Talk:Macroevolution

Is it true that all canines are descended from a single pair on the ark?
The article asserts that all canines, even including hyaenas, are descended from a single pair of canines on the ark. Is there data to support this assertion? I do not think that we can safely claim that solely from the text of Genesis. We do not actually know how God distinguishes the kinds. When he populated the earth at creation, I am pretty sure that it would have been completely filled with a huge variety of creatures. Rather than make our own guesses on the basis of how we see relationships between species, it might be more productive to work backwards from the size of the ark to estimate how many pairs it could hold, along with ten months' food for them. Oelphick 15:52, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * some viable points--Tylerdemerchant 07:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And some foolishness. We don't know exactly how big the inside of the Ark was, or how it was organized, or how much food would have been required for the animals.  And we do know how God distinguishes the created kinds: they reproduced "after their kind".  And even if not all of their descendants today can interbreed, they are still members of the same kind b/c their ancestors were. If Mr. Elphick would read the articles on Noah's Ark and baraminology, I'm sure he'd have a much better understanding of these issues. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

spelling corrections
this page has been spell checked to any who wish to change my correctios, organismal is not a word. organismic or simply organism would work--Tylerdemerchant 07:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Organismal definition --Ashcraft - (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)