What Americans Think about Evolution

[mycorrhiza]

Have you ever seen a female dog give birth and based on the animal that came out her womb, you said "thats not a dog". Have you ever seen this? Doesn't that mean that the female dog produced her own kind? Hmmm. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

No one believes that. That's really not how evolution works.

You have to define where the line for the "dog kind" should be drawn so that the definition is consistent. At what approximate taxonomic level do we put the limits for kinds? Is it species, genus, tribe, family, order? Do they need to be able to reproduce successfully to be in the same kind?

You definition needs to be consistent with itself and what we observe in Nature.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not by the definition you've given Callie, you said that they must reproduce after their same kind. So if a cheetah cannot breed with any other cat, why exactly would it be the same kind as the other cat? A cheetah and a lion with your definition are not the same kind.

Um, frankie. Just because a cheetah can't reproduce with other cats doesn't mean that the cheetah isn't a cat, that just means that the cheetah is at the bottom of the gene pool because so much genetic information has been lost over time, but it is obvious that the cheetah is the same kind of animal.

How about mules what kind are they? They can't mate with each other despite a horse and a donkey giving birth to them.

The horse, donkey, and mule are all the same kind of animal, frankie. They are different varieties of the same kind, and you can go ahead and throw zebra's in the mix as well.

Or ligers?

Or Tigons?

Cats

very few of them are born with the ability to mate, and even when they can it's not with each other, but with whatever kind their parents were. But not with a cheetah mind you.

Cats

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No one believes that. That's really not how evolution works.

You have to define where the line for the "dog kind" should be drawn so that the definition is consistent. At what approximate taxonomic level do we put the limits for kinds? Is it species, genus, tribe, family, order? Do they need to be able to reproduce successfully to be in the same kind?

You definition needs to be consistent with itself and what we observe in Nature.

We observe dogs producing dogs in nature.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Um, frankie. Just because a cheetah can't reproduce with other cats doesn't mean that the cheetah isn't a cat, that just means that the cheetah is at the bottom of the gene pool because so much genetic information has been lost over time, but it is obvious that the cheetah is the same kind of animal.



The horse, donkey, and mule are all the same kind of animal, frankie. They are different varieties of the same kind, and you can go ahead and throw zebra's in the mix as well.



Cats



Cats

Umm you said that they reproduce after their kind if they are cats then why can't the reproduce? Bottom of the gene pool? Why are you using terms that you don't understand?

You realize that ligers, tigons and mules are for the most part infertile right? They can't reproduce with each other.

They are obviously the same animal based on what? The way they look??

You can keep saying kind of animal but you just keep moving the meaning. To you it can mean kingdom, phylum, family, class, genus or species. It's vague and ambiguous which is why you use it. It makes for a poor argument and it only reveals how little you actually understand about any type of logic dependent claims. Why don't you just say god did it besides trying to argue against something you really do not understand?

 

[mycorrhiza]

We observe dogs producing dogs in nature.

And we observe wolves producing wolves, so are wolves and dogs different kinds?

What we also observe is that species hybridize and that populations change drastically over time. So please give me a consistent definition!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, you are not fine with it. If you were okay with it, you wouldn't be investing so much of your time and energy into arguing that macroevolution (such as the changing of kinds) is false. Otherwise, you'd be accepting of it at best and ambivalent towards it at worst. This following statement of yours:

only goes further to demonstrate that you are not "fine" with the idea of theistic evolution.

One can be a Christian and still shape and mold Genesis to support the idea of evolution. I am just stating that I don't particularly share that view. But as I said, this is an "in-house" debate between Christians. If you believe in Christian evolution and you still believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior, hey, I can't be mad at you, despite the fact that I think your interpretation is a little twisted, but I can't be mad at you.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Um, frankie. Just because a cheetah can't reproduce with other cats doesn't mean that the cheetah isn't a cat, that just means that the cheetah is at the bottom of the gene pool because so much genetic information has been lost over time, but it is obvious that the cheetah is the same kind of animal.

So if we take the animal in the cat family with the largest genome (most genetic information), we can just remove genes until we get all other animals in the cat family?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And we observe wolves producing wolves, so are wolves and dogs different kinds?

I believe that the "dog" and the "wolf" are the same "kind" of animal. I believe that both should be classified as "dogs" or whatever word you want to use to describe the kind. But they are clearly the same kind of animal. There is no need for the extra-curricular classifications. Dogs and wolves are different variety of the same kind. If you look at the wolf, malamute, and siberian husky, not much difference there, pal. A five year old can tell you that.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I believe that the "dog" and the "wolf" are the same "kind" of animal. I believe that both should be classified as "dogs" or whatever word you want to use to describe the kind. But they are clearly the same kind of animal. There is no need for the extra-curricular classifications. Dogs and wolves are different variety of the same kind. If you look at the wolf, malamute, and siberian husky, not much difference there, pal. A five year old can tell you that.

That is still not a definition of what a kind is.

A five year old would place nettles and deadnettles in the same kind, and yet they're not closely related at all, so clearly we can't go by what a five year old would say.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe that the "dog" and the "wolf" are the same "kind" of animal. I believe that both should be classified as "dogs" or whatever word you want to use to describe the kind. But they are clearly the same kind of animal. There is no need for the extra-curricular classifications. Dogs and wolves are different variety of the same kind. If you look at the wolf, malamute, and siberian husky, not much difference there, pal. A five year old can tell you that.

Besides the fact that a wolf would not hesitate to eat you?

How about a pug? Is it a type of dog or maybe it's something else??

Wait what kind is a hyena??

Terrible logic and rationale.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So if we take the animal in the cat family with the largest genome (most genetic information), we can just remove genes until we get all other animals in the cat family?

I find it amazing that you have the nerve to ask that question, but you won't ask the question of what does it take to get from a reptile to a bird, which is what the ToE tells us happened. That is the bigger question that needs to be tackled.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I find it amazing that you have the nerve to ask that question, but you won't ask the question of what does it take to get from a reptile to a bird, which is what the ToE tells us happened. That is the bigger question that needs to be tackled.

You didn't answer my question. Please do, because it looked like you propagated a version of genetics that is not consistent with what has been observed! If I interpreted what you said correctly, you mean that the genetic variation in a "kind" (which you have yet to define) is due to a loss of genetic information.

Therefore we should never see an increase in genome size and we should expect the animal with the largest genome in a certain "kind" to be able to produce all the other animals if we artificially remove certain genes.

Is this what you believe?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Umm you said that they reproduce after their kind if they are cats then why can't the reproduce? Bottom of the gene pool? Why are you using terms that you don't understand?

I said that cats produce cats, franklin. When a male and a female cheetah copulate, they will produce a cat, so cats are producing cats. Why can't a cheetah reproduce with other cats? I don't know, I suggested that they are at the bottom of the gene pool because of that same limitation. The bible says that since the fall of man, things began to change for the worse, genetically and otherwise, in humans and in animals.

You realize that ligers, tigons and mules are for the most part infertile right? They can't reproduce with each other.

Ligers and tigons are cats, frankie. They don't stop being cats just because they are infertile. There are some infertile human beings, do they stop being human beings because they can't reproduce with other human beings? I mean seriously frankie.

They are obviously the same animal based on what? The way they look??

Like I said before, we know based on observation and repeated experiment that when two things reproduce, they will produce a "likeness" of what they are, not what they aren't. Just take the facial features of every single species/kind of cat, and put them side by side, and you will immediately note the similarites.They are the same kind of animal.

You can keep saying kind of animal but you just keep moving the meaning. To you it can mean kingdom, phylum, family, class, genus or species. It's vague and ambiguous which is why you use it. It makes for a poor argument and it only reveals how little you actually understand about any type of logic dependent claims. Why don't you just say god did it besides trying to argue against something you really do not understand?

Go to a pet store, and ask for a dog, and if you are brought out a snake. Would you accept the snake? If not, then you know that the kind you asked for is different than the kind you were brought out. That difference is what I mean by "kind".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You didn't answer my question. Please do, because it looked like you propagated a version of genetics that is not consistent with what has been observed! If I interpreted what you said correctly, you mean that the genetic variation in a "kind" (which you have yet to define) is due to a loss of genetic information.

Wait a minute, you believe that birds came from reptile, has that been observed? You have a lot of nerve to question me about anything..and they you talk about what hasn't been observed, as if a reptile changing to a bird has been observed. Please.

 

[metis]

One of the things that have pleased me is that I tap into two religions that actually have a much more realistic attitude towards the creation accounts. The vast majority of Jews believe they're allegory, and one of the central teachings within Buddhism is that all things change over time, therefore evolution is just plain logical. I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, and their idea that there can be only a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts that most of them teach is not only terrible theology, it's even worse "logic".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I said that cats produce cats, franklin. When a male and a female cheetah copulate, they will produce a cat, so cats are producing cats. Why can't a cheetah reproduce with other cats? I don't know, I suggested that they are at the bottom of the gene pool because of that same limitation. The bible says that since the fall of man, things began to change for the worse, genetically and otherwise, in humans and in animals.



Ligers and tigons are cats, frankie. They don't stop being cats just because they are infertile. There are some infertile human beings, do they stop being human beings because they can't reproduce with other human beings? I mean seriously frankie.



Like I said before, we know based on observation and repeated experiment that when two things reproduce, they will produce a "likeness" of what they are, not what they aren't. Just take the facial features of every single species/kind of cat, and put them side by side, and you will immediately note the similarites.They are the same kind of animal.



Go to a pet store, and ask for a dog, and if you are brought out a snake. Would you accept the snake? If not, then you know that the kind you asked for is different than the kind you were brought out. That difference is what I mean by "kind".

But why can't ligons and tigons reproduce with themselves?

Also you keep using snake, I'm talking about I ask for a dog and I'm brought a cat using your logic and based on observation why should I not accept the cat??

Because the difference you mentioned is based on looks. So you move the meaning around as you wish. Cheetahs are cats who can't make children with other cats. If cats are the kind then cheetahs cannot reproduce after their own kind. So a cheetah is not a cat.

 

[metis]

Wait a minute, you believe that birds came from reptile, has that been observed? You have a lot of nerve to question me about anything..and they you talk about what hasn't been observed, as if a reptile changing to a bird has been observed. Please.

The reality is that you have not even a basic concept of the time periods involved between the two. Little changes add up, and both the fossil record and the genome testing are confirming this process.

Your "evidence": a roughly 3000 year old account written by people, my people btw, with no significant knowledge of biology, who took a Babylonian narrative and adjusted it to teach the morals and values that we as Jews believe in. In the process of arguing that literal interpretations are the only valid way, what's mostly overlooked by the fundamentalists are those teachings.

In order to get it right, you must look at this the way in which ancient storytelling was used in that area at that time. To do it another way is to inject a western and more objective approach into texts written by very subjective Asians. What you are doing is a classic "culture conflict" problem that has many negative implications.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But why can't ligons and tigons reproduce with themselves?

Probably for the same reason a infertile human male and a infertile human female can't reproduce, frankie. Broken genetics, whatever.

Also you keep using snake, I'm talking about I ask for a dog and I'm brought a cat using your logic and based on observation why should I not accept the cat??

Yeah you want to ignore concept of the analogy that would make your critique of "kinds" look silly. I understand.

Because the difference you mentioned is based on looks. So you move the meaning around as you wish. Cheetahs are cats who can't make children with other cats. If cats are the kind then cheetahs cannot reproduce after their own kind. So a cheetah is not a cat.

They can make cats with other cats, if they couldn't they would be extinct, right?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Probably for the same reason a infertile human male and a infertile human female can't reproduce, frankie. Broken genetics, whatever.



Yeah you want to ignore concept of the analogy that would make your critique of "kinds" look silly. I understand.



They can make cats with other cats, if they couldn't they would be extinct, right?

So now genetics matters?

The concept of your analogy is faulty simply because it works on on one condition. So let's agree a snake and a dog are different animals, what do you base that on? What traits? What qualities? Now take a dog and a cat do the same qualities that differentiate a dog from a snake carry over?

They can make cats with other cats? How? You said lions, tigers, and cheetahs are kinds of cats. In this case kind means the family at large called cats right?

Lions and tigers can mate, so can jaguars and tigers and lions and leopard so on...they are all cats they reproduce after their kind. A cheetah however cannot. If kind is defined as cat and shown by their ability to reproduce, then a cheetah cannot be a cat because it can only reproduce with another cheetah. It is a different kind of animal than a cat. This is what your logic dictates.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The reality is that you have not even a basic concept of the time periods involved between the two. Little changes add up, and both the fossil record and the genome testing are confirming this process.

I agree, that is the theory now, isn't it? Change over time. Its funny, because even if we were to go back in time 150 million years and still see animals producing their own kind, you would still say "that is because it takes soooo much time", and then I will say "But metis, we just went back in time 150 million years!!!"

It does take time, it takes so much time, that it didn't happen at all.

Your "evidence": a roughly 3000 year old account written by people, my people btw, with no significant knowledge of biology, who took a Babylonian narrative and adjusted it to teach the morals and values that we as Jews believe in. In the process of arguing that literal interpretations are the only valid way, what's mostly overlooked by the fundamentalists are those teachings.

The "account" was written by a person, just like the Origin of Species was written by a person. That is irrelevant. The relevance is the truth value in what WAS written. So far, the bible said that the universe had a beginning, and that animals produce after their "kinds". Prior to the 1900's, the view was that the universe was static and eternal, and that animals produced different kinds of animals.

So 3,000 years later, we found out that the universe had a beginning, and we only observe animals producing after their own kinds. Take away alllll the fluff and feathers, and that is what we have.

So I am compelled to continue to believe in the 3,000 year ago account, because it hits the nail right on the head.