Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cross breeding of Kinds or Genre.

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:18:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Sorry about the wrong word in the heading.
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:56:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Wait so are cows and Buffalo the same kind? What about lions and tigers? What about zebras and donkeys? What about llamas and camels? What about sheep and goats?

These species are genetically distinct, live in separate populations, have different social habits and reproduce separately. The ability to interbreed is not the only factor to look at. You also have to consider their genetic, physical, and behavioral differences and whether they actually interbreed very often. There are many distinct species that are able to interbreed with varying levels of success but rarely do.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 8:26:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Common dolphin and bottle nose Dolphins (different genus); camals and llamas (different genus), gelada and common baboons (different genus) and African and Indian elephants (different genera).

Those are intergeneric hybrid examples based on defined genera; the examples you cite aren't just different genera, but are actually different families (caniformes and feliforms), and different orders (bovids -Artiodactyla, and horses - ungulata) which makes the question a little confusing.

Remember cats and dogs are different genera, but so are cats and Pumas and cats and amoeba.

So given this, there are number different intergeneric hybrids, thus invalidating "kinds" at the genera level; you could move it up one to "family" the next taxonomic group, but as you know that would make humans the same kind as chimps.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:30:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:56:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Wait so are cows and Buffalo the same kind? What about lions and tigers? What about zebras and donkeys? What about llamas and camels? What about sheep and goats?

These species are genetically distinct, live in separate populations, have different social habits and reproduce separately. The ability to interbreed is not the only factor to look at. You also have to consider their genetic, physical, and behavioral differences and whether they actually interbreed very often. There are many distinct species that are able to interbreed with varying levels of success but rarely do.

ME: This is where terminology confuses me. Evolution seems to have different genus as just different species of a genus?????

All the 'what abouts' Buffaloes and (what sort of cows) Cows and the rest are of the same KIND. as I said Bovine,Canine,Equine, and the camel and the others you mention of are of the same Kind.

One recent example of species interbreeding is the dog bred from a Husky and a Pomeranian, in England, called a Pomskie. True. The Curl over tail dogs such as the Husky, Chow Chow, Keeshond, down to the Pomeranian are said to be closely related in species genetically. Although these dogs can look very much different along the lone of the species they remain Canine, Dogs, no matter what the be reeding says. Eventually there is produced a half sized Husky with the temperament of both the Pomeranian and the Husky.

The same thing applies to species breeding in the variety of Horse, but they still remain a horse. Do you understand what I am trying to ask?

I have no problem with changes in species, within family groups, and at time this becomes complicated in that the offspring are mongrels or mules of hybrid, al meaning the same thing, and the reproductive ability is stopped.

I have not seen, even in cloning, a tiger crossing with a horse, for instance...be a bugga to ride.

So, if someone could replace the word or term KIND, as used in the Biblical story of the Flood, with an evolution equivalent I would have a start of understanding what is being talked about.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:44:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 8:26:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Common dolphin and bottle nose Dolphins (different genus); camals and llamas (different genus), gelada and common baboons (different genus) and African and Indian elephants (different genera).

Those are intergeneric hybrid examples based on defined genera; the examples you cite aren't just different genera, but are actually different families (caniformes and feliforms), and different orders (bovids -Artiodactyla, and horses - ungulata) which makes the question a little confusing.

Remember cats and dogs are different genera, but so are cats and Pumas and cats and amoeba.

ME: But they are all cats and remain cats. Dogs are dogs and remain dogs. A cat and a dog species, Kind, genus, genera, family will not breed with other species, Kind, genus, genera or family. Even some attempt at breeding in species will end with a hybrid which means no further reproduction of the result...Donkey and horse= Mule.

This is where I am in conflict with evolution. It seems that in evolution you can breed across these definitions, and it is likely that a horse and a tiger would breed and produce some form of offspring.

Just a a technical response, even though it is taken from the Bible, the Donkey was considered a lesser animal than others, as a donkey was not a suitable sacrifice and had to be replaced with a sheep or a goat or even a bull calf. With this it could be that the donkey is already hybrid genetically even though they do reproduce in their own species.

So given this, there are number different intergeneric hybrids, thus invalidating "kinds" at the genera level; you could move it up one to "family" the next taxonomic group, but as you know that would make humans the same kind as chimps.

What are the intergeneric hybrids, and are these hybrids mules, no reproductive ability?. As far as monkeys and humans, that is another story, and I find it hard to accept.

For a change, I am not looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments, just an understanding of how different (all them words) breed together and become another (all them words).
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:49:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:30:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:56:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Wait so are cows and Buffalo the same kind? What about lions and tigers? What about zebras and donkeys? What about llamas and camels? What about sheep and goats?

These species are genetically distinct, live in separate populations, have different social habits and reproduce separately. The ability to interbreed is not the only factor to look at. You also have to consider their genetic, physical, and behavioral differences and whether they actually interbreed very often. There are many distinct species that are able to interbreed with varying levels of success but rarely do.

ME: This is where terminology confuses me. Evolution seems to have different genus as just different species of a genus?????

No, a genus is not a species. It is a genus. Every genus contains species. Every family contains many genuses.

All the 'what abouts' Buffaloes and (what sort of cows) Cows and the rest are of the same KIND. as I said Bovine,Canine,Equine, and the camel and the others you mention of are of the same Kind.

One recent example of species interbreeding is the dog bred from a Husky and a Pomeranian, in England, called a Pomskie. True. The Curl over tail dogs such as the Husky, Chow Chow, Keeshond, down to the Pomeranian are said to be closely related in species genetically. Although these dogs can look very much different along the lone of the species they remain Canine, Dogs, no matter what the be reeding says. Eventually there is produced a half sized Husky with the temperament of both the Pomeranian and the Husky.

The same thing applies to species breeding in the variety of Horse, but they still remain a horse. Do you understand what I am trying to ask?

I have no problem with changes in species, within family groups, and at time this becomes complicated in that the offspring are mongrels or mules of hybrid, al meaning the same thing, and the reproductive ability is stopped.

I have not seen, even in cloning, a tiger crossing with a horse, for instance...be a bugga to ride.

So, if someone could replace the word or term KIND, as used in the Biblical story of the Flood, with an evolution equivalent I would have a start of understanding what is being talked about.

You can define "kind" to be anything you like. Its you word, you can make it anything you like. It sounds like you are defining a "kind" as a group of animals that can interbreed but can't interbreed with other groups of animals. Also the children have to be fertile.

The problem with your definition is that you have to make a "kind" a large variety of animals because of how easy cross-species reproduction happens. Yet you kind find that these groups are made so large that many species within the kind can't reproduce. They aren't the same kind if they can't reproduce. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring and so can lions and leopards. Yet tigers and leopards produce stillborns. They can't reproduce with fertile offspring that survive. There other examples of how A can reproduce with B and B can with C but A can't with C.

If you want to define a certain group of animals as a kind then you have to ensure that none of the species in it can reproduce with anything outside and that all species within the kind can reproduce with each other. Please do this before claiming different groups of animals are kinds.

Also your definition only takes into account the ability to breed. There are many species that are very distinct like lions and tigers, in both physical and social traits and never actually choose to interbreed in nature. Two species may produce hybrids but these hybrids are abominations that can't find a mate and die alone. Most people would not say that lions, tigers, and leopards are the same kind because of all the differences between them even if they can be forced to make some freaky hybrid.

We have seen speciation happen in the lab. A new species of drosophila paulistorum evolved in the lab and comes from one single parent. In 1958 when the experiment started they were able to produce hybrids with other drosophila paulistorum but afterwards they were unable to do so.
http://www.readcube.com...
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 3:10:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:49:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:30:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:56:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Wait so are cows and Buffalo the same kind? What about lions and tigers? What about zebras and donkeys? What about llamas and camels? What about sheep and goats?

These species are genetically distinct, live in separate populations, have different social habits and reproduce separately. The ability to interbreed is not the only factor to look at. You also have to consider their genetic, physical, and behavioral differences and whether they actually interbreed very often. There are many distinct species that are able to interbreed with varying levels of success but rarely do.

ME: This is where terminology confuses me. Evolution seems to have different genus as just different species of a genus?????

No, a genus is not a species. It is a genus. Every genus contains species. Every family contains many genuses.

All the 'what abouts' Buffaloes and (what sort of cows) Cows and the rest are of the same KIND. as I said Bovine,Canine,Equine, and the camel and the others you mention of are of the same Kind.

One recent example of species interbreeding is the dog bred from a Husky and a Pomeranian, in England, called a Pomskie. True. The Curl over tail dogs such as the Husky, Chow Chow, Keeshond, down to the Pomeranian are said to be closely related in species genetically. Although these dogs can look very much different along the lone of the species they remain Canine, Dogs, no matter what the be reeding says. Eventually there is produced a half sized Husky with the temperament of both the Pomeranian and the Husky.

The same thing applies to species breeding in the variety of Horse, but they still remain a horse. Do you understand what I am trying to ask?

I have no problem with changes in species, within family groups, and at time this becomes complicated in that the offspring are mongrels or mules of hybrid, al meaning the same thing, and the reproductive ability is stopped.

I have not seen, even in cloning, a tiger crossing with a horse, for instance...be a bugga to ride.

So, if someone could replace the word or term KIND, as used in the Biblical story of the Flood, with an evolution equivalent I would have a start of understanding what is being talked about.

You can define "kind" to be anything you like. Its you word, you can make it anything you like. It sounds like you are defining a "kind" as a group of animals that can interbreed but can't interbreed with other groups of animals. Also the children have to be fertile.

The problem with your definition is that you have to make a "kind" a large variety of animals because of how easy cross-species reproduction happens. Yet you kind find that these groups are made so large that many species within the kind can't reproduce. They aren't the same kind if they can't reproduce. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring and so can lions and leopards. Yet tigers and leopards produce stillborns. They can't reproduce with fertile offspring that survive. There other examples of how A can reproduce with B and B can with C but A can't with C.

If you want to define a certain group of animals as a kind then you have to ensure that none of the species in it can reproduce with anything outside and that all species within the kind can reproduce with each other. Please do this before claiming different groups of animals are kinds.

Also your definition only takes into account the ability to breed. There are many species that are very distinct like lions and tigers, in both physical and social traits and never actually choose to interbreed in nature. Two species may produce hybrids but these hybrids are abominations that can't find a mate and die alone. Most people would not say that lions, tigers, and leopards are the same kind because of all the differences between them even if they can be forced to make some freaky hybrid.

We have seen speciation happen in the lab. A new species of drosophila paulistorum evolved in the lab and comes from one single parent. In 1958 when the experiment started they were able to produce hybrids with other drosophila paulistorum but afterwards they were unable to do so.
http://www.readcube.com...

noun, plural genera
[jen-er-uh] (Show IPA), genuses.
1.
Biology. the usual major subdivision of a family or subfamily in the classification of organisms, usually consisting of more than one species.
2.
Logic. a class or group of individuals, or of species of individuals.
3.
a kind; sort; class.

Please note: Here is a dictionary that can call kinds anything they want to; as well as me.

This does help clear up what I mean by Kind. A species of individuals, the individuals being of one kind. This definition shows that it considers genus to mean Kind, as in my definition.

Did you come up with some Intergenetic Hybrids for me to look at? Other than the Mule and Jenette (Jenny). This mule is renowned for its sexual behavior, but it can copulate but cannot reproduce.

The experiment you offer as some concept of intergentic behaviour seems to suggest that you think that it is between tow different genus, as per the definition. However the article I looked at showed that two were completely in discord with the other. One says that Virgin females were used in the experiment, the other said that the genus was completely infertile.

I would prefer a more concise and proved example to understand what you are saying. No need to find the longest words you can to confuse me, I can get confused with Prepositions.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 3:22:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:49:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:30:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:56:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Wait so are cows and Buffalo the same kind? What about lions and tigers? What about zebras and donkeys? What about llamas and camels? What about sheep and goats?

These species are genetically distinct, live in separate populations, have different social habits and reproduce separately. The ability to interbreed is not the only factor to look at. You also have to consider their genetic, physical, and behavioral differences and whether they actually interbreed very often. There are many distinct species that are able to interbreed with varying levels of success but rarely do.

ME: This is where terminology confuses me. Evolution seems to have different genus as just different species of a genus?????

No, a genus is not a species. It is a genus. Every genus contains species. Every family contains many genuses.

All the 'what abouts' Buffaloes and (what sort of cows) Cows and the rest are of the same KIND. as I said Bovine,Canine,Equine, and the camel and the others you mention of are of the same Kind.

One recent example of species interbreeding is the dog bred from a Husky and a Pomeranian, in England, called a Pomskie. True. The Curl over tail dogs such as the Husky, Chow Chow, Keeshond, down to the Pomeranian are said to be closely related in species genetically. Although these dogs can look very much different along the lone of the species they remain Canine, Dogs, no matter what the be reeding says. Eventually there is produced a half sized Husky with the temperament of both the Pomeranian and the Husky.

The same thing applies to species breeding in the variety of Horse, but they still remain a horse. Do you understand what I am trying to ask?

I have no problem with changes in species, within family groups, and at time this becomes complicated in that the offspring are mongrels or mules of hybrid, al meaning the same thing, and the reproductive ability is stopped.

I have not seen, even in cloning, a tiger crossing with a horse, for instance...be a bugga to ride.

So, if someone could replace the word or term KIND, as used in the Biblical story of the Flood, with an evolution equivalent I would have a start of understanding what is being talked about.

You can define "kind" to be anything you like. Its you word, you can make it anything you like. It sounds like you are defining a "kind" as a group of animals that can interbreed but can't interbreed with other groups of animals. Also the children have to be fertile.

The problem with your definition is that you have to make a "kind" a large variety of animals because of how easy cross-species reproduction happens. Yet you kind find that these groups are made so large that many species within the kind can't reproduce. They aren't the same kind if they can't reproduce. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring and so can lions and leopards. Yet tigers and leopards produce stillborns. They can't reproduce with fertile offspring that survive. There other examples of how A can reproduce with B and B can with C but A can't with C.

If you want to define a certain group of animals as a kind then you have to ensure that none of the species in it can reproduce with anything outside and that all species within the kind can reproduce with each other. Please do this before claiming different groups of animals are kinds.

ME: And that is the case. I will use the term Genus as per the dictionary (Kind) and ask you fro examples of different genera crossing t make a different genus, or even species of the both genera. If one genus bred with the other, say female to male, then it stands to reason that it would breed male to female in the other genus, thus you would have the two parents of two different genus and the offspring of both, which you would like to have as being able to reproduce, making up a either new genus, or a species of a new genus or some other explanation as you please.

Also your definition only takes into account the ability to breed. There are many species that are very distinct like lions and tigers, in both physical and social traits and never actually choose to interbreed in nature. Two species may produce hybrids but these hybrids are abominations that can't find a mate and die alone. Most people would not say that lions, tigers, and leopards are the same kind because of all the differences between them even if they can be forced to make some freaky hybrid.

ME: Environment also plays its part in the breeding behavior. Just as there are many species of dog, that have been adapted through cross breeding to obtain certain characteristics, wild animals will adapt to the environment, such as Huskies with hair on the soles of their feet. Dogs with hair as against fur because of the water retention of each. Labradors and Newfoundland dogs with web toes, but although they are different species they are still dogs, the same kind, genus, family or type of animal.

We have seen speciation happen in the lab. A new species of drosophila paulistorum evolved in the lab and comes from one single parent. In 1958 when the experiment started they were able to produce hybrids with other drosophila paulistorum but afterwards they were unable to do so.
http://www.readcube.com...
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
When we as humans try to classify the natural world, there are invariably instances where things do not fit neatly into our classification scheme. This is especially true of organisms, which exist as a continuum of variety, rather than fitting into neat little boxes. No matter how we define the categories, there will always be organisms that are on the border.

As an example, consider an outdated definition of species: a population of animals that can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Well, what about the case where species A and B can interbreed, and species B and C can interbreed, but species A and C cannot. Is A the same species as C? If not, then how could A and B be the same species, B and C be the same species, but A and C different species? Such cases, called ring species, do occur.

And that's only the macroscopic world. In the microbial world, things get much fuzzier. Horizontal gene transfer, for instance, occurs when genetic material gets transferred from one organism to another through a process other than reproduction. A single-celled organism can acquire genetic material that is just floating nearby, or it can be transferred by viruses. Horizontal gene transfer may even be the primary way that genetic information gets exchanged between microbes. The picture is so messy that scientists debate whether species even exist at the microbial level.

And don't think the picture gets much cleaner by going to the macro world. In a certain sense, viruses can breed with any other organism. A retrovirus inserts itself into the DNA of its host organism. When it inserts itself into an egg or sperm cell, it can be passed down to offspring, who will then possess the retrovirus as part of the DNA in every cell. We see this with several strains of herpesvirus. Over successive generations, these viruses mutate and degrade, losing their potency as infectious agents. Recent studies have found that as much as 5 to 8 percent of the human genome may consist of such endogenous retroviruses.

As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:
When we as humans try to classify the natural world, there are invariably instances where things do not fit neatly into our classification scheme. This is especially true of organisms, which exist as a continuum of variety, rather than fitting into neat little boxes. No matter how we define the categories, there will always be organisms that are on the border.

ME: As is donkey and horse, as I have continually said.

As an example, consider an outdated definition of species: a population of animals that can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Well, what about the case where species A and B can interbreed, and species B and C can interbreed, but species A and C cannot. Is A the same species as C? If not, then how could A and B be the same species, B and C be the same species, but A and C different species? Such cases, called ring species, do occur.

Me: The example is the donkey and the horse.

And that's only the macroscopic world. In the microbial world, things get much fuzzier. Horizontal gene transfer, for instance, occurs when genetic material gets transferred from one organism to another through a process other than reproduction. A single-celled organism can acquire genetic material that is just floating nearby, or it can be transferred by viruses. Horizontal gene transfer may even be the primary way that genetic information gets exchanged between microbes. The picture is so messy that scientists debate whether species even exist at the microbial level.\

ME: You are so right about fuzzier. Did the single cell organisms of today evolve from the single cell organism of the long lost past?

And don't think the picture gets much cleaner by going to the macro world. In a certain sense, viruses can breed with any other organism. A retrovirus inserts itself into the DNA of its host organism. When it inserts itself into an egg or sperm cell, it can be passed down to offspring, who will then possess the retrovirus as part of the DNA in every cell. We see this with several strains of herpesvirus. Over successive generations, these viruses mutate and degrade, losing their potency as infectious agents. Recent studies have found that as much as 5 to 8 percent of the human genome may consist of such endogenous retroviruses.

ME: But what ever happens, you still call them viruses. Do they change to a cat or a horse?

As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 6:32:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:
When we as humans try to classify the natural world, there are invariably instances where things do not fit neatly into our classification scheme. This is especially true of organisms, which exist as a continuum of variety, rather than fitting into neat little boxes. No matter how we define the categories, there will always be organisms that are on the border.

ME: As is donkey and horse, as I have continually said.

As an example, consider an outdated definition of species: a population of animals that can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Well, what about the case where species A and B can interbreed, and species B and C can interbreed, but species A and C cannot. Is A the same species as C? If not, then how could A and B be the same species, B and C be the same species, but A and C different species? Such cases, called ring species, do occur.

Me: The example is the donkey and the horse.

And that's only the macroscopic world. In the microbial world, things get much fuzzier. Horizontal gene transfer, for instance, occurs when genetic material gets transferred from one organism to another through a process other than reproduction. A single-celled organism can acquire genetic material that is just floating nearby, or it can be transferred by viruses. Horizontal gene transfer may even be the primary way that genetic information gets exchanged between microbes. The picture is so messy that scientists debate whether species even exist at the microbial level.\

ME: You are so right about fuzzier. Did the single cell organisms of today evolve from the single cell organism of the long lost past?

Of course. And by fuzzier, I meant more difficult to place into distinct, nonoverlapping categories.


And don't think the picture gets much cleaner by going to the macro world. In a certain sense, viruses can breed with any other organism. A retrovirus inserts itself into the DNA of its host organism. When it inserts itself into an egg or sperm cell, it can be passed down to offspring, who will then possess the retrovirus as part of the DNA in every cell. We see this with several strains of herpesvirus. Over successive generations, these viruses mutate and degrade, losing their potency as infectious agents. Recent studies have found that as much as 5 to 8 percent of the human genome may consist of such endogenous retroviruses.

ME: But what ever happens, you still call them viruses. Do they change to a cat or a horse?

Given a billion generations, their descendants might resemble a cat or dog. Although viruses are a bad example, since they only reproduce in a host.


As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.

Nope. "Kind" is an imprecise word, and thus scientifically useless. It's as simple as that. There is no Orwellian conspiracy.

If you think you have a scientifically useful definition of "kind", please share it. And I mean an actual definition, not just examples like "cat" and "dog".
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:26:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:44:06 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 8:26:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Common dolphin and bottle nose Dolphins (different genus); camals and llamas (different genus), gelada and common baboons (different genus) and African and Indian elephants (different genera).

Those are intergeneric hybrid examples based on defined genera; the examples you cite aren't just different genera, but are actually different families (caniformes and feliforms), and different orders (bovids -Artiodactyla, and horses - ungulata) which makes the question a little confusing.

Remember cats and dogs are different genera, but so are cats and Pumas and cats and amoeba.

ME: But they are all cats and remain cats. Dogs are dogs and remain dogs. A cat and a dog species, Kind, genus, genera, family will not breed with other species, Kind, genus, genera or family. Even some attempt at breeding in species will end with a hybrid which means no further reproduction of the result...Donkey and horse= Mule.

At no stage, at any point in the history of life on this planet, has any animal, species, genus, class, or phyla ever stopped being the same type as it's parents.

We are still Homo Sapiens, we are still Hominidae, we are still Cattarhini, we are still primates, we are still Eutherian Mammals, we are still Mammalia, we are still Therapsida, we are still synapsids, we are still Amniotes, we are still terrestrial vertebrates, we are still Sarcopterygii, we are still Gnathostomes, we are still vertebrates, we are still Craniats, we are still Chordata, we are still Deutorostomes, we are still Bilterian, we are still Metazoan, we are still Eukaryotes, and we are still DNA/RNA based life forms.

A horse will never produce a non-horse, for the same reason any mammal will never produce a species that is no longer mammalian; nor will a eukaryote produce something that isn't a eukaryote any longer; nor has any of these representative groups EVER given birth to something that was not the same type of thing as that group through common descent.

The problem is that a "cat" is not just a cat. A cat is a feliform with a specific set of traits that only one collection of species share. Feliforms, themselves are Carnivoraforms, but with a collection of traits only other feliforms share. Carnivoraforms, are mammals that, you guessed it, have a collection of traits not shared by other mammals.

The problem is you are treating a "kind" as something completely different from anything else. Kinds don't change; they simply generate that kind+differences creating a collection of "sub-kinds" that get ever more diverse over time.

It seems your perspective on life has no depth in this regard. Horses never become non-horses; nor does evolution require it to; horses would breed to be horses with differences; and those differences become large enough to separate them from the original group, even though they are still horses. In the same way that every eukaryote descendant, is still eukaryote today, just each individual lineage acquires it's own distinct set of traits and changes that distinguish them from one another.

Just a a technical response, even though it is taken from the Bible, the Donkey was considered a lesser animal than others, as a donkey was not a suitable sacrifice and had to be replaced with a sheep or a goat or even a bull calf. With this it could be that the donkey is already hybrid genetically even though they do reproduce in their own species.

I think you're missing a key piece of understanding. Individuals don't evolve; populations of individuals evolve.

Let me try and explain it a little.

Whether two individuals can interbreed successfully depends on how genetically different they are. For example, with a few key genetic differences, everything is fine; if you have, say, 10 differences between two individuals, it's slightly harder for them to reproduce; 100 and you only get infertile offspring; 200 and they cannot genetically reproduce at all.

Lets say you have a small population of creatures, lets say 100 of them. When a new child is born, genetically they are the same as their parents, with a few differences.

So, at first, if the population starts off with very few differences, each generation produces differences. However, as they are all breeding together, and different lineages within this group interbreed, any individual change spreads throughout the population, so at no point are any two individuals in that group sufficiently different to prevent them genetically breeding.

If, however, the population splits into two groups; each individual group will go it's own way; with each group accumulating their own changes within that population; to the point where any individual within a population doesn't differ much from others in that population, but shares over 100 differences compared to any individual in the other population.

For a change, I am not looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments, just an understanding of how different (all them words) breed together and become another (all them words).

So normally you are looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments? :)
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 6:25:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 3:10:02 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 1:49:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:30:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:56:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Wait so are cows and Buffalo the same kind? What about lions and tigers? What about zebras and donkeys? What about llamas and camels? What about sheep and goats?

These species are genetically distinct, live in separate populations, have different social habits and reproduce separately. The ability to interbreed is not the only factor to look at. You also have to consider their genetic, physical, and behavioral differences and whether they actually interbreed very often. There are many distinct species that are able to interbreed with varying levels of success but rarely do.

ME: This is where terminology confuses me. Evolution seems to have different genus as just different species of a genus?????

No, a genus is not a species. It is a genus. Every genus contains species. Every family contains many genuses.

All the 'what abouts' Buffaloes and (what sort of cows) Cows and the rest are of the same KIND. as I said Bovine,Canine,Equine, and the camel and the others you mention of are of the same Kind.

One recent example of species interbreeding is the dog bred from a Husky and a Pomeranian, in England, called a Pomskie. True. The Curl over tail dogs such as the Husky, Chow Chow, Keeshond, down to the Pomeranian are said to be closely related in species genetically. Although these dogs can look very much different along the lone of the species they remain Canine, Dogs, no matter what the be reeding says. Eventually there is produced a half sized Husky with the temperament of both the Pomeranian and the Husky.

The same thing applies to species breeding in the variety of Horse, but they still remain a horse. Do you understand what I am trying to ask?

I have no problem with changes in species, within family groups, and at time this becomes complicated in that the offspring are mongrels or mules of hybrid, al meaning the same thing, and the reproductive ability is stopped.

I have not seen, even in cloning, a tiger crossing with a horse, for instance...be a bugga to ride.

So, if someone could replace the word or term KIND, as used in the Biblical story of the Flood, with an evolution equivalent I would have a start of understanding what is being talked about.

You can define "kind" to be anything you like. Its you word, you can make it anything you like. It sounds like you are defining a "kind" as a group of animals that can interbreed but can't interbreed with other groups of animals. Also the children have to be fertile.

The problem with your definition is that you have to make a "kind" a large variety of animals because of how easy cross-species reproduction happens. Yet you kind find that these groups are made so large that many species within the kind can't reproduce. They aren't the same kind if they can't reproduce. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring and so can lions and leopards. Yet tigers and leopards produce stillborns. They can't reproduce with fertile offspring that survive. There other examples of how A can reproduce with B and B can with C but A can't with C.

If you want to define a certain group of animals as a kind then you have to ensure that none of the species in it can reproduce with anything outside and that all species within the kind can reproduce with each other. Please do this before claiming different groups of animals are kinds.

Also your definition only takes into account the ability to breed. There are many species that are very distinct like lions and tigers, in both physical and social traits and never actually choose to interbreed in nature. Two species may produce hybrids but these hybrids are abominations that can't find a mate and die alone. Most people would not say that lions, tigers, and leopards are the same kind because of all the differences between them even if they can be forced to make some freaky hybrid.

We have seen speciation happen in the lab. A new species of drosophila paulistorum evolved in the lab and comes from one single parent. In 1958 when the experiment started they were able to produce hybrids with other drosophila paulistorum but afterwards they were unable to do so.
http://www.readcube.com...


noun, plural genera
[jen-er-uh] (Show IPA), genuses.
1.
Biology. the usual major subdivision of a family or subfamily in the classification of organisms, usually consisting of more than one species.
2.
Logic. a class or group of individuals, or of species of individuals.
3.
a kind; sort; class.

Please note: Here is a dictionary that can call kinds anything they want to; as well as me.

This does help clear up what I mean by Kind. A species of individuals, the individuals being of one kind. This definition shows that it considers genus to mean Kind, as in my definition.

No, a biblical kind is a group of animals that can reproduce with each other. That is not the same thing as a genus which is just a subjective grouping of species make make classification of animals easier by scientists.

If you are so stuck on inter-genus crossbreeding dolphins and false killer whales are in different genuses and are able to inter-breed to make the wholphin which is fertile.

Did you come up with some Intergenetic Hybrids for me to look at? Other than the Mule and Jenette (Jenny). This mule is renowned for its sexual behavior, but it can copulate but cannot reproduce.

The Liger which is a hybrid of the lion and a tiger. and a leopon which a hybrid of a lion and a panther.

The experiment you offer as some concept of intergentic behaviour seems to suggest that you think that it is between tow different genus, as per the definition. However the article I looked at showed that two were completely in discord with the other. One says that Virgin females were used in the experiment, the other said that the genus was completely infertile.

What I demonstrated was the evolution of a new species that can no longer reproduce with related species that it previously could. This new species is not a new genus. What the article said was that eventually the new species was infertile with the related species it could once reproduce with.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:10:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:49:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:30:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:56:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Wait so are cows and Buffalo the same kind? What about lions and tigers? What about zebras and donkeys? What about llamas and camels? What about sheep and goats?

These species are genetically distinct, live in separate populations, have different social habits and reproduce separately. The ability to interbreed is not the only factor to look at. You also have to consider their genetic, physical, and behavioral differences and whether they actually interbreed very often. There are many distinct species that are able to interbreed with varying levels of success but rarely do.

ME: This is where terminology confuses me. Evolution seems to have different genus as just different species of a genus?????

No, a genus is not a species. It is a genus. Every genus contains species. Every family contains many genuses.

ME: This is where it all goes wrong. A genus, kind, type, family of animal cannot contain any genera as it is already of a genus, kind, type, family.

It is only evolutionists that claim species and Genera are the same thing, where the correct statement is that Species are type of the one Genera. Again the example: AN Afghan-hound (Species) is of the Canine Genus.

In your interpretation, what "family" does the Afghan-hound belong in.

Only evolution needs crosses between families of animals, animals seem to be getting on with it without crossing into non-productive mules.

A scenario: If evolution was true, and the flood of Noah's time is as explained, Noah would have only needed a female and a male of any animal that was around. He would not have to build an ark the size it was. He could have put a couple of tit mice in his pocket and we would have the evolution process of every animal coming from that pair, eventually, as they would all be of the one family...Do you basically prescribe to that thought?

All the 'what abouts' Buffaloes and (what sort of cows) Cows and the rest are of the same KIND. as I said Bovine,Canine,Equine, and the camel and the others you mention of are of the same Kind.

One recent example of species interbreeding is the dog bred from a Husky and a Pomeranian, in England, called a Pomskie. True. The Curl over tail dogs such as the Husky, Chow Chow, Keeshond, down to the Pomeranian are said to be closely related in species genetically. Although these dogs can look very much different along the lone of the species they remain Canine, Dogs, no matter what the be reeding says. Eventually there is produced a half sized Husky with the temperament of both the Pomeranian and the Husky.

The same thing applies to species breeding in the variety of Horse, but they still remain a horse. Do you understand what I am trying to ask?

I have no problem with changes in species, within family groups, and at time this becomes complicated in that the offspring are mongrels or mules of hybrid, all meaning the same thing, and the reproductive ability is stopped.

I have not seen, even in cloning, a tiger crossing with a horse, for instance...be a bugga to ride.

So, if someone could replace the word or term KIND, as used in the Biblical story of the Flood, with an evolution equivalent I would have a start of understanding what is being talked about.

You can define "kind" to be anything you like. Its you word, you can make it anything you like. It sounds like you are defining a "kind" as a group of animals that can interbreed but can't interbreed with other groups of animals. Also the children have to be fertile.

ME: That is exactly what I am saying, and it is proved. There has been the ligrer, a cross between a lion and a tiger, but I have not looked to see if that was natural or human devised.

The problem with your definition is that you have to make a "kind" a large variety of animals because of how easy cross-species reproduction happens. Yet you kind find that these groups are made so large that many species within the kind can't reproduce. They aren't the same kind if they can't reproduce. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring and so can lions and leopards. Yet tigers and leopards produce stillborns. They can't reproduce with fertile offspring that survive. There other examples of how A can reproduce with B and B can with C but A can't with C.

ME:You don't get it! These examples you cite are all of the one kind, genus ie: Canine, cat family. There can be difficulties in species that halt the cross breeding, and some even force cross breeding until they get a most grotesque result, the Chrysanthemum Budgerigar, is one. This poor creature has been baned form breeders lists, as it is unable to breed, unable to sit on a perch, and has such a cluster of feathers that it cannot preen correctly. I suggest that there are many reasons why species do not cross breed in the wild. And, if they do happen to cross breed naturally the result is still of the same species; however evolution suggests that maybe a cat and a dog could crossbreed, but what would be the result genus -wise, a cat or a dog species.

If you want to define a certain group of animals as a kind then you have to ensure that none of the species in it can reproduce with anything outside and that all species within the kind can reproduce with each other. Please do this before claiming different groups of animals are kinds.

Also your definition only takes into account the ability to breed. There are many species that are very distinct like lions and tigers, in both physical and social traits and never actually choose to interbreed in nature. Two species may produce hybrids but these hybrids are abominations that can't find a mate and die alone. Most people would not say that lions, tigers, and leopards are the same kind because of all the differences between them even if they can be forced to make some freaky hybrid.

We have seen speciation happen in the lab. A new species of drosophila paulistorum evolved in the lab and comes from one single parent. In 1958 when the experiment started they were able to produce hybrids with other drosophila paulistorum but afterwards they were unable to do so.
http://www.readcube.com...
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 6:00:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:10:42 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 1:49:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:30:27 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: This is where terminology confuses me. Evolution seems to have different genus as just different species of a genus?????

No, a genus is not a species. It is a genus. Every genus contains species. Every family contains many genuses.

ME: This is where it all goes wrong. A genus, kind, type, family of animal cannot contain any genera as it is already of a genus, kind, type, family.

I never said that a genus contains a genus. A genus contains a species. A genus is a collection of related species that have been put in the same category.

It is only evolutionists that claim species and Genera are the same thing, where the correct statement is that Species are type of the one Genera.

Evolutionists claim no such thing. We claim that genuses contain species.

Here is a link with what I mean:
http://www.garden.org...

Again the example: AN Afghan-hound (Species) is of the Canine Genus.

In your interpretation, what "family" does the Afghan-hound belong in.

It belongs to the Canis genus which contains wolves and dogs. Canis is contained within the Canidae family which also contains generic canines like foxes and jackals.

Only evolution needs crosses between families of animals, animals seem to be getting on with it without crossing into non-productive mules.

Evolution is not driven by inter-species reproduction and this rarely happens. Often a single species will evolve or the species will be in two different areas and the two isolated populations will evolve separately.

A scenario: If evolution was true, and the flood of Noah's time is as explained, Noah would have only needed a female and a male of any animal that was around. He would not have to build an ark the size it was. He could have put a couple of tit mice in his pocket and we would have the evolution process of every animal coming from that pair, eventually, as they would all be of the one family...Do you basically prescribe to that thought?

There are a lot of genuses. There are hundreds of just mammal genuses.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

You also have to fit on the bug genuses, reptile genuses, and bird genuses. Also, don't forget about the dinosaurs. I don't see how you fit all of the genuses on a boat that is as one as one and a half football fields. In modern standards the ark is not large. Also you have to store enough food to feed all the animals for an entire year. Elephants eat several hundred pounds of vegetation and water every day. They also pee and poop this out as well. Also penguins die in warm weather and many animals have very specific needs.

Also evolving all the species from the genuses is an enormous amount of evolution in just a few thousand years and it doesn't look like evolution happens fast enough to do this. Having one of every kind of animal will also create major genetic problems from inbreeding as well. I could go on about the flood and the ark.

All the 'what abouts' Buffaloes and (what sort of cows) Cows and the rest are of the same KIND. as I said Bovine,Canine,Equine, and the camel and the others you mention of are of the same Kind.

One recent example of species interbreeding is the dog bred from a Husky and a Pomeranian, in England, called a Pomskie. True. The Curl over tail dogs such as the Husky, Chow Chow, Keeshond, down to the Pomeranian are said to be closely related in species genetically. Although these dogs can look very much different along the lone of the species they remain Canine, Dogs, no matter what the be reeding says. Eventually there is produced a half sized Husky with the temperament of both the Pomeranian and the Husky.

The same thing applies to species breeding in the variety of Horse, but they still remain a horse. Do you understand what I am trying to ask?

I have not seen, even in cloning, a tiger crossing with a horse, for instance...be a bugga to ride.

So, if someone could replace the word or term KIND, as used in the Biblical story of the Flood, with an evolution equivalent I would have a start of understanding what is being talked about.

You can define "kind" to be anything you like. Its you word, you can make it anything you like. It sounds like you are defining a "kind" as a group of animals that can interbreed but can't interbreed with other groups of animals. Also the children have to be fertile.

The problem with your definition is that you have to make a "kind" a large variety of animals because of how easy cross-species reproduction happens. Yet you kind find that these groups are made so large that many species within the kind can't reproduce. They aren't the same kind if they can't reproduce. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring and so can lions and leopards. Yet tigers and leopards produce stillborns. They can't reproduce with fertile offspring that survive. There other examples of how A can reproduce with B and B can with C but A can't with C.

ME:You don't get it! These examples you cite are all of the one kind, genus ie: Canine, cat family.

Again, the biblical kind has nothing to do with the genus which was invented thousands of years later as a level of animal classification. A genus is not a biblical kind.

There can be difficulties in species that halt the cross breeding, and some even force cross breeding until they get a most grotesque result, the Chrysanthemum Budgerigar, is one. This poor creature has been baned form breeders lists, as it is unable to breed, unable to sit on a perch, and has such a cluster of feathers that it cannot preen correctly. I suggest that there are many reasons why species do not cross breed in the wild. And, if they do happen to cross breed naturally the result is still of the same species;

My main point was that those within a biblical kind can normally interbreed with each other expect in the case of medical conditions. If a kind is a genus then there are many examples of species in the genus that can't interbreed, e.g. tiger and leopard. Also there are many more examples of grotesque hybrids that result when two species within a genus are somehow made to reproduce e.g. ligers.

I am not saying there are examples of interbreeding creating new genuses or that we have seen new genuses evolving. We have observed the evolution of new species that can no longer reproduce with the original.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 7:58:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 6:32:47 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:
When we as humans try to classify the natural world, there are invariably instances where things do not fit neatly into our classification scheme. This is especially true of organisms, which exist as a continuum of variety, rather than fitting into neat little boxes. No matter how we define the categories, there will always be organisms that are on the border.

ME: As is donkey and horse, as I have continually said.

As an example, consider an outdated definition of species: a population of animals that can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Well, what about the case where species A and B can interbreed, and species B and C can interbreed, but species A and C cannot. Is A the same species as C? If not, then how could A and B be the same species, B and C be the same species, but A and C different species? Such cases, called ring species, do occur.

Me: The example is the donkey and the horse.

And that's only the macroscopic world. In the microbial world, things get much fuzzier. Horizontal gene transfer, for instance, occurs when genetic material gets transferred from one organism to another through a process other than reproduction. A single-celled organism can acquire genetic material that is just floating nearby, or it can be transferred by viruses. Horizontal gene transfer may even be the primary way that genetic information gets exchanged between microbes. The picture is so messy that scientists debate whether species even exist at the microbial level.\

ME: You are so right about fuzzier. Did the single cell organisms of today evolve from the single cell organism of the long lost past?

Of course. And by fuzzier, I meant more difficult to place into distinct, nonoverlapping categories.


And don't think the picture gets much cleaner by going to the macro world. In a certain sense, viruses can breed with any other organism. A retrovirus inserts itself into the DNA of its host organism. When it inserts itself into an egg or sperm cell, it can be passed down to offspring, who will then possess the retrovirus as part of the DNA in every cell. We see this with several strains of herpesvirus. Over successive generations, these viruses mutate and degrade, losing their potency as infectious agents. Recent studies have found that as much as 5 to 8 percent of the human genome may consist of such endogenous retroviruses.

ME: But what ever happens, you still call them viruses. Do they change to a cat or a horse?

Given a billion generations, their descendants might resemble a cat or dog. Although viruses are a bad example, since they only reproduce in a host.


As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.

Nope. "Kind" is an imprecise word, and thus scientifically useless. It's as simple as that. There is no Orwellian conspiracy.

If you think you have a scientifically useful definition of "kind", please share it. And I mean an actual definition, not just examples like "cat" and "dog".

Try the dictionary interpretation of Genera-Genus.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 12:44:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble their grandparents. The difference between one generation and the next is often imperceptible, but the difference between individuals of one generation and a generation 10 or a. Hundred removed can be marked, as can be seen in dogs, where a chihuahua is not so many generations from its ancestral wolf.
You could say wolves and chihuahuas are both canines, but I doubt they would breed!
Evolution doesn't operate by sudden large changes(at least not usually)but by accumulating small changes over long periods of time. That is such a basic idea that unless it is understood debate is futile.. And I'm not sure it is understood by everyone in this thread.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 7:55:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:10:42 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
A scenario: If evolution was true, and the flood of Noah's time is as explained, Noah would have only needed a female and a male of any animal that was around. He would not have to build an ark the size it was. He could have put a couple of tit mice in his pocket and we would have the evolution process of every animal coming from that pair, eventually, as they would all be of the one family...Do you basically prescribe to that thought?

Given your position, do you think that you can have a pair (or a small collection) of animals which can, over time, diversify into a number of different of distinct species each with their own individual traits that separate them from others whilst still retaining many or at least most of the features of the original pair (or small collection).

If that's true, that's good, because on a practical level you think Common Descent is valid and possible to some degree: Specifically to the degree of the original "kinds" that were on the Ark.

Is this an accurate portrayal of what you believe, or what your position is? That the Ark had a collection of creatures, which after they were released diversified into multiple individual species that we see today?
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:25:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 7:58:53 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 6:32:47 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:

As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.

Nope. "Kind" is an imprecise word, and thus scientifically useless. It's as simple as that. There is no Orwellian conspiracy.

If you think you have a scientifically useful definition of "kind", please share it. And I mean an actual definition, not just examples like "cat" and "dog".

Try the dictionary interpretation of Genera-Genus.

Genus (plural genera) is the taxonomic rank between species and family. Calling genera "kinds" adds nothing of value. It's just relabeling. We already have a perfectly good word for the taxonomic rank between species and family, so that's the word scientists use. Substituting "kind" for "genus" would only foster confusion.

Even more to the point, in your OP, only two of your four examples meet your proposed definition:

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Feline refers to the cat family (Felidae), which consists of two genera: Pantherinae and Felinae. Bovine refers to the sub-family Bovinae, which has ten different genera.

So your use of "kind" is so vague that sometimes it means families, and other times it means genera. Such imprecision is exactly why scientists do not use the word.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 2:00:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 12:25:01 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:58:53 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 6:32:47 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:

As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.

Nope. "Kind" is an imprecise word, and thus scientifically useless. It's as simple as that. There is no Orwellian conspiracy.

If you think you have a scientifically useful definition of "kind", please share it. And I mean an actual definition, not just examples like "cat" and "dog".

Try the dictionary interpretation of Genera-Genus.

Genus (plural genera) is the taxonomic rank between species and family. Calling genera "kinds" adds nothing of value. It's just relabeling. We already have a perfectly good word for the taxonomic rank between species and family, so that's the word scientists use. Substituting "kind" for "genus" would only foster confusion.

Even more to the point, in your OP, only two of your four examples meet your proposed definition:

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Feline refers to the cat family (Felidae), which consists of two genera: Pantherinae and Felinae. Bovine refers to the sub-family Bovinae, which has ten different genera.

So your use of "kind" is so vague that sometimes it means families, and other times it means genera. Such imprecision is exactly why scientists do not use the word.

ME: You keep saying MY use of kind. The dictionary version puts genera and kind in the same definition. I don't know about you, but I reckon I would believe a dictionary before I would believe you. No offense meant.

And, redefine you statement about 10 different genera...Genera is the plural of Genus and Genus is defined as Kind, type etc.

There seems to be a haze here somewhere. Kind seems to be the blocker of a discussion of evolution.

I would suggest that if you saw an Ardwolf, you would say...What "kind" of animal is that?

Kind may mean families but it never means families the have evolved across the KIND, as they do not exist...Thus evolution is stopped right there.

I assume that you will keep suggesting that different Genera can cross with other different Genera as in feline to bovine and or etc. Whilst cross breeding is confined to Genera, Genus, family or kind, you will end up with something that may look a bit different to one or both parents but will still be the same genus as the parents.

Right or Wrong?

IF wrong give me one instance, which is proved, where say (pick you own) a feline mates with a feline and the offspring is not a feline.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 3:02:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 2:00:22 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:25:01 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:58:53 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 6:32:47 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:

As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.

Nope. "Kind" is an imprecise word, and thus scientifically useless. It's as simple as that. There is no Orwellian conspiracy.

If you think you have a scientifically useful definition of "kind", please share it. And I mean an actual definition, not just examples like "cat" and "dog".

Try the dictionary interpretation of Genera-Genus.

Genus (plural genera) is the taxonomic rank between species and family. Calling genera "kinds" adds nothing of value. It's just relabeling. We already have a perfectly good word for the taxonomic rank between species and family, so that's the word scientists use. Substituting "kind" for "genus" would only foster confusion.

Even more to the point, in your OP, only two of your four examples meet your proposed definition:

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Feline refers to the cat family (Felidae), which consists of two genera: Pantherinae and Felinae. Bovine refers to the sub-family Bovinae, which has ten different genera.

So your use of "kind" is so vague that sometimes it means families, and other times it means genera. Such imprecision is exactly why scientists do not use the word.

ME: You keep saying MY use of kind. The dictionary version puts genera and kind in the same definition. I don't know about you, but I reckon I would believe a dictionary before I would believe you. No offense meant.

And, redefine you statement about 10 different genera...Genera is the plural of Genus and Genus is defined as Kind, type etc.

There seems to be a haze here somewhere. Kind seems to be the blocker of a discussion of evolution.

I would suggest that if you saw an Ardwolf, you would say...What "kind" of animal is that?

Kind may mean families but it never means families the have evolved across the KIND, as they do not exist...Thus evolution is stopped right there.

I assume that you will keep suggesting that different Genera can cross with other different Genera as in feline to bovine and or etc. Whilst cross breeding is confined to Genera, Genus, family or kind, you will end up with something that may look a bit different to one or both parents but will still be the same genus as the parents.

Right or Wrong?

IF wrong give me one instance, which is proved, where say (pick you own) a feline mates with a feline and the offspring is not a feline.

All the examples I gave in my first reply are examples of intergeneric crossbreeds. IE: different genera breeding and producing offspring.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 4:12:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 2:00:22 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:25:01 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:58:53 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 6:32:47 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:

As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.

Nope. "Kind" is an imprecise word, and thus scientifically useless. It's as simple as that. There is no Orwellian conspiracy.

If you think you have a scientifically useful definition of "kind", please share it. And I mean an actual definition, not just examples like "cat" and "dog".

Try the dictionary interpretation of Genera-Genus.

Genus (plural genera) is the taxonomic rank between species and family. Calling genera "kinds" adds nothing of value. It's just relabeling. We already have a perfectly good word for the taxonomic rank between species and family, so that's the word scientists use. Substituting "kind" for "genus" would only foster confusion.

Even more to the point, in your OP, only two of your four examples meet your proposed definition:

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Feline refers to the cat family (Felidae), which consists of two genera: Pantherinae and Felinae. Bovine refers to the sub-family Bovinae, which has ten different genera.

So your use of "kind" is so vague that sometimes it means families, and other times it means genera. Such imprecision is exactly why scientists do not use the word.

ME: You keep saying MY use of kind. The dictionary version puts genera and kind in the same definition. I don't know about you, but I reckon I would believe a dictionary before I would believe you. No offense meant.


No offense taken. By all means, look up the words yourself. But bear in mind that since this is a science forum, it is the scientific definition that applies. You will find a scientific definition of "genus", but no scientific definition of "kind".

And, redefine you statement about 10 different genera...Genera is the plural of Genus and Genus is defined as Kind, type etc.


Genus is a kind or type only in common usage. In biology, it has a specific meaning, and is not interchangeable with kind, which has no specific meaning.

There seems to be a haze here somewhere. Kind seems to be the blocker of a discussion of evolution.


Yes, because it an imprecise word. You yourself have applied it to two different levels of taxonomic classification. I suggest using genus or family or clade, each of which have specific biological definitions.

I would suggest that if you saw an Ardwolf, you would say...What "kind" of animal is that?


I might. We often use imprecise language in everyday conversation.

Kind may mean families but it never means families the have evolved across the KIND, as they do not exist...Thus evolution is stopped right there.

I assume that you will keep suggesting that different Genera can cross with other different Genera as in feline to bovine and or etc. Whilst cross breeding is confined to Genera, Genus, family or kind, you will end up with something that may look a bit different to one or both parents but will still be the same genus as the parents.


Evolution makes no prediction that different genera will crossbreed. Where did you get that idea? In fact, nearly the opposite is true. The more that populations diverge genetically, the less likely they are to be able to interbreed. This is the driving force behind speciation. The fact that breeding occasionally crosses genus boundaries (see Ramshutu's examples) only shows that nature is not always tidily classified.

(And again, feline and bovine are families, not genera.)

Right or Wrong?

IF wrong give me one instance, which is proved, where say (pick you own) a feline mates with a feline and the offspring is not a feline.

Every level of the taxonomy tree (species, genus, family, order, etc.) is defined to be a population of organisms and all their descendants. Therefore a feline mating with a feline will always produce a feline by definition.

If you think that the theory of evolution predicts things like cats giving birth to dogs, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. It predicts no such thing.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:59:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:26:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:44:06 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 8:26:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Common dolphin and bottle nose Dolphins (different genus); camals and llamas (different genus), gelada and common baboons (different genus) and African and Indian elephants (different genera).

Those are intergeneric hybrid examples based on defined genera; the examples you cite aren't just different genera, but are actually different families (caniformes and feliforms), and different orders (bovids -Artiodactyla, and horses - ungulata) which makes the question a little confusing.

Remember cats and dogs are different genera, but so are cats and Pumas and cats and amoeba.

ME: Pumas are feline, maybe not little kitty on the lounge, but definitely feline.

ME: But they are all cats and remain cats. Dogs are dogs and remain dogs. A cat and a dog species, Kind, genus, genera, family will not breed with other species, Kind, genus, genera or family. Even some attempt at breeding in species will end with a hybrid which means no further reproduction of the result...Donkey and horse= Mule.

At no stage, at any point in the history of life on this planet, has any animal, species, genus, class, or phyla ever stopped being the same type as it's parents.

ME: By George I think he's got it!!!

We are still Homo Sapiens, we are still Hominidae, we are still Cattarhini, we are still primates, we are still Eutherian Mammals, we are still Mammalia, we are still Therapsida, we are still synapsids, we are still Amniotes, we are still terrestrial vertebrates, we are still Sarcopterygii, we are still Gnathostomes, we are still vertebrates, we are still Craniats, we are still Chordata, we are still Deutorostomes, we are still Bilterian, we are still Metazoan, we are still Eukaryotes, and we are still DNA/RNA based life forms.

ME: Then you blew it. We will always be humans, chimps will always be chimps and so on, and never the 'twain shall meet.

A horse will never produce a non-horse, for the same reason any mammal will never produce a species that is no longer mammalian; nor will a eukaryote produce something that isn't a eukaryote any longer; nor has any of these representative groups EVER given birth to something that was not the same type of thing as that group through common descent.

ME: I am getting giddy now, you swung back again!

The problem is that a "cat" is not just a cat. A cat is a feliform with a specific set of traits that only one collection of species share. Feliforms, themselves are Carnivoraforms, but with a collection of traits only other feliforms share. Carnivoraforms, are mammals that, you guessed it, have a collection of traits not shared by other mammals.

The problem is you are treating a "kind" as something completely different from anything else. Kinds don't change; they simply generate that kind+differences creating a collection of "sub-kinds" that get ever more diverse over time.

ME: Whoops!!! now we grab for the evolutionary trick of being too complicated to be possibly true.

It seems your perspective on life has no depth in this regard. Horses never become non-horses; nor does evolution require it to; horses would breed to be horses with differences; and those differences become large enough to separate them from the original group, even though they are still horses. In the same way that every eukaryote descendant, is still eukaryote today, just each individual lineage acquires it's own distinct set of traits and changes that distinguish them from one another.

ME: Me, not deep, surely you jest, I am deeper than the wide blue ocean, deeper than Johnny Deep, deeper than the greatest of philosophers, The Sheik from Scrubby Creek. I am so deep it takes me a month to surface to take a breath...Fair Dinkum.


Just a a technical response, even though it is taken from the Bible, the Donkey was considered a lesser animal than others, as a donkey was not a suitable sacrifice and had to be replaced with a sheep or a goat or even a bull calf. With this it could be that the donkey is already hybrid genetically even though they do reproduce in their own species.

I think you're missing a key piece of understanding. Individuals don't evolve; populations of individuals evolve.

Let me try and explain it a little.

Whether two individuals can interbreed successfully depends on how genetically different they are. For example, with a few key genetic differences, everything is fine; if you have, say, 10 differences between two individuals, it's slightly harder for them to reproduce; 100 and you only get infertile offspring; 200 and they cannot genetically reproduce at all.

Lets say you have a small population of creatures, lets say 100 of them. When a new child is born, genetically they are the same as their parents, with a few differences.

So, at first, if the population starts off with very few differences, each generation produces differences. However, as they are all breeding together, and different lineages within this group interbreed, any individual change spreads throughout the population, so at no point are any two individuals in that group sufficiently different to prevent them genetically breeding.

If, however, the population splits into two groups; each individual group will go it's own way; with each group accumulating their own changes within that population; to the point where any individual within a population doesn't differ much from others in that population, but shares over 100 differences compared to any individual in the other population.



For a change, I am not looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments, just an understanding of how different (all them words) breed together and become another (all them words).

So normally you are looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments? :)

ME: No, but they come anyway!!!!!!!
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:08:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 4:12:30 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/17/2016 2:00:22 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:25:01 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/16/2016 7:58:53 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 6:32:47 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/15/2016 5:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:40:04 AM, Stronn wrote:

As far as "kinds", scientists do not use the term because it has no precise definition.

ME: IMO, Scientists do not use kinds as it puts too much of a questions on the continuity of evolution.

Nope. "Kind" is an imprecise word, and thus scientifically useless. It's as simple as that. There is no Orwellian conspiracy.

If you think you have a scientifically useful definition of "kind", please share it. And I mean an actual definition, not just examples like "cat" and "dog".

Try the dictionary interpretation of Genera-Genus.

Genus (plural genera) is the taxonomic rank between species and family. Calling genera "kinds" adds nothing of value. It's just relabeling. We already have a perfectly good word for the taxonomic rank between species and family, so that's the word scientists use. Substituting "kind" for "genus" would only foster confusion.

Even more to the point, in your OP, only two of your four examples meet your proposed definition:

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Feline refers to the cat family (Felidae), which consists of two genera: Pantherinae and Felinae. Bovine refers to the sub-family Bovinae, which has ten different genera.

So your use of "kind" is so vague that sometimes it means families, and other times it means genera. Such imprecision is exactly why scientists do not use the word.

ME: You keep saying MY use of kind. The dictionary version puts genera and kind in the same definition. I don't know about you, but I reckon I would believe a dictionary before I would believe you. No offense meant.


No offense taken. By all means, look up the words yourself. But bear in mind that since this is a science forum, it is the scientific definition that applies. You will find a scientific definition of "genus", but no scientific definition of "kind".

And, redefine you statement about 10 different genera...Genera is the plural of Genus and Genus is defined as Kind, type etc.


Genus is a kind or type only in common usage. In biology, it has a specific meaning, and is not interchangeable with kind, which has no specific meaning.

There seems to be a haze here somewhere. Kind seems to be the blocker of a discussion of evolution.


Yes, because it an imprecise word. You yourself have applied it to two different levels of taxonomic classification. I suggest using genus or family or clade, each of which have specific biological definitions.

I would suggest that if you saw an Ardwolf, you would say...What "kind" of animal is that?


I might. We often use imprecise language in everyday conversation.

Kind may mean families but it never means families the have evolved across the KIND, as they do not exist...Thus evolution is stopped right there.

I assume that you will keep suggesting that different Genera can cross with other different Genera as in feline to bovine and or etc. Whilst cross breeding is confined to Genera, Genus, family or kind, you will end up with something that may look a bit different to one or both parents but will still be the same genus as the parents.

ME: That is the opposite to what I am suggesting, and that is why it is impossible for all organisms to come form the one cell organism of the Primordial Slime.

At times yo refer to Genus as species, then like above you seem to refer to genus as family of (kind).


Evolution makes no prediction that different genera will crossbreed. Where did you get that idea? In fact, nearly the opposite is true. The more that populations diverge genetically, the less likely they are to be able to interbreed. This is the driving force behind speciation. The fact that breeding occasionally crosses genus boundaries (see Ramshutu's examples) only shows that nature is not always tidily classified.

(And again, feline and bovine are families, not genera.)

Right or Wrong?

IF wrong give me one instance, which is proved, where say (pick you own) a feline mates with a feline and the offspring is not a feline.

Every level of the taxonomy tree (species, genus, family, order, etc.)(KIND) is defined to be a population of organisms and all their descendants. Therefore a feline mating with a feline will always produce a feline by definition.

If you think that the theory of evolution predicts things like cats giving birth to dogs, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. It predicts no such thing.

ME: Where have I ever said that, I am completely in the exact opposite party.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:20:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:59:20 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/15/2016 1:26:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:44:06 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/14/2016 8:26:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:17:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can the evolution trail have different kinds or Genus of the species cross breed. Show examples, please.

By Genus I mean Canine and feline, bovine and equine etc. which is sometimes regarded as KINDS.

Common dolphin and bottle nose Dolphins (different genus); camals and llamas (different genus), gelada and common baboons (different genus) and African and Indian elephants (different genera).

Those are intergeneric hybrid examples based on defined genera; the examples you cite aren't just different genera, but are actually different families (caniformes and feliforms), and different orders (bovids -Artiodactyla, and horses - ungulata) which makes the question a little confusing.

Remember cats and dogs are different genera, but so are cats and Pumas and cats and amoeba.

ME: Pumas are feline, maybe not little kitty on the lounge, but definitely feline.

Nope. Pumas are a GENUS and Felus is a GENUS; they are both part of the filidae FAMILY; as I describe below; but they are different genera.

ME: But they are all cats and remain cats. Dogs are dogs and remain dogs. A cat and a dog species, Kind, genus, genera, family will not breed with other species, Kind, genus, genera or family. Even some attempt at breeding in species will end with a hybrid which means no further reproduction of the result...Donkey and horse= Mule.

At no stage, at any point in the history of life on this planet, has any animal, species, genus, class, or phyla ever stopped being the same type as it's parents.

ME: By George I think he's got it!!!

We are still Homo Sapiens, we are still Hominidae, we are still Cattarhini, we are still primates, we are still Eutherian Mammals, we are still Mammalia, we are still Therapsida, we are still synapsids, we are still Amniotes, we are still terrestrial vertebrates, we are still Sarcopterygii, we are still Gnathostomes, we are still vertebrates, we are still Craniats, we are still Chordata, we are still Deutorostomes, we are still Bilterian, we are still Metazoan, we are still Eukaryotes, and we are still DNA/RNA based life forms.

ME: Then you blew it. We will always be humans, chimps will always be chimps and so on, and never the 'twain shall meet.

But you have an ancestral primate hominidae which is not human or chimp; from which chimps and humans evolved; they don't ever meet in the future, but they do in the past. Both chimps and humans are still classified as hominidae and always will be.

A horse will never produce a non-horse, for the same reason any mammal will never produce a species that is no longer mammalian; nor will a eukaryote produce something that isn't a eukaryote any longer; nor has any of these representative groups EVER given birth to something that was not the same type of thing as that group through common descent.

ME: I am getting giddy now, you swung back again!

The problem is that a "cat" is not just a cat. A cat is a feliform with a specific set of traits that only one collection of species share. Feliforms, themselves are Carnivoraforms, but with a collection of traits only other feliforms share. Carnivoraforms, are mammals that, you guessed it, have a collection of traits not shared by other mammals.

The problem is you are treating a "kind" as something completely different from anything else. Kinds don't change; they simply generate that kind+differences creating a collection of "sub-kinds" that get ever more diverse over time.

ME: Whoops!!! now we grab for the evolutionary trick of being too complicated to be possibly true.

Why?

It's basically everything you've said; it's what all the evidence indicates, is based on rudimentary heredity. All your descendants will ALWAYS be your descendants; even though they could split into innumerable different separate lineages and families.

But it's nice to think that the concept of a family tree is "too complicated to be true".

It seems your perspective on life has no depth in this regard. Horses never become non-horses; nor does evolution require it to; horses would breed to be horses with differences; and those differences become large enough to separate them from the original group, even though they are still horses. In the same way that every eukaryote descendant, is still eukaryote today, just each individual lineage acquires it's own distinct set of traits and changes that distinguish them from one another.

ME: Me, not deep, surely you jest, I am deeper than the wide blue ocean, deeper than Johnny Deep, deeper than the greatest of philosophers, The Sheik from Scrubby Creek. I am so deep it takes me a month to surface to take a breath...Fair Dinkum.

No depth, as in you don't understand family tree's; and your argument is essentially the same as saying that your cousin can't be related to you, because no matter how many children you have, none will ever be your cousin.

Just a a technical response, even though it is taken from the Bible, the Donkey was considered a lesser animal than others, as a donkey was not a suitable sacrifice and had to be replaced with a sheep or a goat or even a bull calf. With this it could be that the donkey is already hybrid genetically even though they do reproduce in their own species.

I think you're missing a key piece of understanding. Individuals don't evolve; populations of individuals evolve.

Let me try and explain it a little.

Whether two individuals can interbreed successfully depends on how genetically different they are. For example, with a few key genetic differences, everything is fine; if you have, say, 10 differences between two individuals, it's slightly harder for them to reproduce; 100 and you only get infertile offspring; 200 and they cannot genetically reproduce at all.

Lets say you have a small population of creatures, lets say 100 of them. When a new child is born, genetically they are the same as their parents, with a few differences.

So, at first, if the population starts off with very few differences, each generation produces differences. However, as they are all breeding together, and different lineages within this group interbreed, any individual change spreads throughout the population, so at no point are any two individuals in that group sufficiently different to prevent them genetically breeding.

If, however, the population splits into two groups; each individual group will go it's own way; with each group accumulating their own changes within that population; to the point where any individual within a population doesn't differ much from others in that population, but shares over 100 differences compared to any individual in the other population.

Nothing here?

For a change, I am not looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments, just an understanding of how different (all them words) breed together and become another (all them words).

So normally you are looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments? :)

ME: No, but they come anyway!!!!!!!

It seems you're not actually interested what is true; or ways in which you're wrong. You're interest in asking a question, getting an answer; and then simply writing a few sentences saying how wrong that answer is, with no justification or argument.

If you don't have an argument, say so; rather than simply asserting that everyone is wrong for reasons you do not deem worthy of posting.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:59:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Being as you filled the last post with you "Brilliance", yes a smart-arsed comment, I have to use this one.

I will give my opinion: There are that many scientific disciplines being spouted in our ears on a daily basis, and these different disciplines have different ideas and reasons for different reasons, many of which conflict with other different ideas and reasons, and as evolution is not proven, as there is no continuity in any line that can be shown, only in the mind of a believer of the particular discipline believed at any particular time, there will never be any conviction of a person that has a clear and operating mind set to accept any argument put forward by the mind set that you posses.

Your god, Charles Darwin is only "tolerated by scientists" of today in veneration for his early and false teachings. It did start a mind set that egomaniacs could jump on, a particular wagon, and try to convince themselves they knew the origin of the species...If you do, give us all the origin of the species, the family the genus the genera right back to the first iota of life.

No don't bother, you couldn't hope to succeed.

So, I will pass on your climbing antagonism.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:26:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 12:59:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Being as you filled the last post with you "Brilliance", yes a smart-arsed comment, I have to use this one.

I will give my opinion: There are that many scientific disciplines being spouted in our ears on a daily basis, and these different disciplines have different ideas and reasons for different reasons, many of which conflict with other different ideas and reasons, and as evolution is not proven, as there is no continuity in any line that can be shown, only in the mind of a believer of the particular discipline believed at any particular time, there will never be any conviction of a person that has a clear and operating mind set to accept any argument put forward by the mind set that you posses.

Your god, Charles Darwin is only "tolerated by scientists" of today in veneration for his early and false teachings. It did start a mind set that egomaniacs could jump on, a particular wagon, and try to convince themselves they knew the origin of the species...If you do, give us all the origin of the species, the family the genus the genera right back to the first iota of life.


Please provide you entire family lineage, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Can't do it? Then perhaps you see how ridiculous your requirement is.

No don't bother, you couldn't hope to succeed.


Exactly. It's like requiring an astronomer to plot the motion of all stars that have ever existed in order to prove the theory of gravity.

So, I will pass on your climbing antagonism.

You still have not provided a biological definition of "kind". Is is really too much to ask?
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:34:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 6:26:28 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 12:59:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Being as you filled the last post with you "Brilliance", yes a smart-arsed comment, I have to use this one.

I will give my opinion: There are that many scientific disciplines being spouted in our ears on a daily basis, and these different disciplines have different ideas and reasons for different reasons, many of which conflict with other different ideas and reasons, and as evolution is not proven, as there is no continuity in any line that can be shown, only in the mind of a believer of the particular discipline believed at any particular time, there will never be any conviction of a person that has a clear and operating mind set to accept any argument put forward by the mind set that you posses.

Your god, Charles Darwin is only "tolerated by scientists" of today in veneration for his early and false teachings. It did start a mind set that egomaniacs could jump on, a particular wagon, and try to convince themselves they knew the origin of the species...If you do, give us all the origin of the species, the family the genus the genera right back to the first iota of life.


Please provide you entire family lineage, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Can't do it? Then perhaps you see how ridiculous your requirement is.

No don't bother, you couldn't hope to succeed.


Exactly. It's like requiring an astronomer to plot the motion of all stars that have ever existed in order to prove the theory of gravity.

So, I will pass on your climbing antagonism.

You still have not provided a biological definition of "kind". Is is really too much to ask?

Same as Genus, same as family, same as type, but I used the Biblical term kind...Two by two according to their kind.

A llama is a kind of camel, a fox is a kind of dog, a Ardwof is a kind of Hyena with is a kind of dog as well, a tiger is a kind of cat or feline. and these species in their kind have changed as they adapted to their environment, however they all remain within their own kind. A llama will not breed with a Hyena, a fox will not breed with a tiger, as they will remain withing their own kind.

Kind is the large ranging family of particular animals that have various species that have changed through interbreeding (only within the species) and through environmental requirements.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:32:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:34:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:26:28 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 12:59:41 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Being as you filled the last post with you "Brilliance", yes a smart-arsed comment, I have to use this one.

I will give my opinion: There are that many scientific disciplines being spouted in our ears on a daily basis, and these different disciplines have different ideas and reasons for different reasons, many of which conflict with other different ideas and reasons, and as evolution is not proven, as there is no continuity in any line that can be shown, only in the mind of a believer of the particular discipline believed at any particular time, there will never be any conviction of a person that has a clear and operating mind set to accept any argument put forward by the mind set that you posses.

Your god, Charles Darwin is only "tolerated by scientists" of today in veneration for his early and false teachings. It did start a mind set that egomaniacs could jump on, a particular wagon, and try to convince themselves they knew the origin of the species...If you do, give us all the origin of the species, the family the genus the genera right back to the first iota of life.


Please provide you entire family lineage, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Can't do it? Then perhaps you see how ridiculous your requirement is.

No don't bother, you couldn't hope to succeed.


Exactly. It's like requiring an astronomer to plot the motion of all stars that have ever existed in order to prove the theory of gravity.

So, I will pass on your climbing antagonism.

You still have not provided a biological definition of "kind". Is is really too much to ask?

Same as Genus, same as family, same as type, but I used the Biblical term kind...Two by two according to their kind.

A llama is a kind of camel, a fox is a kind of dog, a Ardwof is a kind of Hyena with is a kind of dog as well, a tiger is a kind of cat or feline. and these species in their kind have changed as they adapted to their environment, however they all remain within their own kind. A llama will not breed with a Hyena, a fox will not breed with a tiger, as they will remain withing their own kind.

Kind is the large ranging family of particular animals that have various species that have changed through interbreeding (only within the species) and through environmental requirements.

Genus and family are different taxonomic levels. Are you saying that "kind" can be any level of taxonomic classification? If so, then there is already a word for it: clade. And by that definition, Eukaryotes would be a kind. That would mean that humans, plants and fungi are all one kind. I am sure you do not intend this, but it is a consequence of the vague definition you provided.

As for your examples, it would behoove you to actually look up the taxonomic classification of animals before using them as examples. Hyenas are not a type of dog. They are, in fact, more closely related to cats than to dogs. They resemble dogs because of convergent evolution. Much as raccoon dogs superficially resemble raccoons, but are actually much more closely related to foxes.

As for the "fox is a kind of dog" example, foxes and dogs cannot interbreed. Members of the genus Canis (e.g. wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingos and jackals) can interbreed with each other for the most part. But none of those can interbreed with other species in the family Canidae (e.g. foxes and African wild dogs).

So does the definition of "kind" include the ability to interbreed? Or is it vague enough that all Eukaryotes fit the definition of kind? Any scientifically useful definition should address both these issues.