there is nothing documenting subhumans in mans earliest records.
Gilgamesh 1:6,7 writes:
His whole body was shaggy with hair, he had a full head of hair like a woman, his locks billowed in profusion like Ashnan. He knew neither people nor settled living, but wore a garment like Sumukan. He ate grasses with the gazelles, and jostled at the watering hole with the animals; as with animals, his thirst was slaked with (mere) water.
A notorious trapper came face-to-face with him opposite the watering hole. A first, a second, and a third day he came face-to-face with him opposite the watering hole. On seeing him the trapper's face went stark with fear, and he (Enkidu?) and his animals drew back home. He was rigid with fear; though stock-still his heart pounded and his face drained of color.
I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related.
Why does the paternity test say they are, then?
I don't see why you think you can have all these murder convictions and acquittals, and the Cohens, and Y-chromosome Noah and Mitochondrial Eve, without admitting Washoe and Koko are people too.
I would mention that they talk, but I know that doesn't faze you; if snakes and donkeys can talk, why not monkeys. But you sure seem to cherry-pick the genetic testing.
In another thread, you noted that lions and tigers don't mate naturally, only in test tubes. On the other hand, sheeps and goats do, horses and donkeys do, both producing hybrids. On yet the other hand, llamas and cows do, moose and cows do, cowboys and cows do, but no offspring. What's up with this?
Correct, if you count not only base pairs substitutions, but also insertions and deletions, then the similarity between a given chimp and human scores at an average of 95%, rather than 98.5% as calculated using only the base pairs. But if you add indels to the comparison of different unrelated humans, this divergence also gets more than 3 times bigger. So it isn't saying anything we don't already know.
A better comparison is found using only functional DNA, by this score Chimpanzees are 99.4% similar to humans. In comparison, the most distant humans appear to be about 99.6% similar. This is the reason science is seriously considering enlarging the genus Homo to include both kinds of chimp and probably also gorillas.
Chimps and humans, as well as other Old World apes and monkeys, share examples of a series of retrovirus embedded directly in our genetic code. These aren't targetted, the slide in at random and if the host happens to survive when others don't, then it tends to become ancestral to further generations that share the copied virus.
The most recent ones we share with chimps are not common to gorillas. Some ape survived and produced children that were also immune, who became the common ancestor of both us and them. Other apes, attacked at a different location, did not survive and became worm food.
The odds of a retrovirus just happening to hit the exact same spot in two genomes, of two remarkably similar animals who were yet somehow unrelated, and both sets surviving to the point where they could see the amazing link and talk to one another about it, are pretty low. This isn't one of those, given enough time anything could happen, things. Time actually decreases the odds.
The point people are trying to draw to your attention is that wolves and dogs, cattle and bison, and most especially sheep and goats, appear to be different creatures due to general reproductive isolation but interbreed regularly and successfully wherever their populations overlap. This is exactly the same kind of behavior and relationship seen among the variety of human races.
Some animals produce offspring that are sterile. Humans do the same. So what? Are they not human?
This brings us on down to horses and donkeys. Because their populations were isolated for a very long time, they still interbreed (very willingly) but the offspring they produce are generally sterile. Does this make them not equine?
If housecats and bobcats are different "kinds", then so are Negroes and Caucasians.
But dogs are classified into finer subdivisions according to their morphology - chihuahuas, retrievers, etc. And all dogs are in fact wolves
I actually have some questions about this, if you or someone smart about this could help me? Namely, those African wild dogs who wander across my screen whenever I get addicted to the Discovery channel -- are they also descended from wolves? Or a separate species of canis? How did they get to be so different from lupus? Are they domestic dogs who have gone feral? Or was there a different isolation process?
PS: I see now they are not only a separate species but a distinct genus. This seems weird to me, they look more like mutts than wolves do, by far. But I note that are important morphological differences too, like a difference in claw construction. I wonder if there is homology at work here?
I dont think that just because a whole range of species have a spinal cord surrounded by a backbone proves that these all developed from long unbroken chain.
Part of it has to do with the fact that as we get below a certain point in the geological column we see less and less vertebrates and they are more and more similar. We also see transitionals not only between species and genus, but between phyla and even broader levels. At specific points we see only the transitionals, and not further more specialized groups.
For example, the shark is not a true vertebrate. He is a chordate, that is, he has a central nervous system running dorsally; but he has no bones! He is only cartilage inside. He does however, have an exoskeleton. The material basis of his teeth, once worn down, stretches outward as he grows to become his skin. In short, he and his ray cousins are the closest living fish relatives to lobsters, crabs, insects and spiders. And they are found in the column well below true fish.
The same is true the deeper we go. Less and less difference among the ancestors of living creatures, more and more transitionals, eventually only protozoans and bacteria and archaea, then no protozoans, then no bacteria. The theory of evolution and common ancestry explain this arrangement to the satisfaction of every unbiased researcher, in perfect accordance with the observed laws of stratification, faunal succession, radiometric dating, varves, tree-rings, every witness agrees.
The Deluge theory explains nothing and has been falsified from every angle available to science, including simple literacy. It only rained on Ur for forty days and forty nights, Peg. The water was only 15 cubits deep.
Do note that ICANT isn't actually doing science. I don't mean that as an accusation, so much as to point out that it's all Bible Study for him. A wolf is a different kind than a dog because both are mentioned separately in the bible. On the other hand, a whale is a kind of fish, because the terms are used interchangeably.
His text defines his terminology, it's nothing to do with cladistics. (I wish it were, those you can educate.) It's all just hermeneutics -- I won't specify which branch, as then we get people shouting that they aren't sorry at all.
According to the Hebrew word and Greek word translated whale they are a sea monster kind.
The Hebrew word dag is what is translated as "fish" in Genesis 9:22, Numbers 11:22, First Kings 4:33, Second Chronicles 33:14, Nehemiah 3:3, 12:39, and 13:16, Job 12:8 and 41:7, Psalm 8:8, Ecclesiastes 9:12, Ezekiel 38:20, Hosea 4:3, Habakkuk 1:14, Zephaniah 1:3 and 10, and of course Jonah 1:17ff. Do all these uses really mean "sea monster"?
Here's an example
Hosea 9:3 writes:
Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.
Ezekiel 3:20 writes:
So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that [are] upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.
Ecclesiastes 9:12 writes:
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so [are] the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.
and this one in particular is nice.
Job 41:1-7 writes:
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft [words] unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as [with] a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
This is talking about an actual sea monster, and expressing the idea that he can't be taken with tools suitable only for mere fish (dag).
And here's Jonah of course
Jonah 1:17 writes:
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
and here's Jesus:
Matthew 12:40 writes:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The Greek word ketos "cetacean" is commonly translated whale. As for example in the "Septuagint" version of Job 7:12 and Ezekiel 32:2, representing the Hebrew tanniyn. Is a tanniyn not a kind of dag? Is the Fish Gate in Jerusalem actually a Sea Monster gate?
. . .
And there I was, defending you. I thought you were trying to be honest. Shame on me.
Thanks! This helps clarify things for me. I thought we were arguing about Jonah whereas now I see I was stepping on a different part of your study.
Could you please elaborate on the special late creation of modern men and whale kin? I know you have covered this before, but please reiterate why you believe this and what your evidence is.
I think this is an important point for you in our discussion of "kinds" because it puts the Bible in the position of knowing thousands of years ago that there was something special about humans and sea-beasts.