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

Nature clones too. I don't really see that as being phenomenal. What? That has never, ever happened. I assume you are going to cite the Urey/Miller experiment, but no life ever came from non-life. At most they synthesized some non-living amino acids. But it takes all 20 amino acids just to make one, single protein. They were a long, long way off. I'm not a creationist, but I deny the current paradigm of evolution. Should this be a possibility, it would not support that one came from the other. At most, it would support that the DNA sequences are similar enough to allow an offspring. I would be more concerned over the moral implications than anything else.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

But it takes all 20 amino acids just to make one, single protein.

---

MBG, a cell only becomes a cell when amino acids are bonded by a peptide chain. That is basic biology. Proteins are defined by their inimitable sequences of amino acid residues. The configuration is about the only thing different -- nine of which that cannot be synthesized by other amino acids -- meaning that they had to have been present during prebiotic conditions.So when talking about abiogenesis, it leads to a chicken-egg problem. For instance, enzymes can't exist without genes, and gene's can't exist without enzymes. The only real way to alleviate that conundrum is to assume that RNA came before DNA. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Think of it in another context. We are basically taught from a young age to assume that if something looks like another thing, that they must be related, even if distantly. Certainly it is a possibility. But suppose that one does not come from another -- that they simply share genetic similarities.If a chimp looks like us, does it necessarily mean that they are related? Or is it also possible that they are the creatures that just so happened to have a similar configuration?If you look at homeobox genes, they provide the basis for the positioning of physical characteristics. So if one organism has a similar genetic code, they could be as distant as a giraffe is to a banana but certainly have the appearance of relation.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

The only thing that could make me seriously believe that chimps and humans are from the same descent are shared mistakes. Because similarities are specious for the sole reason that it does not prove relatedness. However, the same genetic mistakes would seriously bring in to question the relatedness of one organism from another. A pair of infertile creature that are NOT intimately related? All of them...Did you mean a creature that is related to another, but the progeny is infertile? Like a mule?I don't understand the question. Can you expound?

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis