XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, talk.religion.misc   
   From: a202010@lycos.com-   
      
   > and now, you can add in the bits about ducks and dogs...   
   > which is to say that it need not be shown   
   > that "today's" assortment/taxonomy is -identical-   
   > to "yesterday's" assortment/taxonomy, because   
   > "species" is defined in an ambiguous manner.   
      
      
    hybrid ducks and mutt dogs are entailments   
    of the same dynamic principle.   
      
    a mallard and a wood duck   
    =may be= the same species, and   
      
    a great dane and the chihuahua   
    could be categorized as  not   
    the same species, and   
      
    this ambiguity tends to make   
    assertions about the origins   
    of species unwarranted.   
      
    it still seems like one is seeing   
    the origins of familial traits within a given genetic line   
    and not an origin of a genetic line in itself.   
      
    because sometimes, what -amounts to-   
    familial or "phenotypic" genetic traits   
    are used to delimit species, and sometimes,   
    these trait structures clearly do not   
    specify such a demarcation.   
      
    and also...   
      
   digression...   
      
   the origins of all the various traits   
   is in the genetics themselves.   
      
   like, there was a primary dog form that was produced from scratch   
   and everything that makes a taco bell dog and a marmaduke and a   
   german shepherd and a boxer were already in that primary dog   
   from the onset.   
      
   and the same sort of dynamic applies to ducks   
      
   and all sorts of creatures.   
      
   a primary specimen was assembled from scratch   
      
   and that primary form already had the genetic information   
   from which to educe various other outward appearing forms.   
      
   just like marmaduke was "hidden" in the primary canine from,   
      
   and brought out by the hand of man to express itself outwardly,   
      
   so, donald and daffy duck were both 'hidden'   
      
   in a primary duck form and were both brought   
      
   out by natural shufflings in and among   
      
   the environment.   
      
   of course it's possible that there   
   were  several 'primary' duck forms   
      
   from which the many many duck forms originated,   
      
   but there's a lack of information at   
      
   our disposal to elucidate that fine a detail.   
      
   if you gathered up sperm and egg samples from all duck varieties   
      
   and purposefully set out to mix and match each and every sample,   
      
   then you'd have more information so as to understand   
   which ducks may be able to produce offspring with   
   which other types of ducks,   
      
   but such a task would be somewhat daunting.   
      
   and the prospect of doing such a global search   
   on all species so as to discover which forms   
   could produce offspiring with which other   
   forms is moreso,...daunting a task.   
      
   end digression...   
      
   but see, various forms of ducks and dogs are -like-   
      
   a digression from a primary specimen, and while   
      
   we can posit a common ancestor   
   for marmaduke and the taco bell dog,   
      
   and for a mallard and a wood duck,   
      
   we can -not- easily posit a common ancestor   
      
   for a great dane and a mallard.   
      
      
      
   anyway, there is a great deal of information   
   that is -not- available upon which lack,   
   gross assumptions are being made.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)