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

quote:

---

Concentrating on 3), would this be sufficent to demonstrate our 'obvious' family ties with our cousins?

---

No, it just demonstrates that somebody finally creates a hybrid between a human and ape. It will probably be something like a mule with an odd number of chromosomes.

quote:

---

And that's not what Cavediver was asking....

---

Of course that's not what he was asking. All you have to do is read the sentence right before the one you quoted and voila you have my answer for the question he was asking

quote:

---

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"?

---

I don't know. Would it?

quote:

---

No, Mitochondrial Eve and Mitochondrial Adam supports the creationists belief in one man and one woman.

---

Wow...

quote:

---

The lack of transistitional fossils in the fossil record to a creationists is scientific evidence that proves God is the common denominator.

---

More wow...Johnfolton, you write very clearly and you use a lot of big words, but is there a reason why you get the obvious facts so completely wrong? Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited through your maternal side. I was in high school not too long ago and I can tell you that even high school students know this very obvious fact. In fact, I still remember the moment we learned this in freshman biology.

quote:

---

You must supply these answer to your question since it appears you support the creationist side.

---

So far, I've only stated my opinion that a hybrid between human and ape would prove that it's possible and someone's finally done it. Beyond that, I'd have to say I don't know what the implications (as far as the great scheme of things go) are.Question: Don't you think it's quite a leap to go from creating a hybrid and concluding that the two parent organisms are related?For example. As a strategy for my laziness, I've taken subroutines and portions of my friends' programs and combine them with my programs that had absolutely nothing to do with their original programs to create, if you'd prefer, "hybrid" programs. All this proves is that if done right we could combine segments of codes to form new protocols because these codes are all written in the same language.

Ok, I apologize for the "huh?" answer.The answer you seek lies within my post right above this one.

quote:

---

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

---

Well, if by related you mean the language itself came from a common source/designer, sure. But my friend John's program was written by him and my program was written by me. Only reason I was able to combine them was because both programs used the same language, which apparently somebody at some point created.

quote:

---

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?

---

Well, not really. As for the possible hybrids, I could think of the liger, mule, beefalo... that's about it. It's not a very long list of things I could choose from. It's also not nearly enough sample size for me to make an assessment either way.Now, if you'd allow me to include fictional characters and creatures, I'd provide you with a much longer list For a starter, we could look at spiderman and see how human DNA somehow merged with arachnid DNA.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think anyone is disputing you here, not even the hick from Jesus Town in Bible-belt County.It really depends on what we mean by "relate". I think both camps would agree that apes and humans are very much related. How we are related is another matter and this is where our opinions split.Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was under the impression that you meant how we are related, not if we are related at all.PS I just noticed how my posts are outnumbering your posts in this thread. It's my experience that some forums hate this. If you want me to shut up, please say so. Otherwise, I'll continue to shower you with my words... I mean love.Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well, "related" means having a common ancestor. I'm related to my cousins because we have the same grandparents.

---

We could also think of ourselves as works of art and that we are related in the sense that we were created by the same creator. These two paintings are related in that they were created by Monet. They also share Monet's impressionist view.

quote:

---

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".

---

Obviously, we are using different sense of the word "related". Yes, my brother and I are related. My cousin and I are related. My in-laws are related. These are family relations.I also realize that I am related to my dog. I am related to that squirrel I saw outside. And obviously, I am related to great apes. These are relations of origin. You could also call these relations through similarities and design. Yes, I agree. Do you not agree that the two pieces of art above are related?We are not obfuscating the word here. We are merely pointing out that things CAN be related through ways other than genetic inheritance.Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

---

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - 1 Corinthians 13:13

quote:

---

Another common creationist tactic. You're ignoring the original point I made, that reproduction "according to its kind" is about genetic inheritance.

---

Ok, let me see where we lost each other.

quote:

---

If horses and donkeys can reproduce together, it's because they have similar enough DNA.

---

Completely agreed.

quote:

---

They are distant cousins, not just similar artworks. If you deny that, do you also deny the use of DNA for paternity tests?

---

This is where you lost me.A paternity test looks for certain genetic markers that should match between the child and its parent, or the child and any relative. While I understand what you are saying, that similarities between the genetic makeup of a horse and a donkey could be accounted for a common ancestor in the past (and please, don't think that I am denying this possibility), I am simply pointing out that the similarities could also be accounted by a common design.

quote:

---

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?

---

I never said they could not be distant cousins. All I said was there are things out there that we see that are obviously related not through genetic inheritance but through other means, like similar artworks.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, but if you want to describe it that way, fine.Take a look at the following pictures. Are the first 2 pictures related? Well, sort of. They are both visual representations of concepts or objects in life. Someone was "creative" enough to draw a relation between those two.

The reply buttons confused me at first, too.