Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young E
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young E
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
It's not a very good definition if you ask me. Irish wolfhounds and chihuahuas are sexually incompatible due to mechanical problems, but they're the exact same genus, species, and subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris). I wouldn't call that macro-evolution. Would you?
What would be your definition of macroevolution?
Well, considering that they've only sequenced four animal genomes so far, we might have a bit of a wait on our hands before we can do any serious comparisons. Are you aware that they haven't yet finished sequencing the chimpanzee genome? Of course, that doesn't stop them from claiming less than 1% difference between chimpanzees and man, so you have to take some of what they say with a grain of salt.
Man trying to get an answer out of you is like pulling teeth. I really thought you might have want to have an intelligent debate but I’m beginning to wonder. But I’ll try one more time. Do you think the comparison of genetics between animals is a satisfactory way of determining the relationship of animals? If so, is there a number that you would accept for a “kind” such as 1% or 2%, etc. divergence?
I don't believe in macro-evolution.
I don’t believe in unicorns. But I could give you a definition of one so we could discuss it so we could agree what one was if we saw it.
Noah took food on board the ark, plus he took seven of every clean animal -- presumably to breed for food.
Well eating the stock would account for a few weeks of food at the most. What happened after that?
We figure that's how humans got there, and it's not unreasonable to assume that many animals made it that way as well. Maybe humans brought sloths with them. All we can do is speculate on the stuff we don't know.
You’re saying sloths walked across Russia, Alaska, Canada, US, Mexico, Central America, and South America in 2000 years or less and all the while produced and raised offspring. And the freezing cold didn’t bother them a bit?
For how long it took them to get here? I have no idea, but I don't think it was 2,000 years.
If you don’t have any idea, why do you disagree with 2000 years? What number would you be comfortable with?
They did. Dingoes are placental mammals.
Okay I won’t argue with you about Dingoes being introduced into Australia after marsupials were established. But why are there so few placenta animals in Australia and so many marsupials? That didn’t happen anywhere else.
I don't think they swam. So is that your answer -- they swam there?
Then again, how did they get there?
But I don't think wolves evolved into foxes. I think they probably have a common ancestor which was some kind of canine, but I would only consider that to be micro-evolution.
Are you saying there were no wolves or foxes right after the flood since they came from a common ancestor?
Number 3 is close to what I believe may have happened, but I wouldn't say that no variation occured before the flood.
So why didn’t it change before the flood and change so rapidly after the flood?
No, it rotates about its axis. It revolves around the sun.
Okay so why do you believe that?