Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I corrected the attribution for you...
No they do cross breed in captivity. And I remember you that the sex drive is strong in many animals and some (usually males ) have been seen trying to mate with many things way out of their flock or even family (even dead and inanimate objects).
Well for I. Newton and and E. Blythe, it would be hard to fault them not to have supported a theory that was offered after their death wouldn't it? And since creationism was all that was available at the time, I do not think that their beliefs are relevant. As for your pastor, you would still need to convince me that M.D. are scientist (even the use of Doctor is an abuse of language, but that is another story).
I have read some papers by creationist with Ph.D. yes. Some do good science because they simply do not deal with evolution, which is fine by me. Some try to disprove evolution, and it is usually not that good (see M. Behe for example).
What is funny, or sad, or both, is indeed the double standard applied in creationist science: They want evidence (you are right A. Montague was wrong, scientist have evidences and fact, and no proofs, but accuracy should not always go in the way of a 'bon mot'), but simply use absence of evidence as the main base for the evidence of creation... That said many scientist that are very competent in their specific domain have really outlandish ideas for some other things. They are just human beings after all. We all wish we were rational, and then you turn on TV and you know that as a species we have failed to prove that we even come close to rationality
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
I did not say this.
Another analogy would be apples and pears. They usually don't come from the same tree, but botanists have grafted trees that can bear different fruit (classification of species would be the root stock genotype though). We just don't do that with animal embryos, cause we legally can't do that. Sigh. We let nature do it though. Nature gets all the fun. I would love to mix an egg from a lion/tiger with the sperm from a tiger/lion. Thus a new species? Would love to look at the genome of that, and see what different genotype produces what phenotype expressions. Though a tiger and a lion might be dull in second thought. They are both big cat mammals. Something a little more exotic perhaps. . . . .
Lion + Tiger = Liger
It has been done, google it.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck, usually known as Lamarck, (1 August 1744 – 18 December 1829) was a French soldier, naturalist, academic and an early proponent of the idea that evolution occurred and proceeded in accordance with natural laws. Wikipedia
Evolutionary theory was around when Blythe wrote his material that Darwin supposedly took on his voyage. Lamarckian evolution did not incorporate natural selection, La Marck taught that aquired traits were passed onto offspring, which was later discredited.
Also James Hutton, James Playfair, and others had already promoted uniformintarianism (old earth) before Blythe came along.
Not absence of evidence as much as arguing the interpretation of the evidence. For instance, evolutionists interpret similar genetic material in different families of organisms or even orders as though it is proof of common ancestry. That evidence can also be put into a creation model--it would be logical that the closer the phenotype the closer the genotype. Since genes guide phenotype, it makes sense that more common genes would be in similar phenotypes. It would also seem logical that most eukaryotes should have a certain amount of common genetic material, since they are all organic, whether a banana or a dog.
As far as MDs chemical engineers, high school science teachers,and the like who do not shape modern science--they can interpret what is being written in research and should be respected as having an educated opinion. They can afford to dissent, because they aren't as concerned about their reputation or career (or a government research grant) in science.
Isn't that in Napoleon Dynamite? lol stupid movie.
I spit in the mouth of a god, who whispers in the minds of the children
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible" - Albert Einstein.
wow tigers and lions aren't the "same species" but they can interbreed????
then doesn't that mean that we have NO IDEA what a species is?????
but wait, wait, can the giraffe breed with an elephant??? can a musk rat breed with a house cat????
so what have we learned? maybe our definitions of species isn't perfect
move on, gamila is polluting the world with his nonsense
Fact is, you don't know what a species is.
*not only do biologists know exactly what a species is, they know exactly the ways a species is defined and exactly where that definition is inadequate*
you, on the other hand, just don't know.
you don't get it because its complicated. not all things in life are simple to understand.
look up parthenogenesis, that should confuse you just that much more
just read my post and look up the species problem
So the idea of species is not well defined. So what? It's better than nothing, and no real scientist would adhere fanatically to what they are taught. No real scientist would throw the baby out with the bath water either, and declare all the attempts to organize our knowledge as nonsense.
PS - in sexual reproduction you can have A able to interbreed with B, B with C but A not with C, so interbreedability is not a good definition of species.
The phyla group animals into anatomically similar creatures, correct? Then I would say that the system is working rather effectively, as they are ordered in a way that makes sense and most of the animals within a phylum share certain characteristics and developments.
A species of animal is an animal that has become so diverse from the others of it's kind that it is no longer able to breed and produce viable offspring. Corect me if I'm wrong, but I believe when a lion and a tiger reproduce (usually in a zoo, because of habitat) not only are the offspring hormonally off balance (they grow to huge sizes, I think) but they are also infertile.
Like a horse and a donkey. You get an infertile mule.
I don't believe the terms species or phyla are inaccurate at all, as they both do their purpose pretty well - dividing animals into anatomically/ developmentally similar groups and then further, into the evolutions of those basic designs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests