Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

Your defining things out of meaning.
I mean the word dog is the word the world uses for a kind of creature and otherwise I don't understand your point.
Rob

That's idiotic. As this is a discussion of macro and micro evolution, at issue here is what it would take for the offspring of a dog to not be a dog itself.Well, to determine that, we have to know what "dogness" is. We have to know how you determined that "a dog is a dog." We have to know why you're so comfortable asserting that no organism decended from the dog "kind" could ever be anything but a dog. Oh. So, a dog is a dog, unless it's a bear?Look, RB, if you're just going to play fast and loose with definitions of words, why even bother having the discussion? So, just so we're clear on your position, you believe that the K/T boundary represents the recent boundary of flood sediments? So you say, but then, you're the one who can't seem to tell the difference between a bear and a dog.

And you don't think an animal decended from dogs could be so different that we couldn't call it a dog?You don't think that would happen under any circumstances?

Yes the k/t boundary is the flood event.
Perhaps you make a good point here about what qualifys as doginess in order to determine when offspring are no longer a dog.
Since the creature is unknown its difficult to answer this. And basic looks don't tell the tale.
Since the fall changed all creatures in thier looks and yet kept them in kind it is a problem. However since it has been a short time the changes would only be and only could be limited.
A dog not being a kangaroo is a difference beyond time supplied so we can draw such conclusion it is a different kind.
However macro/micro to a creationist is the big differences and indeed the line vague.
Rob

As I said I suspect bears and dogs are the same kind and they are similiar on inspection so how can I answer your question.
So the word dog isn't good to talk about macro/micro.
Rob

So, in other words, you don't know what dogs are, but you'd know one if you saw one?Can you imagine now why we don't bother to pay attention when Creationists open their mouths about species classification? they steadfastly refuse to get serious about it. How long is too long? How much can species change?Remember that your model predicts roughly (oh, what was it?) some million new species every year, to go from the 80,000 species on the Ark to the between 8 and 80 billion species there are today. That's quite a bit of species change. And you think dog to kangaroo (or, more acurately, mammal ancestor to both dog and kangaroo) is too much change? Why? The line is vague because there is no line. There's no fundamental difference between macroevolutionary change and microevolutionary change. It's like trying to find the line between near and far.

quote:

---

Yes the k/t boundary is the flood event.

---

Ah, so we finally get someone to make identify the flood in the geologic record. So, are you saying that the k/t boundar marks the end of the global flood? If so, why are no modern forms of animals, like humans, found in the flood layers?And, how thick are the post-flood layers? Could geologic strata of the thickness and types composing the Cenozooic have formed in only 4000 years or so?Edited to add:
And where does the flood deposits begin? Does your proposed flood layer include strata that were obviously formed in desert conditions? Does it include meandering river deposits that take a long time to develop? Does it include undisturbed animal tracks and burrows in the middle? How do you account for these?If the flood layer is chosen to avoid these problematic features, how thick are the pre-flood layers that are obviously of sedimentary origin? Could they have been formed in only 2000 years?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 09-19-2004 10:54 AM

quote:

---

Your defining things out of meaning.
I mean the word dog is the word the world uses for a kind of creature and otherwise I don't understand your point.
Rob

---

The world also uses the word "vertebrate" for a group of creatures as well. The world uses "animal" for a group of organisms as well. The world uses "dalmation" and "st. bernards" for a group of animals as well. At what level (ie "dalmation", "dog", "vertebrate", "animal") should we stop at when deciding what the created kinds are, and why?

So are humans and chimps/bonobos the same "kind"? We look similar and share 97% of our DNA, which has to be more than what the dog and the bear share.edited to add: The Ursidae (Bears) split from the Canidae (Doggies) 16-23 mya (http://www.dossu.org/dogs.html). The Human/Chimp Split is generally put at 5-7 mya (NCBI). So cleary humans are more closely related to chimps than dogs are to bears. Therefore if dogs and bears are the same "kind", humans and chimps must be within the same "kind".This message has been edited by DrJones*, 09-21-2004 12:42 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

We don't look similiar to apes.
Also I'm not sure about this but I believe the DNA of all animals is quite close to ours. The 97% should not be confusing the picture that it is greatly higher then with a rabbit. Again I can't quote.
Also this DNA thing is not proof of origin or connection only that like form will have like DNA. One blueprint.
Rob

Creationists don't know what the original kind is. Only that it can't be too off the mark of the present kinds. The need of kind to be similiar and time problems.
Rob

The length of time is short and change within creatures thus is short.
As to how much a species can change is evidenced by what has happened.
Snakes with poison and not is a change (as only one kind came off the ark)but into koala is clearly unnessesary.Your thing about all kinds today from the Ark makes my point. They change alittle all at once and no great time is needed. I see species change as fast (generations) in coming into new niches and fossil evidence will not deny this.
Rob

quote:

---

Creationists don't know what the original kind is. Only that it can't be too off the mark of the present kinds. The need of kind to be similiar and time problems.

---

So what are the present kinds? Do you mean "species" or "families" of organisms? If they can't be too far off then we shouldn't find fossils that are intermediate between the two, correct? If those sort of changes can happen in a short amount of time, what stops these small changes from accumulating over time until the groups are completely different? Doesn't your argument of no macro through micro rest on a young earth?

This is off thread and been dealt with before for sure. I'm fine with the subject again but not here
Rob

quote:

---

Also this DNA thing is not proof of origin or connection only that like form will have like DNA. One blueprint.

---

This is false. The tasmanian wolf and the north american wolf look very similar yet their DNA is quite different. I could dig up some other examples if you like.