hatsoff

True, but there have been cases of fertile female mules. And I wouldn't be surprised if a fertile male mule was possible, if undocumented.

No. Like I said in my OP, this is not a challenge, but a question. I am not looking to disprove any of your beliefs, but rather improve my conception of those beliefs. I suppose what I'm looking for is a definition of "kinds" which allows for different chromosome counts.

John is not a synoptic Gospel. Most scholars place it after 66 AD--the start of the Jewish War. Care to explain why you think it was written ca. 60? Except that Jesus has no "biography". That's just silly.

I don't think most people think about it in those terms. Back when I was Christian, it never crossed my mind, and nobody ever brought it up. The supernatural is by definition a violation of natural law. If God did *anything*, it is a violation. Also, science *is* secular; so, mentioning "secular scientists" is a bit like saying "tall basketball players."

Putting this thread in "Apologetics" seems to be an invitation to criticism. Well, here it is. I do not find the Bible to be a masterpiece. The King James Version is a unique translation, but even it is not particularly special. It is a convoluted diatribe preaching both bigotry and idiocy alike. Perhaps it is "great literature," but, Ecclesiastes aside, I see little of worth within.

It's an issue of meiosis, as I understand it. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, and horses 64. Mules (and hinnies) therefore have 63. But because of this chromosome issue they are not usually able to make viable gametes. Frankly, I'm surprised the chromosome discrepancy allows for breeding at all. As for the fertility of mules, it *does* happen. I'm not interested in arguments that the published literature to that effect is in error. However, it seems to work only with female mules, with horses or donkeys as the father. This could be an expression of the rarity of the phenomenon--that is, two fertile mules might reproduce if only they were in the right place at the right time, so to speak. But it should be noted.

There have been documented cases, yes.

Yes.

Perhaps I should elaborate. Under the answersingenesis explanation, "species" is an erroneous classification. Rather, we should be concerned with "kinds." Donkeys and horses have a different number of chromosomes, yet they can interbreed--with fertile offspring, no less. Are they the same kind? If so, why the obvious genetic differences? If not, why the interbreeding?

I just want to make it immediately clear that I mean this thread to be an honest exploration, and not an argumentative challenge. Indeed, I know very little about biology and genetics (though probably considerably more than most Americans), and thus cannot possibly pursue a rigorous debate on the subject. We may get into tangent disputes, but we'll take those as they come. My question is simple: To those of you who subscribe to Biblical "kinds," reject Darwinian evolution and believe in the historicity of the deluge, how do you explain the mule? (I chose the mule simply because it is the most common interspecific hybrid. If you wish to discuss others, by all means do!)

It only makes sense if you ignore certain realities. Let's have a single example: the meerkat (S. suricatta). They eat desert region insects, mostly land-dwelling, digging in the earth for their prey. They have very little body fat, which prevents them from living long without food. They average about three or four pups per litter--pups which indirectly require food prior to birth. Genetics aside, how do you suppose this species repopulated from two individuals, when all other land-dwelling "kinds" were limited to 2 or 7 individuals? I had wished to show exactly how many individuals are usually required to repopulate a mammalian species, but I have not come up with an answer. Common sense tells me (and should tell you) it is much, much more than two. But perhaps you have an easier job: I asked if there was even one species (or "kind," if you will) capable of repopulating from two specimens. Can you give an example?

Maybe so, but most Christians seem to think the divine intervention stopped at the rain.

Answers in Genesis claims that one species can evolve from another. They explain this by criticizing the taxonomy assignments of scientists. Anyway, speciation has been and continues to be observed in creatures of brief lifespans.

There are just so many violations of natural laws in the story of Noah's Ark. For example, what species can repopulate with only two specimens? Divine intervention on multiple levels would have been absolutely required.

I don't want to get on a tangent about contradictions, except to point out that this tract from Robertson's Word Studies (godrules.net) is plagued with errors. I think what does deserve comment though is that, if Q was real, then it probably did not include a nativity story. For clearly Matthew and Luke did not draw from a common nativity source, nor does it seem plausible that either would rely so much on Q for other material but reject it for the nativity. So, were the stories written by Matthew and Luke, or drawn from yet a third and possibly fourth source? This, of course, is impossible to determine, but judging from Luke's preface, and his reliance on at least two other sources, and also considering nativity narratives did exist in early Christianity, I would guess that his account draws from another, earlier written tale. But this is just a guess--something which I may investigate but as yet have not. For Matthew, it seems slightly more likely that he penned his own narrative based on oral tradition or simple rumor, or perhaps invented it altogether to support his Jewish birthright claims.