

Some young earthers assume that wolves and dogs must have been created as a single "kind" in an attempt to decrease the number of animals that would hypothetically live on the ark.

Realistically there are millions of species of animal on earth. So to suggest that millions of animals were on a single boat the size of perhaps an apartment building, for an entire year, gets a bit questionable.

but if instead of millions of animals on the ark, if we assumed that hyper evolution occurred after the flood, in which one species of cat hyper evolved (in perhaps a matter of a few decades) into lions, tigers, house cats, pumas, panthers, linx, bobcats and all other felines...then the ark would only have to hold perhaps a few tens of thousands of species, rather than millions.

Combine that with the idea that all reptile species could just be in eggs kept in incubators to save space, and some massive dinosaurs like brachiosaurs could be babies to save space as well. you start to narrow down the size that a boat would have to be to hold these 10s of thousands of animals, along with food and waste disposal and temperature control for an entire year.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It took thousands of workers to build the life sized ark museum in kentucky, just a couple years with advanced power tools and massive cranes, to build their replica. They seemed to avoid the issue of waste disposal and food storage by simply having robotic animals in their museum.

I digress.

 

[Sabertooth]

@KomatiiteBIF , if human ethnicities can be so different, why is that a problem for animal breeds/sub-species?

 

[Job 33:6]

@KomatiiteBIF , if human ethnicities can be so different, why is that a problem for animal breeds/sub-species?

I dont doubt that thousands of species of animal can evolve from a greatly smaller number of species over millions of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felinae

Here is a list of genus of cat (above the species level in diversity). There are 15. So either we have 30 cats on the ark, or we have a situation where, upon exit of the ark, a single species super evolved over a very short period of time. How these genus and their many associated species became geographically independent of one another is anyone's guess.

 

[Job 33:6]

But then we also have some genus of cat that died in the flood and their fossils are buried in the earth. So whats up with that? Were they just forgotten?

As it turns out, the cats that went extinct just so happened to have specific morphological traits. As if the shape of their teeth determined if they missed the ark or not.

 

[mmksparbud]

How would creationists be able to demonstrate that wolves and dogs were not created independently?

This is what creationists believe.


Gen_2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen_1:25 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.



after it's kind---all canines are of the same kind, all equines---as are all felines--Horses and zebras can crossbreed, so can tigers and lions, there are no pig/elephants, cow/wolves or cat/turtles. If they can crossbreed, they are the same kind. Strange---if apes and humans are so closely related, why cant they crossbreed?

 

[Hank77]

all canines are of the same kind, all equines---as are all felines--Horses and zebras can crossbreed, so can tigers and lions

Canines when crossbred produce fertile young. Equines and felines do not. All canines have 78 chromosomes. Horses, donkeys, and zebras have different numbers of chromosomes. It's the same for felines.

 

[pitabread]

If they can crossbreed, they are the same kind.

But how does that validate that they were not created independently?