JohnHeintz
Member
Maybe I did overlook part of it. It's also sometimes difficult to put a lifetime worth of "how did you arrive at your worldview" into a few sentences in a forum thread. I had to start somewhere.I think you overlooked the most important part
Like you have given us what you believe.
You believe dogs and wolves are related, and that it is very possible that they are also related to other canids like Coyotes, foxes , dingoes, and African wild dogs.
You also believe that the transition from fish to tetrapods is "very different".
(and also a few other things but let's keep it to one topic at a time)
But you haven't given us a reason why you believe this. Like, imagine for a sec you have another creationist who says that dogs, wolves, foxes, etc are not related. They are a separate creation. And also imagine that you have another creationist who says that not only are dogs, wolves, foxes, etc related, they are also related to other carnivorans: bears, seals, weasels, cats, hyenas, etc.
How could you resolve such a dispute? How do we determine who is right?
Furthermore, you say that the fish to tetrapod transition is very different, but you are obviously thinking in terms of a fish (something like a flounder) and a modern tetrapod (like a wolf). The gap seems so huge that it is very different than the differences between dogs and foxes. But what if we look at extinct fishes and tetrapods, like the following:
View attachment 451
Now the differences don't seem to be that significant.
And how is saying that all the above are related different from saying all the canids below are related?
View attachment 449
Or to use a better example, here is a modern group of blennies where we also see a similar transition from sea to land:
View attachment 452
If blennies are related, how is it different in the case with the the fish to tetrapod transition given above?
And while we are at it, how are these all different from the dinosaur to bird transition:
View attachment 453
What if Creationists A believes this? And what if Creationist B believes that?
In my opinion , this is irrelevant to our discussion. Aron stated he could get ME to accept these concepts. So it only matters what I believe to be correct. And why I believe it.
With the fish to wolf scenario. Yes, I know it allegedly happens in small increments over vast amounts of time. That the fish like ancestor lead to several different lineages. Only one of which leads to a wolf . Most of the evidence that I can find is "comparative anatomy". The genetic part is what I'm trying to get a clearer picture on.
Anyway , thanks for your reply