Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mon chi chi · 05-13-2004, 04:55 PM

Can anyone explain this?

um3k · 05-13-2004, 04:59 PM

What? You mean between species? It's because species can't interbreed. Well, technically, some can, but most won't produce fertile offspring.

Viti · 05-13-2004, 05:04 PM

What's a crossbreed? "Breed" is used to describe various sets of characteristic in domesticated animals, like dogs and cows. I think you're using the wrong terminology.

SEF · 05-13-2004, 05:10 PM

One of the definitions of a species (probably what you mean by "breed") is that its members do not normally cross or interbreed with other species. Note that varieties of essentially the same flower can cross to make hybrids and breeds of dog obviously crossbreed. Sometimes even what is commonly regarded as a species boundary proves to be crossable - including fertile offspring on occasion. This is actually very good evidence that evolution is true and proof that creation with things reproducing in strict (but suspiciously unidentified "kinds") is false.

Horse + donkey = mule or hinny. Some have been known to be fertile.
Camel + llama = cama (awaiting news of fertility).
Lion + tiger = liger (which is bigger than either).

There are probably more crosses among plants but people tend to be more impressed by the animals. After all, to some creationists plants aren't even properly alive and certainly don't need light or air or to be saved from flooded land on an ark...

mon chi chi · 05-13-2004, 05:29 PM

okay... you're probably right... I dont know too much about Evolution and I am by no means saying you're wrong. Lets use the classic example of man evolving from monkeys. Over the course of however many millions of years it took for monkey to become man I would personally think we'd see planet of the apes type creatures roaming the earth. Or lets say that Dinosaurs evolved from amphibions... why haven't they found anything that's part amphibian-part dinosaur?

caravelair · 05-13-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mon chi chi

Or lets say that Dinosaurs evolved from amphibions... why haven't they found anything that's part amphibian-part dinosaur?

what about these?

mon chi chi · 05-13-2004, 05:51 PM

The idea of evolution, as far as I've heard scientists explain it, is that the genes in a given species change slightly over large spans of time. The end product making new species. But where it gets left behind is that if all things evolved out of single celled organisms, became small sea bugs, grew legs and became amphibians, strayed from the water and became reptiles, then grew larger into dinosours, then got wiped out...why are there still single celled organisms?

SEF · 05-13-2004, 05:52 PM

There are rather a lot of primates in bushy family trees (including the monkeys) and more hominid fossils than many people care to believe/admit - which are similarly somewhat bushy rather than linear in descent, including the Neanderthals. This is the cue for someone to post that set of skulls again...

Depending on what you mean by amphibian-dinosaur mixes there are quite a lot of reptiles around and then there are those original tetrapods which grew legs from fins and left the sea for the land.

SEF · 05-13-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mon chi chi

why are there still single celled organisms?

Oh no, not again!

Just because you might get a degree doesn't mean everyone else in your family automatically gets one or immediately dies out. Just because one isolated population of critters evolves something new doesn't mean every individual of the original larger population gets it too or dies out. Just because one set of bacteria develops multiple resistance to antibiotics doesn't mean that instantly every other population of the original strain which hasn't been exposed gets it too or dies out.

Things only evolve together if they all interbreed with no isolation. Things tend to only become extinct if their niche no longer exists to support them or they are out-evolved in competing with something else that moves in on their territory. Then you might see only one representative group from the previous diversity remaining, eg humans out of all the other hominids. Neanderthals didn't make it - though that may have been the fault of Sapiens.

Doubting Didymus · 05-13-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mon chi chi

why are there still single celled organisms?

Ooh. Would you really like to know? How many words would you like the answer in?

05-13-2004, 04:55 PM	#1
mon chi chi Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 24	if evolution is true then where are the crossbreeds? Can anyone explain this?

05-13-2004, 04:59 PM	#2
um3k Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 80	... What? You mean between species? It's because species can't interbreed. Well, technically, some can, but most won't produce fertile offspring.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2004, 05:04 PM	#3
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	What's a crossbreed? "Breed" is used to describe various sets of characteristic in domesticated animals, like dogs and cows. I think you're using the wrong terminology.

05-13-2004, 05:10 PM	#4
SEF Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,179	One of the definitions of a species (probably what you mean by "breed") is that its members do not normally cross or interbreed with other species. Note that varieties of essentially the same flower can cross to make hybrids and breeds of dog obviously crossbreed. Sometimes even what is commonly regarded as a species boundary proves to be crossable - including fertile offspring on occasion. This is actually very good evidence that evolution is true and proof that creation with things reproducing in strict (but suspiciously unidentified "kinds") is false. Horse + donkey = mule or hinny. Some have been known to be fertile. Camel + llama = cama (awaiting news of fertility). Lion + tiger = liger (which is bigger than either). There are probably more crosses among plants but people tend to be more impressed by the animals. After all, to some creationists plants aren't even properly alive and certainly don't need light or air or to be saved from flooded land on an ark...

05-13-2004, 05:29 PM	#5
mon chi chi Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 24	okay... you're probably right... I dont know too much about Evolution and I am by no means saying you're wrong. Lets use the classic example of man evolving from monkeys. Over the course of however many millions of years it took for monkey to become man I would personally think we'd see planet of the apes type creatures roaming the earth. Or lets say that Dinosaurs evolved from amphibions... why haven't they found anything that's part amphibian-part dinosaur?

05-13-2004, 05:51 PM	#7
mon chi chi Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 24	The idea of evolution, as far as I've heard scientists explain it, is that the genes in a given species change slightly over large spans of time. The end product making new species. But where it gets left behind is that if all things evolved out of single celled organisms, became small sea bugs, grew legs and became amphibians, strayed from the water and became reptiles, then grew larger into dinosours, then got wiped out...why are there still single celled organisms?

05-13-2004, 05:52 PM	#8
SEF Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,179	There are rather a lot of primates in bushy family trees (including the monkeys) and more hominid fossils than many people care to believe/admit - which are similarly somewhat bushy rather than linear in descent, including the Neanderthals. This is the cue for someone to post that set of skulls again... Depending on what you mean by amphibian-dinosaur mixes there are quite a lot of reptiles around and then there are those original tetrapods which grew legs from fins and left the sea for the land.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.