How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?

There are several possible future experiments that challange conventional Western religious beliefs regarding the 'miracle of life' and the 'special' status of humans in creation:1) Successful human cloning
2) Successful creation of life from non-life
3) Successful breeding of human and chimpanzee/bononboConcentrating on 3), would this be sufficent to demonstrate our 'obvious' family ties with our cousins? Would this be rather convincing evidence for humans and chimps being of one 'kind'? I would answer yes, but how would our creationists react to this news? Or would they simply deny the possibility of the succes of such an experiment?Misc topics in cre/evo?

Molecules - e.g. building a functioning bacteria-like cell from components that have not been salvaged from other living or once-living matter.However, this is off-topic. I am interested in answers to the two questions relating to 3):

quote:

---

ould this be sufficent to demonstrate our 'obvious' family ties with our cousins? Would this be rather convincing evidence for humans and chimps being of one 'kind'?

---

Thanks for your input No, I do not think it is a leap at all. Can you provide an example of any two creatures that are interfertile but are not related?(I think your analogy is far too loose to be useful - we are talking about living creatures, sexual reproduction, and the definition/dividing line of species/kinds)Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Hi Nem, thanks for your on-topic contribution (they've been thin on the ground in this thread so far)Points 1) and 2) I didn't want to discuss here, but just to say that I wasn't referring to Urey and Miller; note that I said 'possible future experiments'. You need to look at where we're at in terms of engineering a cell from more fundemental building blocks. But that's for another thread. Others have made similar comments here, so I'll address them all with this. Note that this is really targetted at creationists, so you don't really count The argument runs that dogs only give rise to dogs, cats only give rise to cats, each reproducing according to their own 'kind'. 'Microevolutional' changes are responsible for the entire cat family (lions, tigers and bears domestic cats). We seem to define the cat kind by a combination of morpological similarity and interfertility. Likewise with the dog kind.Now, go shave a chimp... I challenge you to claim that there is more morphological difference between that chimp and my brother than between almost countless pairings of cat (or dog) varieties. If we then discover chimp/human interfertility as well, we have the ape kind nicely presented... And as I have asked earlier in this thread, name a pair of interfertile creatures that are not intimately related (either through recent evolutionary common-ancestor, or through micro-evolutionary change within the relevant kind subsequent to the original progenitor pair leaving the ark)Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

No, of course not.But let's add in remarkable DNA similarity, down to containing not only the same functions, but also the same mistakes, and ERV sequences.And finally, let us add in (yet to be proved) interfertility.If you are going to claim non-relatedness at this point, then you really are desperately clutching at straws.I repeat...name a pair of interfertile creatures that are not intimately related (either through recent evolutionary common-ancestor, or through micro-evolutionary change within the relevant kind subsequent to the original progenitor pair leaving the ark)

Yes, exactly. That's why I mentioned them. They are a bit of a serious giveaway. And there's quite a few of them. Sorry, 'interfertile' is not a particularly helpful term given its visual similarity to 'infertile', but sadly it's the correct one. I've made the same mistake before.So, just to repeat for thread clarity (given the many intervening OT posts...)

Given we have some new faces around, I thought I'd drag this out of obscurity and see if it has any more mileage.As a reminder, here's the opener again:

quote:

---

There are several possible future experiments that challange conventional Western religious beliefs regarding the 'miracle of life' and the 'special' status of humans in creation:

​

1) Successful human cloning
2) Successful creation of life from non-life
3) Successful breeding of human and chimpanzee/bononbo

​

Concentrating on 3), would this be sufficent to demonstrate our 'obvious' family ties with our cousins? Would this be rather convincing evidence for humans and chimps being of one 'kind'? I would answer yes, but how would our creationists react to this news? Or would they simply deny the possibility of the succes of such an experiment?

---

Following on from discussion at the Noah's Ark Volume thread.

And I think you missed the explicit future tense in the thread title.Is this a bury-my-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-never-happens reply?Or are you willing to stick your neck out and declare that it cannot possibly happen because chimps and humans are 'obviously' of different kinds?If you are not so bold, then if it did happen, what would be your thoughts?