Are chimpanzees and humans the same kind?

[Pegg]

Sure, but you did not, in fact, answer my question.

Do you mean 'can't cross-breed at all' or 'can't cross-breed and produce fertile offspring'?

can't cross breed at all.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

no its not. At one time i though it was, but i know its not because i've seen how a tiger and lion can be crossbred and these are two different species.

Both cats belong to the same family, and so a 'kind' can be different species within the same family.

A Kind = Family.

Then you're referring to the Felidae family, and it seems you do accept a certain amount of so called macro-evolution since there are at least 41 (living) species within it.

Of course, the Hominidae family contains us and the apes (in fact, you could go one lower in rank to the Hominini tribe and it would still contain us and Chimps).

Which by your definition would definitely make us the same kind as Chimpanzees, not to mention Gorillas and Orangutans.

It would also mean there are 109 different kinds of Spider.

 

[camanintx]

What is the supposed "inherent contradiction" of God?

Just every definition of God that I have come across.

 

[painted wolf]

thats possible because the genesis account differentiates between the 'wild' and 'domestic' kinds.

But not with dogs and wolves.... or wild and domestic cattle.

It's even forbidden in the bible to let your domestic cattle breed with wild cattle... which makes you wonder why God didn't just make them different "kinds".

wa:do

 

[Octavia156]

Guys its helpful to undertand how oarganisms are classified:

It goes:

Kingdomhylum:Class:Order:Family:Genus:Species

So our full classification is Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primate Homidinae Homo Sapiens

The ape is Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primate Homidinae Panina Pan

This shows that we are not the same Genus or Species as the Chimp, as so not even close to being the same kind.


In the case of the Liger, this is called a Hybrid Species, made when two organisms mate from different species, but the same Genus.

Lion: Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivore Felidae Panthera Leo
Tiger:Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivore Felidae Panthera Tigris

Here you can see two species that could be argued are the same kind - because they are both from the panthera genus.

We are as close to a chimp as a lion is to my whining cat sitting here.

Cat: Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivore Felidae Felis Catus.

It is obvious my cat could not breed with a lion, just as it is obvious a human could not breed with a chimp.to entertain the idea is pointless.

The lion and cat example is a valid comparison to the chimp and man. like them humans and chimps evolved from a common ancester, just as one organism evolved into the King of cats, so did it evolve into the little *****.
The common ancester of humans and chimps diverged in this way too

 

[Zoe Doidge]

This shows that we are not the same Genus or Species as the Chimp, as so not even close to being the same kind.

Unless you consider 'kind' to be equivalent to 'family', as Pegg has explicitly stated she does.

 

[Octavia156]

Unless you consider 'kind' to be equivalent to 'family', as Pegg has explicitly stated she does.

No, I believe Pegg meant to say same Genus.
In fact Species = Kind, in some rare cases Genus = Kind, but Family is definitely not same kind.

The OP asked for evidence

I'm using the evidence that it is not possible to cross breed anything outside of the same Genus, to support the conclusion that "kind" relates to Genus and not Family. Pegg needs an example of successful cross breeding between families alone to support her argument.

 

[camanintx]

No, I believe Pegg meant to say same Genus.

Pegg has been all over the map on this one, equating Kind with Species, Family and even Phylum when it suits her argument. Her problem is that while Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species have very specific criteria, Kind does not and appears to mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

No, I believe Pegg meant to say same Genus.

Well if that is the case at least she's getting closer, it was Phyla before.

 

[Skwim]

Guys its helpful to undertand how oarganisms are classified:

It goes:

Kingdomhylum:Class:Order:Family:Genus:Species

So our full classification is Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primate Homidinae Homo Sapiens

Actually, it now goes;

Domain: Kingdom: Phylum: Class: Order: Family: Genus: Species

So our full classification is Eucarya, Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primate Homidinae, Homo, Sapiens

And if you want to get particular, humans today are ranked as Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually if you want to get really really specific it goes:

Biota => Cytota => Neomura => Eukarya => Unikonta => Opisthokonta => Holozoa => Filozoa => Metazoa (Animalia) => Eumetazoa => Bilateria => Deuterostomia => Chordata => Craniatia => Vertebrata => Gnathostomata => Osteichthyes => Sarcopterygii => Tetropodomorpha => Tetrapoda => Aminota => Cynodontia => Epicynodontia => Eucynodontia => Probainognathia => Chiniquodontoidea => Mamaliamorpha => Mammaliaformes => Mammalia => Theriiformes => Holotheria => Trechnotheria => Cladotheria => Zatheria => Tribosphenida => Theria => Eutheria => Boreoeutheria => Euarchontoglires => Euarchonta => Euarchonta => Primatomorpha => Primates => Haplorrhini => Simiiformes => Catarrhini => Hominoidea => Hominidae => Homininae => Hominini => Hominina => Homo => sapiens => sapiens

Chimps are all the above except from Hominini they go to Panina to Pan and Pan is broken into two species troglodytes (with 4 subspecies: troglodytes, verus, vellerosus andschweinfurthii) and paniscus

Panina is a subtribe... they are members of family Hominidae just like we are.

Phew.... Now that is the complete taxonomy of our species... and just shows how limited the Linnean taxonomy is and how extensive cladistics is.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Actually if you want to get really really specific it goes:

Biota => Cytota => Neomura => Eukarya => Unikonta => Opisthokonta => Holozoa => Filozoa => Metazoa (Animalia) => Eumetazoa => Bilateria => Deuterostomia => Chordata => Craniatia => Vertebrata => Gnathostomata => Osteichthyes => Sarcopterygii => Tetropodomorpha => Tetrapoda => Aminota => Cynodontia => Epicynodontia => Eucynodontia => Probainognathia => Chiniquodontoidea => Mamaliamorpha => Mammaliaformes => Mammalia => Theriiformes => Holotheria => Trechnotheria => Cladotheria => Zatheria => Tribosphenida => Theria => Eutheria => Boreoeutheria => Euarchontoglires => Euarchonta => Euarchonta => Primatomorpha => Primates => Haplorrhini => Simiiformes => Catarrhini => Hominoidea => Hominidae => Homininae => Hominini => Hominina => Homo => sapiens => sapiens

Chimps are all the above except from Hominini they go to Panina to Pan and Pan is broken into two species troglodytes (with 4 subspecies: troglodytes, verus, vellerosus andschweinfurthii) and paniscus

Panina is a subtribe... they are members of family Hominidae just like we are.

Phew.... Now that is the complete taxonomy of our species... and just shows how limited the Linnean taxonomy is and how extensive cladistics is.

wa:do

Show-off...

But yeah, accuracy is important.

 

[Thief]

Actually if you want to get really really specific it goes:

Biota => Cytota => Neomura => Eukarya => Unikonta => Opisthokonta => Holozoa => Filozoa => Metazoa (Animalia) => Eumetazoa => Bilateria => Deuterostomia => Chordata => Craniatia => Vertebrata => Gnathostomata => Osteichthyes => Sarcopterygii => Tetropodomorpha => Tetrapoda => Aminota => Cynodontia => Epicynodontia => Eucynodontia => Probainognathia => Chiniquodontoidea => Mamaliamorpha => Mammaliaformes => Mammalia => Theriiformes => Holotheria => Trechnotheria => Cladotheria => Zatheria => Tribosphenida => Theria => Eutheria => Boreoeutheria => Euarchontoglires => Euarchonta => Euarchonta => Primatomorpha => Primates => Haplorrhini => Simiiformes => Catarrhini => Hominoidea => Hominidae => Homininae => Hominini => Hominina => Homo => sapiens => sapiens

Chimps are all the above except from Hominini they go to Panina to Pan and Pan is broken into two species troglodytes (with 4 subspecies: troglodytes, verus, vellerosus andschweinfurthii) and paniscus

Panina is a subtribe... they are members of family Hominidae just like we are.

Phew.... Now that is the complete taxonomy of our species... and just shows how limited the Linnean taxonomy is and how extensive cladistics is.

wa:do

whoa!....Dude!

 

[Thief]

Does this discussion include an offspring that later will not reproduce true to it's own form?
Horse and donkey>mule?

I've seen a documentary wherein foxes were bred to remove their wild tendencies.
It took only a few generations of careful selection.
Surely, domestication is not a character of 'kind'?

 

[painted wolf]

Show-off...

But yeah, accuracy is important.

I think it helps to demonstrate how precise the nested hierarchy that unites species is. Each link is a set of shared characteristics unique to each level and not found anywhere else.

whoa!....Dude!

LoL.. not kidding, I'm just glad I don't have to memorize the whole thing!

Each of those links is a place where the tree of life branches... backed up by fossils and genetics.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think it helps to demonstrate how precise the nested hierarchy that unites species is. Each link is a set of shared characteristics unique to each level and not found anywhere else.

Indeed.

I sometimes get the feeling that many people have no idea how testable and evidential the things brought forth by science really is, and to what degree things actually are measurable and determinable.

And then I think that I am just a humble barely informed science teacher (who jump actual scientists when I meet them at social events going 'I have SO many questions!' and then watch them dial 911 in their heads) and I feel sorry for the world.

I mean, if I'm this dumb when it comes to the details and specifics of what we know... ...what then of the people who keep misunderstanding the word 'theory'. :sarcastic

 

[Thief]

Indeed.

I sometimes get the feeling that many people have no idea how testable and evidential the things brought forth by science really is, and to what degree things actually are measurable and determinable.

And then I think that I am just a humble barely informed science teacher (who jump actual scientists when I meet them at social events going 'I have SO many questions!' and then watch them dial 911 in their heads) and I feel sorry for the world.

I mean, if I'm this dumb when it comes to the details and specifics of what we know... ...what then of the people who keep misunderstanding the word 'theory'. :sarcastic

Don't mention 'theory'...it reminds me of a really nasty thread somewhere else.

 

[painted wolf]

Indeed.

I sometimes get the feeling that many people have no idea how testable and evidential the things brought forth by science really is, and to what degree things actually are measurable and determinable.

And then I think that I am just a humble barely informed science teacher (who jump actual scientists when I meet them at social events going 'I have SO many questions!' and then watch them dial 911 in their heads) and I feel sorry for the world.

I mean, if I'm this dumb when it comes to the details and specifics of what we know... ...what then of the people who keep misunderstanding the word 'theory'. :sarcastic

I think my list and your example points out another issue.... science can be intimidating.

That is a long scary list of words I provided. They aren't in "english" and require a lot of study to understand. It's so much easier to point at a Lion and a Tiger and say they are "cat kind" than it is to say they are pantherine felids.

Even though "cat kind" has no actual functional definition and pantherine felids gives me an immediate idea of what separates them from say a cheetah or a fox.
People already have an idea what a "cat" is even if it's not particularly accurate. It's comfortable.

wa:do

 

[bigbadgirl]

If female chimps shave their under arms, they are human.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think my list and your example points out another issue.... science can be intimidating.

That is a long scary list of words I provided. They aren't in "english" and require a lot of study to understand. It's so much easier to point at a Lion and a Tiger and say they are "cat kind" than it is to say they are pantherine felids.

Even though "cat kind" has no actual functional definition and pantherine felids gives me an immediate idea of what separates them from say a cheetah or a fox.
People already have an idea what a "cat" is even if it's not particularly accurate. It's comfortable.

wa:do

Part of the problem, I think, is that people are more comfortable with practical labels and categories than they are with how the world really works.
While we like to use defined labels such as 'human', 'planet', or even 'animal', as we look closer reality is really more about scales of grey, and we find that the labels we use is a simplification because our brains aren't very good at judging sliding scales.

This is illustrated quite well in Dawkins' latest book 'The Magic of Reality' (brilliant book for kids aged 10-15 btw.) in which he demonstrates that the question; 'Who was the first human?' might be the wrong kind of question to ask.

By using a time machine and a camera, if going back in time taking pictures of your ancestors one generation at the time one would find that it is impossible to point at two pictures and say 'THIS is when my great-great-greate-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather became the first human!' because you simply can't see much of a difference from one generation to another.

Of course, if you take one of the first pictures you took and compare it to the last picture, the differences are obvious and clear to see, but in between those pictures there is a very gradual and all but imperceptible gradation of change taking place.

It's like looking at a rainbow with all its colours; we can all see the red, the yellow, the green, the blue, and so on, but can you point to the exact point where the red ends and the yellow starts?

Thus, when teaching science to kids I tend to focus less on rehearsing names and more on teaching guiding principles, ways to think, and the understanding of processes.