You'd better define what you mean by interbreed here. Interbreed would typically refer to breeding between subspecies, for example between a Lion and a Tiger. Although we would consider, in common usage, a lion and a tiger to be distinct species, by rigorous classification they are not. There have been instances of ligers that are just about fertile (have produced offspring when mated with a tiger). You'll recall my definition of species earlier, a population throughout which gene transfer can occur.
In your case though we are dealing with "kinds". This brings up an issue, because what you are proposing is that I try and bring up an example of two different "kinds" interbreeding. Unfortunately for us you have declined to define kind, beyond saying "it is based on morphology". Thus my polydactylous cats example still stands.
Until and unless you define kinds rigorously I simply cannot answer this question in a satisfactory way. If you define "kinds" as being above species level (by my definition of species) then what you propose is not possible. If it is below species level then it is possible. Variation in morphology below species level will have no impact on ability to interbreed, since the ability to breed is constrained by genetics, not phenotype (unless we consider mechanical issues like the Chiwawa and Great Dane getting jiggy).
Are there any structural differences between a lion and a tiger? I never said to show me different kinds interbreeding, I said to show me organisms with different structure interbreeding. I defined kind.
If evolution predicted a population of ants morphing into populations of elephants, then yes I would. However that is not what I expect to see, and is not what evolutionary theory predicts. Evolutionary theory would predict that the precursor population to the ants would look, to all intents and purposes, identical to the extant population of ants. Just a few minor differences, principally in shape. We'd expect to see variation on existing structure, which is indeed what we do see.
The pre-curser to that population the same, and again and again. Transitions only become apparent when considered with "near neighbours", which is why comparative anatomy is so useful and why Linnaeus, oh so long ago, categorized humans as apes.
Your avoiding the issue, infact ants date back to 60 million years according to you guys, and yet it hasn't changed a bit. Comparing anatomy doesn't show evolution, how is that evidence for anything? Your just making assumptions, your not showing that they are related.
Nylonaise, e-coli, flu. Why do you think the flu vaccine is different every year? Reality denial isn't going to get you far in this debate.
Denial? What morphological change has occured.
Nylonaise:
http://www.nephilimfree.com/articles/ge ... lonase.htm
I'm I'm sure instead of actually refuting the information, you'll attack the source.
E coli,flu:
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-an ... esistance/
Is there any evidence that antibiotic resistance or biochemical adaptation can lead to morphological change? Or are you ASSUMING that is will contrary to all evidence.
And my polydactylous cat is what, a different kind?
No, it is a duplication of the SAME structure, it's not a new structure, there's not new genetic information that causes it to occur.
Well lets just use your previous example of the birds wing. Could you highlight any aspect of the birds wing that, through so called "cosmetic changes" could not have arisen from the precursor form as seen in the thoropod dinosaurs? Could you highlight any structure in any organism that could not have formed from small incremental changes of ancestral forms? Just one example, your best please.
How can cosmetic changes, which are color,size, and shape, cause a dinosaur to evolve into a bird. The burden of proof is one you, not me. There's not a single structure that could arise due to cosmetic changes. Can a fish evolve legs due to cosmetic changes? Can a bacteria evolve into a mite due to cosmetic changes?
Wish I'd looked for this earlier
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1443819
Effects of temperature on the development of meristic characters in Natrix fasciata
DW Osgood - Copeia, 1978 - JSTOR
This was the first paper of use when I searched for "snake vertebra duplication".
What does this paper look at? It looks at the development of a species of snake, Natrix fasciata (Banded water snake) when the embryos are exposed to different temperatures. Joy, guess what they found.
"These extra half-ventrals were usually correlated with duplications of vertebral elements and extra ribs."
How is duplicating an already existing structure going to cause evolution? Please explain that one. Duplication of existing structures is a real process, but it doesn't cause evolution, it eithr has no effect or has a negative effect. Can you duplicate ribs on a snake and cause it to evolve legs? Ofcourse not, duplication of existing structures isn't evidence for evolution. Why can't you show me an entirely new structure that is new to the species.
Pick a structure.
Any structure, it's your choice.
Goal post shift. Ignored
You mean problem for evolution, so your going to ignore it.
Oh please! You know what it is caused by. Spina bifida does no such thing. How does duplication in spinal vertebrae support your idea that we used to have a tail? When such a disorder can occur in any organism that has a spine, and even one evolutionists don't believe had a tail.
You'd better define what you mean by interbreed here. Interbreed would typically refer to breeding between subspecies, for example between a Lion and a Tiger. Although we would consider, in common usage, a lion and a tiger to be distinct species, by rigorous classification they are not. There have been instances of ligers that are just about fertile (have produced offspring when mated with a tiger). You'll recall my definition of species earlier, a population throughout which gene transfer can occur.
In your case though we are dealing with "kinds". This brings up an issue, because what you are proposing is that I try and bring up an example of two different "kinds" interbreeding. Unfortunately for us you have declined to define kind, beyond saying "it is based on morphology". Thus my polydactylous cats example still stands.
Until and unless you define kinds rigorously I simply cannot answer this question in a satisfactory way. If you define "kinds" as being above species level (by my definition of species) then what you propose is not possible. If it is below species level then it is possible. Variation in morphology below species level will have no impact on ability to interbreed, since the ability to breed is constrained by genetics, not phenotype (unless we consider mechanical issues like the Chiwawa and Great Dane getting jiggy).
Are there any structural differences between a lion and a tiger? I never said to show me different kinds interbreeding, I said to show me organisms with different structure interbreeding. I defined kind.
If evolution predicted a population of ants morphing into populations of elephants, then yes I would. However that is not what I expect to see, and is not what evolutionary theory predicts. Evolutionary theory would predict that the precursor population to the ants would look, to all intents and purposes, identical to the extant population of ants. Just a few minor differences, principally in shape. We'd expect to see variation on existing structure, which is indeed what we do see.
The pre-curser to that population the same, and again and again. Transitions only become apparent when considered with "near neighbours", which is why comparative anatomy is so useful and why Linnaeus, oh so long ago, categorized humans as apes.
Your avoiding the issue, infact ants date back to 60 million years according to you guys, and yet it hasn't changed a bit. Comparing anatomy doesn't show evolution, how is that evidence for anything? Your just making assumptions, your not showing that they are related.
Nylonaise, e-coli, flu. Why do you think the flu vaccine is different every year? Reality denial isn't going to get you far in this debate.
Denial? What morphological change has occured.
Nylonaise:
http://www.nephilimfree.com/articles/ge ... lonase.htmI'm I'm sure instead of actually refuting the information, you'll attack the source.
E coli,flu:
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-an ... esistance/Is there any evidence that antibiotic resistance or biochemical adaptation can lead to morphological change? Or are you ASSUMING that is will contrary to all evidence.
And my polydactylous cat is what, a different kind?
No, it is a duplication of the SAME structure, it's not a new structure, there's not new genetic information that causes it to occur.
Well lets just use your previous example of the birds wing. Could you highlight any aspect of the birds wing that, through so called "cosmetic changes" could not have arisen from the precursor form as seen in the thoropod dinosaurs? Could you highlight any structure in any organism that could not have formed from small incremental changes of ancestral forms? Just one example, your best please.
How can cosmetic changes, which are color,size, and shape, cause a dinosaur to evolve into a bird. The burden of proof is one you, not me. There's not a single structure that could arise due to cosmetic changes. Can a fish evolve legs due to cosmetic changes? Can a bacteria evolve into a mite due to cosmetic changes?
Wish I'd looked for this earlier
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1443819
Effects of temperature on the development of meristic characters in Natrix fasciata
DW Osgood - Copeia, 1978 - JSTOR
This was the first paper of use when I searched for "snake vertebra duplication".
What does this paper look at? It looks at the development of a species of snake, Natrix fasciata (Banded water snake) when the embryos are exposed to different temperatures. Joy, guess what they found.
"These extra half-ventrals were usually correlated with duplications of vertebral elements and extra ribs."
How is duplicating an already existing structure going to cause evolution? Please explain that one. Duplication of existing structures is a real process, but it doesn't cause evolution, it eithr has no effect or has a negative effect. Can you duplicate ribs on a snake and cause it to evolve legs? Ofcourse not, duplication of existing structures isn't evidence for evolution. Why can't you show me an entirely new structure that is new to the species.
Pick a structure.
Any structure, it's your choice.
It's a fish that can "walk" using it's pectoral fins. The precursor form is just a fish with fins that can't be used for walking. No real "morphological change" as you seem to want, required, and yet here it is walking. This is exactly (ish) how the original tetrapods evolved.
You avoided my question, do you have fossils of this organism without legs? How do you know they didn't walk before? Where do you get that idea from?
Goal post shift. Ignored
You mean problem for evolution, so your going to ignore it.
Good good, so that would mean my provided examples match your definition of a tail. What was your objection again? Note that this definition would make your spina bifida case a true tail
Oh please! You know what it is caused by. Spina bifida does no such thing. How does duplication in spinal vertebrae support your idea that we used to have a tail? When such a disorder can occur in any organism that has a spine, and even one evolutionists don't believe had a tail.
It's a fish that can "walk" using it's pectoral fins. The precursor form is just a fish with fins that can't be used for walking. No real "morphological change" as you seem to want, required, and yet here it is walking. This is exactly (ish) how the original tetrapods evolved.
You avoided my question, do you have fossils of this organism without legs? How do you know they didn't walk before? Where do you get that idea from?