Well my Dog is turning into a Pig!
Does that count?
Brooke WI
i need some proof for evolution
by crizlee 46 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Swan
What continuously amazes me is how similar other species are to us!
Chimpanzees are the only other species on the earth that laugh.
And then I saw this story yesterday, which was very sad, but also quite fascinating:
Gorillas hold 'wake' at zoo
Brookfield - After Babs the gorilla died at the age of 30, keepers at Brookfield Zoo in Illinois decided to allow surviving gorillas to mourn the most-influential female in their social family.One by one on Tuesday, the gorillas filed into the Tropic World building where Babs's body lay, arms outstretched. Curator Melinda Pruett Jones called it a "gorilla wake".
Babs's nine-year-old daughter, Bana, was the first to approach the body, followed by Babs's mother, Alpha, 43.
Bana sat down, held Babs's hand and stroked her mother's stomach.
Then she sat down and laid her head on Babs's arm.
"It was like they used to do in the exhibit, lying side by side on the mountain," said keeper Betty Green.
"Then Bana rose and looked at us and moved to Babs's other side, tucked her head under the other arm, and stroked Babs's stomach."
She was peacekeeper, disciplinarian
Other gorillas also approached Babs and gently sniffed the body. Only the silverback male leader, Ramar, 36, stayed away.
Keepers said the display wasn't surprising.
"She was the dominant female of the group, the peacekeeper, the disciplinarian, the one who kept things in a harmonious state," said Pruett Jones.
Koola, nine, brought her infant daughter, whom Babs had showered with attention since her birth in August.
"Koola inspected Babs's mouth for a while, then held her baby close to Babs, like she loved to do in the last couple of months, letting Babs admire her," said Green.
Babs had an incurable kidney condition and was euthanased on Tuesday.
Green said: "I had a headache for the rest of the day after all the tears I shed watching them."
-
Leolaia
*** it-2 pp. 152-153 Kind ***
The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth?s living things "according to their kinds." (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created "kinds," which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring "according to their kind(s)" in a fixed, orderly manner.?Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.
The Biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. <snip>
From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a "kind." This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the "kinds" in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created "kind."
Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new "kind," in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same "kind," such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. <snip>
Whereas specific created "kinds" may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline "kind." The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each "kind." But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these "kinds" can commingle genetically. <snip>
From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: "Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different "kinds," since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.?See ARK No. 1.
Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic "kinds" emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their "kinds." Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving "kinds" have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.?Isa 55:8-11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that they say that "sterility" is the defining property of distinguishing between kinds, which is completely unbiblical, yet they say that the number of different kinds "may number only in the hundreds". Do they really seriously think that inter-breeding in the animal kingdom is so common or possible that the enormous range of genetic variation can be reduced to just a few hundred different kinds? It is evident they want to claim this to have a realistic, manageable number of animals for Noah to take into the ark. But if this is so, then to get the enormous range of diversity in the world today, the Society would have to argue for a sort of hyper-evolution after the Flood in just a few hundred or thousand years for the very small number of "kinds" to produce all the different species of animals today. Of course, they wouldn't think of it as evolution because they refer only to diversification within specific "kinds" (which corresponds to no real taxonomic category), but realistically to get down to just a few hundred representative specimens, Noah would have had to have selected very high in the taxonomic order -- the level of order or family, perhaps, which would by the Society's own criteria require lots of evolution to cross breeding barriers. In other words, what they mean by "kind" subtly shifts from when they are talking about Creation and when they are talking about the Flood. To get down to a few hundred "kinds," they would have to throw out all the reproductive criteria out the window.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
w68 5/1 p. 271 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***When such basic kinds were taken into the ark in Noah?s day, it did not involve millions of beasts, but perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds.
***
it-1 p. 165 Ark ***With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 "kinds" of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird "kinds" were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind?short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin?all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So would this then mean that there are only 43 kinds of mammals or 72 kinds of quadrapeds within which inter-breeding is possible?? There are about 26 recognized orders of mammals and 136 families of mammals. Maybe TD can clarify whether interbreeding is possible above the level of genus. Lions and tigers, for instance, belong to the same genus Panthera, but can they breed with other members of the same family but across different genuses, such as with domesticated cats (Felis) or cheetahs (Acinonyx)? There are over 1,000 genera in the mammal family alone; over 2,000 genera of birds, and so forth. Note also the red herring in the above quote: "humankind" is not a relevant example because there is only one human species, not different species of humans (or genera of humans, for that matter) within one human "kinds".
The other interesting thing is that, while they say that there was diversification within a few number of "kinds," and thus obviously speciation, they are also against the idea of speciation and that one could split into new separate species:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** g87 7/22 p. 11 When a Fact Is Not a Fact ***
But such variations within species are irrelevant to evolution. Evolution?s problem is to change one species into another species.
*** ce chap. 8 pp. 107-108 Mutations?A Basis for Evolution? ***
Living things reproduce only "according to their kinds." The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same "kind."
Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: "Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution."
*** w86 4/1 pp. 13-14 Advocating Truth in an Ungodly World ***
However, could it not be that, given the existence of life, different species of living things might progressively evolve into other species? Well, if that took place, the fossil record of past ages would show this. But does it? Consider the so-called Cambrian period. Here fossils of the major groups of invertebrates first appear together in a spectacular "explosion" of living things. If these vastly differing groups all exploded into life at the one time, how could they possibly have evolved from one another? Darwin himself frankly admitted: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." Fatal indeed!
***
g83 2/22 p. 19 Pages of Geologic History ***However, those who reject the Bible account of creation and support evolution discount this evidence. Instead of seeing that paleontology is in harmony with the Bible, they appeal to the fossil record for proof of evolution of one species into another.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet this is just the sort of thing needed to account for the emergence of millions of species after the Flood!
-
TD
Hi Leo,
Maybe TD can clarify whether interbreeding is possible above the level of genus. Lions and tigers, for instance, belong to the same genus Panthera, but can they breed with other members of the same family but across different genuses, such as with domesticated cats (Felis) or cheetahs (Acinonyx)
Interbreeding above the level of genus is generally considered impossible, but there are some documented exceptions. The Camel and Llama belong to different genera (Camelus & Llama) so the example of the Cama is an exception, as is the example of the sheep/goat cross that occured in Botswanna. Both the Llama (Llama glama) and the Alpaca (Llama pacos) have been successfully crossed with the Vicuna. (Vicugna vicugna)
The African Elephants (Loxodanta africana (africana & cyclotis) and the Asian elephants (Elephas maximus (maximus, indicus & sumatranus) are different genera and not considered that closely related. In 1978, an Asian Elephant cow gave birth to a calf sired by an African elephant. The calf lived for 12 days.
The domestic cat (Felis catus) can breed with a number of small wild cats. These include, the Black footed cat (Felis nigripes) Geoffroy's cat (Felis geoffroyii) the Bobcat (Felis rufus) and Tiger cat (Felis tigrina) but not with larger members of the Felidae family. The Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is a divergent member of this family that has never been successfully cross-bred.
-
metatron
Go to the Natural History Museum in NYC. Go look at the Neanderthal exhibit.
After decades of listening to the Watchtower's lying propaganda, I thought all "missing
links" were just a few scraps of bone that could be interpreted anyway you want - Wrong!
The skeletons and skulls ( see "Turkana" boy) were nearly complete - and looked like
something between a human and an ape - not like anything I've ever seen walking around
today.
This past year, there was a further report on that gorilla they taught to talk with sign language.
She developed a tooth ache and told her keepers about it - so they got her a dentist!
( true! look it up!)
metatron
-
Midget-Sasquatch
TD
Again, I'm glad you've shared all this info. I'm curious did they manage to get a viable female and male Cama? Are they even more exceptional in that they are also fertile?
Leolaia
"Whats up Doc?" Congrats!!!! You've always struck me as a true academic. If I misread stuff on other recent threads, well chalk it up to my being the Turkana Boy (I think even he was taller than me dammit). So what field are you enamored with? By the way ----- those were great references showing the Borg's inconsistent description of "kind". I love it. Either they have to concede that a part of the Bible is myth, or to evolution being a real event. At ridiculous rates no less.
-
AlanF
There are holes in the theory of evolution and in all forms of creationism, alright, but those in evolution are miniscule compared to those in creationism. Furthemore, there are tens of thousands of factual contradictions with young-earth creationism -- the kind of contradictions that completely disprove it -- and plenty of apparently insurmountable problems with other forms of biblically oriented creationism. On the other hand, I'm not aware of anything at all that disproves the evolution of life, even though research on the question of the origin of life (which is separate from basic evolution) is still in its infancy.
In my experience, virtually all objections to evolution ultimately rest on religious belief and emotion, not facts. Evolution explains a great deal about life and how it's organized. As the famous biologist Theodsius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." On the other hand, a great deal in biology makes no sense at all in the 'light' of creationism.
AlanF
-
Leolaia
Midget....Thanks...tomorrow is the big day when I submit. I study the structure and evolution of language, btw.
-
Leolaia
I think even he was taller than me dammit.
Hmmm....do you recall "Captain Caveman"?? He was really quite short too...
Come to think of it, you kinda look a lot like the Capt.
-
under74
WHERE'S CRIZLEE?