The thing is your species are simply in kind variations that have been given different names
Species is the best classification in regards to biological diversity. Using the word "kind" and lumping everything into one group (per se) is vague and sloppy.
A kind must meet at least one of the two criteria
1. A kind is a group of organisms that share 99.9% similarity, based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms.
HIV has nothing to do with my definition.
Oh, but it does. We're genetically similar. No other species on the planet can contract HIV other than certain primates and humans. No other non-primate species on the planet can be infected by or transmit HIV to humans. Certain primates can because of this genetic similarity.
HIV Originated With Monkeys, Not Chimps, Study Finds
"Scientists now say that the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) in chimpanzees (
Pan troglodytes), which is believed to have been transmitted to humans to become HIV-1—the virus that causes AIDS—didn't start its life in chimps. Instead, it was a product of separate viruses jumping from different monkey species into chimps, where they recombined to form a hybrid virus, according to a new study."
"Because of the similarity between chimpanzees and humans, any virus that successfully adapts to spreading among chimps would be a candidate for a further jump to humans—a potential HIV-3," said Paul Sharp of the Institute of Genetics at University of Nottingham in England, who led the study."
"The new findings thus show that humans are not the only primate species to acquire two different immunodeficiency viruses by cross-species transmission."
No absolutely wrong. Creationists would not be looking for ancestry. They would be looking for variation within kinds. Hence their hypothesis of the evidence would be unlike yours.
I agree which is why creationist need to stay out of science. Biology is about the study of life. It also studies how life is related. If "creation scientist" aren't looking to do that then they have no business in science.
What you are correct about is that I am reliant on flawed hypothesis of fossils to work with that has been confused by the presumption of ancestry. That is a shame.
Then what "creation scientist" need to do is "Falsify" the excepted evidence. It's easy for you the play scientist online at a bulletin board and twist the current evidence to suit your purpose but it's another thing altogether to "Falsify" the evidence. It would actually take...doing some actual research on your researchers parts. To date they have not done this....now that's a shame.
Some of your researchers want to put chimps into the genus homo due to genetic similarity.
Ok, so you do agree that we are genetically similar? Here I go thinking you didn't think we were genetically similar. Once again...we meet your criteria number #1.
Look to any other genus and the similarity between species that reside at that rank. Now think of chimps and humans. If all you see are four limbs and a head then say yes we are similar there really is no more that can be said to save you.
OK, so you (don't) think we're genetically similar. Which one is it?
Humans, despite all the rattle, are very different to chimps both morphologiclly
I agree there are some morphological difference but again, the difference between you and I is due to our evolutionary history I don't expect them all to be exactly alike. Chimpanzees and Human anatomy is more alike than different. If you think they're not then please elaborate (with scientific evidence).
and in the formation of reasoning. This is absurd, and demonstrates further that your researchers are lost in the forrest and cannot see the forest for the trees getting in the way.
Depending on your understanding of (reasoning). Maybe you can elaborate on this one as well.
