Creationists please define Kind

[newhope101]

Source?

And remember, such words and phrases as "unlikely", "as of yet", "no known occurrences" do not translate into "cannot".

Geneticists will confirm that it is theoretically possible, but as of yet, no conclusive evidence exists one way or the other.

For the 4th time or so

Wiki Humanzee - Research is references at the end of the wiki page.

In the 1920s the Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy.[citation needed] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving non human ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.[citation needed] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.

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

Got it???????????????????????????

 

[Autodidact]

Here are some of my unanswered questions from early in the thread:

If you take two creatures whose genome has not been mapped, and for which no one has ever tried to breed, how do you know if they're the same or a different kind?

You really need to think a little here. Where you have gone and mapped without genomic evidence you have been wrong many times. I am not putting up a theory of creation just a definition of kind. The evidence you have fits and that is all that is necessary, the same as Toe.

Uh, o.k. So what's the answer to my question?

Does the first method track pretty much with species?
And the second method is just slightly larger than species, correct?

What methods are you refering to.

Your definition (1)

Are you challenging that there are different ways of representing similarity. Don't..it's a big mistake, they can count the whole genome, just mtdna, not count junk, not count repeats etc.

I'm asking you a question about your definition.

Do any other creationists use your definition?

I don't know

Shall I research and find out?

Does your hypothesis include <10,000 year old earth, global flood, ark, etc?

I am not putting forward a hypothesis just a definition of kind that does not require a hypothesis. If I wanted to debate hypothesis for creation I'll go onto another thread.

Then what's the point of your definition, if you're not going to use it? I'm trying to determine whether your definition works--for you.

btw, what's the basis for your definition? How did you come up with it?

I was tired of evos saying it could not be done

So you just pulled it out of your posterior?

Hypothetically, if humans and chimps could interbreed, would they then be the same kind?

Yes

Thanks, that sounds right.

newhope: Your definition is very similar to species, do you agree? And your position is that all the kinds were created a long time ago, and no new kinds arise by evolution is that correct?

It doesn't matter. The bible put first ife in the seas also but that did not stop researchers from using the idea

It doesn't matter what your position is? Then why are you here?

So the tapir and rhinos now come into theor own kind under my defition.

On what basis?

MY DEFINITION.

How so? Do you know their genomic similarity to other species? Has someone tried to interbreed them? How do you know they meet your definition?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Source?

And remember, such words and phrases as "unlikely", "as of yet", "no known occurrences" do not translate into "cannot".

Geneticists will confirm that it is theoretically possible, but as of yet, no conclusive evidence exists one way or the other.

For the 4th time or so

Wiki Humanzee - Research is references at the end of the wiki page.

In the 1920s the SovietbiologistIlya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy.[citation needed] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving non human ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.[citation needed] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.

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 chimpanzeesdiverged 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

Got it???????????????????????????

Yeah, I got it, now where does it say...

Your researchers currently say that humans cannot breed with chimps ..

And again, remember, such words and phrases as "unlikely", "as of yet", "no known occurrences" do not translate into "cannot".

 

[newhope101]

I'll say it again...
I don't think Newhope understands that "Species", as a science term, is malleable to conform to new evidence.

Is "Kind", as a God given term in the Bible, adaptable to new evidence?

You best go ask someone that knows what you're on about. I am just here to put up a definition of kind. You evolutionists are sooooo frustrated that I can defend it that you have now resorted to irrelevant demands for evidence and now this philosophical nonsense. I am not here to define God, nor come up with a theory of creation, nor explain your controversies. If you can't think of an appropriate refute you should not show your frustration so easily.

If you cannot find a taxon that refutes my definition then you simply cannot refute my definition. Having to resort to all manner of sidelines, extinct taxa, and unrelated demands, like "Is God adaptable to new evidence", shows the scramble that must go on in some peoples heads.

I have defined Kind. If you are unable to point out where the application of my definition can be refuted in the real world then you have not refuted me at all.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You best go ask someone that knows what you're on about.......

......I have defined Kind. If you are unable to point out where the application of my definition can be refuted in the real world then you have not refuted me at all.

"Species", as a science term, is malleable to conform to new evidence.
A simple question for one who would take on the definition of "kind" is...

Is "Kind", as a God given term in the Bible, adaptable to new evidence?

 

[newhope101]

Yeah, I got it, now where does it say...




And again, remember, such words and phrases as "unlikely", "as of yet", "no known occurrences" do not translate into "cannot".

I'll say it again...
I don't think Newhope understands that "Species", as a science term, is malleable to conform to new evidence.

Is "Kind", as a God given term in the Bible, adaptable to new evidence?

You best go ask someone that knows what you're on about. I am just here to put up a definition of kind. You evolutionists are sooooo frustrated that I can defend it that you have now resorted to irrelevant demands for evidence and now this philosophical nonsense. I am not here to define God, nor come up with a theory of creation, nor explain your controversies. If you can't think of an appropriate refute you should not show your frustration so easily.

If you cannot find a taxon that refutes my definition then you simply cannot refute my definition. Having to resort to all manner of sidelines, extinct taxa, and unrelated demands, like "Is God adaptable to new evidence", shows the scramble that must go on in some peoples heads.

I have defined Kind. If you are unable to point out where the application of my definition can be refuted in the real world then you have not refuted me at all.


Your own researchers have had to explain the huge differences in the Y chromosome by accelerated evolution. Below the current thinking whether or not you like it and want to woffle and jump up and down for pages and pages like a spoiled child...getting very very desperate...This is annoying but very very good!!!!!

. 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),
In the 1920s the Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy

That sounds like evidence to me and far more than the woffle you have come up with. There are no perhaps or maybes in this. They did not reach ferilization in any experiment AND your researchers say we have diverged too much.

Better than the wish list you have provided..

 

[RedOne77]

There are no perhaps or maybes in this. They did not reach ferilization in any experiment AND your researchers say we have diverged too much.

If a man and a women cannot produce a baby after a few attempts does this mean that they are incompatible? I'm skeptical of human-chimp hybrids too, but there really is no conclusive evidence that such is impossible. Weirder things have happened in biology before. I say the jury is still out on this one.

 

[newhope101]

Look folks. Do an information transfer that most people can accomplish.

The species concept exists regardless of lack of evidence and any gaps, inability to DNA test old fossils, inability to explain the RNA regulation, despite arch being a sister species not a direct ancestor, inability to explain flight clearly etc . Species survives as a definition on its own merits, regardless.

Why does the species concept stand still? Because it is not an interpretation of the evidence, nor a classification system in itself. It is a descriptive tool and so is KIND. Your fossils are very theoretical and have nothing to do with any definition of species, or kind likewise. They can be classified much better with more info, if you ever get any, the same for you and me.

So if you are unable to refute my definition in the real world, don't bother bringing up your desperate sidelines and use of unresolved crap to turn this into more than it needs to be.

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.
2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring.

 

[newhope101]

If a man and a women cannot produce a baby after a few attempts does this mean that they are incompatible? I'm skeptical of human-chimp hybrids too, but there really is no conclusive evidence that such is impossible. Weirder things have happened in biology before. I say the jury is still out on this one.

Don't be skeptical as ther is none and there IS actual evidence to say is cannot happen. Do I have to post the research to refute your opinion yet again. Not good enough. Not by a long shot. A sure sign that you have nothing robust to refute

You cannot let this go ..can you? It's like a broken record going over the same old same old. No the jury is not out on this one until you provide more than your opinion. I have provided what scientists call evidence. You have provided your opinion. The jury of actual researchers say human and chimp cannot interbreed, unlike Autodidact that can't get past her own opinion. I have proved evidence. You have provided nothing but hot air. Are you a scientist or a soothesayer?

Stop wasting my time and yours.

 

[RedOne77]

Don't be skeptical as ther is none and there IS actual evidence to say is cannot happen. Do I have to post the research to refute your opinion yet again. Not good enough. Not by a long shot. A sure sign that you have nothing robust to refute

You cannot let this go ..can you? It's like a broken record going over the same old same old. No the jury is not out on this one until you provide more than your opinion. I have provided what scientists call evidence. You have provided your opinion. The jury of actual researchers say human and chimp cannot interbreed, unlike Autodidact that can't get past her own opinion. I have proved evidence. You have provided nothing but hot air. Are you a scientist or a soothesayer?

Stop wasting my time and yours.

As Tumbleweed pointed out, the research suggests that it is unlikely yet it's not a definitive "no". My guess is that such a hybridization would result in hybrid sterility and/or degradation like seen between lion and tiger hybrids. For all I know such hybridization is impossible in the lab; that's the point - there is not enough evidence to say either way with complete certainty.

All your sources, from what I've seen, suggests that human-chimp hybrids are unlikely but not impossible. There's a lot of ethical and legal issues attached to the issue which makes it hard to get good research in. I don't see how some scientist in the 1920's failing to make 3 female chimpanzees pregnant shows that such cannot happen.

So, if a man and a women cannot produce a baby after a few attempts does this mean that it's impossible?

 

[fantome profane]

Newhope101, are kind suppose to be immutable? It thought that was the whole point. But the problem here is that neither of your two criteria could be considered immutable.

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.

So let us imagine that we have an example of a two species (or two populations) that are 99.9% identical today. There is no reason to think that this condition is unchangeable. One hundred years from today those two species may be only 98.9% identical. If you feel this is unreasonable just increase the time period, 1000 years, 10 000 years, a million years etc. In fact unless there is constant gene flow between these two populations genetic diversion is inevitable. So this doesn’t work for a definition of kind, because if this is your criteria one “kind” can easily evolve into two “kinds”.

2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring.

The same problem applies with your second criteria. Imagine two species that can produce offspring. Now unless that offspring is viable, and reproduction does occur in the wild then there will be no gene flow between the two species (or populations). And as I already pointed out there will inevitably be a divergence in their genetics. So there is no reason to believe that two species that are capable of interbreeding today will continue to be able to interbreed 1000 years from today (or 10 000, or a million etc). So again with this criteria one “kind” can evolve into two “kinds”. Not only is it possible for this to happen, it is inevitable.

 

[newhope101]

Newhope101, are kind suppose to be immutable? It thought that was the whole point. But the problem here is that neither of your two criteria could be considered immutable.
So let us imagine that we have an example of a two species (or two populations) that are 99.9% identical today. There is no reason to think that this condition is unchangeable. One hundred years from today those two species may be only 98.9% identical. If you feel this is unreasonable just increase the time period, 1000 years, 10 000 years, a million years etc. In fact unless there is constant gene flow between these two populations genetic diversion is inevitable. So this doesn’t work for a definition of kind, because if this is your criteria one “kind” can easily evolve into two “kinds”.
The same problem applies with your second criteria. Imagine two species that can produce offspring. Now unless that offspring is viable, and reproduction does occur in the wild then there will be no gene flow between the two species (or populations). And as I already pointed out there will inevitably be a divergence in their genetics. So there is no reason to believe that two species that are capable of interbreeding today will continue to be able to interbreed 1000 years from today (or 10 000, or a million etc). So again with this criteria one “kind” can evolve into two “kinds”. Not only is it possible for this to happen, it is inevitable.

I am a creationist the genome will not change

 

[DeistPrimate]

Yes..I have answered autodidacts question.

You are talking nonsense that sounds a little desperate. What has chromosome numbers got to do with my definition? A guppy has 46 chromosomes like humans and that means nothing.

My point again is since we really don't know the total % difference between horse and donkey genomes we don't know if they comply with part 1 of your criteria but the differences in their chromosomes we do know about are very similar to those between humans and chimps. It's obvious, as someone else pointed out, you selected your criteria 99.9% homology in an attempt to negate humans and chimps being the same Kind but it is likely a comparison between donkey and horse genes would yield less than that percentage. Unfortunately the donkey and horse genomes have yet to be completely mapped so we won't know til they are.

DeistPrimate I have alread posted info re research that demonstrated that a chimp and humans cannot reach fertility. Do I really have to post it up again? You have read it in humanzee....
.....This is where I got my initial info from as referenced,,and yes I am a fan of Wiki. So you have found the site and read the info and still you ignore that the humanzee speaks to 2 experiments that could not achieve fertilization.

If you will not accept evidence we are done! Otherwise you can woffle on for pages about what you think and what you hope and I'll start quoting from the bible just to annoy you. As far as I am concerned that should be the end of the subject unless you can provide evidence.

If you read the Wiki review of the alleged hybridization experiments you'll note they can't conclude no fertilization took place, only that no noticeable pregnancies resulted and you should also note for the most part the alleged experiments ran into one obstacle after another against even getting a trial underway. These examples, even if historic (which is by no means verified) don't invalidate human/chimp fertility at all.

There are many many problems with the concept of species, yet it is still the definition you use and defend. There are also many many many questions unresolved within evo science. Are you suggesting that I should be able to do better?

First you need to provide a demonstrably usable definition effective for more than just drawing a line between chimps and humans while not doing so for other comparable hybrids.

You have requested a definition of kind. I have provided one. Your horses and donkeys and mules and whatever else you are on about fits nicely within my definition. I have no problems with the first horse kinds being created then they spread, adapted, some genetic drift, some mutations the RNA regulation did its' thing and bingo you have all sorts and variations of horse kinds that researchers have given species names to. I don't have a problem. What's your problem?

So you accept that Kinds can develop into daughter Kinds or are you saying two variations of a Kind sometimes can't breed true thus a Kind doesn't always breed after its own Kind? If that's the case then Kinds evolve.

 

[DeistPrimate]

It seems your researchers are also confused. I'm just little old me coming up with a definition of kind that now has to solve all the riddles of fossil identification better than your own researchers can. It is a shame you do not hold your own science up to similar rigour, both as a science and in relation to your species concept ...

...I am keen to see how you apply your species definition (unable to successfully interbreed) to classify these old fossils. Me thinks you are trying to use unreasonable ploys to maintain your agenda here PW. Not nice, nor ethical, but rather desperate.

Standard taxonomy can provide genera at the very least to extinct forms assuming evolutionary relationships and common descent. There are sometimes revisions if genetic data becomes available (as with recent neandertal mtDNA samples).

Your method completely fails at the task of classifying many fossil forms, especially the obviously transitional ones. Standard evolutionary classifications remain effective.

 

[DeistPrimate]

PS Newhope,

Would you like a tutorial on using the quote function?

No kiddin', good grief.

Your researchers currently say that humans cannot breed with chimps NOW and you had better accept your own researchers or cough up more than just a wish list of evidence.

Amazing your capacity to attend to 'research' you believe supports your position while totally ignorant reams of it it which doesn't.

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


Got it???????????????????????????

Yes yes we 'got it', you think because alleged scattered and often troubled attempts by early 20th Century soviet scientists to breed humans with chimps produced no verified pregnancies such cross fertilization is impossible despite most modern geneticists agreeing such a cross is biologically possible.

<LI class=byline sizcache="0" sizset="56">Ian Sample, science correspondent <LI class=publication sizcache="0" sizset="57">The Guardian, Thursday 18 May 2006 <LI class=history>Article historyIt could be the oldest, not to mention the messiest, break-up in history. When humans and chimpanzees split up along the path of evolution, they carried on having sex for as long as 4m years, geneticists claim today.
The revelation suggests that the history of humanity may be far more complex than scientists appreciated.
A comparison of snippets of DNA from humans, chimps and other primates shows that after parting company up to 10m years ago early humans and chimps continued to swap genes by interbreeding, until a final split much later. The study suggests the species split for good probably less than 5.4m years ago.
Geneticists believe the interbreeding theory is the best explanation of why the X chromosomes of humans and chimps remain so similar to this day.
Dr David Reich at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT in Boston said: "The study gave unexpected results about how we separated from our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. We found that the population structure that existed around the time of human-chimpanzee speciation was unlike any modern ape population. Something very unusual happened at the time."
The scientists hypothesise that interbreeding between our ancestral humans and early chimps created a third, infertile "hybrid" species, the human equivalent of a mule, the infertile offspring of a horse and donkey. Though incapable of breeding among its own, the hybrid is believed to have survived by mating with its parent human or chimp species, before the two separated to follow the two distinct evolutionary paths that led to modern humans and chimps.
Dr Reich, whose study appears today in the journal Nature, said: "Hybridisation is commonly observed to play a role in speciation in plants, but evolutionary biologists do not generally view it as an important way to produce a new species in animals.
"An event between human and chimpanzee ancestors could help explain both the wide range of divergence times seen across our genomes, as well as the relatively similar X chromosomes. That such evolutionary events have not been seen more often in animal species may simply be due to the fact that we have not been looking for them."
Genetic studies of humans and chimps have previously looked only at the average difference between the two species, but the latest study looked at specific variations accumulated over millions of years across the entire genome. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/18/uknews

 

[fantome profane]

I am a creationist the genome will not change

:faint:

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard a creationist say, and I have heard creationists say a lot of ridiculous things. You might as well say that the earth does not move. Of course the genome changes over time, we see this happening all the time.

Ok, so give me one reference to any biologists or geneticist that that says the genome doesn’t change. Just give me one.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.
2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring.

In other words, kinds are a fiction with no basis in reality. I get it.

I'm interested in the answer to fantome prophane's challenge. Is there any biologist, anywhere, who claims that genomes don't change?

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is annoying but very very good!!!!!

. 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),
In the 1920s the Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy

That sounds like evidence to me and far more than the woffle you have come up with. There are no perhaps or maybes in this. They did not reach ferilization in any experiment AND your researchers say we have diverged too much.

Better than the wish list you have provided..

Yes Newhope, it is becoming clearer and clearer that you have no idea what the research is even saying,

Non-Hominid Primates, as mentioned in Bedfords paper are not members of the Great Ape family. Bedford goes on to say that it may be possible to hybridize human and Hominidae, or members of the Great Ape family, such as chimpanzee or bonobo.

And the 1920's experiments are non-conclusive. Were you aware that in-vitro fertilization for humans was not successful until the late 70's?




But back to my other question.
You have taken on the challenge of providing a description of kind.
Kind is a Biblical term used by Creationist to promote "each after their own kind" taxonomy.
In science, terms such as species are mutable, and can change as new evidence is found.
My question to you is simple.
Is the definition of kind, incomplete as it is, subject to change as new evidence is uncovered, or is it immutable and fixed.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I am a creationist the genome will not change

Does this statement infer that despite evidence, you will stick to Biblical dogma?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Autodidact..please forgive my frustration, but I have posted this at least twice already. As unethical as it seems human non human primate experiments have been conducted and no fertilization occured. Furthermore, reseachers under the presumption of ancestry have concluded that the human line and chimps have been unable to breed for some time.

How many many many times do I have to post this? How many times do you have to see it to comprehend it? Do you think someone in Wiki or your researchers or the dozens of testimonies to same, are lying or keeping the truth from us all? Do you think your current researchers are wrong or lying in saying we no longer can breed with chimps? Honestly it is really frustrating to have to restablish points over and over and over again.

Unless you have evidence, not what some bloke thought, to the contrary, then you have to accept that for the moment, according to previous unethical experiments and current theories relating to current genomic knowledge by your leading researchers that.... humans and chimps CANNOT INTERBREED.

A definition of gene, a definition of species, a definition of RNA, a definition of cell does not have to answer every question from within its meaning. They all may add to the whole, but in themselves are only definitions for a very small part of the whole picture.

Yes if I have missed questions, please repost. I am a little busy and expecting a few refugees from the Queensland floods, which have been devastating. I apologise for missing any appropriate questions that relate to my definition. I don't apologise for the fact that a definition of kind is not meant to resolve all creational or evolutionary conundrums.

Wiki Humanzee,In the 1920s the SovietbiologistIlya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy.[citation needed] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving non human ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.[citation needed] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.
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 chimpanzeesdiverged 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.

And it has been pointed out already that the understanding and technology in that era would not have been feasible for such an experiment to work anyway. Again, as pointed out that even in this day in time IVF has a high rate of failure with human to human IVF. Also note that in this day in time a woman may go for multiple IVF procedures and may never become pregnant so a decades old experiment such as the one you cite above is not conclusive that it would not work. We also have to take into consideration that human to human IVF, while having a high rate of failure, can be successful or overly successful with the aid of medicines to help increase the woman's chance of pregnancy but I must point out that even that is not always successful either.