Evolution

[goldenchild17]

okay but is there a difference between not being able to breed with the ancestral species, and choosing not to breed with the ancestral species? How do we know it's physically impossible for certain species to breed with their ancestral species? Has anybody force-breeded them to see? Just a question, I don't know.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Frist, I'd just like to say I am thinking rationally here with my limited knowledge, I am really no authority on science. I think you can tell by looking at DNA if crossbreeding is possible. It seems that the species-line would be drawn at the [i]possibility[/i] of producing fertile offspring. You raise an interesting question about whether a mutated animal would [i]want[/i] to mate with its parent's kind or not. Would it want something like itself or would its instincts still orient it toward the species it came from? Then again I could be totally wrong and making a fool of myself. Is anyone out there a biologist?

Edited September 27, 2006 by thedude

[Resurrexi]

[quote] I know we can be fairly certain that the earth is at least 600 million years old [/quote]

I know that I'm fairly ceratin that the world is about 6000 years old.

[Farsight one]

Just so you all know. Evolution is NOT a theory. It's quite real, just misconceived. The fact that children tend to be between their parents in height( average height of the two +2.5 inches for males and -2.5 for females) is evolution. The cold virus evolves when it changes strains (which is why there's no cold vaccine. It changes too rapidly). That chart you see all the time where the monkey changes frame by frame into man really has nothing to do with true evolution.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1077558' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:32 AM']
I know that I'm fairly ceratin that the world is about 6000 years old.
[/quote]
well, you base that opinion off of pseudo-pscience and a faith in something that the Church does not require us to believe...

Farsight, you're describing the fact of micro-evolution, everyone agrees to that.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1077659' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:44 AM']
Just so you all know. Evolution is NOT a theory. It's quite real, just misconceived. The fact that children tend to be between their parents in height( average height of the two +2.5 inches for males and -2.5 for females) is evolution. The cold virus evolves when it changes strains (which is why there's no cold vaccine. It changes too rapidly). That chart you see all the time where the monkey changes frame by frame into man really has nothing to do with true evolution.
[/quote]
Yes microevolution. No one disputes that as far as I can tell.

[KnightofChrist]

What about the fact that the bible and Church teaches that Adam and Eve were "The First Parents." The word "first" would imply that they were the first, zero, no parents ahead of them no not a ape, nor ape-like.

Adam and Eve can not be "the first parents" if indeed they had parents. Genetics does not change the parenthood of a mother and father. If my wife gave birth to the x-men we would still be their mother and father. The same would be true for Adam and Eves "parents", and if they did have parents, and if so the Church is wrong to teach that Adam and Eve were "the first parents", because that would not be true if they did have parents.

The original intention of Biblical and Church teaching (I believe) is that Adam and Eve were The First Parents, they had no parents, God created them directly.

I would rather look like a fool for God, and take the more traditional view of creation, than Darwin’s modern atheistic theory of evolution, which is taught today as if there is no God, and is scientific law. When in fact it remains one of many scientific theories, of creation.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1077709' date='Sep 28 2006, 03:29 AM']I would rather look like a fool for God, and take the more traditional view of creation, than Darwin’s modern atheistic theory of evolution, which is taught today as if there is no God, and is scientific law. When in fact it remains one of many scientific theories, of creation.
[/quote]
Amen.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='thedude' post='1076266' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:03 PM']
It probably depends who you ask. The way I (not knowing much science) understand it is an animal is definately no longer of the same species when it cannot produce fertile offspring with its ancestral species. Apparantly, I just found out, this "speciation" has been observed on the labratory level. Check this out:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Ar...cial_speciation[/url]

Whether [i]manipulative[/i] breeding on the lab level proves the theory of evolution in [i]nature[/i] is for somebody smarter to decide.
[/quote]

A thought. If an animal is considered a new species when it can no longer breed with it's ancestors, ie if one breed cannot breed with another breed. Then how come horses can breed with donkeys? Or are they the same breed technically?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1077712' date='Sep 28 2006, 05:16 AM']
A thought. If an animal is considered a new species when it can no longer breed with it's ancestors, ie if one breed cannot breed with another breed. Then how come horses can breed with donkeys? Or are they the same breed technically?
[/quote]
It can breed, but the offspring cannot. Mules cannot mate with each other and produce offspring from what I know. According to Wikipedia, there are rare cases where mules have been able to produce offspring when mated with horses or donkeys, but it doesn't look like two mules can produce offspring.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules[/url]

[Aloysius]

it is different races within a species which cannot interbreed (which is why the word "race" is a misnomer in human terms).

Darwin was wrong, that is true. But the origin of the human body may have had different stages before Adam and Eve, this does not make them not our first parents. if they generated our entire species, they're our first parents.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='thedude' post='1078153' date='Sep 28 2006, 04:05 PM']
It can breed, but the offspring cannot. Mules cannot mate with each other and produce offspring from what I know. According to Wikipedia, there are rare cases where mules have been able to produce offspring when mated with horses or donkeys, but it doesn't look like two mules can produce offspring.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules[/url]
[/quote]

So then wouldn't that make a mule the same species as the horse? And the same species as the donkey? If they can mate, then either they are the same species, or the ability to make with one is not significant in determining what makes a separate species. Are two mules not of the same species? Since they cannot breed with each other? Are a donkey and a horse of the same species because they can breed? Just some questions I have that don't add up for me.

[cmotherofpirl]

interesting discussion:
[url="http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=834"]http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=834[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT[/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078195' date='Sep 28 2006, 05:52 PM']
So then wouldn't that make a mule the same species as the horse? And the same species as the donkey? If they can mate, then either they are the same species, or the ability to make with one is not significant in determining what makes a separate species. Are two mules not of the same species? Since they cannot breed with each other? Are a donkey and a horse of the same species because they can breed? Just some questions I have that don't add up for me.
[/quote]
Beats me. I don't know how a biologist would define a species.