Increases in Genetic Information

Nobody is accusing you of having that opinion. Taq assumed that you and everyone else would agree that a potato was not more complex than a human. That's why citing the greater gene count for a potato makes an argument. Yes, but that was after you made a comparison based strictly on base pairs. I don't see any where that you refined the definition of greater genetic information to only be coding genes.

I am sorry I was being sarcastic with my comment, not to excuse myself but that was because Taq was totally missing my point. It doesn't matter how many genes a potato has because it wasn't the first living organism. Despite the fact that potatoes have more genes than a human, A organism that doesn't have the genetic information for arms and legs, head, spleen, kidney and whatever else. Needs to obtain that from somewhere. It has to have more base pairs so it can code for those things.
By the way potatoes have more genes than a human because the plant is polyploidy,so many of the genes are duplicated which means that it does not have as many unique protein coding genes. So you can effectively divide that 39,000 by 4. That will give you a real comparison to human genome.
Potato - Wikipedia What I quoted to you was directly from my original post, at the end. Second to last paragraph.

How does morphology prove they are different species?

NoNukes you have not come up with even one good reason why anyone of these is not true. Except the last argument should say:3. Common descent requires that the most *distant* common ancestor is bacteria-like.

Sure jbozz21. Unfortunately for you, the entire discussion here is available for anyone to review, and the record suggests an entirely different result. It's true that you don't find the reasons given to be convincing, but I don't think anyone expected any differently.

It has been tried:
read this article; Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism
Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism | The Institute for Creation Research http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99980.htm Interspecies breeding studies are not rare. Besides some of the minor mating ritual differences that make lions and tigers not interbreed, they physiologically can interbreed and have interbreed if kept in close proximity like a zoo. Humans and apes cannot because of their chromosome differences. So it has never been tried since because it was a total waste of money and time and they know it will not work. Darwin's original book was called "The Evolution of Species" where he described that all species came from a common ancestor. Micro-evolution is adaptation and is very well observed. Macro-evolution is basically speciation. It is the major key to understanding how all species came to be if you cannot even have a solid definition of it, then it totally skews the line between macro and micro evolution. Which is what some scientists want because that is what they claim. If you skew the difference between macro and micro then you basically make micro-evolution look like macro with lots of time and it is easy to convince people that it is true that way because micro is well observed and "proven". But there is no solid observational evidence whatsoever to support macro-evolution. So if they well defined species and macro-evolution then their argument for evolution of species from common ancestry would become very weak.
I don't know if they want to skew the line to purposefully deceive people but they are skewing the line and they are deceiving people. Whether or not that is intentional is not my judgement call.

Morphology is not a substitute for classification, it is part of the classification scheme for calling things different species.Here is yet another reference discussing the definition of species
A Glossary of Zoology Terms

quote:

---

The term species can be defined as a group of individual organisms that are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring in nature. A species is, according to this definition, the largest gene pool that exists under natural conditions. Thus, if a pair of organisms are capable of producing offspring in nature, they must belong to the same species.
Unfortunately, in practice, this definition is plagued by ambiguities. To begin, this definition is not relevant to organisms (such as many types of bacteria) that are capable of asexual reproduction. If the definition of a species requires that two individuals are capable of interbreeding, then an organism that does not interbreed is outside of that definition.

​

Another difficulty that arises when defining the term species is that some species are capable of forming hybrids. For example, many of the large cat species are capable of hybridizing. A cross between a female lions and a male tiger produces a liger. A cross between a male jaguar and a female lion produces a jaglion. There are a number of other crosses possible among the panther species, but they are not considered to be all members of a single species as such crosses are very rare or do not occur at all in nature.

---

As long as you continue to require that lions and tigers are the same species, then we all know you are simply swimming upstream on the definition.

NoNukes, maybe I should just ignore you. You have proven to be nothing more than a troll. You don't like to listen to any of my completely reasonable arguments. I hope you learn to have a more reasonable mind.

NoNukes at this point I don't care what anybody else thinks that looks at it and reasons with you because they are probably just like you. Belligerent, stubborn and closed minded. There is no convincing people like you. I really only care what God thinks and what open minded, honest people think. God knows I tried to reason with you, making good points. He knows I tried my best to help you see a reasonable argument which I believe is the truth. Open minded, Honest people will see my reason. Hopefully there are some of those people on here.

Nice source.When we look elsewhere we find that Ivanoff made three attempts to breed humans with chimpanzees. I'm not aware of any other attempts.Humanzee - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Ivanov reached Conakry in November 1926 accompanied by his son, also named Ilya, who would assist him in his experiments. Ivanov supervised the capture of adult chimpanzees in the interior of the colony, which were brought to Conakry and kept in cages in the botanical gardens. On February 28, 1927, Ivanov inseminated two female chimpanzees with his own sperm.[citation needed][dubious — discuss] On June 25, his son inseminated a third chimpanzee with his sperm. The Ivanovs left Africa in July with thirteen chimps, including the three used in his experiments. They already knew before leaving that the first two chimpanzees had failed to become pregnant. The third died in France, and was also found not to have been pregnant.[citation needed][dubious — discuss] The remaining chimps were sent to a new primate station at Sukhumi.

---

From your ICR reference:

quote:

---

One problem is humans have 46 chromosomes--apes 48--and for this reason the chromosomes will not pair up properly even if a zygote is formed.

---

And yet we know that we can form zebra/donkey offspring despite a much larger chomosome number mismatch.

quote:

---

Donkeys and wild equids have different numbers of chromosomes. A donkey has 62 chromosomes; the zebra has between 32 and 46 (depending on species). In spite of this difference, viable hybrids are possible, provided the gene combination in the hybrid allows for embryonic development to birth. A hybrid has a number of chromosomes somewhere in between.

---

Of course the idea that the chromosome count difference disproves Darwin in some way has been long since debunked.Not going to look it up tonight but we've previously discussed a human with a pair of chromosomes short of 46 who was able to produce offspring.But the short of it is that we have three attempts to produce human/chimpanzee from male human donors, and nothing else for any other apes.

Apparently citing references is the wrong approach with you.

Non-physical reproduction? Really? What's that virtual reproduction? Spiritual reproduction?All reproduction is physical. A very silly definition, given that all but the tiny handful of species that are kept in captivity must reproduce in the natural fashion. If your definition were used, we would have to attempt artificial insemination between every single species on Earth before we could classify any of them. That is absurd.I challenge you to show me a single reputable source that uses sperm/egg compatibility as the defining characteristic of a species.Mutate and Survive

We're getting hung up on the definition of species. I think JBozz may not realize that the definition of species is well understood to be fuzzy and problematic. No single species definition suffices to cover all circumstances. One definition classifies tigers and lions as the same species (genetic compatibility), another as different species (exclusion of non-natural mating). Which definition is correct?I think most people in this thread not only understand that the answer to the species question isn't particularly relevant to how genetic information can increase, but also that there is no proper answer to which definition is correct. Classification is both a convenience and a generalization. When you dive down into the details a classification system can often become insufficient, and then you have to begin considering the details that the classification system glosses over. So maybe we can move on from the discussion about the definition of species.The last post I noticed that dealt a bit more directly with the topic was Message 35, and no one's answered it yet.--Percy

We're getting "hung up" on that point because it is a central part of the OP. I am not sure that jbozz21 has another serious point to make. He is well aware that scientists use a fuzzy definition. In fact, Jbozz21 wants the discussion to be about 'kinds' rather than 'species', but he wants to achieve that by redefining species rather than trying to define kinds.Jbozz21 has said that scientists classify organisms such as lions and tigers as the same in what may be a deliberate attempt to make macro-evolution look like micro-evolution because micro-evolution is believable.From Message 81Yes, he does later say that it is not his call whether the skewing is deliberate, but only after saying that some scientist want a fuzzy definition.What I would suggest is that jbozz21 untether his definition of macro-evolution or whatever it is that he calls evolution from the term 'species' because that term already has a scientific meaning that works against him. Whatever the definition of species is, he clearly does not want people citing lions and tigers as evidence of macro-evolution.And I doubt that any of us would have pointed to lions and tigers (or horses and zebras) in a discussion of macro-evolution. When a creationist talks about macro-evolution, what is expected is a definition of macro-evolution that refers to "kinds", whatever that means, rather than species.Having said all that, if Jbozz21 does start referring to kinds, it is possible that more ridicule will follow. But at least the discussion would be honest.

No, that's something you made up. Or rather, something that someone else made up for you, and that you've learned to recite without ever wondering whether it was actually true. It's a sign that it's correct. Whether that's "the basic argument of Creationism" depends on which creationist you ask. For example, AnswersInGenesis have "No new species have been produced" in their list of "Arguments that should never be used". And creation.com says: "New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model."