B
buffalo
Guest
They breed dogs to run fast too.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
It is called public school under Dept of Education and Colleges.
B
buffalo
Guest
The flat earthers have a pretty good case. Most of it works. One thing though falsifies it. The southern hemisphere sees different stars.
K
Kei
Guest
We can do some tests with various species especially with single cell organisms with short lifespans and hence short time between generation .
B
benjamin1973
Guest
The same kind of animal? What animal would that be, the cheetigerlion?
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Yep. And that would be a NEW ability.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Polar Bears and Grizzlies are not wholly reproductively incompatible, and intermediate varieties are missing by virtue of their distinctive habitats rather than by genetic isolation. If polar bears are forced onto the land, interbreeding may become much more frequent, and the current phenotypic distinction between the two much less evident.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Yeah, I was wondering about that.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Let’s call them Felidae. Felix and Felicia being the first representatives of that family.
E
edwest211
Guest
I wonder why fraud occurs and is presented as science. “shape current views of the world”? That sounds like propaganda.
press.uchicago.edu
Haeckel’s Embryos
Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other...
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
It’s almost like. . . some kind of. . . branching or something. Go figure.
A
Aloysium
Guest
If one takes an existential vs material approach to understand the diversity of life, the question becomes a bit more complex than what seems to be the rather simplistc approach to defining species that we have today.
The question as to whether they share a common ancestor has to do with the type of being that they represent. Dogs and bears, from my understanding have different numbers of chromosomes. Although this is significant materially speaking, they may not be existentially different from one another.
How do we know? Clearly, one would relate very differently to a dog, compared to a fox or a wild dog or a bear. but this would have to do with their temperament and attitude towards human beings, along with, needless to say, their size. Each animal is a different whole and individual being but expresses the morphology and instinctive nature that defines its kind. What I would say is that they are variations of the same thing. This would be in contrast with cats and dogs, which are different kinds of animals.
I’m sure this sounds very airy-fairy, and I am making it up as I go, based on what makes sense to me. To collect a bunch of bones and say that bears and dogs are related through a common ancestor, although it being based on agreed criteria, and thereby seemly more rigorous, it is not necessarily true, when we consider what things are in themselves. Doing so recognizes not only the psychological but the spiritual/ontological/metaphysical reality of the particular living expression of being, as itself.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Going a bit deeper, taking a different perspective, things look very different - like the sun rising in the east. Go figure.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Do you know how things branch?
They start in one place, and then start going off in a different direction.
They start in one place, and then start going off in a different direction.
R
rossum
Guest
I wonder why fraud occurs and is presented as religion. “shape current views of the world”? That sounds like propaganda.
You do realise that at one time there were about a dozen Holy Prepuces in Europe, when there can only have been one original?
Fraud happens in many walks of life, science and religion included.
rossum
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I think I would not be mistaken if I said that creationists consider that the ‘cat’ kind and the ‘dog’ kind were separate creations, and did not evolve from anything else. If I entertained this notion, I would wonder when each kind was created. However, while I was looking at the fossil record, I would have to decide how inclusive the words ‘cats’ and ‘dogs’ should be. Mongooses and hyaenas have several similarities to cats, but should they be considered separate creations or just ‘varieties’, and the same applies to badgers and bears - are they just varieties of dog? If you follow normal creationist ideas, based not on genetic but on morphological similarity, I guess you’d say they were all separate creations.
The problem is that the first cat seems to have appeared about 10 million years ago, when it looked very like a large mongoose. Which is, of course, not unlike the civet cat or the meer cat. Fossils which look as if they might have all these animals as ‘varieties’ date from about 40 million years ago. However they are not very different from other fossils from 60 million years ago, which look as if they could as easily have become varieties of dog as varieties of cat. They seem to have looked like large otters. We call them miacids.
Maybe God created miacids about 60 million years ago, and all today’s big carnivores, dog, cats, badgers, seals, and meerkats are all varieties?
Ah! But before them…
B
benjamin1973
Guest
We’re all different adaptations of the amoeba type. 
. . . or, the mammal type?
. . . animal type?
Wait. . . what are the pre-loaded types again?
. . . or, the mammal type?
. . . animal type?
Wait. . . what are the pre-loaded types again?
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
The branch is just speculation.
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, not technically entirely human, because the work was not done directly on the genome of the plant. The plants were allowed to mutate naturally and the human selected which mutants to breed to each other. By this method, the humans didn’t get to choose which genes to change or how they would be changed.
In contrast, a blue rose was not produced until genes for blue pignment were introduced artificially from a delphinium:
World's first blue roses after 20 years of research
The world's first blue roses have been unveiled following nearly two decades of scientific research.
www.telegraph.co.uk
The story also mentions (in passing) the creation of roses with glow-in-the-dark blooms.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Yes. Every Polar Bear and Poodle share ancestors from whom they are directly decended, father and mother to son and daughter.
Not that that’s saying much. So do every Polar Bear and Penguin.
Avoid the existential vs material approach. The question, and the answer, are simple.
Oh, really! No it doesn’t. It has to do with whether their direct ancestors were the same. They were.
Mostly, nowadays, DNA. Also fossils.
Very true, but wholly irrelevant to the question.
Unfortunately for your dogma, exactly the same logic which leads to a conclusion that Polar Bears and Poodles share common descent equally and in every respect applies to Poodles and Pekinese.
Well fair enough. When ignorance is bliss, and all that…
Actually the DNA evidence is far more cogent. Considering what things are in themselves, however, is so subjective both in what it means and in how you go about it, as not to lend itself to any particular world view.
It also obfuscates what is actually a very simple question.
- Status