OK, but are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same cat "kind"?
They cannot interbreed at all.
But they are both feline. They have both arised from the same common ancestor. But if we go back to the premeval world, evolutionists want us to believe that the millipeed that existed billions of yrs ago eventually turned into the felines we now see today. So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurateerrors & mutations occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. Evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection.
Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwins ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendels conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the ToE. Genetics of animal kinds are, shuffling of the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendels great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
This defuncts a major part of the ToE because they claim that in the premeval pasts millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers
So, what are the rules for all of the millions and millions of species on the planet WRT what "kind" they are? How many "kinds" are there, IOW, and what system is used to determine if they go into a huge "kind" grouping (plants) or a tiny "kind" grouping (humans)?
The original dog/wolf canine 'kind' cannot be taught that it evolved from something else. Because the genes in the genetics are not there to create a canine. A millpeed cannot eventually turn into a canine, no matter how many billions of yrs go by, and no matter how often it changes environments.
There is an information-losing process occururing in sexually reproducing organisms, each organism inherits only half the information carried by each parent. For example, a human couple with only one child, where the mother had the AB blood group and the father had the O blood group. So the child would have either AO or BO, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the childs genetic information. Thus, the child could not have the AB blood group, but would have either the A or the B blood group respectively.
This sort of down-hill mutations and variation, is what we see in the present. However, one cannot go back to the premeval past and say that millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers through chance and natural selection. Loss of information through mutations occur, loss of information in the genes through mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. They then turn into a group of seperated inter-breeding groups. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed. But not the type of change that evolution needs for its theory of diversity. The bird is still in the 'bird' kind. And if it kept changing color and habitat. It would not turn into a reptile, or a fish. Thats what we observe in the present, likewise evolutionists believe the present is the key to the past.
So a poodle, can interbreed with a pitbull, yet 2 pitbulls cannot give birth to a poodle, or german shepeard. Because the information loss, and mutation, and variation has not occured here. Srawman arguments against evolution are things like, so there was poodles in the garden of eden, and every other type of dog kind. But we dont need poodles in the garden of eden, or on Noahs ark. All we need are 2 canine kinds which we now can make sense of the variation of dog/wolf kinds in the present.
In the journal Science, 22 November 2002, secular scientists reaffirmed something that has been well known and accepted. All dogs from wolves and dingoes down (the word ‘down’ is important as you will see) to poodles are all closely related. From a biblical perspective, this means they are all within the same kind (one of the kinds that God created to reproduce ‘after their own kind’ as we read 10 times in Genesis 1. But evolution has a problem with how did all these closely related 'kinds' come from. They can breed within there own genetics, but they cannot interbreed with different kinds. So animals are then placed in a time-line, and that over billions of yrs, they DID turn into each other millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. << None of this occurs in the present. All kinds stay constant. Just how scientific observations tells us. Evolutionists and materialistic'humanistic believers cannot and will not let go of this theory. The ToE is not supported by science, natural selection, Mendel and what we observe in the present. It is simply a philosophy/religion dressed up as science.
But where is the dividing line between creation and evolution in any of the progressions you mentioned?
Start with equus, and work your way backwards. Where does creation kick in?
The diversity of species in for example dogs, cats and horses, has arisen because of their already-existing genetic information, acted upon by natural selection and mutations.
In a sense, if one were to start with wolves, and breed generations of dogs, breeding the right combinations together with all the same sorts of mutations occurring all over again in the right sequence etc. Then one could breed a dog with poodle characteristics. But, one could never breed a wolf from a poodle because the necessary information for wolves has been corrupted or deleted. From the equine 'kind', we can make sense of all the hybrid off-shoots of this 'horse' kind. We see donkeys, zebras, zeedonks etc. And evolutionists agree they are all closely related, can interbreed. And cannot interbreed with a feline. Or a human. So the creation kicks in when we go right back to the beginning. The animals with the genetic information of a horse. We dont go back to a millpeed and so well from there and on evolution picked up and soon we had horse. We can only go back to the original created kind. There have all stayed constant with the same genetic systems, these kinds. Therefore in Genesis we read God created kinds, to reproduce after there kind. This connected with the real world of natural selection makes perfect sense. But evolutionists biasness against the supernatural blinds them to the facts of reality. And which evidence fit which models.
quote:
millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers
^ Like ive written already before here we see kinds. Reptiles, birds, insects, homosapiens, apes. Yet there is no mechanism that can keep adding information and change to one day after millions of yrs all these animals could make each other. This is what ardent evolutionists who trust in natural selection for there theory need to realise. That quote above cannot happen, due to scientific fact. If God does exist, and he made this world, then we creationists can explain how so many different kinds are here, and constant and can interbreed with each other, but cannot give arise to a complete different kind. Like a horse giving rise to a bird. Or a fish-to-ampibian.
Gee, why do scientists call the melding of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology "The Modern Synthesis", then?
Why do they use that term, Almeyda?
The genes from offspring are passed down from parent to offspring due to precise mathematical ratios, they do not arise from chance, random processes in what Darwins called blending inheritance (or something like that). I have no idea why they use those terms, evolutionists do alot of things.
Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, have you done the exercise yet?
No i havent. But the animal kingdom do. Equines giving rise to only equine-related species. Birds with birds, reptiles with reptiles. To use the logic of evolution, seeing how humans are just another biological product of evolution. Humans could somehow give rise to something other than a human. But this is not possible because when we give offspring, the offspring takes its genes half of the father, and half of the mother. It does not then get a quarter of a bird beucase he lived in a certain climate, and so on. Nothing evolves as evolution claims, they only reproduce according to natural selection and information (genetics) already present in its genes.
quote:
You lifted the next several paragraphs from an article at AIG, except you edited it slightly to remove some of the more flowery language in the hopes that we would think you wrote it. Not only is this very much in violation of the forum guidelines, it is realy sleazy and utterly lazy on your part.
Ive already mentioned that i am retiring from the scientific boards and only debating philosophy and the Bible.
Also, genetically, my housecat and a Bengal tiger are much, much more different than a human and a Chimpanzee, but you put the two cats into the same "kind" and separate the human and the Chimp into separate "kinds"?
There not as seperated as you think. Ask any scientist and he will tell you that tigers and house cats are both feline, and closely related. From a strong ancestor like a tiger, one can make a cat through variation. But not the other way around.
What role does genetics play in determining what "kind" a creature is?
The genes of the parents decide what the offspring is to be. This is what evolutionists cant control. They want parents to be able to give offspring information that isnt in there own genes. Like the single-celled premeval pond, giving rise to a breathing mechanism, or blood, eyes, etc. Just examples. But this cannot happen because the information of a lung, or wings is not in its genes. So like i said before, genes are passed down to parent to offspring through precise mathematical ratios. Thats why humans only give rise to humans. Because of our genetics.
Does the Bible list "mammals" somewhere?
In Genesis 1:24-25. We see the seperate kinds are created. And they are told to reproduce after their kind. This is where the off-shoots, hybrids, mutations and variations have come from. Evolution cannot explain logically how they have all arisen from nowhere. And how one single-speck could eventually turn into everything.
But my housecat and a Bengal tiger cannot interbreed. Why are they considered the same "kind"?
Because they are both feline. A poodle and a pitbull are both canine. Dinasours and crocodiles are reptiles. Crows and canaries are both birds. All these are kinds from the animal kingdom. That have arised from each other, they cannot arise from a single common ancestor. Because the genes are not there to make one another.
Please go to TalkOrigins or another science-based site and look at explanations of the ToE and cut n paste the parts about cats interbreeding with dogs back here.
I did go a evolution site to get the following, and there was many many more animals in the timeline that were said to evolve from one speck. Millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. This is the processes evolutionists think natural selection and mutations can account for.
Why is this not to be considered a transitional between a dinosaur and a bird, since it has characteristics of each?
I may be wrong, but i remember reading that archie isnt the oldest bird they know of. If that is the case, archie cannot account from the first transition into a bird from a reptile. Theres plenty of other evidence against that bird, even admissions from evolutionists themselves.
™ Version 4.2
