Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Canidae family, Cabvet. Foxes are in the Canid genera. I don't go much for the "scientific" breakdown of all the species.
Canidae family, Cabvet. Foxes are in the Canid genera. I don't go much for the "scientific" breakdown of all the species.
Canis lupus familiaris a form of a grey wolf. I think science says the same thing essentially about Foxes, Dingo's, domestic Dogs, and wolves. They are all in the same clade they call it.
You don't learn, do you? Two things: one, that is not what you said in the message I responded to, and two, foxes are not in "Canid genera" (I am not even sure what that means since all foxes are in the same genus), they are in the genus Vixen.
Lastly, if you don't go much for the scientific break down of all the species, you should avoid making comments like these:
No one is "raising a fist" at God. We are questioning your misguided faith in a mistaken interpretation of scripture. Yours, not God's.I'm not the one raising a fist at God.
1. No where in scripture does it claim there were no mountains before the flood. In fact, scripture refers to the "ancient mountains."The oceans? Lakes? I can't believe people ask that question. The bottom of the ocean floor is a plate over molten lava. There were also probably no high mountains 4000 years ago like today. There was a lot of volcanic activity during the flood. Ocean floor comes up some, things will get flooded on a world wide scale.
What ice age? Scripture makes no mention of any ice age.Some was frozen in the ice age and that created land bridges in some places as the ocean levels were a bit lower then. As well as frozen ice.
You don't learn, do you? Two things: one, that is not what you said in the message I responded to, and two, foxes are not in "Canid genera" (I am not even sure what that means since all foxes are in the same genus), they are in the genus Vixen.
Lastly, if you don't go much for the scientific break down of all the species, you should avoid making comments like these:
I will continue to use "kind" that the bible uses then.
Lasthero asked me what creationists think. They think all dogs came from one wolf kind off the ark. That would probably include foxes and coyotes.
Lasthero asked me what creationists think. They think all dogs came from one wolf kind off the ark. That would probably include foxes and coyotes.
And again, I'm asking if you think this all happened in 4400 years? Because, you're talking about, likely, thousands of different species, and saying they came from a pair of only two. Just two. That's a lot of variation in an incredibly short amount of time.
I will continue to use "kind" that the bible uses then.
Lasthero asked me what creationists think. They think all dogs came from one wolf kind off the ark. That would probably include foxes and coyotes.
Yet you have no definition for it.
You are the first creationist I have ever heard saying that. Most that I know would say that genera were in the ark, since somehow they erroneously equate that to kind.
Dogs belong to the Kind that you would call Canidae. Cat's Felidae, etc. What an evolutionist would call Family.
Except RNA makes very good enzymes. Including enzymes capable of copying RNA. The ones we currently have aren't good enough to copy themselves yet, but considering we got from a crappy prototype that could copy like a dozen nucleotides to one that can get up to almost 100 in just a decade, I think there's good reason to expect that a genuine self-copying RNA genome is possible.
(Especially if you keep it in small segments, like flu viruses. Then each individual segment is small enough for even a weak RNA polymerase to replicate, but together they can do a lot of different things.)
(As of the linked paper, the best RNA-copying ribozyme is about twice as long as the longest sequence it can copy in one go. If anyone knows of an even better version, I'd be delighted to hear about it!)
You should have fact-checked this. As it stands, the level of cluelessness in the above is just painful to watch.
One: there are tons of arboreal and/or forest-dwelling creatures with utterly helpless young. Songbirds, for starters. Two: human babies do have a grasp reflex, although today it's pretty useless since adult humans don't have enough hair to grasp onto. Three: human ancestors have been mainly ground-dwelling for a couple of millions of years. That is more than enough time for both the helpless infants and the hairless adults to evolve.
And yet we are told that bacteria produce bacteria, but bacteria is a Kingdom, for crying out loud. There is no alignment with the Linnaean Family for kinds anywhere. You guys are all over the board. One moment you calling a Genus a kind, and a Kingdom the next. The only criteria that creationists seem to have is if they can describe two species with the same name. Creationist kinds really are nothing more than a name game.
No, bacteria is a kind, for crying out loud. That is why they may live inside us in a symbiotic relationship, or even kill us, because they are their own kind, not a far distant relative. Get a grip on reality. Kingdom is no more than a name game, as is species, family, phylum. All name games. Cats have always been feline as far back as you can trace them, nothing more than changes of appearance just like we have caused in a few generations. Yet they are not new kinds, they are still feline and always will be. Fish are their own kind, not a distant relative. Apes are their own kind, not a distant relative. Virus are their own kind, not a distant relative.
Exactly! Of the larger animals it isn't like there are a huge number of variations.
We're not talking about complex life yet. No one except creationists says that life started as complex.So RNA can copy itself, without DNA and Protiens, RNA by itself is completely useless in complex life.
For one thing, define "life". For another, please educate yourself about what the science of abiogenesis actually says. (I.e. that proteins and DNA can be invented by RNA-based organisms!) I suggest cdk007's abiogenesis videos. First two in the Origins series.Copy all the RNA you want, you'll never make life with them by themselves. Copy all the protiens you want, you will never make life with them by themselves. Copy all the DNA you want, you will never make life with them by themselves.
If I create life from a rock, we're not discussing evolution. Evolution is a theory of how life changes.And when you take something that already exists and copy it, big deal, we can clone sheep from existing sheep. Create it from that rock, then we'll discuss evolution. Till then you got nothing.
The fact that everything is made of them should give you a clue as to why it's not so simple as that... Besides, I don't see what bearing the ability of human beings to create life has on anything. We can't (yet) make humans regrow their legs, yet regrowing legs is plainly a perfectly natural phenomenon. Newts do it no problem.As a matter of fact you should be able to just throw in protons, neutrons and electrons and have life come about shouldn't you? I mean that is what everything is made up of isn't it?
Let's recap why I mentioned songbirds before we roll over laughing. You argued, in your own exact words, thatSongbirds, really, that the best you got?
Humans clearly did not evolve from any wondering or tree dwelling species. All species that are aboreal or forest dwelling have offspring capable of immediately grasping to free the parent to move through the trees, or capable of flight within a few minutes to avoid predators.
So... yeah. This is completely irrelevant to what I actually said.So apes used to build nests? I thought we came from apes not songbirds.
Phylogenetic bracketing.Who says man was substantially hairier in the past?
It is called inferences. You should learn how to make them.An artist? The oldest man specimen you have has hair no more dense than ours. Artists just like to draw man with more hair the older they claim the bones are. You got zilch for actual data, just suppositions.
Says the guy who just said all arboreal species have precocial young.Maybe you should do some research.
I don't even know what you're asking here. Things that make imperfect copies of themselves evolve. It's inevitable. It never stops. It happens everywhere at once.What made every animal evolve at once?
Aw, and here I thought coelacanths were "unchanged" since the Cretaceous!The animals we see today can not be traced back any further than modern man.
Earth history is not your strong suit, is it? Here's the GSA geologic time scale to help. The KT extinction is dated to 66 million years ago, give or take.Those with what you like to call Neandrethal man were merely a different appearance of the human kind. Same as we see with dogs, cats, etc. None of the human kind, cat kind, canine kind, etc. can be traced back further than the last global destruction.
The destruction that extincted the dino. Meteor, comet, whatever; and the Earth became desolate and waste, and darkness covered the surface of the deep. I knew this long ago. Then the animals with man and man himself was created.
So let me get this straight: a "kind" is basically a group that science says originated after the KT extinction.Exactly what we observe except in a few rare cases of kind that survuved the cataclysm, shark, crocodile, etc.
You had just claimed "Kinds" were similar to the family taxon.No, bacteria is a kind, for crying out loud.
Non sequiter. Your facts are uncoordinated. Are you claiming that a parasitic species can not parasitize another species of its own "kind?' I want your answer before I give you numerous examples.That is why they may live inside us in a symbiotic relationship, or even kill us, because they are their own kind, not a far distant relative.
That's rich, coming from a creationist!Get a grip on reality.
True, everything above "species" is rather arbitrary. "Kinds," on the other hand, should not be. They should be obvious, since they were all recently created separately. Why do creationists have such a hard time coming up with a inclusive list of all "kinds," do you think?Kingdom is no more than a name game, as is species, family, phylum. All name games.
Are Mammals a "kind" then? Are primates a "kind?" Why not?Cats have always been feline as far back as you can trace them, nothing more than changes of appearance just like we have caused in a few generations. Yet they are not new kinds, they are still feline and always will be. Fish are their own kind, not a distant relative. Apes are their own kind, not a distant relative. Virus are their own kind, not a distant relative.
No, bacteria is a kind, for crying out loud.
That is why they may live inside us in a symbiotic relationship, or even kill us, because they are their own kind, not a far distant relative.
Kingdom is no more than a name game, as is species, family, phylum. All name games. Cats have always been feline . . .
Yet they are not new kinds, they are still feline and always will be. Fish are their own kind, not a distant relative. Apes are their own kind, not a distant relative. Virus are their own kind, not a distant relative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?