Creationists please define Kind

[Dirty Penguin]

The point being that there is some evidence that humans and chimps cannot mate in the here and now and a plethora of opinions that say they might.

The point is the so called evidence is reported to have taken place in the 20s when the technology and understanding of IVF wasn't even a notion in the minds of scientist. I give it the benefit of the doubt because the data in question is supposedly ('somewhere') being held by Russian scientist. So what, this guy tried it..? Was he simply using a turkey baster to inject sperm into a chimpanzee? Who knows?

The other point is IVF as we conduct them today are rarely successful without the aid of medicine and even that has a high probability of not succeeding. Some that do, who are looking to become pregnant, can bear 2,3,4,5 or more children whereas some never conceive. Medical science of the 20s was nothing like what we have today and even today we have some serious challenges to overcome with human to human IVF.

Such are debates that have no where else to go other than into frustration and desperate attempts at refute. Mind you, I'd like to hear what these researchers have to say on the topic now that we have found such diverged Y chromosome,

We've already posted what the actual scientist involved in the discovery had to say. There is no problem with that part of the Y chromosome in regards to primate/human ancestry. In light of that new information it has not changed the fact that we're related.

So, for now, my definition stands.

A kind must meet one of the two criteria
1. A kind is a group of organisms that share 99.9% similarity, based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

Human genome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution

See also: Human evolution and Chimpanzee Genome Project
Comparative genomics studies of mammalian genomes suggest that approximately 5% of the human genome has been conserved by evolution since the divergence of extant lineages approximately 200 million years ago, containing the vast majority of genes.Intriguingly, since genes and known regulatory sequences probably comprise less than 2% of the genome, this suggests that there may be more unknown functional sequence than known functional sequence. A smaller, yet substantial, fraction of human genes seem to be shared among most known vertebrates. The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons. Around 20% of this figure is accounted for by variation within each species, leaving only ~1.06% consistent sequence divergence between humans and chimps at shared genes. This nucleotide by nucleotide difference is dwarfed, however, by the portion of each genome that is not shared, including around 6% of functional genes that are unique to either humans or chimps. In other words, the considerable observable differences between humans and chimps may be due as much or more to genome level variation in the number, function and expression of genes rather than DNA sequence changes in shared genes. On average, a typical human protein-coding gene differs from its chimpanzee ortholog by only two amino acid substitutions; nearly one third of human genes have exactly the same protein translation as their chimpanzee orthologs. A major difference between the two genomes is human chromosome 2, which is equivalent to a fusion product of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 (later renamed to chromosomes 2A and 2B, respectively).


Humans have undergone an extraordinary loss of olfactory receptor genes during our recent evolution, which explains our relatively crude sense of smell compared to most other mammals. Evolutionary evidence suggests that the emergence of color vision in humans and several other primate species has diminished the need for the sense of smell.

I'd say we humans and primates meet criteria #1.

 

[RedOne77]

The point being I have produced evidence. You have produced woffle. I win.

You're funny. So when two humans can't make a baby after a few tries, does that mean they can't?

 

[fantome profane]

I am a creationist the genome will not change

LouisDantas, whatever evidence a biologist may have that genes change is based on theoretical computer modelling.

So are you now even denying what creationists refer to as “micro-evolution”? Are you now denying that changes within “kind”. If you are denying that change occurs in the genome then you must be denying these things.

p.s. started a new thread - Does the genome change?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tumbleweed41"Disregarding the rest of your post as an excuse if you are wrong, I will take the part where you say "The kinds that God created are the kinds that He created and this cannot change." as an answer of, no. That the Biblical definition of kinds, as defined by God, is unchangeable. Despite any evidence to the contrary.

So you agree with me! Is that the point you are making.

Nope, just clarifying your dogmatic stance and illuminating the fact that Creationists will ignore empirical evidence when it does not conform to their preconceived notions.

Will you please stop wasting my time.

Do you often find education to be a waste of time?

 

[David M]

No David M ..what is meaningless is your inablility to provide evidence to support your stance that is more robust than what I put up. To date, I have not seen any.

The work on the Y chromosme is fairly new and the remarkable differnces were not expected Let's see what their opinion says now.

The point being I have produced evidence. You have produced woffle. I win.

The funny thing is that all the scientific evidence that you post supports ToE, all these changes to the minutiae of the history of the ever-changing life in this planet in accordance with new evidence are not challenges to ToE which is the reason why there is a history of ever-changing life on this planet. If the evidence shows that something evolved slightly diffrently than we thought it still evolved.

The "remarkable" extra 1% difference in the Y chromosome is not remarkable because there is a very good reason why the Y chromosome evolves faster than other chromosomes. The truth is that scientists knew the Y chromosome should evolve faster, what they thought was that it would be "degrading" but that was a hypothesis based on partial knowledge (due to that lack of genome being sequenced), once genomes started to be sequenced they found that this is not the case, this is called paying attention to reality.

But the overall conclusion remains, species evolve and share common ancestry, and that is what all this guff you post actually says.

 

[painted wolf]

Wait... if the genome never changes... does that mean now that every species is it's own kind?

Each species has a unique genome after all.

Did the definition of kind just change again?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

The point is the so called evidence is reported to have taken place in the 20s when the technology and understanding of IVF wasn't even a notion in the minds of scientist. I give it the benefit of the doubt because the data in question is supposedly ('somewhere') being held by Russian scientist. So what, this guy tried it..? Was he simply using a turkey baster to inject sperm into a chimpanzee? Who knows?
It is still better than anything you can supply, it appears.
The other point is IVF as we conduct them today are rarely successful without the aid of medicine and even that has a high probability of not succeeding. Some that do, who are looking to become pregnant, can bear 2,3,4,5 or more children whereas some never conceive. Medical science of the 20s was nothing like what we have today and even today we have some serious challenges to overcome with human to human IVF.
I am talking about ability to fertilize without chemical changes. It really doesn't matter if I change point 2 to 'ability to sucessfully breed', genetic similarity should bring them back together.


We've already posted what the actual scientist involved in the discovery had to say. There is no problem with that part of the Y chromosome in regards to primate/human ancestry. In light of that new information it has not changed the fact that we're related.

It is an assumption that says we're related and if you found a precambrian human you would still not concede to creationism. What does that tell you?


Human genome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution

See also: Human evolution and Chimpanzee Genome Project
Comparative genomics studies of mammalian genomes suggest that approximately 5% of the human genome has been conserved by evolution since the divergence of extant lineages approximately 200 million years ago, containing the vast majority of genes.Intriguingly, since genes and known regulatory sequences probably comprise less than 2% of the genome, this suggests that there may be more unknown functional sequence than known functional sequence. A smaller, yet substantial, fraction of human genes seem to be shared among most known vertebrates. The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons. Around 20% of this figure is accounted for by variation within each species, leaving only ~1.06% consistent sequence divergence between humans and chimps at shared genes. This nucleotide by nucleotide difference is dwarfed, however, by the portion of each genome that is not shared, including around 6% of functional genes that are unique to either humans or chimps. In other words, the considerable observable differences between humans and chimps may be due as much or more to genome level variation in the number, function and expression of genes rather than DNA sequence changes in shared genes. On average, a typical human protein-coding gene differs from its chimpanzee ortholog by only two amino acid substitutions; nearly one third of human genes have exactly the same protein translation as their chimpanzee orthologs. A major difference between the two genomes is human chromosome 2, which is equivalent to a fusion product of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 (later renamed to chromosomes 2A and 2B, respectively).

Yeah..and you'll find other info on the chimpanzee gernome project that states there is 30% also. I've provided other research that speaks to 6%. With that all the current research into RNA regulation is rapidly illustrating that the genes you see mean very little in relation to similarity. It's all about RNA regulation. That's why a plant that has foxp2 can't speak or think. The gene has a totally different expression.

Humans have undergone an extraordinary loss of olfactory receptor genes during our recent evolution, which explains our relatively crude sense of smell compared to most other mammals. Evolutionary evidence suggests that the emergence of color vision in humans and several other primate species has diminished the need for the sense of smell.
Yeah, according to your assumptions and computer modeling based on probabilities that change like the wind.
I'd say we humans and primates meet criteria #1.

Biologists redraw entire bird evolutionary tree

Friday, 27 June 2008
This new tree contains several notable surprises.
For example, falcons are more closely related to songbirds than to other hawks and eagles. The closest kin of the diving birds called grebes turn out to be flamingos. And tiny, flashy hummingbirds, according to the new tree, are just a specialised form of nighthawks, whose squat, bulky bodies make them an unlikely cousin.
In fact, the new tree ended up regrouping about a third of all the orders in earlier phylogenies of birds.
According to Reddy, that shows you how inconsistent it has been.
The new tree may have profound implications for our understanding of the major innovations in the evolutionary history of birds, said Joel Cracraft, curator of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US.
According to Reddy, that shows you how inconsistent it has been.
The new tree may have profound implications for our understanding of the major innovations in the evolutionary history of birds, said Joel Cracraft, curator of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US.
For example, the new tree puts an order of flying birds, the tinamous, squarely in the midst of the flightless ostriches, emus and kiwis.
If true, this implies either that flightlessness evolved at least twice in this lineage, or else that the tinamous re-evolved flight from a flightless ancestor.


Seriously now, your scientists are hell bent on supporting toe. The bible states creatures of the sea and birds were the first living creations. Your scientists cannot deal with this because it is immpossible to explain how a some sort of aquatic creature took to flight.

Then you have the famous tiktaalic. He is supposed to be an example of the first animal that landed. Now you have evidence of a tetrapod roaming prior to Tik. What does that tell you?

Now your birds are all over the place. This research has clarified some phylogeny but raised new conundrums. Even the cladistics fall apart with lizards and aves.

You will never, ever, get it right while you are trying to show this ancestry. Your confusion to date is yet another support for creation of kind.

I do not accept messes as evidence for anything, unlike yourselves that toot all the inconsistencies and changes are what one can expect with toe. Sorry..that's not evidence..that guesstimation.

 

[outhouse]

immpossible to explain how a some sort of aquatic creature took to flight.

its only impossible for the uneducated people with closed minds to explain.

There is a very clear picture, to argue that ToE is not valid is to admit a severe lack of education and one must possess severe issues dealing with reality

 

[Autodidact]

I am a creationist the genome will not change

You mean all the changes in genomes that we actually observe going on in real time now will just stop?

 

[outhouse]

The bible states creatures of the sea and birds were the first living creations

the bible is not a accurate as a history book or a science book of any kind, genesis is mostly stolen fiction taken from sumerian and egyption text by 5 unknown authors and a compilation of books after being told around campfires for 300-500 years

why are no bird or sea creatures found in fossils 3 billion years old?

please get a real education, fantasy and wishfull thinking and magic are not usefull science tools

 

[newhope101]

Wait... if the genome never changes... does that mean now that every species is it's own kind?
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Each species has a unique genome after all.
Yeah, so do you and me, yet we are the same species, believe it or not!
Did the definition of kind just change again?
No, just your level of desperation.
wa:do

I haven't changed anything. You just like to play games when you've run out of decent refutes. Even if I did, so what, you lot are continually changing stuff and that is no concern to you. You should be used to it. You love inconsistency and contradiction as well as changes as this is some sort of twisted support for Toe.

Look at the bird research I have just posted. Do you think research will be the end of the confusion about birds? I doubt it, in fact I know it. While you are trying to make birds out of reptiles and reptiles out of fish you ain't going to sort anything out.

Now you can go check out your old fossils and see how they may fit in with everything. I wonder how long your universities will be selling outdated information and displaying erranous supporting research for incorrect classifications to unsuspecing students. Students would think these researchers actually knew what they were talking about..... YET AGAIN... THEY DID NOT.

Let's face it wolf your researchers are only skimming the top of this genetic research.

 

[LuisDantas]

Biologists redraw entire bird evolutionary tree

Friday, 27 June 2008
This new tree contains several notable surprises.
For example, falcons are more closely related to songbirds than to other hawks and eagles. The closest kin of the diving birds called grebes turn out to be flamingos.

(...)

If true, this implies either that flightlessness evolved at least twice in this lineage, or else that the tinamous re-evolved flight from a flightless ancestor.

You seem to be either surprised by this revision, or hopeful that it shocks someone into "disbelief" or something.

You're bound to be disappointed either way, because you are simply reporting that facts are considered by science. Which we knew already. Revising some evolutionary trees is only a sign of desire to correct mistakes when evidence shows them to be mistakes.

That falls way short of shacking the foundations of the ToE, you know.

Seriously now, your scientists are hell bent on supporting toe.

That is probably true, as long as the alternatives are intentional superstition and denial of known facts.

Now, if a true alternative theory did present itself and was accompanied by quality evidence... that would send shockwaves through the scientific community. As much as if, say, serious evidence that gravity is caused by the expectations of human brains presented itself.

Both scenarios are not quite impossible to happen... but they would be very surprising and exciting indeed. Scientists would be as eager as anyone else to reveal those news, if not more so. Often enough they enjoy the prospect of becoming famous, you know.

The bible states creatures of the sea and birds were the first living creations. Your scientists cannot deal with this because it is impossible to explain how a some sort of aquatic creature took to flight.

It is impossible to say that sea creatures begat amphibians that begat reptiles that begat winged creatures? Really? Even when there is evidence that it happened just like that, including fossils?

Why would it be impossible, and how come I just did that supposedly impossible feat with just a few words anyway? What do you mean with "it is impossible to explain"?

Then you have the famous tiktaalic. He is supposed to be an example of the first animal that landed. Now you have evidence of a tetrapod roaming prior to Tik. What does that tell you?

That you expect science to have a dogmatic posture, I guess, and to announce its findings as if they were some sort of scripture.

Finding out that there were other transitional lifeforms besides and/or before the Tiktaalic is, of course, even more evidence that evolution did occur and allowed the transition from water to land, surely you realize that.

In fact, aren't you effectively complaining that one of those supposedly "missing" links has been found?

Not that they were missing in the first place, of course, but it sounds odd that finding them shows that the ToE is "unreliable" while not finding them shows that it is "unproven", "unsuppported".

Now your birds are all over the place. This research has clarified some phylogeny but raised new conundrums. Even the cladistics fall apart with lizards and aves.

And that is an exciting find!

You will never, ever, get it right while you are trying to show this ancestry. Your confusion to date is yet another support for creation of kind.

It's all in your mind.

I do not accept messes as evidence for anything, unlike yourselves that toot all the inconsistencies and changes are what one can expect with toe. Sorry..that's not evidence..that guesstimation.

If you say so. The rest of the us have apparently failed completely to notice all those problems. Whatever substance they have has not stopped the production of evidence and applications of the ToE. If it is that useful and reliable while "in crisis", I guess a golden age is just around the corner for it...

 

[newhope101]

LouisDantas..you have played this line before. Do you have another one? I have already responded that I do not expect to change YOUR minds. However, some on the line that may drop in need to see the contradictions rather than the rose coloured scenarios you evos present here.

You would not accept creation if you found a precambrian human. So far none of you have even had the gumption to say that a precambrain human would disprove Toe and support creation. If evidence like that would not kill toe AND support creation I can extrpolate that many of you are fanatics rather than scientifically balanced..Toe is therefore irrefutable and not a science no matter how much you love and adore it.

You know very little about the science you are defending. I'm not here to educate you. It is pointless responding further to you.

 

[LuisDantas]

LouisDantas..you have played this line before.

And you still fail to address it. So?

 

[LuisDantas]

You would not accept creation if you found a precambrian human.

Actually, you are correct, I would not.

Major as such a discovery would be, it would still be essentially powerless to deny evolution.

To keep the comparison with gravity, that is much like finding someone who flies through sheer force of will would not be evidence that gravity is a lie.

It would be an exciting finding, no doubt, but in no way a license to feign ignorance.

So far none of you have even had the gumption to say that a precambrain human would disprove Toe and support creation.

It wouldn't disprove the ToE. At most, it would create waves of excitement among specialists of that area. Very exciting, but again it can't possibly hope to deny the ToE.

It would offer some much-needed support to Creationism, to be sure. Not nearly enough to sustain an actual Theory, but still worlds better than what you have now.

If evidence like that would not kill toe AND support creation I can extrapolate that many of you are fanatics rather than scientifically balanced.

While you are at it, extrapolate that I have naturally green hair as well. Go all-out, why not?

Toe is therefore irrefutable and not a science no matter how much you love and adore it.

Facts are irrefutable. The ToE is a fact. Yes, it works that way.

You know very little about the science you are defending. I'm not here to educate you. It is pointless responding further to you.

You know, you are correct on all three statements. I do know very little, just barely enough to recognize the lack of sense of your statements. You are definitely not here to educate me. And it is indeed pointless to persist in giving me such lines.

 

[painted wolf]

I haven't changed anything. You just like to play games when you've run out of decent refutes. Even if I did, so what, you lot are continually changing stuff and that is no concern to you. You should be used to it. You love inconsistency and contradiction as well as changes as this is some sort of twisted support for Toe.

so were you wrong about genomes then?
It's ok to admit you misspoke.

Look at the bird research I have just posted. Do you think research will be the end of the confusion about birds? I doubt it, in fact I know it. While you are trying to make birds out of reptiles and reptiles out of fish you ain't going to sort anything out.

Yet another desperate attempt to deflect the subject away from your definition.

Now you can go check out your old fossils and see how they may fit in with everything. I wonder how long your universities will be selling outdated information and displaying erranous supporting research for incorrect classifications to unsuspecing students. Students would think these researchers actually knew what they were talking about..... YET AGAIN... THEY DID NOT.

Oh noes... new information... science is doomed! :faint:

Let's face it wolf your researchers are only skimming the top of this genetic research.

I never said otherwise... in fact I've said the same thing... it's very exciting. The difference is, I accept this as part of science.... you seem unable to accept it and it gets you in a tizzy.:sarcastic

Now about your definition of kind and how it accounts for the Thylacine.

Is it it's own kind since it fits neither criteria # 1 or #2?

How about the Woolley Mammoth? It fits neither criteria #1 or #2.

Are you willing to admit you misspoke about genomes never changing?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Biologists redraw entire bird evolutionary tree

Friday, 27 June 2008
This new tree contains several notable surprises.
For example, falcons are more closely related to songbirds than to other hawks and eagles. The closest kin of the diving birds called grebes turn out to be flamingos. And tiny, flashy hummingbirds, according to the new tree, are just a specialised form of nighthawks, whose squat, bulky bodies make them an unlikely cousin.
In fact, the new tree ended up regrouping about a third of all the orders in earlier phylogenies of birds.
According to Reddy, that shows you how inconsistent it has been.
The new tree may have profound implications for our understanding of the major innovations in the evolutionary history of birds, said Joel Cracraft, curator of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US.
According to Reddy, that shows you how inconsistent it has been.
The new tree may have profound implications for our understanding of the major innovations in the evolutionary history of birds, said Joel Cracraft, curator of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US.
For example, the new tree puts an order of flying birds, the tinamous, squarely in the midst of the flightless ostriches, emus and kiwis.
If true, this implies either that flightlessness evolved at least twice in this lineage, or else that the tinamous re-evolved flight from a flightless ancestor.

Can you cite your source please?

Seriously now, your scientists are hell bent on supporting toe. The bible states creatures of the sea and birds were the first living creations.

Your point?

Your scientists cannot deal with this because it is immpossible to explain how a some sort of aquatic creature took to flight.

Can't deal with what? Are you suggesting that what your bible is saying is that the fish evolved into flying birds? I'm not sure what your getting at by drawing the parallel.

Then you have the famous tiktaalic. He is supposed to be an example of the first animal that landed. Now you have evidence of a tetrapod roaming prior to Tik. What does that tell you?

It tells me you don't have an answer for the fossils using your definition of "kind" as you've openly admitted so why do you question what biologist suggest if you, yourself have admitted you don't know?

Now your birds are all over the place. This research has clarified some phylogeny but raised new conundrums. Even the cladistics fall apart with lizards and aves.

Don't forget to cite your source. Even if there is a shift because of new data that is how science works. Evolutionary Biology is not threatened by such discoveries rather it welcomes them so I don't see your point. Reclassification of species in lieu of new discovery is normal.

You will never, ever, get it right while you are trying to show this ancestry. Your confusion to date is yet another support for creation of kind.

And you will never get it. Your "kind" doesn't even show how ancestry is capable.

I do not accept messes as evidence for anything, unlike yourselves that toot all the inconsistencies and changes are what one can expect with toe. Sorry..that's not evidence..that guesstimation.

Fortunately Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with your lack of understanding, lack of acceptance nor your ego.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is still better than anything you can supply, it appears.

All it shows is that he was incapable of getting these chimps to fertilize. There was nothing stating that he found it impossible to do so. If it weren't for the unethical dilemma and him being locked up he may have continued his research. See we already know that humans and primates split long time ago and as the very wiki you cited says that in our evolutionary history both lines continued to interbreed.

I am talking about ability to fertilize without chemical changes. It really doesn't matter if I change point 2 to 'ability to sucessfully breed', genetic similarity should bring them back together.

I know what you're getting and and it changes nothing. IVF in our species can be difficult to achieve. Our understanding and technology far exceeds that of the 20s and we still encounter problems. The procedures of the 20s were crude and the results were inconclusive.

Look, we humans and chimps still meet your criteria #1.
Case in point;
What Makes Us Human? Studies of Chimp and Human DNA May Tell Us - Science Café - UCSF

 

[newhope101]

Dirtypenguin quote: All it shows is that he was incapable of getting these chimps to fertilize. There was nothing stating that he found it impossible to do so. If it weren't for the unethical dilemma and him being locked up he may have continued his research. See we already know that humans and primates split long time ago and as the very wiki you cited says that in our evolutionary history both lines continued to interbreed.

It does not matter. The point being you have nothing better than opinions to support your stance.

And here is some more to support my stance.

Comparative kinomics of human and chimpanzee reveal unique kinship and functional diversity generated by new domain combinations.

Anamika K, Martin J, Srinivasan N.
Molecular Biophysics Unit, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India. [email protected]
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Phosphorylation by protein kinases is a common event in many cellular processes. Further, many kinases perform specialized roles and are regulated by non-kinase domains tethered to kinase domain. Perturbation in the regulation of kinases leads to malignancy. We have identified and analysed putative protein kinases encoded in the genome of chimpanzee which is a close evolutionary relative of human.
RESULT: The shared core biology between chimpanzee and human is characterized by many orthologous protein kinases which are involved in conserved pathways. Domain architectures specific to chimp/human kinases have been observed. Chimp kinases with unique domain architectures are characterized by deletion of one or more non-kinase domains in the human kinases. Interestingly, counterparts of some of the multi-domain human kinases in chimp are characterized by identical domain architectures but with kinase-like non-kinase domain. Remarkably, out of 587 chimpanzee kinases no human orthologue with greater than 95% sequence identity could be identified for 160 kinases. Variations in chimpanzee kinases compared to human kinases are brought about also by differences in functions of domains tethered to the catalytic kinase domain. For example, the heterodimer forming PB1 domain related to the fold of ubiquitin/Ras-binding domain is seen uniquely tethered to PKC-like chimpanzee kinase.
CONCLUSION: Though the chimpanzee and human are evolutionary very close, there are chimpanzee kinases with no close counterpart in the human suggesting differences in their functions. This analysis provides a direction for experimental analysis of human and chimpanzee protein kinases in order to enhance our understanding on their specific biological roles.


So effectively I have produced some evidence, although old; and ADDITIONALLY other evidence, above as well as the Y chromosome, to illustrate that fertilization is unlikely. You have produced age old opinions made prior to recent data, nothing else, and you still think you have some robust stance. Sorry you loose.

 

[outhouse]

if you found a precambrian human

millions of fossils have been found and so far not one has been found out of place imagine that

you keep coming up with hypotheical nonsense afterall, its all you have