You wrote:
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:03:38 GMT
>From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
>Sender: owner-evolution@udomo.calvin.edu
>To: evolution@Calvin.EDU
>Subject: Re: After their kind
>
>Glenn has put essentially the same question to myself, Paul Durham
>and Steve Jones:
>
>"Would this mean that a dog-kind gave rise to all the dog like beings?
>Like coyotes, foxes, jackals, hyaenas etc?
>Would this mean that a horse-kind gave rise to all the horse like
>beings? Like zebras, donkeys, kulans, onagers etc?"
>
>Speaking for myself, the short answer is "yes". But I would like to
>elaborate a little.
>
>I have suggested that the phrase "after their kind" is a-scientific
>and should not be loaded with technical meaning. I can
>understand Terry Gray when he says:
>"I don't know of single evolutionist who doesn't believe that
>organisms reproduce after their own kind. The progeny is of the same
>species as the parent."
>
>Whereas the evolutionist has a theory about how one "kind" can change
>into another with time, this theory fails (in my opinion) to do
>justice to biblical revelation about the creative design input
>provided by God. If such has taken place, by inference, natural
>processes cannot substitute for this design input and fundamental
>gulfs exist between "kinds". This is where I see some technical
>constraints on the meaning of the term coming in.
>
>However, the Bible does not inform us about the boundaries which have
>resulted from God's creative design. For that, we must do some
>scientific investigation. This is a specific case where it does make
>a difference whether one is a Methodological Naturalist or a
>Christian Theist.
>
>In my earlier post, I referred to the German group who put together
>the symposium "Typen des Lebens". They demonstrate that the dog
>family and the horse family do constitute "Basic Types" - linked
>genetically within the family but with no linkages outside the
>family. This volume does not claim that these "Basic Types" are to
>be equated with the Genesis kinds - for that is loading the biblical
>text with a technical meaning which (some of us think) it does not
>have. One strong inference from the scientific analysis of the data
>is that the members of the dog-family show evidences of having
>descended from a common ancestral population. Similarly for the
>horse-family. Evidence for genetic linkages from these populations
>to any other population is totally lacking. This is fully consistent
>with the scenarios developed by PCs and YECs.
Here is why I asked the question about the equidae and the canidae. Many
many anti-evolutionary christians state this. Whitcomb and MOrris Genesis
Flood , p. 67 shows this created kind for dogs and horses. The dog-kind
has the arctic fox, grey fox, red fox, wolf, dog coyote jackal and hyaena.
Now if these are all a kind, then I would submit that this "kind" has not
reproduced after its kind!
Here are the chromosome numbers for the members of this kind.
chromosomes canidae family
Wolf-like canids common name geographic range
2n
small (5-10 kg
Canis aureus Golden jackal Old World 78
Canis adustus Side-striped jackal SubSahara Africa 78
Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal SubSahara Africa 78
Large (12-30 kg)
Canis simensis Simien jackal Ethiopia 78
Canis lupus Gray wolf Holarctic 78
Canis latrans Coyote North America 78
Canis rufus Red wolf Southern U.S. 78
Canis alpinus Dhole Asia 78
Lycaon pictus African Wild Dog Subsaharan africa 78
South American Canids
Speothos venaticus Bushdog Ne S. America 74
Lycalopex vetulus Hoary fox Ne S. America 74
Cerdocyon thous Crab-eating fox Ne S. America 74
Chrysocyon brachyurus Manes wolf Ne S. America 76
Red fox-like canids
Vulpes velox Kit fox Western U.S. 50
Vulpes vulpes Red fox Old and new world 36
Vulpes chama Cape fox Southern Africa not given
Alopex lagopus Arctic fox Holarctic 50
Fennecus zerda Fennec fox Sahara 64
other canids
Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox Subsaharan Africa 72
Uocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox North America 66
Nycteruetes procyonoides Raccon dog Japan, China 42
Robert K. Wayne, "Molecular evolution of the dog family," TRENDS IN
GENETICS,9:6,June 1993, p 219
These chromosome numbers are all over the place. If these animals, which
have traditionally been designated a single kind based on their gross
anatomy, really are a single kind, then much evolution has taken place.
Similarly for the horse-kind. Morris shows the horse-kind as consisting
of the onager, kianger, kiang, ass, mule, horse zebroid quagga, and zebra.
The chromosome numbers are collected from a variety of sources.
2n
Przewalski's horse 66
regular horse 64
Ass 63,62
onager 55,54
kulan 55,54
kiang 52,51
Burchell zebra 45,44
hartman's zebra 32
Thus the horse kind has not reproduced according to its kind either.
There has been a recent discovery of a new equid called a riwoche horse.
I don't know the chromosomal count on it.
Even rats reproduce not according to their kind. 400 years ago Mauritius
had no rats. They hitched rides on boats. They had to come from the
surrounding region but none of the rats in the surrounding region have
chromosomal counts like the Mauritian rats.
"There are many researchers who have studied the chromosomes of the black
rats from several locations of the world, but none has observed in them
the karyotype characterized by the Robertsonian fission as seen in the
Mauritius type. Chromosomes of the black rats in Madagascar which is
located near Mauritius Island were of the typical Oceanian type .
Chromosomes Recently we had an opportunity to study on chromosomes of the
black rats from the Seychelles Island in the Indian Ocean, but they were
of a regular Oceanian karyotype. Based on the above consideration, it
seems to be possible that the Mauritius-type fission has occurred in
Mauritius itself at some time since the 16th century. Fission of took
place in the small metacentric pairs no. 14 and no. 18. Probably during
the last 400 years rats carrying small acrocentrics would have propagated
in Mauritius and replaced the Oceanian type ancestor rats. One rat
studied here still showed a heteromorphic pair no. 18 showing that the
original metacentric no. 18 still remains in this island."~T.H. Yosida, et
al, "Mauritius Type Black Rats with Peculiar Karyotypes Derived from
Robertsonian Fission of Small Metacentrics," Chromosoma, 75: 51-62 (1979),
p. 59
Because of this, when one says that animals reproduce according to their
kind, one must be very careful to define what he means. But one thing is
certain, the orthodox meaning of reproduce according to its kind is not
fulfilled within the kinds.
In what kind of sense did God create a kind with different chromosomal
numbers?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm