Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Akula who wrote (1087)	10/9/1999 11:19:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

a chihuahua and a Great Dane cannot breed Akula, This is not so, all common dogs are fertile with each other (and with coyotes and wolves). It's true that the great dane would probably have to be the female to carry the pup. It is a bit of a tricky question as to what is a different kind. A red wolf and a grey wolf can mate and have pups, but they don't do so (very often) because they have different behaviors and habitats. There is a very important consideration in evolution once two animals differ to the point that they cannot produce fertile offspring. They are at that point completely and irreversibly on different branches in their path of devolopment. Whatever new genes or combinations of genes that develops in one has no pathway to appear in the other. Although red wolves and grey wolves avoid each other normally, in a crisis where there were few sex partners they would likely mate. The offspring would take on characteristics from each (not always equally) and perhaps a whole new subspecies would form. If not, and the crisis abates, the mixed offspring would likely mate with either a red or grey wolf and lost most - but not all - off it's special mixed characteristics. This occasional mixing would be enough to keep red wolves and grey wolves just close enough related that they could continue to be fertile with each other in later generations. TP TP

To: Akula who wrote (1087)	10/10/1999 11:03:00 PM
From: bob_the_ignoramus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

1) I was under the impression a "kind" was defined as you said, any organisms that can interbreed to produce a viable offspring, and that to be a different kind the organisms could not interbreed to produce viable offspring. the reason I made this point is that some of the Galapagos finch species were said to be interbreedable. This seemed to be a conflict, and everyone has pointed this out to me, even though that's what I was saying in the first place, I wanted an explanation as to how some of the species were interbreedable. but never mind. macro evolution - I think I am misusing this term, so I won't post a definition as it would be incorrect, however I think the Galapagos finches are an example that is too small scale to support the theory of evolution, and I know all the evolutionists will jump on me for saying this, since evolution cosists entirely of tiny changes etc. but there are some things which I don't believe can be evolved gradually. 2) Creation does not necessarliy restrict things to be created at the same time, in fact Genesis specifcally points out that humans were created last, after birds and animals.