nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + +
Some odd comments here.
::::It is, actually, true. A female horse and a male donkey yields a mule. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 19:17, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It is, actually, true. A female horse and a male donkey yields a mule. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 19:17, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ability to reproduce defines species for the layman. So-called scientists may have a different definition, but they are not welcome here. The layman definition is all a good Christian needs to know, visit Wikipedia for a different one. --[[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 19:28, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ability to reproduce defines species for the layman. So-called scientists may have a different definition, but they are not welcome here. The layman definition is all a good Christian needs to know, visit Wikipedia for a different one. --[[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 19:28, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
There are some half-truths, odd comments, and people trying to be funny, here on this talk page. Simplistically, "species" is defined as the ability to interbreed, but more precisely, it's more like that they can ''naturally'' interbreed (according to some biologists at least; see article), and produce fertile offspring. I ''think'' (but can't recall for sure) that fertile lion/tiger offspring have occurred. Not that there is an exact universally-agreed definition anyway, and reproductive ability is totally useless when it comes to determining the species of creatures known only from the fossil record (and yet they accuse [[baraminology|baraminologists]] of not having a precise definition!).
The relationship between dogs and wolves is not simply "because God willed it", but because they are of the same ''[[baraminology|created kind]]''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 2 September 2008 (EDT)