Creationism and kinds

[Parsimony]

If it was some day demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees were capable hybridizing to produce offspring, would this peg them both as being the same "kind" as defined in creationism? Would anything about the creationist model needed to be modified if this turned out to be possible? Could it be posited as nothing more than a strange coincidence or would one need to say that God designed humans and chimpanzees to be genetically compatible in order to explain it?

 

[shawn001]

Just to know its been tried with gorillas in the past and human ancestors and up to now ended up with pubic lice. A little factoid there for you.

Human lice and DNA discoveries
Lice have been the subject of significant DNA research in the 2000s that led to discoveries on human evolution. For example, genetic evidence suggests that our human ancestors acquired pubic lice from gorillas approximately 3-4 million years ago.[17] Additionally, the DNA differences between head lice and body lice provide corroborating evidence that humans started losing body hair about 2 million years ago.

Louse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pegg]

If it was some day demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees were capable hybridizing to produce offspring, would this peg them both as being the same "kind" as defined in creationism? Would anything about the creationist model needed to be modified if this turned out to be possible? Could it be posited as nothing more than a strange coincidence or would one need to say that God designed humans and chimpanzees to be genetically compatible in order to explain it?

if a chimp and human could produce a hybrid, then we'd have to agree that chimps and humans are the same kind, yes.

 

[idav]

if a chimp and human could produce a hybrid, then we'd have to agree that chimps and humans are the same kind, yes.

Yes and just keep going back till all life started as one kind.

 

[fantome profane]

if a chimp and human could produce a hybrid, then we'd have to agree that chimps and humans are the same kind, yes.

So is the reverse true? Do you think that the inability of two species to produce a hybrid is proof that they are not the same "kind"?

If not is there anyway to prove that two species are not the same "kind"?

 

[Pegg]

So is the reverse true? Do you think that the inability of two species to produce a hybrid is proof that they are not the same "kind"?

If not is there anyway to prove that two species are not the same "kind"?

not necessarily. fore example, a mule cannot breed with either a horse or a donkey... so its still of the equine kind regardless of its inability to produce offspring.

 

[fantome profane]

not necessarily. fore example, a mule cannot breed with either a horse or a donkey... so its still of the equine kind regardless of its inability to produce offspring.

So the important part of my question is this. Is there any way to prove that two species are not the same "kind"?

 

[johnhanks]

So the important part of my question is this. Is there any way to prove that two species are not the same "kind"?

Creationists know better than to get sucked into all that bio-babble. "Kind" is what an animal looks like - if it looks horsy, it's horse kind; if it looks doggy, it's dog kind.

Obvious, isn't it?

The only exception is humans. We may look "apy", but no way are we ape kind. No, sirree.

 

[Pegg]

So the important part of my question is this. Is there any way to prove that two species are not the same "kind"?

if you needed to prove it, i suppose you could try to cross breed them and see if you get something from it. There might be other ways to determine if they are of the same kind though, ie dna testing

 

[fantome profane]

if you needed to prove it, i suppose you could try to cross breed them and see if you get something from it. There might be other ways to determine if they are of the same kind though, ie dna testing

Ok, for the third time, please try to understand the question I am asking. Read it carefully please.

Is there any way to prove that two species they are not the same "kind".

Do you understand what I am asking? You have explained possible ways to prove that two species are the same "kind". But you have also said that failure to prove they are the same "kind" is not necessarily proof that they are not the same "kind". Cross-breeding experiments could show that they are the same kind, but cross-breeding experiments could not rule out that they are the same "kind"? So is there anything that could show that any two species are not the same "kind"?

Am I making the question clear enough?

 

[Pegg]

Ok, for the third time, please try to understand the question I am asking. Read it carefully please.

Do you understand what I am asking? You have explained possible ways to prove that two species are the same "kind". But you have also said that failure to prove they are the same "kind" is not necessarily proof that they are not the same "kind". Cross-breeding experiments could show that they are the same kind, but cross-breeding experiments could not rule out that they are the same "kind"? So is there anything that could show that any two species are not the same "kind"?

Am I making the question clear enough?

i thought i had answered that.... if they cannot reproduce, they are not the same kind.

 

[fantome profane]

I think you have contradicted yourself.

i thought i had answered that.... if they cannot reproduce, they are not the same kind.

not necessarily. fore example, a mule cannot breed with either a horse or a donkey... so its still of the equine kind regardless of its inability to produce offspring.

 

[ArtieE]

i thought i had answered that.... if they cannot reproduce, they are not the same kind.

The Hebrew word "miyn" is usually translated as "kind". A Biblical "kind" goes down to the level of "species". Biblical Kind

 

[Ouroboros]

i thought i had answered that.... if they cannot reproduce, they are not the same kind.

Where would that put a ring species? Is that a pseudo-kind or double-kind? Ring-kind?

 

[Pegg]

I think you have contradicted yourself.

I said 'not necessarily'

The question you've asked does not have a simple answer because within a kind, hybrids are produced and they are unable to reproduce with either of their parents type.

In general, if two animals cannot reproduce, they are not of the same kind. But that obviously doesnt include hybirds

 

[Pegg]

The Hebrew word "miyn" is usually translated as "kind". A Biblical "kind" goes down to the level of "species". Biblical Kind

If you mean a lion, tiger & cheetah are all the same species, then yes, that is the equivalent to a kind because these can all interbreed.

 

[Pegg]

Where would that put a ring species? Is that a pseudo-kind or double-kind? Ring-kind?

I wouldnt put ring species anywhere...im not making up the rules.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wouldnt put ring species anywhere...im not making up the rules.

Have you looked up ring species? They're a very curious thing.

In a simple explanation, it's basically the same species, but at one point (end points) they're not compatible. Can't reproduce. All the way around the ring they can, but just not at the meeting point. So they're same species and different species at the same time. So if "kind" would apply to species, they're both the same kind and different kinds simultaneous.

Like this:

It's evidence that mutations can bring about speciation events.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Just to know its been tried with gorillas in the past and human ancestors and up to now ended up with pubic lice. A little factoid there for you.

Human lice and DNA discoveries
Lice have been the subject of significant DNA research in the 2000s that led to discoveries on human evolution. For example, genetic evidence suggests that our human ancestors acquired pubic lice from gorillas approximately 3-4 million years ago.[17] Additionally, the DNA differences between head lice and body lice provide corroborating evidence that humans started losing body hair about 2 million years ago.

Louse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a little misleading. The author's speculated "that there are two mutually exclusive explanations that can account for the current distribution of Pediculus and Pthirus."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any adult whose understanding of biological diversity is equivalent to the overly simplistic categories used for kindergarteners, probably isn't someone even capable of understanding even the basics of evolutionary theory.