Missing link found

[Eon]

Ligers - the offspring of a Male Lion and a Tigress.

Yeah, they've bred a few of these.

 

[timor]

http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm

Lmfao!

 

[LionOfJudah]

woot i knew discovery channel would never lie, thats why a 15 foot shark could own a 15 croc....

 

[Grand Master]

That was my point, Lion. Lions and tigers are different species but they *can* breed to produce viable, although sterile, offspring. Same with donkeys and horses. Master~Plan, now you are trying to suggest that animals within a family should be able to interbreed. In any case, these examples would suggest incompetence by a god. Making species that can interbreed but whose offspring are sterile? What is your god doing?

 

[Jango]

Quote[/b] ]In any case, these examples would suggest incompetence by a god. Making species that can interbreed but whose offspring are sterile? What is your god doing?

Of course, I doubt God wants us to try to create new species.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Jango @ Mar. 27 2004,5:34)]

Quote[/b] ]In any case, these examples would suggest incompetence by a god. Making species that can interbreed but whose offspring are sterile? What is your god doing?

Of course, I doubt God wants us to try to create new species.

Why? And why wouldn't he therefore make it impossible?

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]Ligers and wolphins? What next?
by Don Batten

If we can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to produce a ‘zorse’), a lion and a tiger (a liger or tigon), or a (false) killer whale and a dolphin (a wholphin), what does this tell us about the original kinds of animals that God created?

The Bible tells us in Genesis chapter 1 that God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ (vv. 11, 12). God also created the animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’ (vv. 20, 24, 25). ‘After their/its kind’ is repeated ten times in Genesis 1, giving emphasis to the principle. And we take it for granted. When we plant a tomato seed, we don’t expect to see a geranium pop up out of the ground. Nor do we expect that our dog will give birth to kittens or that Aunt Betty, who is expecting, will bring home a chimpanzee baby from hospital! Our everyday experience confirms the truth of the Bible that things produce offspring true to their kind.

But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. (See aside below.)

Finding the created kinds
From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. Linnaeus recognised this, but named many species2 without any breeding experiments, on the basis of such things as flower characteristics. In his mature years he did extensive hybridization (cross-breeding) experiments and realised that his ‘species’ concept was too narrow for the species to be considered as created kinds; he thought that the genus perhaps corresponded better with the created kind.3,4

Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new ‘species’ has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the Genesis account of creation. Darwin made this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)

If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species!

In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind — whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological ‘species’. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new ‘species’ was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.

Following are some examples of hybrids that show that the created kind is often at a higher level than the species, or even the genus, named by taxonomists.

Mules, zeedonks and zorses


Zonkeys are the result of a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey (left above). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a Horse and a Zebra, known as a Zorse.  
Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur.

Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.

Ligers
The Created Cat Kind

Possible history of cats since Creation. Speciation (based on pre-existing created genetic information) probably occurred faster after the Flood due to greater environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches.  
A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross produces a tigon. Such crossing does not normally happen in the wild because most lions live in Africa and most tigers live in Asia. Also, lions and tigers just don’t mix; they are enemies in the wild. However, the Institute of Greatly Endangered and Rare Species, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (USA), raised a lion and a tigress together. Arthur, the lion, and Ayla, the tigress, became good friends and bred to produce Samson and Sudan, two huge male ligers. Samson stands 3.7 m (12 feet) tall on his hind legs, weighs 500 kg (1,100 lbs) and can run at 80 km/hr (50 mph).

Lions and tigers belong to the same genus, Panthera, along with the jaguar, leopard and snow leopard, in the subfamily Felinae. This subfamily also contains the genus Felis, which includes the mountain lion and numerous species of smaller cats, including the domestic cat. The cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different subfamily.6 Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind. The extinct sabre-tooth tiger may have been a different created kind (see diagram at right).

The Panthera cats lack a hyoid bone at the back of the tongue, compared to Felis. Acinonyx has the hyoid, but lacks the ability to retract its claws. So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be expected in a fallen world as things tend to ‘fall apart’).

Kekaimalu the wholphin
In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) — see photo below.7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2 Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind.

Rama the cama
Veterinarians in the United Arab Emirates successfully cross-bred a camel and a llama. The ‘cama’, named ‘Rama’, has the cloven hooves of a llama and the short ears and tail of a camel. The scientists hope to combine the best qualities of both into the one animal — the superior fleece and calmer temperament of the llama with the larger size of the camel.
‘Genae’ the snake — the live, healthy offspring of snakes from two different genera (see main text).  

Genae the hybrid snake
‘Genae’ (pictured right) resulted from a cross between an albino corn snake (Elaphe guttata) and an albino king snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in a reptile park in California.9 Apparently, this particular intergeneric hybrid is fertile. Genae is almost four years old and already 1.4 m (4½ ft) long. The parent snakes belong to the same snake family, Colubridae; the success of this hybrid suggests that the many species and genera of snakes in this family today could have all originally come from the same created kind.

Other hybrids
With the cattle kind, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, but so also does the North American buffalo, Bison bison, with Bos, to produce a ‘cattalo’. Here the whole family of cattle-type creatures, Bovidae, probably came from an original created cattle kind which was on the Ark.10

Plant breeders have bred some agriculturally important plants by hybridizing different species and even genera. For example, triticale, a grain crop, came from a cross of wheat (Triticum) and barley (Secale), another fertile hybrid between genera.

During my years as a research scientist for the government in Australia, I helped create a hybrid of the delicious fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), which both belong to the same family.11 I also studied the hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae. Each of these two family groupings, recognised by botanists today, probably represents the original created kinds.

 
The delicious fruit species, lychee (left) and longan (right) hybridize, despite being different genera.
God created all kinds, or basic types, of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning, through the marvellous reproductive method created by God. Since the Fall (Genesis 3), some variations also occurred through degenerative changes caused by mutations (e.g. loss of wing size in the cormorants of the Galápagos Islands).

The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments and ‘fill the earth’, as God commanded. If genera represent the created kinds, then Noah took less than 20,000 land animals on the Ark; far fewer if kinds occasionally gave rise to families. From these kinds came many ‘daughter species’, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.

Understanding what God has told us in Genesis provides a sound foundation for thinking about the classification of living things, as Linnaeus found, and how the great diversity we see today has come about.

References and notes
The study of the naming and classification of organisms.

‘Biological species’ is often used today to refer to a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. It does not always correlate with the taxonomic ‘species’. Note that the kinds would originally have met the criterion for each being a separate biological species, since they did not interbreed with any other kind.

In Latin, ‘genus’ conveys the meaning of origin, or ‘kind’, whereas ‘species’ means outward appearance (The Oxford Latin Minidictionary, 1995).

Creationist biologists today often combine the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind) to call the created kind a baramin.

Marsh, Frank L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press, CA, USA, p. 75, 1976.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 98 CD. Other authorities call the Panthera genus Leo, so that the lion is then Leo leo.

Keene Rees, Waimanalo Hapa Girl Makes 10! Waimanalo News, May 1995, <http://www.hotspots.hawaii.com/Wolphin.html>, March 1, 2000.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 23:434, 1992.

Genae belongs to David Jolly, Manager of the Information Department, AiG (USA). She was bred at a reptile park at Bakersfield. Corn snakes are one of the most popular pet snakes in North America, and snake fanciers have bred all sorts of colour variations, which are catalogued at <http://members.aol.com/guttata319/Hawkherp/morfs.html>, March 22, 2000.

See Wieland, C., Recreating the extinct Aurochs? Creation 14(2):25–28, 1992.

McConchie, C.A., Batten, D.J. and Vithanage, V., ‘Intergeneric hybridization between litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) and longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.)’ Annals of Botany 74:111–118, 1994.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linnaeus and the classification system

Linnaeus established the two-part naming system of genus and species. For example, he called wheat Triticum aestivum, which means in Latin, ‘summer wheat’. Such ‘scientific’ names are normally italicised, with the genus beginning with a capital. When used in scientific works, the names are followed by the abbreviated name of the scientist responsible for the name. When ‘L.’ follows a name, this shows that Linnaeus first applied the name. For example, the name for maize or ‘corn’ is Zea mays L. Linnaeus named many plants and animals.

There can be one or many species in a genus, so genus is a higher level of classification. Linnaeus also developed the idea of grouping genera (plural of genus) within higher groupings he called orders, and the orders within classes. Linnaeus opposed the pre-Darwin evolutionary ideas of his day, pointing out that life was not a continuum, or a ‘great chain of being’, an ancient pagan Greek idea. He could classify things, usually into neat groups, because of the lack of transitional forms.

Later, other levels of classification were added so that today we have species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. Sometimes other levels are added, such as subfamily and subphylum.

Return to text.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world's only Wholphin .... false killer whale/dolphin cross
False killer whales (pseudorcas) and bottlenose dolphins are each from a different genus. Man-made classification systems were thrown into confusion when these two creatures mated and produced a live offspring (see main text).

This suggests that all killer whales and dolphins, which are all in the same family, are the one created kind.

This wholphin’s size, shape and colour are right in between those of her parents. She has 66 teeth — an ‘average’ between pseudorcas (44 teeth) and bottlenose dolphins (88).

Kekaimalu has since mated with a dolphin to produce a live baby.

Taken from here

Cory

P.S. Timor, lay off the profanity. You've had more than your fair share of warnings...

 

[timor]

When did I use profanity? We're not even allowed to use acronyms here?

Omg lmao nmghu brb afk gtg ttyl!

 

[[toj.cc]El Jefe[sww:D]]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 27 2004,3:09)]

Quote[/b] (Jango @ Mar. 27 2004,5:34)]

Quote[/b] ]In any case, these examples would suggest incompetence by a god. Making species that can interbreed but whose offspring are sterile? What is your god doing?

Of course, I doubt God wants us to try to create new species.

Why? And why wouldn't he therefore make it impossible?

God doesn't want us to sin, yet He hasn't made that impossible either.

 

[Vanaze]

I don't believe in long term evolution. Evolution and long-earth theory are synonymous with one another.

I believe "evolution" HAS occured, but not to the extent that modern day scientists claim. Not hardly.

I will not dispute advantage-giving mutations in current species, such as the way a certain bird may use its beak or build its nest, but that hardly seems "Evidence" enough to push a theory of animals changing into other animals. A fish CANNOT TURN INTO A BIRD. An amoeba CANNOT TURN INTO A HUMAN. I've yet to see a monkey give birth to a human, or vice versa. I've yet to see a reptile start growing feathers in the place of scales.

As much as I've heard evolutionist declare that feathers and scales are structurally similar, they ARE NOT in any way, other than they're layered together. That's where the similarities end.

 

[Vanaze]

Timor - not a good idea to tease the admins.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] ([toj.cc]El Jefe[sww] @ Mar. 27 2004,8:23)]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 27 2004,3:09)]

Quote[/b] (Jango @ Mar. 27 2004,5:34)]

Quote[/b] ]In any case, these examples would suggest incompetence by a god. Making species that can interbreed but whose offspring are sterile? What is your god doing?

Of course, I doubt God wants us to try to create new species.

Why? And why wouldn't he therefore make it impossible?

God doesn't want us to sin, yet He hasn't made that impossible either.

Yeah...makes one wonder about whether God really doesn't want us to sin. I mean, why the heck did he place the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden? Why did he even create the universe, if through his omniscience he knew sin was going to enter the world? Why, why, why?

 

[LionOfJudah]

would you rather him not created it all?

Why do you believe in in evolution
Why do you claim that it is true
Why is the universe here
Why
WHy
WHY
WHY
WHY!!!!!!!!

 

[Eon]

What ARE you talking about? Feathers can be formed from several types of scale within a generation by the application of an inhibitor virus. Feathers can also be created from scales by treatment with a particular acid solution.

Trust me - feathers and scales are structurally similar.

Macro evolution doesn't claim that a fish turns into a bird - it claims that fish evolve into birds through a complex series of steps stretched out over millenia. In the same way there is no claim that an ape gave birth to the first man child - slow development of several hominid species gradually produced a dominant human type. There have been lesser human types too - but they're extinct now, the Neanderthals.

 

[Dr. Tek]

Quote[/b] (Eon @ Mar. 28 2004,5:11)]but they're extinct now, the Neanderthals.

And here is where most evolutionists stop.  They all fail to mention some key points about this that were published a few years back in various journals and magazines, I believe I first read it in National Geographic, about the only ONE skeleton that was found.  When the skeleton was dated again, it was found to be only 1000-2000 years old at most.  THen comparing it to the skeletons of more recently passed away locals from the past few hundred years, it is similar in all aspects aside from that it shows signs of severe athrital disfiguration.  Purposely overlooking facts and giving fraudualent claims to give credence to your deparate attempts to reject truth is pathetic.

 

[Master~Plan]

oh man, I got a lot of ground to cover, I"ll post as soon as I get a spare moment...

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of  the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters
(e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a
student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief. [note 4]

Hmm, not only is the theory about life evolving, but the theory itself evolves when a point is shown to be false...

Quote[/b] ]Kind of. While showing a part of the Bible to be erroneous makes the entire thing suspect, the opposite is not true

-looks like a no win situation to me

Quote[/b] ]Appeal to a no-name authority, anyone? Moving on...

haha, funny guy that titor. Hey, your articles aren't much better.

Quote[/b] ]That was my point, Lion. Lions and tigers are different species but they *can* breed to produce
viable, although sterile, offspring. Same with donkeys and horses. Master~Plan, now you are trying to suggest that animals within a family should be able to interbreed. In any case, these examples would suggest incompetence by a god. Making species that can interbreed but whose offspring are sterile? What is your god doing?

I'm sorry, I fail to see how this makes God incompetent. Just like how I said I believed there to be only one dog, there were probably only one form of cat that later breeded different kinds. We don't know. Um trieng to make up an analogy for you. How about this. If you run a red light, and get into an accident, does that make our traffic system incompetent? no, your not suppose to run red lights. Lions and tigers are not suppose to interbreed, and therefore
produce sterile offspring. I don't even think God is really concerned with what animals do anyway.

Quote[/b] ]Of course, I doubt God wants us to try to create new species.

Why not? Why would God care about us creating new species?

concerning the speciation article-
I unexpectidly found it interesting. I almost needed an interpreter, but I think I managed to get through words such as "Tragopogon, Raphanobrassica, hexaploid, and diploid sporophyte..." I figured that because they critizised biological species concept that none of the speciation would apply to it,
but it did to my surprise. I guess in thier definition of speciation, it does exist. Didn't now they accepted plants being hybrid as speciation. However I was impressed when the I read about the 2 species of flies comming from the same specie and the 2 specie not being able to mate. I based my species on ability to mate (BSC) so, fair enough, speciation does occur. However I don't see the flies forming any new components which is what comes to my mind when one mentions speciation. The fly spiecies might look different, but they don't evolve anthing the previouse specie didn't have. I would expect life to be able to quickly change to thier environment in order to stay alive. You owe me one article, so here it is concerning speciation fast speciation

Don't worry I haven't forgotten about the prophecy article, I'll respond to that another night. Gotta call it a night cuz I have an exciting Vitamin A oral presentation in nutrition I'm doing tomorrow.

 

[Eon]

You're talking about the undernourished germanic tribe from the Neander valley?

What a shame that Neanderthal skeletons have been found elsewhere.

 

[Drelin]

Yo†a

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure what to think about that.....looks to me like it's trying to prove evolution, which isn't possible, since it's a false teaching.

Thank you for the comic relief. I too got quite a laugh out of this. I presume you were being facetious?

Jango

Quote[/b] ]By Evolutionists saying that all this is an accident, you're comparing the creation of life to a glass of milk being knocked over.

Good work Jango! That's quite a find! You are of course, correct. When you look down at the puddle of milk that has formed, you'll actually see that the way in which the milk dropplets have distributed themselves is extraordinarily complex. Later you might discover a tiny dropplets elsewhere in the kitchen. To suggest that this glorious array of milk had arrived on the floor by random accident is plainly stupid. From any hypothetic origin of the glass of milk, it would be impossible to accurately model the accident in order to explain the way the puddle formed, so you're right in saying that this puddle was created by the Great Cow in the Sky; intelligent father of milk puddles.

Dr. Tek

Quote[/b] ]Ive yet to find a single contradiction in nature to the Biblical account of creation

Hmm, Geology? Biology? Oh, wait...

timor

Quote[/b] ]I mean, why the heck did he place the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden?

I particuarly liked the part where Adam and Eve did something wrong despite not actually having any morality or conscience; any knowledge of good or evil to make this 'wrong' choice with. Oh, and then the part when they are judged accordingly.  

LionOfJudah

Quote[/b] ]would you rather him not created it all?

Sure, wouldn't you? If the doctine of everlasting torment for those with names not in the Book of Life is true, I can't fathom how any other human being would be happy that God created humans despite the eventuality of the overwhelmingly vast majoiry of humans ending up in hell.

 

[Dr. Tek]

Quote[/b] (Eon @ Mar. 29 2004,8:05)]You're talking about the undernourished germanic tribe from the Neander valley?

What a shame that Neanderthal skeletons have been found elsewhere.

Dude, there has only been ONE skeleton found.  Why dont you actually go and do some research.  Its common knowledge.  Any valid source of information on this topic will tell you that.

Quote[/b] (Drelin @ Mar. 29 2004,9:17)]Hmm, Geology? Biology? Oh, wait...

Yet again, accusations with no substantiation.  Id hate to waste any of your's [sarcasm]o so precious time[/sarcasm] but what would it take to list one supposed contradiction creation has with science.  Here and at many other forums I go to, people have made this claim, but have never once been able to list a single one.  So why dont you all cut the crap and stop groping in the dark for something that is not there.