Domestic Cats Mostly Unchanged for 2000 Years

By -
It is interesting to note that those statues and paintings of cats in ancient Egypt depict animals that are essentially the same today. Actually, that may not be entirely accurate. For quite a spell, cats were sacred to ancient Egyptians (and modern cats seem to retain that knowledge), and the artwork varied.
The cat kind early in creation would have had a tremendous amount of genetic information. It may seem strange that domestic cats seem unchanged from ancient Egyptian times.
African Wildcat (Felis lybica) cropped from a picture by Bernard Dupont at Flickr (CC by-SA 2.0)
Egyptians wanted their diminutive deities to match up with some of the art for the Bast (also known as Bastet) goddess, so they commenced to domesticating and crossbreeding African Wildcats, Jungle cats, and eventually others depending of the prevailing mood. They were doing selective breeding before it was cool. And cats being cats, they did a bit of unsupervised hybridization their ownselves.

 Biblical creationists believe that Noah did not need multiple cat kinds, probably very few pairs or even just one pair. They (and the other critters) were most likely preloaded with a great deal of genetic information which eventually gave us big cats, little cats, and everything in between.
God created an incredible amount of genetic variety in each of the kinds, including the cat kind. The original cat kind was likely a medium-sized feline. One particularly fascinating candidate is the Asian Golden cat . . . Although we cannot be certain what the original cat kind was if we were to theoretically “design” one, the Asian Golden cat would incorporate all the features we wanted . . . And coincidentally, the Asian Golden cat would probably be the closest midsize cat to the geographical area of where the cat kind would have left Noah’s Ark. A medium-sized created kind is vitally important to later species because we need to be able to have the genetic potential for large cats like tigers and lions, and yet still have reproductive compatibility to produce (for example) Sand cats and African Wildcats.
You can read the entire article (which has a passel of pictures) by clawing your way over to "Feedback: Have Domestic Cats Remained Virtually Unchanged for 2,000 Years?" Another article you may like (which has some personal information about our Basement Cat), "How We Get Our Fabulous Feline Friends".

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more