Tlara
Nocturnal Emissions
Tlara
I have no problem with "mutations" within a group.
Define a group.
Are mammals a group? Bears are very closely related to dogs.
Are canines a group? There are many types of domestic dog, as well as things like wolves and dingoes.
Are humans in a group? We seem to be very genetically close to primates, so are humans in the same group as gorillas are? Are gorillas in the same group as spider monkeys?
What about a platypus? It has qualities of both a mammal and a bird. Which do you think it's a part of?
You can't just say 'evolution within a group'. It doesn't work, because you can't define what a 'group' or 'kind' is. You have to accept that evolution can cause many branches.
The rest of your argument seems silly, because we make car parts and such ourselves. Nobody has seen car parts make a car by mixing them around because that's not how car parts work, they're entirely man made. Animals reproduce and animals mutate, and so animals can evolve randomly.
From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs,
Bad choice there, since dogs were actually domesticated from wild canines by humans.
Quote:
cats continue to be cats,
And for some reason some different kinds of cats can reproduce with each other and some can't. Some can even produce fertile offspring, such as certain kinds of small wildcats and housecats.
And herein lies the problem in using an ill-defined categorical method like "kinds", and to a lesser extent some of the issues with defining species, as the lines are not always as clear as people act like.
Quote:
and elephants have been and will always be elephants.
Which seriously depends on your definition of "elephant". Do mammoths count as a kind of elephant? What are the conditions for classification as "elephant"?
Quote:
Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.”
Wolves and dogs can produce fertile offspring.
Quote:
This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today.
Too bad it's not
nearly that simple.
Scientifically verified fertile mule.
Quote:
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.”
Explain that fertile mule, then.
Or the numerous fertile varieties of interspecific plant hybrids.
Quote:
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.
See? This is why using an undefined term is useless.
Any time someone shows you an example of successful hybrid, you will blow it off as "Oh, well that means they must be the same 'kind'."
Furthermore, if horses and donkeys are the same "kind," then why are mules nearly always infertile?
And what's this "They're both members of the horse family" s**t?
Jackals, wolves, coyotes, every variety of domestic dog, dholes, foxes, and raccoon dogs, and the extinct dire wolves, Armbrusters wolves, Aelurodons, Osteoborii, Phlaocyons, Hesperocyons, etc. are all members of the Canine family.
Family is a really
large category.
Quote:
Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.
You know what percentage of human remains are naturally preserved? Hell, forget naturally, throw in all the intentional mummies and plasticized bodies and all the remains at Pompeii, and so on. What percentage is that?
And what percentage do you expect of animals?
Just because we can't find well preserved remains of every single minor stage of Japanese civilization doesn't mean that everything we don't have evidence of developing from somewhere else was completely imported.
Quote:
Whereas specific created “kinds” may number only in the hundreds,
I find that very hard to believe.
Seeing as how there are
121 families just counting
mammals.
And a lot of those families would count as multiple "kinds," since they can't produce hybrids.
Quote:
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.
You really want me to cite how many
families of plants there are? Just a warning, it will take me a while, because there's a metric a**-ton of them.
Quote:
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.
Please, for the love of God,
study enough biology to at least understand the classification system.
