Creationists please define Kind

[outhouse]

So effectively I have produced some evidence,

you have not provided one shred of anything ressembling evidence of any kind

how many times must we tell you, picking on ToE is not evidence for your outlawed myth

 

[painted wolf]

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.

Do you have any idea what you just posted?
Any at all?

You are just desperately grasping at anything that demonstrates that chimp and humans are different species in some vain hope that it will support you.

What kinases in this paper are so different that it prevents any chance interfertility?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

ADDITIONALLY [/b]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.

You've produced no evidences. You produced what I produced....scientific opinion as it pertains to the current evidences. The difference between the two of us is the same scientist you cite do not dispute human and primate evolutionary history and maintain we are related. I accept it and you don't.


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

 

[outhouse]

You've produced no evidences. You produced what I produced....scientific opinion as it pertains to the current evidences. The difference between the two of us is the same scientist you cite do not dispute human and primate evolutionary history and maintain we are related.


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

Now you know without quote mining she has nothing to post. If her copy/paste quit working we wouldnt see her again

 

[David M]

Biologists redraw entire bird evolutionary tree

So what?

The title is a lie, they have not redrawn the entire bird evolutionary tree, they have rearranged the more recent twigs to conform to observed reality because we now have better evidence from genetics than we had from genetic.

And the redraw shows, yet again, that birds evolved from common ancestors. It reinforces the point that you so desperately want to ignore, that minor alterations to the history of life does not invalidate ToE in the slightest.

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

That is because a) the evidence does support ToE and b) science is not dogmatic and unwilling to change when there is evidence that its wrong.

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

Then the bible is wrong, birds are very recent compared to sea creatures and were preceded by innumerable land creatures.

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

Apart from flying fish that would be because ToE does not suggest that aquatic creatures took flight. The fact that you are unaware of this shows your total ignorance of how life evolved.

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?

Well this tells me that you are misrepresenting the facts and desperately clutching to your ignorance of the truth about evolution.

No scientist ever claimed that Tiktaalic was the first animal that landed, because Tiktaalik is not even claimed to be a land dweller. What was claimed is that Tiktaalik was a transitional species between fish and land-dwelling tetrapods and that is exactly what its features show.

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.

You don't accept any evidence for anything other than your interpretation of the bible.

 

[newhope101]

You've produced no evidences. You produced what I produced....scientific opinion as it pertains to the current evidences. The difference between the two of us is the same scientist you cite do not dispute human and primate evolutionary history and maintain we are related.


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

Yeah...and what? there is no informatiom whatsoever in the above link that refers to humans ability to mate with chimps. Rather it confirms that although chimps and humans are supposedly close ancestors we have diversifeid much more in the allocated time than other sister species. If anything this article supports my claim.

The Y chormosome is also equivalent to 310 million years like a chicken to human. Perhaps a chicken and human can mate also, according to you.

The top-ranking piece of human DNA to emerge form Pollard’s first comprehensive round of number-crunching differed from chimp DNA in 18 of 118 base pairs. In contrast, between chimp and chicken —a vertebrate that has evolved on a separate path from our evolutionary ancestors for about 300 million years – there were only two differences along the same DNA stretch. Pollard and colleagues named the DNA segment HAR1, for “human accelerated region.” The name refers to this DNA’s relatively fast evolution in our human ancestors.
Pollard’s colleagues subsequently showed that HAR1 encodes RNA. But it’s not like the biology-textbook messenger RNA that is translated into protein. Instead the HAR1-encoded RNA has a more direct influence. There is more to learn about HAR1 RNA, but already a Belgian colleague of Pollard’s has shown that it is made in specific nerve cells within the brain’s developing cerebral cortex.

As usual you need accelerated evolutiion to explain your mess.

I note you did not speak to the other research.

So again..I win you loose.

Still I have produced better evidence then you, even if it is old. You have shown nothing..nor will you do any better than gropping in the dark.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf, Davidm, dirtypenguin and the rest of you SHAME!

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa. 1977
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.
　
AND:.....
Pediaview - Humanzee
In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford[6] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.

In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.[7]

However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist.


　References

1. ^ "Chimps are human, gene study implies". New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744. Retrieved 2006-02-24.
2. ^ Naming Hybrid Big Cats from Messybeast.com accessed march 15, 2009
3. ^ IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA (October 1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88 (20): 9051–5. PMID 1924367. PMC 52649. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=1924367.
4. ^ Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W. "Direct Evidence for a Pan-Homo Clade". Chromosome Research 10 (1): 55–61. doi:10.1023/A:1014222311431. http://www.springerlink.com/content/kl5yfu1eawl95xfh/.
5. ^ Chandley, AC; Short, RV; Allen, WR (1975). "Cytogenetic studies of three equine hybrids". Journal of Reproductive Fertility (23): 356–70. PMID 1060807.
6. ^ Bedford JM (August 1977). "Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa". Anat. Rec. 188 (4): 477–87. doi:10.1002/ar.1091880407. PMID 409311.
7. ^ Brown, David (May 18, 2006). "Human Ancestors May Have Interbred With Chimpanzees". Washington Post. pp. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051702158.html. Retrieved 2006-06-13.
8. ^ Rossiianov, Kirill (2002). "Beyond species: Il'ya Ivanov and his experiments on cross-breeding humans with anthropoid apes". Science in Context 15 (2): 277–316. PMID 12467272.
9. ^ "10. Oliver the Mutant Chimp". Archived from the original on 2005-12-28. http://web.archive.org/web/20051228045237/http://www.parascope.com/en/cryptozoo/missingLinks10.htm. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
10. ^ Wade, Nicholas. "Two Splits Between Human and Chimp Lines Suggested", The New York Times, 18 May 2006

I have produced evidence YET AGAIN. … and ALL of you are simply going to choose to ignore it and refute with side winding crap and other peoples non tested opinion over research. Good one! Don't ever throw your credentials at a creationist ever again. Believe me I’ll remember it!

 

[fantome profane]

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.

A Precambrian human would disprove the theory of evolution. I say that without reservation. I want to go on record saying that. If anyone found human fossil remains that could be dated to a Precambrian era I would immediately reject the theory of evolution in its totality. Is that a definite enough statement for you? If you want to save this so you can quote it back to me if such a discovery were to be made please do.

But this still would not be evidence of Creationism.

 

[Amill]

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 keep bringing up this precambrian human or bunny crap because you found some wikipedia quote of a philosopher saying that it wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution... Woop di doo, do you have any quotes of a BIOLOGIST saying something similar? Of course not, but it's the best piece of trash you can muster to "prove" that evolutionists are ignorant and would do anything to hold onto the ToE. I'm having a hard time staying civil because you've been told time and time again about how this notion is a joke and how your quote is pathetic. Find some other straws to grab because biologists would most definitely have to rethink the explanations for the diversity of life on earth if any humans or bunnies existed in the precambrian.

Oh, and why again did God give manatees(aquatic mammals) hoof caps(fingernails)? Just wondering.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yeah...and what? there is no informatiom whatsoever in the above link that refers to humans ability to mate with chimps. Rather it confirms that although chimps and humans are supposedly close ancestors we have diversifeid much more in the allocated time than other sister species. If anything this article supports my claim.

That's because you said a "kind" must meet one of the two criteria you presented. The evidence shows that we meet your criteria #1.

The Y chormosome is also equivalent to 310 million years like a chicken to human. Perhaps a chicken and human can mate also, according to you.

Still stuck on the Y chromosome I see. We've been over this already ad nauseum. The biologist involved in the actual research maintains the ancestry between humans and chimps. I know you don't agree but that's your prerogative. In fact all life on the planet is related, some more closely than others given our evolutionary history but I don't really expect you to understand that.

As the link I provided maintains we're related. We're related so much via genetics that chimpanzees as well as a couple other primates remain a crucial part in the understanding of HIV research in humans. So once again, primates and humans meet your criteria #1.

The top-ranking piece of human DNA to emerge form Pollard’s first comprehensive round of number-crunching differed from chimp DNA in 18 of 118 base pairs. In contrast, between chimp and chicken —a vertebrate that has evolved on a separate path from our evolutionary ancestors for about 300 million years – there were only two differences along the same DNA stretch. Pollard and colleagues named the DNA segment HAR1, for “human accelerated region.” The name refers to this DNA’s relatively fast evolution in our human ancestors.
Pollard’s colleagues subsequently showed that HAR1 encodes RNA. But it’s not like the biology-textbook messenger RNA that is translated into protein. Instead the HAR1-encoded RNA has a more direct influence. There is more to learn about HAR1 RNA, but already a Belgian colleague of Pollard’s has shown that it is made in specific nerve cells within the brain’s developing cerebral cortex.

As usual you need accelerated evolutiion to explain your mess.

The fundamental flaw in your assumption is that you appear to think we're supposed to be evolving at the same rate and if you truly understood evolution you'd realize how asinine that line of reasoning is.

So again..I win you loose.

I wasn't aware we are in competition.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Paintedwolf, Davidm, dirtypenguin and the rest of you SHAME!

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa. 1977
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.
　
AND:.....
Pediaview - Humanzee
In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford[6] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.

In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.[7]

However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist.


　References

1. ^ "Chimps are human, gene study implies". New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744. Retrieved 2006-02-24.
2. ^ Naming Hybrid Big Cats from Messybeast.com accessed march 15, 2009
3. ^ IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA (October 1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88 (20): 9051–5. PMID 1924367. PMC 52649. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=1924367.
4. ^ Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W. "Direct Evidence for a Pan-Homo Clade". Chromosome Research 10 (1): 55–61. doi:10.1023/A:1014222311431. http://www.springerlink.com/content/kl5yfu1eawl95xfh/.
5. ^ Chandley, AC; Short, RV; Allen, WR (1975). "Cytogenetic studies of three equine hybrids". Journal of Reproductive Fertility (23): 356–70. PMID 1060807.
6. ^ Bedford JM (August 1977). "Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa". Anat. Rec. 188 (4): 477–87. doi:10.1002/ar.1091880407. PMID 409311.
7. ^ Brown, David (May 18, 2006). "Human Ancestors May Have Interbred With Chimpanzees". Washington Post. pp. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051702158.html. Retrieved 2006-06-13.
8. ^ Rossiianov, Kirill (2002). "Beyond species: Il'ya Ivanov and his experiments on cross-breeding humans with anthropoid apes". Science in Context 15 (2): 277–316. PMID 12467272.
9. ^ "10. Oliver the Mutant Chimp". Archived from the original on 2005-12-28. http://web.archive.org/web/20051228045237/http://www.parascope.com/en/cryptozoo/missingLinks10.htm. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
10. ^ Wade, Nicholas. "Two Splits Between Human and Chimp Lines Suggested", The New York Times, 18 May 2006

I have produced evidence YET AGAIN. … and ALL of you are simply going to choose to ignore it and refute with side winding crap and other peoples non tested opinion over research. Good one! Don't ever throw your credentials at a creationist ever again. Believe me I’ll remember it!

Who cares.........?

ALL of this information confirms that we still meet your criteria #1. Criteria #2 is void since #1 has been met.

 

[David M]

Paintedwolf, Davidm, dirtypenguin and the rest of you SHAME!

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa. 1977
<snip>Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.<snip>

Chimps are Hominoidea, which means that this study shows that human sperm will probably attach to the ova of chimps. Note that this experiment was not testing for actual pregnancy (I doubt such an experiment would be possible nowadays what with the need to get ethics board approval).

.
Pediaview - Humanzee
In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford[6] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.

Once again, chimps are Hominoidea. So this quote says there is compatibility between chimps and humans when it comes to sperm attachmenmt.

I have produced evidence YET AGAIN. &#8230; and ALL of you are simply going to choose to ignore it and refute with side winding crap and other peoples non tested opinion over research. Good one! Don't ever throw your credentials at a creationist ever again. Believe me I&#8217;ll remember it!

Once again you have produced no evidence that a chimp/human hybrid is not possible. The studies on sperm attachment show that human sperm will attach to the ova of non-human Hominoidea, and chimps ARE Hominoidea.

Your claim is refuted by the very articles you have quoted. Because they say the opposite of what you are claiming they say.

I don't have to go to "other peoples non tested opinion", the research you have quoted is sufficient to show that you are wrong.

Here is a simple question: Are you aware that chimpanzees are in the same taxonomic family as Humans, that being the Hominoidea?

 

[newhope101]

Chimps are Hominoidea, which means that this study shows that human sperm will probably attach to the ova of chimps. Note that this experiment was not testing for actual pregnancy (I doubt such an experiment would be possible nowadays what with the need to get ethics board approval).

NO YOU NOTE..the experiment was set up well enough that the sperm ENTERED but WOULD NOT ATTACH to the Zona. So basically you are woffling on for nothing.

Once again, chimps are Hominoidea. So this quote says there is compatibility between chimps and humans when it comes to sperm attachmenmt.
A human sperm will also enter a mouse cell but not fertilize. fertilization is the 'fusion of gametes'. Hence fertilization did NOT occur. So your words are empty.


Once again you have produced no evidence that a chimp/human hybrid is not possible. The studies on sperm attachment show that human sperm will attach to the ova of non-human Hominoidea, and chimps ARE Hominoidea.
Yes I have and you are talking rubbish. Furthermore you have produced nothing to the contrary other than your opinion and inability to use data at hand. Further more, even your scientists often refer to this research in their research. It is this unscientific forum, that is being childish in desperation and I can see it,,and I love it. This shows how desperate you truly are.
Your claim is refuted by the very articles you have quoted. Because they say the opposite of what you are claiming they say.
No it is not. They have higlighted the diffeernces, as well as plainly shown fertilzation cannot occur. It is you lot that maintain this sick fettish.
I don't have to go to "other peoples non tested opinion", the research you have quoted is sufficient to show that you are wrong.
Yes you do. The proof is in your inability to use the research that your scientists refer to and your inability to provide anything to refute that research. You are obviously not aware that human sperm can enter many interspecies cells, yet cannot fuse. If you only were on top of your research you would not say half the stuff you come up with.
Here is a simple question: Are you aware that chimpanzees are in the same taxonomic family as Humans, that being the Hominoidea?

Yes I am. I also know that some researchers want to put chimps into Homo. So what?



Again this forum cannot accept their own research. It was set up well enough that sperm entered the egg but fusion of gametes did NOT occur. You have produced nothing better. Get it?

I hope that any other creationists dropping into this thread can see how desperate and frustrated you all have become, to the point where pages and pages have turned and you have produced absolutely nothing to refute me. Rather many of you have shown you are not ethical enough to walk in a scientists shadow...just pretenders.

You like your species definition with all it's exceptions. Yet, you continue to harp although you cannot defend your stance with research.

The request was not for a definition of kind that you lot would like. I have provided a definition. You cannot refute it. You do not have to like it and you do not have to accept it.

You truly are showing your colours with your desperation and extremely non scientific stance. Well done!



Epigenetic analysis of human spermatozoa after their injection into ovulated mouse oocytes 2007

BACKGROUND The epigenetic status of human spermatozoa is difficult to analyse. The method of interspecies fertilization can be used for different purposes. The aim of our work was to adopt this approach for the detailed analysis of epigenetic status of human spermatozoa injected into mouse oocytes.
METHODS Human spermatozoa were injected into ovulated mouse oocytes. When both parental pronuclei were formed, the zygotes were fixed and labeled with antibodies against histones methylated or acetylated at different positions (residues).
RESULTS Our results show that human spermatozoa injected into mouse oocytes fully respond to oocyte cytoplasmic factors and form analysable pronuclei. The labeling of zygotes showed that as in other species, the paternal chromatin is extensively epigenetically remodeled.
CONCLUSIONS The interspecies ICSI may be a powerful tool for the analysis of sperm epigenetic status even with a very low number of spermatozoa available. This analysis could be used as an additional approach for the assessment of certain forms of human infertility, as well as for testing the normality of male gametes obtained from embryonic stem cells.

 

[LuisDantas]

There ought to be a medal.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

There are two kinds of people: those who accept science and those who reject it. Then are creationists, who pretend to accept it while rejecting it. I suspect you are in that camp.

 

[painted wolf]

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa. 1977
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.

OMG... did you bother to actually read this?

This says that human sperm can attach to ape eggs... that includes Chimps! :jiggy:

This says the exact opposite of what you think it does! It supports the idea that humans and chimps can interfertilize. :biglaugh:

It also supports the evolutionary relationship between humans and apes. :woohoo:

Thanks for providing evidence against your own argument.

Now, about that Thylacine and Woolly Mammoth... according to your definition they must be their own kinds.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now, about that Thylacine and Woolly Mammoth... according to your definition they must be their own kinds.

wa:do

I'd like to also know where the Thylacine fits as far as "kind" as well.

Shucks, primates and humans fit criteria #1 of the definition she gave. Genetically we are very, very similar as I laid out to her from biologist conducting HIV research. No other species that we know of is as similar to us genetically than primates. That we know of, no other species is affected by HIV. This goes to show that we are related and fit into her definition #1 of "kind"......

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf: Another attempt at misrepresentation, just like your Y chromo ramble. Try reading the article again without blinkers on that says....

On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested.

Do you know what fertilization means? Obviously not..it's pretty basic. Back to BIO101 for you.

Dirty Penguin I have already spoken to this..I am not here to educate you.

Wiki: Several studies support the thylacine as being a basal member of the Dasyuromorphia and that the Tasmanian devil is its closest living relative. However, research published in Genome Research in January 2009 suggests that the numbat may be more basal than the devil and more closely related to the thylacine.[22]

†Thylacinidae
Dasyuridae
Myrmecobiidae

I'd say the three families under Dasyuromorphia are kinds, one has gone extinct, according to Wiki.

Besides treatment of the outer ovum membrane to allow anything is not 'ability to fertilize'.

I'll say the same thing to you as I did PW...Too bad your researchers did not get it righ until 2009, and who knows if it is correct now.

This thread is not about disproving Toe or proving creation. It is about a creationists ability to define kind with some sort of meaning. I have done so. I don't like your species concept and what does tha mean in the grand scheme of things?..absolutely nothing, just like your opinion.

Sorry folkes..I'm getting tired of wasting my time on this thread with a bunch of would be scientists. I've learned lots. Mostly that your researchers are grabbing at straws. I might go annoy some other thread for a while.

I have defined kind. It's better than David M's definition of kind which is not a valid definition at all.

No louisdantas, no medal required. I HAVE SIMPLY DEFINED KIND as I see it. You and others do not have to like it. If you did, that would be a miracle and support of creation...so please don't like it and keep spending 16 hours a day on line hitting on creationists. That's a reflection of most of your lives.

It is now up to another creationist to give up their definition of kind and watch these evos revel in hatred.

 

[Amill]

Paintedwolf: Another attempt at misrepresentation, just like your Y chromo ramble. Try reading the article again without blinkers on that says....

On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested.

She read it correctly, it is you who missed this line apparently

They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro.

[youtube]S3CI8I5Si_U[/youtube]
Gibbons are awesome

So basically the spermatozoa was able to attach and penetrate another ape's(the furthest ape in relation to us actually) oocyte but wasn't able to even attach to any non-ape primate oocytes. This is evidence supporting the fact that we're more genetically related to apes than to non ape primates.

What exactly did you think the article suggested?

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf: Another attempt at misrepresentation, just like your Y chromo ramble. Try reading the article again without blinkers on that says....

On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested.

Do you understand the term "sub-hominoid"?
You realize that this says that human spermatozoa can attach and potentially fertilize hominoid (ape) but not sub-hominoid (monkey) and non-primate (anything not monkey or ape).

Did you not bother to read the rest?

Do you know what fertilization means? Obviously not..it's pretty basic. Back to BIO101 for you.

Do you know what the article says? It says that fusion is possible with apes as primitive as Gibbons. Back to reading 101 for you.

Dirty Penguin I have already spoken to this..I am not here to educate you.

Wiki: Several studies support the thylacine as being a basal member of the Dasyuromorphia and that the Tasmanian devil is its closest living relative. However, research published in Genome Research in January 2009 suggests that the numbat may be more basal than the devil and more closely related to the thylacine.[22]

†Thylacinidae
Dasyuridae
Myrmecobiidae

I'd say the three families under Dasyuromorphia are kinds, one has gone extinct, according to Wiki.

What is your justification for this? How does your definition of kinds account for it?
What is their genetic relationship and interfertility?

What about the subfamilies?

Essentially you are just accepting what wiki says scientists say and then flipping and saying scientists have no clue what they are doing. It's very dizzying...or hypocritical.

Besides treatment of the outer ovum membrane to allow anything is not 'ability to fertilize'.

I'll say the same thing to you as I did PW...Too bad your researchers did not get it righ until 2009, and who knows if it is correct now.

This thread is not about disproving Toe or proving creation. It is about a creationists ability to define kind with some sort of meaning. I have done so. I don't like your species concept and what does tha mean in the grand scheme of things?..absolutely nothing, just like your opinion.

You have done so... and claimed it is superior. But you refuse to address any flaw,s as if doing so makes the flaws disappear. Instead you try to deflect and then insult the poster who dares question you.

Sorry folkes..I'm getting tired of wasting my time on this thread with a bunch of would be scientists. I've learned lots. Mostly that your researchers are grabbing at straws. I might go annoy some other thread for a while.

I have defined kind. It's better than David M's definition of kind which is not a valid definition at all.

No louisdantas, no medal required. I HAVE SIMPLY DEFINED KIND as I see it. You and others do not have to like it. If you did, that would be a miracle and support of creation...so please don't like it and keep spending 16 hours a day on line hitting on creationists. That's a reflection of most of your lives.

It is now up to another creationist to give up their definition of kind and watch these evos revel in hatred.

So, you are simply going to continue to sling insults? :sarcastic

Honestly, there is no hatred on my part... amusement perhaps. But really, I like to ask questions... unfortunately some people can't handle having their assertions questioned. Thinking about the details of your declarations is perhaps too much to ask.

wa:do