Define "Kind"

Since this is all based on genetics your distinction between other primates and humans goes away. The "kind" must be based on that too and so chimps and humans become one kind.

There are some similarities we could catalog between all living things. I find more similarities between bears and raccoons than I do between humans and apes.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 12:53 PM

But other than superficial appearance you know nothing at all about bears, racoons, humans or other apes so there is no way for you to arrive at any well-founded conclusion.It would be, however, interesting for you to list the similarities you find on both sides.

I'm talking about the limits to diversity that naturally occur with selection processes, not what the genome looks like, so you are comparing apples and oranges.I do have to think that the genome will yield a clue to the Kinds eventually, but the similarities so touted by evos between apes and men are no more than what one would expect from basic design similarities of the basic physical structure, while the differences between apes and humans in body and behavior are incredibly striking. A raccoon ACTS LIKE a bear and has the basic BODY BUILD of a bear. The similarities between apes and humans are mostly structural, while they neither look like nor act like humans beyond the most strained analogies.

Message 32 and Message 49I think behavior is probably a strong indicator of Kindship.* So I class animals as dogs that act like dogs, same with cats, same with bear and raccoon, etc. Certainly similarities of build count in the mix too. *And I mean a CLUSTER of behaviors they have in common, not just one or two as that many can be shared across all kinds of boundaries.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 01:09 PM

Faith And yet you can see no corresponding likeness between primates and humans?

Only most superficially {abe; Actually not even superficially, more like "theoretically" as in behavior and body build the comparisons are purely analogous, not at all definitive}, nowhere near such a definitive degree.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 01:11 PM

quote:

---

I do have to think that the genome will yield a clue to the Kinds eventually, but the similarities so touted by evos between apes and men are no more than what one would expect from basic design similarities of the basic physical structure,

---

Actually, it's much more than "basic physical structure", Faith.Humans and apes share a broken gene for producing vitamin C, and that is about as far from "basic physical structure" one can genetically get.

quote:

---

while the differences between apes and humans in body and behavior are incredibly striking.

---

Our behavior is not that different.Chimps and a few other apes have the intelligence and similar behavior to a 6 year old human, and can be taught hundreds of sign language words.And I still don't get how you think that apes and humans are "strikingly" different in appearence.Why were blacks called "jungle monkeys" if people didn't think they looked "strikingly" like primates?

quote:

---

A raccoon ACTS LIKE a bear

---

Raccons are quite a lot smarter than bears, IIRC. And aren't raccoons noctournal, whereas bears move about in the daytime?

quote:

---

and has the basic BODY BUILD of a bear.

---

Except the paws of the two are totally different, and raccoons have long tails and bears do not.

quote:

---

The similarities between apes and humans are mostly structural,

---

Actually, that is not true, as I gave an example above.Why do we do human medical research, including aids research, on chimps and other primates, if we were not incredibly similar to them in many, many ways?Do you deny that genes determine the nature of ALL of the structure of an organism's body?

quote:

---

while they neither look like nor act like humans beyond the most strained analogies.

---

They have language, Faith, and they teach tool use and culture to their offspring. We can teach them a little of our language.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 01:14 PM

I'm not impressed. Such similarities are nothing more than rough analogies.

Humans and apes share a broken gene for vitamin c production.Do you agree that this is more than "basic structural similarity"?We use chimps and other primates to do human medical research, including aids research. It is very expensive, so if it did not result in fruitful results, it wouldn't be done.Do you agree that this indicates a great similarity in many systems between humans and other primates?

Do you agree, Faith, that within the Creationist model, shared genes and using genetics to determine relatedness at any level are rejected?

I am curious what you would consider an "intuitive" boundary then?Could you maybe expand this idea a bit? I am assuming, though it is your own idea, that this could help clarify or determine what you consider a 'kind' to be.Ideas: Diet (such as between Pandas and Bears)
Ecology (such as between otters and sea-lions or minks)
Behavior (such as between wolves and badgers)
morphology (such as between snake and iguana)
Genetic analysis (such as between chimps and humans)If you could provide us with some sense of how you determine 'kinds' even in your own view, it would help to narrow the debate.

Genetic analysis has shown bears to be related to wolves (dogs) with the bears closest relative being the Sea-lions and walruses.Genetic analysis has also shown Humans to share roughly 98.5% of our genes with Chimpanzees. Yet you continue to reject science. If the bible doesn't define 'kinds' and you reject science's answer then where does that leave you or anyone else? How can you so surreptitiously abdicate for the role of science on one hand and blatantly argue for the bibles supremecy on the other?I know you feel that the bible is supreme in all things and above science, but how can you not see the contradiction you're proposing above? If the bible doesn't hold the answer then there can not be any honest search for answers if we reject anything that appears to contradict the bible. Are you interested in an honest search or just pretending?The study of the genome practically screams out our relatedness to the apes. In fact, we share more in common (genetically) with the chimps than some birds species do within their own species.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-21-2006 02:17 PM

What? Do you have something to support this?

FaithIt was not any more so with the bear and racoon though. And genetically the primates share a greater amount than do bears and racoons. Indeed there are all sorts of counterintuitive connections in the animal world revealed through genetics