Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[Kerr]

The ability to produce fertile offspring isn't a reliable indicator of genetiic similarity. It's an obsolete distinction.

It was the one I remember school a few years back, have not been interested enough to look deeper into it .

 

[challupa]

True. However, I think that in most cases those that can interbreed would produce non-fertile offspring (do not know if it is most or all, though).

Not in the case of wolves and dogs though. Their offspring can reproduce. This I know for sure. So can coyotes and dogs offspring.

 

[Storm]

Are Rhinos and Tapirs also within the horse family?

When all of these "kinds" converge on a common form, why shouldn't we conclude common ancestry? If they have been distinct "kinds" since creation, shouldn't we find the same forms back in the Eocene?

I'm betting that, like the orca chart, this is too inconvenient and will thus be ignored.

 

[Kerr]

Not in the case of wolves and dogs though. Their offspring can reproduce. This I know for sure. So can coyotes and dogs offspring.

Most then. Maybe. As I said it is what I remember from school, they didn´t go that much into it... at last not what I remember, lol (remember that they did talk about the issues with the fertility related definition and so, though).

 

[Tristesse]

Most then. Maybe. As I said it is what I remember from school, they didn´t go that much into it... at last not what I remember, lol (remember that they did talk about the issues with the fertility related definition and so, though).

Most mules cannot reproduce.

 

[painted wolf]

so there is more than one fox "kind" then... Grey fox and Red fox can not interbreed. Fox kind is unique from Dog kind.... it's a shame then that we have a fossil record that unites all carnivores back to the Miacids. Imagine, dogs and cats and bears...oh my!

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Well, URA, which is it? Is a "kind" a family, a species, or something else? If so, what?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well, URA, which is it? Is a "kind" a family, a species, or something else? If so, what?

Sterility is the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a 'kind'. Cross fertility within its limits. Boundary is drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
So there could be species or varieties within a single division or kind.

As far as the Flood account then Noah would only need to have representative members of the different 'kinds' to reproduce in variety after the Flood.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

so there is more than one fox "kind" then... Grey fox and Red fox can not interbreed. Fox kind is unique from Dog kind.... it's a shame then that we have a fossil record that unites all carnivores back to the Miacids. Imagine, dogs and cats and bears...oh my!

wa:do

What about the fox-sized animal called a daman in the African bush?
Isn't that rodent-like animal similar to Eohippus?
Is there evidence that Eohippus evolved into horse?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, it does.

On those above animals with backbones, do the fossil records show information on the origin of the vertebrates?

Are those horse fossils different sizes and different shapes?
Today aren't horses still different sizes and shapes?
Large plow horse to small pony size.

 

[camanintx]

On those above animals with backbones, do the fossil records show information on the origin of the vertebrates?

Sure.

Are those horse fossils different sizes and different shapes?
Today aren't horses still different sizes and shapes?
Large plow horse to small pony size.

If so much variation still exists within these species, why do you find it so difficult to imagine how much these species may have changed through the past?

 

[Autodidact]

Sterility is the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a 'kind'. Cross fertility within its limits. Boundary is drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

This is the functional biological definition of species. Therefore a kind is pretty much a species.

So there could be species or varieties within a single division or kind.

You have defined "kind" as equivalent to species. Therefore, obviously, no, there cannot be specii within a "kind."

As far as the Flood account then Noah would only need to have representative members of the different 'kinds' to reproduce in variety after the Flood.

So I'm getting two things:
1. Noah had two of each species of land animal.
2. No new species ever evolve. Is that right?

 

[Autodidact]

What about the fox-sized animal called a daman in the African bush?
Isn't that rodent-like animal similar to Eohippus?

You mean the Hyrax Syriacus? You're saying that it's similar to Eohippus in what way in particular, and what does that have to do with the discussion? Eohippus is extinct, so we have to ry to figure out what it looked like from fossils.

Is there evidence that Eohippus evolved into horse?

Yes, lots of it. Would you like to see it?

 

[Autodidact]

On those above animals with backbones, do the fossil records show information on the origin of the vertebrates?

Yes, why do you ask?

Are those horse fossils different sizes and different shapes?

Yes.

Today aren't horses still different sizes and shapes?

A little. What is your point?

Large plow horse to small pony size.

Yes, there is some variation in size. What is your point?

 

[Valjean]

Sterility is the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a 'kind'. Cross fertility within its limits. Boundary is drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
So there could be species or varieties within a single division or kind.

As far as the Flood account then Noah would only need to have representative members of the different 'kinds' to reproduce in variety after the Flood.

The reproductive test gets a little tricky when you consider ring species, though.

Imagine a "kind" that occupies an extensive territory, say a long coastline or the entire arctic, with enough gradation along its range to be divided into several species. Now say species A can reproduce with the adjoining species B and even C, but not the bext one 'round, D, yet C can reproduce with D and even E, &c, &c, &c.
This would make A & C the same species and C & E the same species, but A and E would be different species. At what point did the species change?

 

[Jose Fly]

Notice the moving goalposts. First it's "kind is kind of like a species", followed by demands for evidence of "gradual transitions" in the fossil record. But once those are presented, suddenly it's "Yeah, but those are all within the same family, which is like a kind".

IOW, "Show me X!", and after X is shown, "That doesn't count because it's not Y!", and hope like hell no one notices what you did.

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand all this controversy over the word "kind." It was never intended in any technical sense, and the ancients had no concept of biologic taxonomy or evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't understand all this controversy over the word "kind." It was never intended in any technical sense, and the ancients had no concept of biologic taxonomy or evolution.

Yeah, but you have to remove it from that context and put it in a fundamentalist one, where Genesis is the literal, absolute Word of God. In that context, it has nothing to do with the ancients and has everything to do with what God said.

 

[painted wolf]

unfortunately some people want to use it as a technical term... therein lies the problem.
If they want it to be taught on the same level as biology, then it needs to be defined in at least a moderately similar way.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

What about the fox-sized animal called a daman in the African bush?
Isn't that rodent-like animal similar to Eohippus?
Is there evidence that Eohippus evolved into horse?

Having seen the skeletons of both Eohippus/Hyracotherium and the Hyrax... I can tell you they are nothing alike. Except in fuzzy photos when you have no idea what you are looking at.
The Hyrax is actually related to the elephant... which a comparison of their skulls and other parts of their anatomy (including genetic analysis) clearly shows.

Here is a Hyrax... notice the tusks up front

Here is Eohippus/Hyracotherium... notice the lack of tusks but the presence of horse teeth.

I'll spare you a discertation on the details of the skulls and skeletons you should be able to see the difference enough like this. It would take a lot more evolution to change an Eohippus into a Hyrax than it would to turn it into a horse.

wa:do