|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
teen4christ
Ringo writes: 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"? teen4christ writes: I don't know. Would it? You must supply these answer to your question since it appears you support the creationist side. It is up to you to back up the claim that you support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5825 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:Wow... quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
teen4christ writes: quote: I don't know. Would it? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5825 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5825 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Ok, I apologize for the "huh?" answer.
The answer you seek lies within my post right above this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
teen4christ writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5825 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Thanks for your input
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
teen4christ writes: Only reason I was able to combine them was because both programs used the same language, which apparently somebody at some point created. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5825 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5825 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
teen4christ writes: If you want me to shut up, please say so. Otherwise, I'll continue to shower you with my words... I mean love. Welcome. We need more love around here...and if you stick around, you will learn some things. I am a Christian and I always learn new things that have strengthened my faith. BTW...if you are able...come to the chatroom when you read this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
teen4christ writes: I just noticed how my posts are outnumbering your posts in this thread. It's my experience that some forums hate this. As long as you're contributing something worthwhile, I wouldn't worry about it.
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5825 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote: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: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.
Obfuscating "related" to mean "similar" in the sense of similar chemistry or similar body plan is a typical creationist tactic.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
teen4christ writes: We are not obfuscating the word here. We are merely pointing out that things CAN be related through ways other than genetic inheritance. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024