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

I thought the standard creationist idea was that horses and donkeys can interbreed because they're the same "kind". Wouldn't a chimp/human hybrid imply that we too are the same "kind"?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

I was hoping you'd put a little thought into it instead of just responding, "Huh?"Horses and donkeys can produce hybrids "after their kind". If humans and chimps can do likewise, you either have to call them the same "kind" or rethink the "kind" concept.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

If they're in the same language, how are they not related?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

The point here is the language, not whether or not it was created.Two programs can be "hybridized" if they are closely enough related and two organisms can be hybridized if they are closely enough related. Thus, a chimp/human hybrid would seem to suggest a close relationship. To deny that seems disingenuous.If "somebody apparently created" the system, that doesn't change the relationships between components in the system.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

As long as you're contributing something worthwhile, I wouldn't worry about it. Well, "related" means having a common ancestor. I'm related to my cousins because we have the same grandparents.In the context of this topic, it looks like creationists will manage to deny that chimps and humans have a common ancestor even if they can be shown to be closely "related". Obfuscating "related" to mean "similar" in the sense of similar chemistry or similar body plan is a typical creationist tactic.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Another common creationist tactic. You're ignoring the original point I made, that reproduction "according to its kind" is about genetic inheritance.If horses and donkeys can reproduce together, it's because they have similar enough DNA. They are distant cousins, not just similar artworks. If you deny that, do you also deny the use of DNA for paternity tests?If chimps and humans can also reproduce together, it's also because they have similar enough DNA. So why would they not be distant cousins instead of just similar artworks?It seems to me that all you're doing is groping for an excuse to deny your (blood) relatives - and a pretty lame excuse at that.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

"Could also be accounted" isn't what we're going for though. We're looking for the best possible explanation - and a useful explanation, preferably. If my car won't start, it "could be accounted for" by the Martians who want me to be late for work. But the loose battery cable is a more useful explanation. It allows me to actually fix the problem.Similarly, recognizing the genetic relationship between humans and other animals is useful in medical research.By the way, why couldn't the genetic markers in paternity testing be accounted for in some other way? Why do you cherry-pick which parts of genetics you want to believe but feel free to make up phoney-baloney "other accounts" for the ones you don't like?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs