Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[Autodidact]

last but not least- HOW WOULD THEY REPOPULATE THE EARTH!

Those wombats--swimming to Australia.

 

[newhope101]

Hi Skwim..I’ve been wondering about this term ‘species’ recently and looked up what it is meant to mean. I was particularly interested in the branching of the “Homo” line. Homo in latin means human. I see Homo habilis has been reclassified into "Australopithecus habilis". Habilis lived side by side with Homo Eragaster. It appears scientists believe Eragaster is our ancestor. Eragaster had control of fire, was the first homonid to use a human voice. Below is the major evidence for Eragaster:

KNM ER 992 is a fossilized lower jaw from the species Homo ergaster. It was discovered in Koobi Fora, Kenya in 1971. It is estimated to be 1.5 million years old…and..
KNM ER 3733 is a fossilizedhominid cranium of the extinct hominid Homo ergaster (or erectus) It was discovered in Koobi Fora, Kenya by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975.[1]

Many of the Homo subspecies are ‘evidenced’ from a few bones. Hence all the controversy re whom came from who. A world of ‘perhaps’ and ‘maybe‘….makes for great science.

It appears to me that the “Homo” subspecies of Homo eragater, homo erectus, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo sapiens, are all just humans with adaptive differences such as we see in the world today.

I wonder if the earth suffered a total extinction event and life evolved again what would future intelligent life make of what they would dig up re the world today. They’d find Africans, caucations, pygmies, dwarfs, Asians, gorillas, apes. They’d find really tall guys with huge heads and little guys with small heads. Body builders and weaklings, and of course those with all sorts of disabilities. I wonder what they would make of it all, particularly if they could not DNA our bones.

Fortunately science has been able to go back 25,000 years and DNA sequence the Neanderthal. It appears Neanderthal were human, and no more different to modern humans than we are to each other today. They mated with ‘humans’ from Africa, therefore achieving the common understanding of ‘species’, in that same species can mate successfully. Unfortunately science is unable to get DNA from older bones.

I suspect the whole ‘species’ and ‘subspecies’ thing are concepts that have been developed to fit ToE in with the few bones that have been found. Then scientists use this variation as evidence of species progression. This is the only way science can build a case for evolving from apes.

I’d say that “kind” refers to “Homo”, all human…just different…like we are today. Each race very different from one another and each individual within each race quite different from each other also.
____________________________________________________________________
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.

Species is one of several ranks in the hierarchical system of scientific classification. These are called taxonomic ranks, and the system of classification includes, in addition to species the ranks of genus and family and others all the way up to kingdom. Usually the rank of species is the basal rank, meaning that in the system of scientific classification species is the bottommost rank that includes no other ranks. However sometimes when one species, that is already named and described, is found to actually include two slightly different kinds of organisms, it is necessary to use the rank of subspecies.

 

[Skwim]

It appears to me that the “Homo” subspecies of Homo eragater, homo erectus, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo sapiens, are all just humans with adaptive differences such as we see in the world today.

Because we are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens, the message is that humans today are taxonomically different from the other hominid species you cite. However, the other Homo sapiens subspecies e.g. H. s. idaltu, and H. s. neanderthalensis (sometimes considered a distinct species), which are both extinct forms, are thought to have coexisted with H. s. sapiens.

I suspect the whole ‘species’ and ‘subspecies’ thing are concepts that have been developed to fit ToE in with the few bones that have been found. Then scientists use this variation as evidence of species progression. This is the only way science can build a case for evolving from apes.

It isn't that science is looking to "build a case for evolving from apes," but it's where the evidence points. Unlike many pseudosciences, such as creationism/intelligent design, science doesn't start with conclusions and then pick and choose evidence that supports it. As for "the whole ‘species’ and ‘subspecies’ thing," these taxonomic ranks were established long before hominid classification was developed. In the beginning it simply assigned humans to Homo Sapiens.

 

[painted wolf]

It appears to me that the “Homo” subspecies of Homo eragater, homo erectus, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo sapiens, are all just humans with adaptive differences such as we see in the world today.

So, someone with a brain almost half our size is just a "differently adapted" human? You have a very interesting definition of human.

Fortunately science has been able to go back 25,000 years and DNA sequence the Neanderthal. It appears Neanderthal were human, and no more different to modern humans than we are to each other today.

This is incorrect. You seem to enjoy repeating this mistake...

They mated with ‘humans’ from Africa, therefore achieving the common understanding of ‘species’, in that same species can mate successfully.

This is patently false.

Unfortunately science is unable to get DNA from older bones.

So far...

I suspect the whole ‘species’ and ‘subspecies’ thing are concepts that have been developed to fit ToE in with the few bones that have been found. Then scientists use this variation as evidence of species progression. This is the only way science can build a case for evolving from apes.

This is also false. Subspecies are based on DNA and almost never used for fossils.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Many of the Homo subspecies are ‘evidenced’ from a few bones. Hence all the controversy re whom came from who. A world of ‘perhaps’ and ‘maybe‘….makes for great science.

Yes, when a scientist is uncertain, she says so.

Fortunately science has been able to go back 25,000 years and DNA sequence the Neanderthal. It appears Neanderthal were human, and no more different to modern humans than we are to each other today. They mated with ‘humans’ from Africa, therefore achieving the common understanding of ‘species’, in that same species can mate successfully. Unfortunately science is unable to get DNA from older bones.

You keep repeating this mistake after you've been corrected. Why?

I suspect the whole ‘species’ and ‘subspecies’ thing are concepts that have been developed to fit ToE in with the few bones that have been found. Then scientists use this variation as evidence of species progression. This is the only way science can build a case for evolving from apes.

You suspect wrong. Species is a core concept in Biology, that was developed to help Biologists understand organisms.

 

[newhope101]

Quote:Fortunately science has been able to go back 25,000 years and DNA sequence the Neanderthal. It appears Neanderthal were human, and no more different to modern humans than we are to each other today. They mated with ‘humans’ from Africa, therefore achieving the common understanding of ‘species’, in that same species can mate successfully. Unfortunately science is unable to get DNA from older bones.
Fortunately science has been able to go back 25,000 years and DNA sequence the Neanderthal. It appears Neanderthal were human, and no more different to modern humans than we are to each other today.
Paintedwolf response: This is incorrect. You seem to enjoy repeating this mistake...
___________________________________________________________________
Maybe I keep repeating the mistake because so many science mags and journals speak to it. I'm not sure what part of my statement you are disagreeing with. Surely you do not disagree with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. If I can't quote from these sort of credentials against yours I really do give up!

Here's just one extract below..google 'neanderthal genome project' and there are dozens of references to this research. The site you recommended on another thread does not reflect this information.

ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) — After extracting ancient DNA from the 40,000-year-old bones of Neanderthals, scientists have obtained a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome, yielding important new insights into the evolution of modern humans.
Among the findings, published in the May 7 issue of Science, is evidence that shortly after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, some of them interbred with Neanderthals, leaving bits of Neanderthal DNA sequences scattered through the genomes of present-day non-Africans.
"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," said the paper's first author, Richard E. (Ed) Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Green, now an assistant professor of biomolecular engineering in the Baskin School of Engineering at UC Santa Cruz, began working on the Neanderthal genome as a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Svante Pääbo, director of the institute's genetics department, leads the Neanderthal Genome Project, which involves an international consortium of researchers.

 

[Amill]

I suspect the whole ‘species’ and ‘subspecies’ thing are concepts that have been developed to fit ToE in with the few bones that have been found. Then scientists use this variation as evidence of species progression. This is the only way science can build a case for evolving from apes.

Define what an ape is, and explain how homo sapiens don't fit.
I suggest you watch AronRa, he's quite intelligent and a good speaker.
[youtube]4A-dMqEbSk8[/youtube]
YouTube - Turns out we DID come from monkeys!
[youtube]5MXTBGcyNuc[/youtube]
YouTube - 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Maybe I keep repeating the mistake because so many science mags and journals speak to it. I'm not sure what part of my statement you are disagreeing with. Surely you do not disagree with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. If I can't quote from these sort of credentials against yours I really do give up!

What science magazines are you reading that say this:

It appears to me that the “Homo” subspecies of Homo eragater, homo erectus, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo sapiens, are all just humans with adaptive differences such as we see in the world today.

Fortunately science has been able to go back 25,000 years and DNA sequence the Neanderthal. It appears Neanderthal were human, and no more different to modern humans than we are to each other today.

 

[staffi01]

I'm sure, by adopting creationist logic, we could put together a good argument for all primates occupying one of their "Baromin/Kind" groups.

So primates are one "kind".....there has been variation within the primate "kind".......Humans are primates.........Chimps are primates........Humans and Chimps are variations within the primate "kind"..........Humans and Chimps have a common ancestor.

Any creationist like to argue against this? Bearing in mind that, in order to do so, you are going to have to clearly define what a "kind" is and show evidence as to why humans and chimps wouldn't belong to the same "kind".

 

[David M]

___________________________________________________________________
Maybe I keep repeating the mistake because so many science mags and journals speak to it. I'm not sure what part of my statement you are disagreeing with. Surely you do not disagree with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. If I can't quote from these sort of credentials against yours I really do give up.

Really? Shall we take a look at what the Max Planck Institute actually says in that 2010 paper published in Science.

Available from here: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology - The Neandertal Genome Project

Neandertals are the sister group of all presentday humans. Thus, comparisons of the human genome to the genomes of Neandertals and apes allow features that set fully anatomically modern humans apart from other hominin forms to be identified. In particular, a Neandertal genome sequence provides a catalog of changes that have become fixed or have risen to high frequency in modern humans during the last few hundred thousand years and should be informative for identifying genes affected by positive selection since humans diverged from Neandertals.

The only part of the genome that has been examined from multiple Neandertals, the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome, consistently falls outside the variation found in present-day humans and thus provides no evidence for interbreeding.

I do agree with what the Max Planck Institute is saying because what they are saying, if you actually read what they publish, is that Neandertals were not humans and there is greater variation between us and Neandertals as between human populations.

 

[painted wolf]

Maybe I keep repeating the mistake because so many science mags and journals speak to it.

No... more likely you are skimming and then misquoting.

I'm not sure what part of my statement you are disagreeing with. Surely you do not disagree with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. If I can't quote from these sort of credentials against yours I really do give up!

I don't disagree with the Max Planck Institute... I've actually read what they have to say.

Here's just one extract below..google 'neanderthal genome project' and there are dozens of references to this research. The site you recommended on another thread does not reflect this information.

Yes, it does actually... you just have to read it rather than skim it.

ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) — After extracting ancient DNA from the 40,000-year-old bones of Neanderthals, scientists have obtained a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome, yielding important new insights into the evolution of modern humans.
Among the findings, published in the May 7 issue of Science, is evidence that shortly after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, some of them interbred with Neanderthals, leaving bits of Neanderthal DNA sequences scattered through the genomes of present-day non-Africans.
"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," said the paper's first author, Richard E. (Ed) Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Green, now an assistant professor of biomolecular engineering in the Baskin School of Engineering at UC Santa Cruz, began working on the Neanderthal genome as a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Svante Pääbo, director of the institute's genetics department, leads the Neanderthal Genome Project, which involves an international consortium of researchers.

NON-Africans.... That means Eurasians... From Ireland to Japan and so on... Not Modern Africans.

If you bother to read further... Some things you obviously missed in the rush to make your conclusion from the same article: Neanderthal genome yields insights into human evolution and evidence of interbreeding with modern humans

The draft Neanderthal sequence is probably riddled with errors, Green said, but having the human and chimpanzee genomes for comparison makes it extremely useful despite its limitations.

This is not a definitive finding and will need more reserch to confirm

By analyzing the Neanderthal genome and genomes of present-day humans, Green and his colleagues estimated that the ancestral populations of Neanderthals and modern humans separated between 270,000 and 440,000 years ago.

Humans and Neanderthals are not the same species... but very very closely related sister species. Like Coyotes and Wolves or Polar and Grizzly Bears.

wa:do

 

[evolved yet?]

It appears to me that the “Homo” subspecies of Homo eragater, homo erectus, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo sapiens, are all just humans with adaptive differences such as we see in the world today.

Really?
http://elucy.org/compant.html

 

[painted wolf]

Ah... adaptive differences we see today.... such as?

Show me a modern human with a healthy adult brain size less than 800cc...
Show me a modern human with a funnel shaped ribcage...
Show me a healthy modern human with any of the major skeletal features of a pre-human hominid.

What is the adaptive advantage of a brain smaller than 1000cc?
If these features are just adaptive variations on the "normal human" why don't we see them today?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf"What is the adaptive advantage of a brain smaller than 1000cc?
If these features are just adaptive variations on the "normal human" why don't we see them today?
I'm not the scientists that put florensiensis right above sapiens with their tiny brain. I am not the scientist that placed other species, like neanderthalis, with 15% larger brains that modern day humans, as having evolved prior to florensiensis. What size brain do modern pygmies have? How was this explained?...oh I remember 'island dwarfing'..that explanation doesn't explain a tiny chimp brain right above sapiens...yet florensiensis made fires. Have we taught a chimp to do this yet?

Re the max planck research..I thought separate species could not always successfully mate. As different as neanderthal were they mated with another species. Modern humans have been found in Australia 60,000 years ago, Mungo man, the time this mating was occurring. I think the differences in morphology do not necessarily mean much about the human species...it highlights adaptation rather than species change. Besides what is pre human? Is someone suggesting that our decendents in 60,000 years will be that genetically different to people today that there would be no fussion between spem and egg to produce viable offspring. What if another ice age happened..do you think humans would morph to suit the environment? So with mico evolution eventually resulting in enough change that a new species evolved is not clear. Now science accepts that similar species can interbreed. Once again a change from the initial idea of distinguishing one species from another...changed to suit the evidence. If the evidence does not appear to fit in with ToE, what not invent another theory to resolve the discrepency.

Researchers from Stony Brook University Medical Center in New York have confirmed that Homo floresiensis is a genuine ancient human species and not a descendant of healthy humans dwarfed by disease. Using statistical analysis on skeletal remains of a well-preserved female specimen, researchers determined the "hobbit" to be a distinct species and not a genetically flawed version of modern humans. Details of the study appear in the December issue of Significance, the magazine of the Royal Statistical Society, published by Wiley-Blackwell.
Due to the relative completeness of fossil remains for LB1, the scientists were able to reconstruct a reliable body design that was unlike any modern human. The thigh bone and shin bone of LB1 are much shorter than modern humans including Central African pygmies, South African KhoeSan (formerly known as 'bushmen") and "negrito" pygmies from the Andaman Islands and the Philippines. Some researchers speculate this could represent an evolutionary reversal correlated with "island dwarfing." "It is difficult to believe an evolutionary change would lead to less economical movement," said Dr. Jungers. "It makes little sense that this species re-evolved shorter thighs and legs because long hind limbs improve bipedal walking. We suspect that these are primitive retentions instead."
It was first reported in 2004 (Brown et al. 2004; Lahr and Foley 2004; Morwood et al. 2004). The nickname of hobbit comes from the fact that these hominids were quite small in comparison with modern humans — only about a meter (3.28 ft.) tall — and had extremely small brains. However, they did build fires and use stone tools.
The best preserved specimen, which is only 18,000 years old, was an adult, probably a female, known as LB1. The corresponding skull has a cranial capacity of only 417 cc — about the same as that of a chimpanzee — a receding forehead, and no chin. The teeth are similar to those of a modern human, only smaller.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not the scientists that put florensiensis right above sapiens with their tiny brain. I am not the scientist that placed other species, like neanderthalis, with 15% larger brains that modern day humans, as having evolved prior to florensiensis. What size brain do modern pygmies have? How was this explained?...oh I remember 'island dwarfing'..that explanation doesn't explain a tiny chimp brain right above sapiens...yet florensiensis made fires. Have we taught a chimp to do this yet?

No Biologist has "placed floresiensis above sapeins"... for one, phylogeny doesn't work that way, for second, H. floresiensis is thought to have evolved from H. erectus more or less directly.

Modern "pygmies" (pygmy is a pejorative btw) have normal human brain sizes within normal human skulls... that is on average about 1350cc.

Chimps are very able tool users... but don't confuse brain size for intelligence or for brain organization. Modern (and by modern, I mean any Human from about 200,000 years ago onward) Humans all have brains that fall within a narrow range with 1350cc's at average.

Re the max planck research..I thought separate species could not always successfully mate. As different as neanderthal were they mated with another species. Modern humans have been found in Australia 60,000 years ago, Mungo man, the time this mating was occurring.

I think given that Aborigional Austrailians have yet to be compared in any genetic survey with Neanderthals you should be careful not to jump to conclusions.

I think the differences in morphology do not necessarily mean much about the human species...it highlights adaptation rather than species change.

You have yet to give a biological justification for this idea. Given the profound differences there must be something significant behind it.

Besides what is pre human?

In terms of this discussion any species not H.sapiens, usually200,000 years ago or older.

Is someone suggesting that our decendents in 60,000 years will be that genetically different to people today that there would be no fussion between spem and egg to produce viable offspring.

Who knows? It would take a significant break in our gene pool to do so though.

What if another ice age happened..do you think humans would morph to suit the environment?

Seeing as we already have humans living in such conditions... no, nothing profound morphologically.

So with mico evolution eventually resulting in enough change that a new species evolved is not clear.

I have no idea what you are talking about... we have observed new species evolving several times.

Now science accepts that similar species can interbreed.

No big surprize here... you really should take a remedial biology course.

Once again a change from the initial idea of distinguishing one species from another...changed to suit the evidence. If the evidence does not appear to fit in with ToE, what not invent another theory to resolve the discrepency.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Researchers from Stony Brook University Medical Center in New York have confirmed that Homo floresiensis is a genuine ancient human species and not a descendant of healthy humans dwarfed by disease. Using statistical analysis on skeletal remains of a well-preserved female specimen, researchers determined the "hobbit" to be a distinct species and not a genetically flawed version of modern humans. Details of the study appear in the December issue of Significance, the magazine of the Royal Statistical Society, published by Wiley-Blackwell.
Due to the relative completeness of fossil remains for LB1, the scientists were able to reconstruct a reliable body design that was unlike any modern human. The thigh bone and shin bone of LB1 are much shorter than modern humans including Central African pygmies, South African KhoeSan (formerly known as 'bushmen") and "negrito" pygmies from the Andaman Islands and the Philippines. Some researchers speculate this could represent an evolutionary reversal correlated with "island dwarfing." "It is difficult to believe an evolutionary change would lead to less economical movement," said Dr. Jungers. "It makes little sense that this species re-evolved shorter thighs and legs because long hind limbs improve bipedal walking. We suspect that these are primitive retentions instead."

Yup... "human" in the sense that it is a member of the Homo genus. Homo means "man" afterall... you will notice they are later called "hominids" wich means any member of our liniage, post Chimpanzee split that is not a Modern Human.

What this article is addressing, is the fact that they are a species in their own right, rather than simply deformed Modern Humans as had been argued by some people. (including creationists)

ps... emphasis mine.

wa:do

 

[methylatedghosts]

Now science accepts that similar species can interbreed.

Err... I'm pretty sure they have for a while...

You know what a dog is, right?

Once again a change from the initial idea of distinguishing one species from another...changed to suit the evidence. If the evidence does not appear to fit in with ToE, what not invent another theory to resolve the discrepency.

Or... if the evidence doesn't fit with your worldview, why not discard it all so that you can keep believing what you wish?

 

[Socrates]

here are some good resources on baraminology for those interested:


The last one points out the irony that "baraminology" methods actually show evolution:
wa:do

The study abstract should actually say:
It is important to demonstrate evolutionary principles in such a way that they cannot be countered by creation science. One such way is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles. Some creation scientists use classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to quantify and visualize morphological gaps or continuity between taxa, accepting gaps as evidence of independent creation and accepting continuity as evidence of genetic relatedness. Here, I apply CMDS to a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and show that it reveals morphological continuity between Archaeopteryx, other early birds, and a wide range of nonavian MANIRAPTORS. Creation scientists who use CMDS must therefore accept that these animals are genetically related. Other uses of CMDS for evolutionary biologists include the identification of taxa with much missing evolutionary history and the tracing of the progressive filling of morphological gaps in the fossil record through successive years of discovery.

 

[newhope101]

Originally Posted by newhope101
Now science accepts that similar species can interbreed.
Err... I'm pretty sure they have for a while...
You know what a dog is, right?
Quote: Or... if the evidence doesn't fit with your worldview, why not discard it all so that you can keep believing what you wish?

Great point. Obviously the whole species thing is a raught. Dogs are dogs, whether or not they're a spaniel or great dane, and can interbreed, yet they are different species. Chimp and human are also different species and cannot interbreed. Evolutionists have really made a mess of this.

Re reply to my hobbit info...that's fine. What would make more sense is to class any skulls/bones that do not appear to be modern human into a non human primate classification. In other words all these supposed homo subspecies are all just different apes, orangutangs, chimps etc with adaptive variations. However that would not uphold ToE, so it's best to keep it all complicated and confused..and try to make every fossil into a new homo subspecies and species in their own right instead. Let's not see it as non human primates changing a little morphologically to suit their environment. Let' see it as evidence of man evolving from chimp.

Although australopithecine — a name given them by Raymond Dart who discovered the first specimen (the Taung Child) — means southern ape, these creatures were not simply apes because they were bipedal. Their arms were also shorter in proportion to their height than are those of an ape (but not so short as are a human's). There is some doubt as to whether these creatures are actually ancestral to modern humans since Homo habilis and Homo erectus, which are both generally accepted as human ancestors, coexisted with them for more than a million years (see human evolution timeline). That is, instead of being our ancestors, australopithecines might have merely been close relatives of the forms that gave rise to modern humans. So shorter limbs are seen with this species....of course it must be because he is starting to become human. All these, habilis, erectus, florensiensis and all the rest are just non human primates. Primates being only a descriptive category that biologists have come up with to explain what they see and think. You know maybe soon evolutionists will prove the human race is made up of different species. Already there are pure humans and human/neanderthal mongrels.

All the human and neandethal genome projects appears to have proven is that chimps are human and we're lucky we're not sponges. .. and many living creatures carry identical genes as one would expect to see in a creation...a signature through all of Gods works. Living creatures do not show graduating genetic similarity depending on branching...and you all thought these projects would seal ToE. Scientific testing advances have thrown ToE into turmoil. A bit of real science makes a differnece.

The whole species thing is so vague and unclear that evolutionists, not unlike creationists, can make whatever they want of it. Here's another stupidity I stumbled on in another thread about the okapi.

Palaeotragus ("Ancient Antelope") was a genus of very large, primitive okapi from the Miocene of Africa.
Palaeotragus primaevus is the older species, being found in early to mid-Miocene strata, while Palaeotragus germaini is found in Late Miocene strata.
P. primaevus is distinguished from P. germaini by having no pair of ossicones. It was also the smaller species, being a little under 2 meters at the shoulders. P. germaini had a pair of ossicones, and in life, it would have resembled either a short-necked, 3 meter tall giraffe, or a gargantuan okapi.

So the common ancestor of the giraffe and okapi is the palaeotragus. Palaeotragus is an ancient antelope and primitive okapi. Talk about not putting all your eggs in one basket. And surprise what great scientific rule was used for the classification,,oh yeah..okapis neck length..so it's a giraffe decendent, disregarding totally different chromosome numbers. All this is nonsense.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Great point. Obviously the whole species thing is a raught. Dogs are dogs, whether or not they're a spaniel or great dane, and can interbreed, yet they are different species. Chimp and human are also different species and cannot interbreed. Evolutionists have really made a mess of this.

A Spaniel, Dane, Lab, Pit Bull, Chow etc are all the same species. Canis lupus.
And the same subspecies. Canis lupis familiaris.
You are confusing breeds with species.


So who's making a mess?

 

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by newhope101
Now science accepts that similar species can interbreed.
Err... I'm pretty sure they have for a while...
You know what a dog is, right?
Quote: Or... if the evidence doesn't fit with your worldview, why not discard it all so that you can keep believing what you wish?

Great point. Obviously the whole species thing is a raught. Dogs are dogs, whether or not they're a spaniel or great dane, and can interbreed, yet they are different species. Chimp and human are also different species and cannot interbreed. Evolutionists have really made a mess of this.

All the human and neandethal genome projects appears to have proven is that chimps are human and we're lucky we're not sponges. .. and many living creatures carry identical genes as one would expect to see in a creation...a signature through all of Gods works. Living creatures do not show graduating genetic similarity depending on branching...and you all thought these projects would seal ToE. Scientific testing advances have thrown ToE into turmoil. A bit of real science makes a differnece.

The whole species thing is so vague and unclear that evolutionists, not unlike creationists, can make whatever they want of it. Here's another stupidity I stumbled on in another thread about the okapi.

Palaeotragus ("Ancient Antelope") was a genus of very large, primitive okapi from the Miocene of Africa.
Palaeotragus primaevus is the older species, being found in early to mid-Miocene strata, while Palaeotragus germaini is found in Late Miocene strata.
P. primaevus is distinguished from P. germaini by having no pair of ossicones. It was also the smaller species, being a little under 2 meters at the shoulders. P. germaini had a pair of ossicones, and in life, it would have resembled either a short-necked, 3 meter tall giraffe, or a gargantuan okapi.

So the common ancestor of the giraffe and okapi is the palaeotragus. Palaeotragus is an ancient antelope and primitive okapi. Talk about not putting all your eggs in one basket. And surprise what great scientific rule was used for the classification,,oh yeah..okapis neck length..so it's a giraffe decendent, disregarding totally different chromosome numbers. All this is nonsense.

I don't know if it's me, or you're not making sense, or your difficulties with the quote function, but I'm not following you.

What is your gripe exactly about the definition of species? What is a raught? Dogs are not different species. You don't understand why the human genome project is one of the greatest achievements in the history of science? Do you want me to explain how difficult and important it was?

many living creatures carry identical genes as one would expect to see in a creation

What does this mean? Why would you expect to see any particular set of circumstances in "a creation?" If a magic being magically made various creatures, couldn't they have similar genes or different genes or no genes at all? Why would you predict any particular arrangement of that? Do you not understand the precise predictions that ToE makes about genetic similarity, and exactly how those predictions were borne out? What is your gripe about Palaeotragus primaevus? Why is this discovery a stupidity to you? I'm sure you have no idea what various factors caused scientists to classify them in the way they did, and what is your objection?

I thought we went through ToE, and you accepted it, to the point where you did not require any of the remaining mountains of evidence to be laid out. Was I mistaken? Are you rejecting it now?

I'll say it again. I don't trust you. I don't think you're an agnostic anything. I think you're a YEC Christian who, for your own reasons, does not wish to disclose that. Perhaps you think it will add credibility to your uneducated, illogical attempt to poke holes in ToE?

 

[painted wolf]

Palaeotragus is not an antelope any more than Giraffe is a "camel leopard".

You really need to learn some basic biology.

Do you think someone with Down's Syndrome is a different species?

wa:do