How does the mule fit into Biblical "kinds"?

[SaturnV]

You're basically right hats-Mules have an odd number of chromosomes, so they can't divide evenly during meiosis, and therefore the mule's gamete cells won't be viable.

However, if a chromosome from either the father or mother doesn't get copied over to the sperm or egg cells, or if an extra one gets copied over, the mule will have either 62 or 64 chromosomes.

Male mules are usually castrated, but I don't see any reason why fertility won't be possible in males as well.

[TomPJr]

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!)

I believe that they are the same kind. They are of the horse family, just as all varieties of horses are along with zebras.

Just like a great dane and a shitzu are bothe of the dog "kind".

Just as black people and white people can procreate, because we are of the same kind.

the different classifications of animals within the same kind are just variations.

Tom

[Jorge S]

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?

Hi Hatsoff,

I don't understand the question very clearly. I mean, in what way the existence of the mule denies the historicity of the deluge or supports Darwinian evolution. Is that what you're asking?

There isn't -as far as I know- a clear correspondence between biblical 'kinds' or 'families' and the equivalent levels within our standard phylogenetic tree. Simply because the Bible is not explicit about them. Yet both morphological and genetic evidences are consistent with speciation from different ancestral lines rather than one universal ancestor. I have had the curiosity of studying the biblical lists of 'clean' and 'unclean' animals and match them with our modern taxonomic groups to see if there is any connection but time is a problem for me. I don't know if someone has done such a work.

The mule is more of an embarrasment to our definition (or one of them: reproductive isolation) of species than to the Bible, in view that horses and donkeys are different species yet they interbreed to give the mule. It only confirms that both in biblical and systematics lores they belong in the same group of related organisms.

Cheers.

[Wingwalker]

Breeding a male donkey to a female horse results in a mule; breeding a male horse to a female donkey produces a hinny.

I did not know that there were differences. Of course granddad never called one a hinny.

[hatsoff]

I don't understand the question very clearly. I mean, in what way the existence of the mule denies the historicity of the deluge or supports Darwinian evolution. Is that what you're asking?

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.

[Joshua-777]

Hmmm, I'm still sticking with the a Donkey is a type of horse.

[Joshua-777]

hmm so, I figure,.. we got the horses, the donkeys, the mules, the hinnies,... Hmmm can we race them? I've got 10 cents on the hinnie

Prov 17:22

A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones

[Joshua-777]

I don't understand the question very clearly. I mean, in what way the existence of the mule denies the historicity of the deluge or supports Darwinian evolution. Is that what you're asking?

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.

horses have 32 pairs of chromosomes while donkeys have only 31 pairs, A mule has

31-paired chromosomes as well as an extra chromosome from its horse mother that is not paired. the extra chromosome would not have a partner to match up with would be the suigested reason why fertility isn't possible. What gets me about this though is that hybrids of the wild horse 33 pairs and the domesticated horse 32 pairs are fertile, and yet they have an odd chromosome out, just like mules do, so honestly I don't know why mules are not fertile.

One thing though is that donkeys and horses are both all through out the bible, I wonder if there is any symbolism behind it. Hmm I might look into that

[hatsoff]

There are no recorded cases of fertile male hinnies or male mules

This according to wikipedia.

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.

Edited March 15, 2007 by hatsoff

[SaturnV]

I don't understand the question very clearly. I mean, in what way the existence of the mule denies the historicity of the deluge or supports Darwinian evolution. Is that what you're asking?

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.

horses have 32 pairs of chromosomes while donkeys have only 31 pairs, A mule has

31-paired chromosomes as well as an extra chromosome from its horse mother that is not paired. the extra chromosome would not have a partner to match up with would be the suigested reason why fertility isn't possible. What gets me about this though is that hybrids of the wild horse 33 pairs and the domesticated horse 32 pairs are fertile, and yet they have an odd chromosome out, just like mules do, so honestly I don't know why mules are not fertile.

One thing though is that donkeys and horses are both all through out the bible, I wonder if there is any symbolism behind it. Hmm I might look into that

I took a quick check into the horses, and there are some rather interesting mechanisms at work there. The extra chromosome basically gets "fused" onto an existing one, which has been known to happen-but not usually as a normal part of fertilization.