[geocentrism] Re: Hybrid humans?



On May 25, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:
(Lev 19:19) "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; ...
Cattle not only have no inclination to "breed with a different kind," but this is also not possible. Indeed, is it not the compatibility and ability to mate that leads to the definition of Genesis "kind" in the first place? 

Neville.
You may wish to look up baraminology to get some background on this from the creation science side.
Note that the mule (cross between horse and donkey) is a sterile creature: mules don't mate to make more mules. The general notion of a species is that the members of the group are interfertile (capable of creating nonsterile offspring). This makes the Galapagos finches something of a mystery -- the variants are intergraded. (Intergrading means that if you have seven islands in a line, that the finches on consecutive islands are fertile (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7), but that finches from distant islands are not (nothing happens when finches from islands 1 and 7 mate -- no offspring).
Modern science received a black eye when an offspring from two different genera was born in 1978 at the Chester Zoo. An African elephant (Loxodonta africanus) mated with an Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and a composite was born. 

http://www.hybridelephant.com/motty.html
When I brought this up in a debate, my opponent argued that this merely meant the African and Asian elephants were misidentified and really were in the same genus after all. Then I posed the follow up question, "Why, then, thirty years after this discovery, has not a single zoologist proposed altering the genus names for either of these animals? You guys routinely adjust other taxonomic classifications at the drop of a hat, so why on Earth would you let such a blatant acknowledged error go uncorrected for three decades?" No answer from the other side. 

Martin

Other related posts: