Stargazer Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 At the genetic level the two are still the same species of dog. I would suppose that in the distant future they will have separated enough to have become two separate species. Of course. How distant though, that's the question. I don't even think they qualify as separate subspecies, despite the enormous differences. How nice to agree with you on something once in awhile!
Rob Osborn Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Are you speaking to me, or to the church approved Encyclopedia of Mormonism?All those who deny what the church really teaches. Some like to believe that the church is neutral on the subject of mans origins.
Rob Osborn Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Relying on fables and fairy tales is a dangerous thing.I agree, scientists really should stop already with their overactive imaginations.
passport Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I agree, scientists really should stop already with their overactive imaginations. Using Occam's razor to make a theory from the fossil record and genetics is having an overactive imagination?
thesometimesaint Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Of course. How distant though, that's the question. I don't even think they qualify as separate subspecies, despite the enormous differences. How nice to agree with you on something once in awhile! We really won't know until it happens. All modern house dogs are descendant from the Gray Wolf, and can at least possibly interbred. If I had to take a guess, and that is nothing more than my guess. Another 30,000 generations seems likely. Since it takes dogs about two years to come to full sexual maturity that's about 60,000 years. A long time by human standards. But about a blink of the eye in cosmic time scales. I think that we agree far more than we disagree. But it wouldn't be much fun here if everyone always agreed.
Uncle Dale Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) We really won't know until it happens. All modern house dogs are descendant from the Gray Wolf, and can at least possibly interbred. If I had to take a guess, and that is nothing more than my guess. Another 30,000 generations seems likely. Since it takes dogs about two years to come to full sexual maturity that's about 60,000 years. A long time by human standards. But about a blink of the eye in cosmic time scales.I think that we agree far more than we disagree. But it wouldn't be much fun here if everyone always agreed. The real trick will be to interbreed a fox with a wolf(or with a dog, which is merely one variety of wolf).Although descended from a common canine ancestor,wolves and foxes have genetically diverged to the pointthat they cannot mate and produce hybrid offspring.Our knowledge of the wolf and fox genomes will one daybe complete enough for research geneticists to identifyprecisely what the species differences are -- and to thusmicro-manipulate and "correct" the errors introduced bypast millions of years worth of natural selection.Though some folks in Siberia seem to think that there's one wolf with a DNA configuration closes enough to that of foxes,so that Mother Nature herself might produce the halfbreed k9When the wolfox (or foxwolf) pups are finally found/produced,I predict that the creation scientists will dismiss the eventas nothing but "micro-evolution" or laboratory hocus pocus.Oh well... Edited March 1, 2015 by Uncle Dale
Rob Osborn Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Using Occam's razor to make a theory from the fossil record and genetics is having an overactive imagination?Its one thing to look at the fossil record but its a completely different thing to believe that each new layer evolved into the next suddenly changing. Thats a fairytale.
thesometimesaint Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 That isn't what the fossil record shows.SEE
Ahab Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 That isn't what the fossil record shows.SEE:I think he was talking about the different layers of the tree of life that scientists imagine to explain how they think life evolved into more and more complex forms. And if he wasn't talking about that then that's the silly part I connect to the idea of evolution.But at least you believers of evolution agree that life from one kind to another kind, like cats becoming dogs, is impossible. You just need to see that life didn't and doesn't come from one common ancestor for all kinds of life. Basically we agree at the branch level but you guys are still thinking we have the trunk of the tree in common.
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Well you have a problem because really the theory of evolution is quite factual. I have no problem. The theory of evolution is incompatible with the plan of salvation. Forget Genesis and creation stories. I have a bigger issue with any theory that limits the atonement to specific generations.
SmileyMcGee Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Its one thing to look at the fossil record but its a completely different thing to believe that each new layer evolved into the next suddenly changing. Thats a fairytale.Define sudden changes. Edited March 2, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
Rob Osborn Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Define sudden changes.Define sudden changes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Rob Osborn Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 That isn't what the fossil record shows.SEE Theres more truth in my daughters princess fairytale movies she watches. Sorry, but I just couldnt wade through that entire video of lies.
Uncle Dale Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Define sudden changes.A good example of a sudden and significant geological change would be the prehistoric draining of ancient "Lake Bonneville" in America's Great Basin.One day, several hundreds of thousands of years ago, some conglomerate forming part of the rim of that vast inland sea broke away. It may have taken a day, or another hundred years, but in that geologically insignificant period, much of the water rushed out through that northern gap, into the canyons south of present day Pocatello, and from there, down the Snake River valley, through the Columbia and on into the ocean.Evidence of this cataclysmic event can be found even today, and makes for a fun field trip for amateur earth science historians.That is "sudden" in geological terms -- a day, a hundred years, or a thousand years. An event transpiring over, say, a million years, would be classified as somewhat less sudden.UD Edited March 2, 2015 by Uncle Dale
SmileyMcGee Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibriumgood grief. I'm done. I can't argue with someone who consistently misrepresents the science.
Rob Osborn Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 good grief. I'm done. I can't argue with someone who consistently misrepresents the science.How do you want me to spell it out? The fossil record shows where a species comes into existence with little to no change for a very long time then disappears.
Ahab Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 good grief. I'm done. I can't argue with someone who consistently misrepresents the science.That's pretty much how I feel when someone consistently misrepresents the evidence, or postulates a theory with no evidence to support it.There was never one common ancestor for all living things.
Teancum Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 It can be if you confuse fables and fairy tales with reality, like how some people confuse evolution with reality while thinking what God has told us is all just fables and fairy tales.Once upon a time all the people on Earth knew our Father in heaven was really our Father, but that was way back in the days of Adam and Eve. Hmmmm. This seems like an a priori assumption. Do you have evidence outside the Bible or LDS canon to substantiate this claim?
Teancum Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I agree, scientists really should stop already with their overactive imaginations. Rob you can continue to deny evidence all day long if you wish. It may help you to personally keep you grounded in a testimony that may crumble if you wanted to challenge yourself. And I know... that is a painful thing. So in a way I don't blame you. On the other hand, relying in documents that cliam to be the word of God when evidence shows that maybe this is really not the case, well I don't know. Truth is more important to me at least than maintaining false assumptions no matter how painful.
Teancum Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Its one thing to look at the fossil record but its a completely different thing to believe that each new layer evolved into the next suddenly changing. Thats a fairytale. No. It is science. Do you understand the scientific method? It has no vested interest in supporting one view or another.... so unlike religion and religious apologetics. Apologetics starts with a premise that whatever the apologist believes is true must be defended at all costs. Science seeks for truth based on evidence and a method that allows for over throwing previous conclusions if the evidence shows otherwise.
Ahab Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Hmmmm. This seems like an a priori assumption.How so? I didn't assume that.Do you have evidence outside the Bible or LDS canon to substantiate this claim?Yes, what God has told me personally.
Rob Osborn Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 No. It is science. Do you understand the scientific method? It has no vested interest in supporting one view or another.... so unlike religion and religious apologetics. Apologetics starts with a premise that whatever the apologist believes is true must be defended at all costs. Science seeks for truth based on evidence and a method that allows for over throwing previous conclusions if the evidence shows otherwise.The scientific method isnt used for evolutionists and their theories of how the fossils got tjere or evolution for that matter.
Teancum Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 How so? I didn't assume that.Yes, what God has told me personally.Can you substantiate this for those of us who God has not talked to directly about such things?
Teancum Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 The scientific method isnt used for evolutionists and their theories of how the fossils got tjere or evolution for that matter.Sure it is.
Ahab Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Can you substantiate this for those of us who God has not talked to directly about such things?Sure. Just believe what I told you is substantial.
Recommended Posts