Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Definition of "Kinds" and "Species"

Expand Messages
  • Alan Saunders
    ... But not on the two previous days on which I asked this. But Since you have now answered I will let it pass. ... Fair enough. An unambiguous answer. But
    Message 1 of 25 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Robert Zbornak wrote:
      > Hello Alan: Sorry about the delay, I have been away
      > from the computer for the day.

      But not on the two previous days on which I asked this. But Since
      you have now answered I will let it pass.

      > As to how they determine if animals are of the same
      > 'kind'; they determine if they can have offspring
      > which can also reproduce. Man has been able to produce
      > differences, but only within the same family or
      > species where no limits are in effect.

      Fair enough. An unambiguous answer.

      But take the
      > mule, a hybrid between the ass and horse; the
      > offspring is sterile and cannot reproduce. It came up
      > to the boundary and can go no farther.

      So according to your experiment above, a horse and an ass are
      different 'kinds' because their offspring cannot reproduce. Correct?

      Alan
    • tinroad66
      ... Tin: Robert is in big trouble here. Evolution to the point of reproductive incompatability has already been observed, both inside and outside of the
      Message 2 of 25 , Jun 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Saunders"
        <alan.catherine@b...> wrote:
        > Robert Zbornak wrote:
        > > Hello Alan: Sorry about the delay, I have been away
        > > from the computer for the day.
        >
        > But not on the two previous days on which I asked this. But Since
        > you have now answered I will let it pass.
        >
        > > As to how they determine if animals are of the same
        > > 'kind'; they determine if they can have offspring
        > > which can also reproduce. Man has been able to produce
        > > differences, but only within the same family or
        > > species where no limits are in effect.
        >
        > Fair enough. An unambiguous answer.
        >
        > But take the
        > > mule, a hybrid between the ass and horse; the
        > > offspring is sterile and cannot reproduce. It came up
        > > to the boundary and can go no farther.
        >
        > So according to your experiment above, a horse and an ass are
        > different 'kinds' because their offspring cannot reproduce. Correct?
        >
        > Alan


        Tin: Robert is in big trouble here. Evolution to the point of
        reproductive incompatability has already been observed, both inside
        and outside of the laboratory. There are no signs of sterility. One
        species branches into two and each of those reproductively
        imcompatible species go on it's merry way yielding new generations
        whilst ignoring the creationists who claim that such things are
        impossible.
      • Susan Cogan
        ... you ve painted yourself in the same corner creationists usually end up in when discussing kind. Because they cannot produce viable offspring, horses and
        Message 3 of 25 , Jun 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          >--- Alan Saunders <alan.catherine@...>
          >wrote:
          >> Robert Zbornak wrote:
          >> >It
          >> > is true that whales are of different 'Kind' than
          >> land animals.
          >>
          >> How would you go about experimentally determining
          >> that? How, indeed
          >> would you go about experimentally determining if any
          >> two given
          >> whales were of the same kind?
          >>
          >> Third time of asking.
          >>
          >> Alan
          >>
          >Hello Alan: Sorry about the delay, I have been away
          >from the computer for the day.
          >As to how they determine if animals are of the same
          >'kind'; they determine if they can have offspring
          >which can also reproduce. Man has been able to produce
          >differences, but only within the same family or
          >species where no limits are in effect. But take the
          >mule, a hybrid between the ass and horse; the
          >offspring is sterile and cannot reproduce. It came up
          >to the boundary and can go no farther.

          you've painted yourself in the same corner creationists usually end
          up in when discussing "kind." Because they cannot produce viable
          offspring, horses and asses are different "kinds." That makes "kind"
          equal to "species." However, you have previously been given a link to
          a long list of new species that we have seen evolve in the last 100
          years. And each and every one of the new species never stopped
          reproducing after their own kind.

          Of course the logical conclusion is that the Bible does not conflict
          with evolution.

          Susan
          --
          ---------
          Check out an excerpt of my recently published historical novel "Jubilee":
          http://members.cox.net/sbcogan/
        • Eric
          ... conflict with evolution. ... ...Or, and I think this is far more likely, that the Bible as intended DOES conflict with evolution, and is therefore just
          Message 4 of 25 , Jun 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Susan:
            > Of course the logical conclusion is that the Bible does not
            conflict with evolution.
            >


            ...Or, and I think this is far more likely, that the Bible as
            intended DOES conflict with evolution, and is therefore just plain
            wrong.


            Eric
          • Dermot McLain
            ... The Bible only conflicts with evolution if you interpret the Bible absolutely literally. If you interpret it metaphorically, as most Christians do (at
            Message 5 of 25 , Jun 5, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Eric"
              <OpenSipapu@a...> wrote:
              > Susan:
              > > Of course the logical conclusion is that the Bible does not
              > conflict with evolution.
              > >
              >
              >
              > ...Or, and I think this is far more likely, that the Bible as
              > intended DOES conflict with evolution, and is therefore just plain
              > wrong.
              >
              >
              > Eric


              The Bible only conflicts with evolution if you interpret the Bible
              absolutely literally. If you interpret it metaphorically, as most
              Christians do (at least outside the US Bible belt) then there is no
              conflict. Pope John Paul II will confirm.

              Dermot
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.