Are chimpanzees and humans the same kind?

[painted wolf]

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.

I agree... and I'd like to add that I think a lot of people are disturbed by the shades of grey. People want things to be binary (good/bad especially), but nothing in this world is binary.
From my experience (and admittedly it's a somewhat limited sample) Creationists tend to be extremely wedded to the concept of binary ultimatums.

wa:do

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I agree... and I'd like to add that I think a lot of people are disturbed by the shades of grey. People want things to be binary (good/bad especially), but nothing in this world is binary.
From my experience (and admittedly it's a somewhat limited sample) Creationists tend to be extremely wedded to the concept of binary ultimatums.

wa:do

This comes into play a lot when we think of the word species. People tend to imagine that one species is something obviously distinct from another, whereas really species is a relative concept. Like if we go back 150k years, we might say that we are the same species as the homo sapiens around then (although there were others in the homo genus around too). And they might say they were the same species as those who were around 150k years before them. But we wouldn't say we were the same species as those around 300k years ago.

Kind of like a ring species, only through time.

 

[secret2]

This comes into play a lot when we think of the word species. People tend to imagine that one species is something obviously distinct from another, whereas really species is a relative concept. Like if we go back 150k years, we might say that we are the same species as the homo sapiens around then (although there were others in the homo genus around too). And they might say they were the same species as those who were around 150k years before them. But we wouldn't say we were the same species as those around 300k years ago.

Kind of like a ring species, only through time.

Exactly. Unfortunately the misconception of species ~ elements on the periodic table is way too popular.

 

[David M]

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.

That is because creationists don't really care where they draw the line as to what composes a kind other than that humans are always one single-species kind. Always remember that they are starting with a conclusion and making their definitions fit that conclusion.

 

[Koldo]

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.

I would rather say that this is a language problem than the brain being unable to judge sliding scales. Everyday speech is efficient at delivering information because it relies a lot on concepts and context. If it didn't, then either communication would become either too complex or too slow.

 

[painted wolf]

I would rather say that this is a language problem than the brain being unable to judge sliding scales. Everyday speech is efficient at delivering information because it relies a lot on concepts and context. If it didn't, then either communication would become either too complex or too slow.

You don't think the insistence by biblical literalists that if any of the Bible is inaccurate then none of it is... isn't a problem or a mitigating factor?

AIG and others insist that if you don't believe in a literal Genesis then they can't believe in any of the Bible. IMHO this zero sum argument makes thinking in anything other than binary difficult to say the least.

wa:do

 

[Thief]

You don't think the insistence by biblical literalists that if any of the Bible is inaccurate then none of it is... isn't a problem or a mitigating factor?

AIG and others insist that if you don't believe in a literal Genesis then they can't believe in any of the Bible. IMHO this zero sum argument makes thinking in anything other than binary difficult to say the least.

wa:do

Not wanting to encourage digression...but it's true.
All or nothing discussions suck.

But science will do the same....always falling short the act of faith.
I do hear some men of science mention God....
but usually as a possibility and speaking without intent of credit due.

 

[painted wolf]

Not wanting to encourage digression...but it's true.
All or nothing discussions suck.

But science will do the same....always falling short the act of faith.
I do hear some men of science mention God....
but usually as a possibility and speaking without intent of credit due.

To be completely honest, faith is discussed in some cases... the Placebo effect is entirely a matter of faith.

Medicine generally addresses faith more than say Biology.... but it's harder to link the two in a useful or meaningful way.

wa:do

 

[idav]

Thus I would like to ask the creationists here the following questions:
Are chimpanzees and humans the same 'kind' or not?`
Why/why not?

They came from the same kind but are no longer the same kind.

 

[Octavia156]

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.

I took my class to Science Live in UK where we got to see Dawkins do that talk. It was amazing. He used the analogy of a time machine going back in 10,000yr jumps, at each jump you pick up some ancesters of your species at that time.
In terms of breeding, you can go back 3 jumps and still be able to breed with your new passengers, but the 4th set of ancestors would not be able to breed with the our most modern pilots, our 5th passengers, would find it hard to breed with the 2nd and so on.

This illustrates perfectly how evolution and speciation are such a gradual processes, that there's no start and end point, just these huges expanses of time wherein our species slowly and subtely change

I teach Science to teenagers everyday - its an awesome job

 

[Octavia156]

once of my kids put it beautifully:

"So, we didn't come from monkeys... we grew up alongside them?"

 

[jarofthoughts]

I teach Science to teenagers everyday - its an awesome job

Indeed it is.

 

[jarofthoughts]

once of my kids put it beautifully:

"So, we didn't come from monkeys... we grew up alongside them?"

:clap

 

[painted wolf]

once of my kids put it beautifully:

"So, we didn't come from monkeys... we grew up alongside them?"

Rock on! :jam:

wa:do