From land animal to ocean-dweller

[lasthero]

I fail to see your point...

That definition is a more expanded definition of the simple one liner I gave you.

How? It's completely incompatible with your definition.

You say kinds are defined by reproduction, they say reproduction doesn't factor into. Cheetahs can't reproduce with house cats, yet AIG still lists them as the same kind.

 

[-57]

How? It's completely incompatible with your definition.

You say kinds are defined by reproduction, they say reproduction doesn't factor into. Cheetahs can't reproduce with house cats, yet AIG still lists them as the same kind.

You don't seem to understand speciation.

Secondly, perhaps I should have said it better..we can know they are the same kind if the can breed together. Lions and tigers are because they have shown they can breed together.

 

[lasthero]

You don't seem to understand speciation.

I do.

Secondly, perhaps I should have said it better..we can know they are the same kind if the can breed together. Lions and tigers are because they have shown they can breed together.

But cheetahs and house cats can't breed together, yet AIG lists them as the same kind. So are they wrong?

 

[-57]

I do.



But cheetahs and house cats can't breed together, yet AIG lists them as the same kind. So are they wrong?

Why is there a need for them to be wrong?

 

[lasthero]

Why is there a need for them to be wrong?

I didn't say there was.

I'm just trying to figure out what a kind is, and their definition is incompatible with yours.

 

[-57]

I didn't say there was.

I'm just trying to figure out what a kind is, and their definition is incompatible with yours.

The term "kind" has been explained to you in several different ways...now, if you for some reason feel the need to not recognize the term...then so be it. Stay ignorant of the term.

 

[lasthero]

The term "kind" has been explained to you in several different ways...now, if you for some reason feel the need to not recognize the term...then so be it. Stay ignorant of the term.

Exactly - several different ways, which don't match up with each other.

You say that kinds are determined by compatibility with breeding.

AIG says that breeding doesn't factor into kinds

Either breeding is involved with making kinds or its not. It can't simultaneously have something to do with breeding and have nothing to do with breeding.

Simple question: if you have two animals, how do you determine if they're the same kind?

 

[-57]

Exactly - several different ways, which don't match up with each other.

You say that kinds are determined by compatibility with breeding.

AIG says that breeding doesn't factor into kinds

Either breeding is involved with making kinds or its not. It can't simultaneously have something to do with breeding and have nothing to do with breeding.

Simple question: if you have two animals, how do you determine if they're the same kind?

That answer was already provided...if they can mate together. This would show us they were offspring of the original kind.
The lion and tiger have mated and produced offspring...which tells us for sure they are of the same kind. There may become a point inwhich they don't/can't breed..which doesn't mean they are not offspring on the original ark kind.

 

[lasthero]

That answer was already provided...if they can mate together. This would show us they were offspring of the original kind.

The lion and tiger have mated and produced offspring...which tells us for sure they are of the same kind. [/quote]

But a lion and a cheetah can't mate with each other? Are they the same kind?

There may become a point inwhich they don't/can't breed..which doesn't mean they are not offspring on the original ark kind.

Okay, so let me see if I grasp what you're saying here.

If two animals can breed, they're the same kind.

However, even if they can't breed, they might still be the same kind.

So it doesn't actually matter if two animals can breed or not, they can still be the same kind.

Breeding isn't a prerequisite of being the same kind. So if breeding isn't a prerequisite, what is? Are cheetahs the same kind as housecats, even though they can't breed? If so, why? If not, why?

 

[-57]

The lion and tiger have mated and produced offspring...which tells us for sure they are of the same kind.

But a lion and a cheetah can't mate with each other? Are they the same kind?




Okay, so let me see if I grasp what you're saying here.

If two animals can breed, they're the same kind.

However, even if they can't breed, they might still be the same kind.

So it doesn't actually matter if two animals can breed or not, they can still be the same kind.

Breeding isn't a prerequisite of being the same kind. So if breeding isn't a prerequisite, what is? Are cheetahs the same kind as housecats, even though they can't breed? If so, why? If not, why?[/QUOTE]

There may not be enough information to determine if cheetahs and house cats are the same kind. If they could breed with each other...or show a common "cat" that each could breed with they would then seem to be of the same kind.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There may not be enough information to determine if cheetahs and house cats are the same kind. If they could breed with each other...or show a common "cat" that each could breed with they would then seem to be of the same kind.

The mental gymnastics you are doing to avoid answering the question are astonishing. This is why real scientists don't use the term 'kind'.

Are cheetahs and house cats the same 'kind'? Yes or no?

What we do know is that they fall into a nested hierarchy, exactly what evolution predicts.
Here is the phylogenetic tree:

 

[-57]

The mental gymnastics you are doing to avoid answering the question are astonishing. This is why real scientists don't use the term 'kind'.

Are cheetahs and house cats the same 'kind'? Yes or no?

What we do know is that they fall into a nested hierarchy, exactly what evolution predicts.
Here is the phylogenetic tree:

You're assuming the tree is correct..when in actuality it is a guess.
Secondly, nested hierarchy don't effect special creation.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You're assuming the tree is correct..when in actuality it is a guess.

Ummm no. It's what we observe. You are denying observable and verifiable facts.

Secondly, nested hierarchy don't effect special creation.

'special creation' doesn't have any explanatory power and doesn't make predictions. Evolution does....which is why it is one of the strongest theories in all of science. There is overwhelming evidence. The facts don't care what you believe. And you still haven't answered the question about 'kinds'.

 

[Jimmy D]

Whilst it might seem fruitless debating these points with the likes of -57 who can never admit when he's wrong, at the very least it might encourage those with a more inquiring mind to look into these topics.

 

[lasthero]

There may not be enough information to determine if cheetahs and house cats are the same kind.

AIG disagrees. They say they're the same kind.

If they could breed with each other...or show a common "cat" that each could breed with they would then seem to be of the same kind.

What common 'cat' would that be? Keep in mind, we have ample evidence that many different cats have been around since at least humans came along. Even if you don't accept dating techniques, cats of all different shapes and sizes are depicted in ancient art. The Eygptians in particular worshipped cats, and depict housecats, panthers, cheetahs and lions, and you can find cave paintings that depict extinct cats like the sabre-tooth tiger (which wasn't actually a tiger) And that's not even getting into hyenas, which ARE genetically close to cats, even though they superficially resemble dogs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you saying there is no scientific definition of "kinds"?

Are you saying that you can't produce one?

How do you determine if two fossils are from the same kind?

How do you determine which genetic markers should not be shared between kinds?

How are kinds testable?

 

[Loudmouth]

There may not be enough information to determine if cheetahs and house cats are the same kind. If they could breed with each other...or show a common "cat" that each could breed with they would then seem to be of the same kind.

If that common cat went extinct, would they now be different kinds? Or does the ability to reproduce have nothing to do with determining if two species belong to the same kind?

Also, I don't understand why fertility would have anything to do with it. If two species share a common ancestor, what is stopping a lack of fertility between the species over time? You can't seem to present a mechanism that would stop the accumulation of mutations and recombination events that would necessarily produce infertility at some point.

 

[sfs]

If that common cat went extinct, would they now be different kinds? Or does the ability to reproduce have nothing to do with determining if two species belong to the same kind?

Also, I don't understand why fertility would have anything to do with it. If two species share a common ancestor, what is stopping a lack of fertility between the species over time? You can't seem to present a mechanism that would stop the accumulation of mutations and recombination events that would necessarily produce infertility at some point.

Alternatively, why shouldn't two different kinds be able to interbreed successfully?

 

[Loudmouth]

Alternatively, why shouldn't two different kinds be able to interbreed successfully?

Good question.

Ostensibly, God could create two species separately, but create them so that they could interbreed. God created Adam and Eve separately, and they were able to interbreed. Of course, when you are talking about an omnipotent being most outcomes are on the table, but it is still worth pointing out.

 

[Larniavc]

and destroy the faith of Christians,

Only for people who's faith is very fragile.