Polar bears and grizzly bears can't reproduce together**, but I remember you telling me that all bears are part of the same "kind". The definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another.
**Edit:
I checked it on Google and I happened to pick the two species that, on rare occasions, have mated. But that doesn't invalidate my point. The grizzly and the polar bear are both from the same genus, Ursus, so the fact that they would have compatible gametes isn't that surprising. But a polar bear and a panda bear could not reproduce, even though they are both bears. Baraminology would not be able to account for this inconsistency.
Baraminology
11 Comments - 2787 Views
Submitted By WWDD on 09/03/01
FreeHovind, WWDD, Discussions
I was wondering if someone would be willing to enlighten me as to how exactly the system of baraminology works. Specifically, I would like to know the definition of a “kind” and how it is empirically tested. Creationists often say that the evidence for taxonomic classification (bones, teeth, DNA, ect.) is weak, so I’m curious to know what evidence baraminology has that makes it so much better. Please don’t give me a description of what a baramin is, I don’t want the theory behind it. I only want to know how, scientifically, you have determined that 2 kinds are unrelated. For example, how has baraminology proven that bears and wolves are different kinds, but wolves and foxes are not?
» Reply to CommentPolar bears and grizzly bears can’t reproduce to
» Reply to Commentwow bigdog...fail
How have you NOT researched this....this is one of the fundamental questions that your entire belief structure must contend with....this definitely shows your laziness and complacency.
» Reply to CommentI'm sorry for being lazy and not spending all my
I'm sorry for being lazy and not spending all my time researching to answer all your questions. But here's an article from national geographic saying that grizzly bears and polar bears have joint offspring.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/bear-hybrid-photo.html
Also, here is a web-site of different species showing panda-bears and grizzlies can mate as well as other species in the same kind. It's common sense. But humans and chimps I'm sure can't mate.
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/
» Reply to CommentYes, I realize that I made a mistake with that fir
Yes, I realize that I made a mistake with that first example, I already corrected myself. You didn’t need to post an article.
All the crosses mentioned on the second site involve animals from the same genus. There was nothing about a panda/grizzly cross, not sure where you saw that. A panda and a grizzly could not breed. If the sole basis of dividing animals into respective baramins is whether or not they can mate, then by your definition the panda is not part of the bear kind.
That seems difficult to test though. Is there a baraminology lab somewhere, where they cross every single animal in each genus to make sure that rule holds true? You always tell me evolution has no real science behind it, but you can’t seem to find a single scientific source that answers my question of what determines a “kind”.
All the crosses mentioned on the second site involve animals from the same genus. There was nothing about a panda/grizzly cross, not sure where you saw that. A panda and a grizzly could not breed. If the sole basis of dividing animals into respective baramins is whether or not they can mate, then by your definition the panda is not part of the bear kind.
That seems difficult to test though. Is there a baraminology lab somewhere, where they cross every single animal in each genus to make sure that rule holds true? You always tell me evolution has no real science behind it, but you can’t seem to find a single scientific source that answers my question of what determines a “kind”.
» Reply to Comment
From my findings the spectacled bear and the pan
From my findings the spectacled bear and the panda are the only bears that don't breed with other bears because, in short, they have different chromosomes. Therefore they may be their own 'kind' of bear. In Biblical philosophy GOD created all the animals so only he has the right classifications of all the kinds and species of animals. But according to our knowledge all animals can only mate with their own kind. So if the panda can only mate with other pandas then that to me puts even more limitations on the theory of evolution. Because Now pandas are limited to their very strict species of bear. Simply put I believe any two animals that can pro-create are of the same kind. Since panda bears can't mate with other bears, they are there own kind of bear. GOD must have created them different from other bears to be unique. They were probably never related to other bears. Here's a site to help a little.
http://www.icr.org/article/genomics-at-icr/
» Reply to CommentYou’re right about the chromosome thing. Basical
You’re right about the chromosome thing. Basically, saying that two animals can produce offspring is the same as saying that they have very similar genomes. So how come as soon as evolutionists go a step further, it suddenly becomes wrong? It’s fine to say that grizzlies and polar bears are related because their DNA is alike. But pandas have a genome that’s a lot closer to a grizzly bear than it is to a dog or cat. So why isn’t it reasonable to say that maybe the panda and the grizzly had a common ancestor at one time, and due to genetic drift are now no longer able to reproduce? Why is that so impossible?
» Reply to CommentThey have no problem with that, they're just
They have no problem with that, they're just terrified of HUMAN evolution, thats what i've discovered from talking to creationists. They cant get over how we are descended from non-humans, it makes them feel bad (even though the bible says we come from dirt/dust, so not much better)
» Reply to Comment
It would be fine if thiestic evolution was true.
It would be fine if thiestic evolution was true. We're just finding out that it's not true and the earth is much younger than we were taught.
» Reply to CommentYou said yourself that you don’t even know the s
You said yourself that you don’t even know the science behind baraminology! Evolution is true, it has evidence behind it. What evidence do you have?
» Reply to Comment"It would be fine if thiestic evolution was true.
"It would be fine if thiestic evolution was true. We're just finding out that it's not true and the earth is much younger than we were taught. "
riiight and how exactly are we finding that out?
riiight and how exactly are we finding that out?
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
That's a good question that I haven't researched but I imagine if the different kinds can't reproduce together then that would be a good sign that they are different kinds and not related except by the same Designer.