Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.

You do the exercise: What would the nearest relatives of the flying pig be? What transitional fossils of mammals with six appendages would you expect to find?

Here is what you said:"The rationale for arranging them in that order is to make it look like the general theory of evolution is true"That seems like a tacit admission that those fossils look transitional. Is that not the case? If they don't look transitional, then what are you complaining about?

And, of course, there are transitional cat and dog fossils. Even Dredge is likely to have heard of some of them if only from watching the Ice Age movies.

No, it could not. And guess what? There are no flying pigs.Why does this thread exist again?

If a flying mammal (a bat) can be fitted into a nested hierarchy, then another flying mammal - a pig - surely can. All you need to do is invent another branch on the tree - as you could do for any "new" creature (whether living or fossilized). We didn't didn't know there were mammals that grew wings out their ribs, but now we do, so, we just add a branch to the base of the mammal branch.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Dragons are described in the Bible, so they existed. When one of their fossils is discovered, evolutionists will have to fit it somehow into their mythical Tree of Life.-----------------
A pig with four legs and two wings on its back, of course - have you never seen one?

But they may have existed in the past. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Nonsense! That's just one more instance where the bible is wrong.Dragons are described (in far better detail) in The Hobbit, and that work makes far more interesting reading.

That isn't how it works. You can't just "invent" a branch. By definition, a branch has to be connected to something. Where would you connect the flying pig? You can't just connect it to the other pigs because the other pigs only have four legs. What branch has four-legged animals with wings? Bats didn't grow wings out of their ribs. Have you read the thread at all? Their forelimbs adapted into wings while our forelimbs adapted into arms with grasping hands, whales' forelimbs adapted into swimming fins and pigs' forelimbs adapted into legs for walking on all fours. They're all the same forelimbs adapted to different environments.

The feathers would be a clear violation of the nested hierarchy.

As shown to you in Message 126 the bat wing is an adapted front limb, with homologous bones from shoulder to finger tip with other mammals, and that they are also homologous with tetrapods like birds - which have also adapted front limbs to form wings: The homologous bones are shown in different colors so that even school children can see their similarities.Building nested hierarchies is done using homologies, not imagination, and that is why they can be repeated with the same results from scratch. Curiously, I am aware of 'flying' squirrels and 'flying' lemurs and 'flying' marsupials ... all of which use adaptation of skin to form gliding surfaces (and which all fit neatly into nested hierarchies in different places due to their homologies of bones and other features -- again consistently are repeatably), ...... but I am not aware of any flying pigs: can you provide any evidence that such a creature existed? And where are the homologies on the tree that such a branch would plug into? What is the evidence that could be used to place this flying pig into relation with ancestral forms?Show me the evidence of a flying pig and then we can discuss it.Can you tell me how an element of an unknown atomic weight, unknown numbers of electrons and protons would fit in the periodic table?The nested hierarchies are built based on the structures within different species that are homologous or derived.The elements in the periodic table are placed in their locations based on the structures of the atoms.Without even a hint of the structure of this flying pig, how could one begin to place it? How do you even know it is a pig?Science deals with evidence, so provide the evidence.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Sure, we can just group your flying pigs with the crocoduck. However, that "branch" would be stuck out all on its own with no connection to the "Tree of Life". That is because of their common characteristic of being something really stupid that had sprung forth fully formed from a creationist's ignorant imagination. Except no such critter exists. Nor do we know of any mammals who "grew wings out their ribs". Your ignorant musings are completely divorced from reality and from common sense.

But if there were such critters the evidence would show the wings were modified ribs, which fits right in with everything we have ever learned. Evolution is a series of modifications and re-purposing pieces parts that already exist. Birds wings are modified limbs. Whale flippers are modified limbs. The inner ear bones are modified jaw parts.All life begins as a single cell.The issue is creationists are so ignorant that they have no idea of what the process of evolution explained by the Theory of Evolution shows and says.And they want to stay ignorant.

This webpage tries to answer the question, "What does the Bible say about dragons?"

quote:

---

Answer: The Bible mentions a dragon in Revelation chapters 12, 13, 16, and 20. Revelation 20:2 identifies the dragon: He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. The Bible is not teaching that dragons ever truly existed. Rather, it is only comparing Satan to a fire-breathing monster.

---

For some reason this answer fails to mention that Revelation 12:9 also says that the dragon is Satan:

quote:

---

The great dragon was hurled downthat ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.

---

You continue: When the fossil of a dragon or minotaur or griffin or crocoduck is discovered then it will throw a major monkey wrench into the theory of evolution. Just finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would do the same.--Percy

So you are saying that you will have an argument when pigs can fly? Yeah, I agree.