FreeHovind - What Kind is a Human?

What Kind is a Human?

24 Comments - 3954 Views

Submitted By ben on 09/03/02

Hovindisaninny

Mus spretus, Mus caroli, and Mus musculus are three types of mice. I presume that they are one "kind" as we are told that Noah took two of each kind and not two of each species.

Funny thing. M Spretus differs from M Musculus by 2.5% and M Caroli differs from Musculus by 4.5% at silent sites. Now what about humans, chimps, and orangutans? Well those numbers are 1.08% and 2.98%. So we are closer related to other primates than types of mice are to each other.

That is just a strange case though. Maybe we should look at elephants? Nah, maybe not.

Science 2002 April 12; 296: 340-343

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 24 Replies

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/03/02 - 19:27 GMT

-Humanoid-

As of now, the baraminology system is not complete, yet. Baraminology is the result of dissent to creation. Baraminology was the basis for speciation, but the unions are utilized in a different way.

Not only does relational features to monkeys not qualify as evidence for having a 'common ancestor', it doesn't constitute anything but similiar features, which is the foundation of creation argument.

We know that humans are a kind of their own as they only breed with humans. Not to mention chemical anatomy is entirely different.

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/03/02 - 20:09 GMT

Well, Chimps only breed with other chimps, does that make them their own "kind"? Zebras and Horses can reproduce, albeit rarely, so are they the same kind? This system of "kinds" is so incomplete I wonder why you even use it.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/02 - 20:23 GMT

The question I asked on my other topic was what science is baraminology based on? No one could answer it. There is no record of an empirical analysis of “kinds” preformed by creationists. We already know why humans and chimps have 98.8% similar DNA but look different. It’s to do with regulatory genes. In other words, we don’t look and act different because our genomes code for different features, but because different genes are expressed to a greater extent in different species. This has been tested. You can find scientific articles about the regulatory sequences in humans and chimps.

Your system has no science behind it. Saying that evolution is wrong over and over doesn’t make creationism any more right. I would love to see an experiment preformed by a creationist that explicitly shows why evolution is wrong.

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/03/02 - 20:30 GMT

So are horses and donkeys the same kind? I ask because there is no barrier preventing a human sperm from fertilizing a chimp egg and only the morality of scientists prevents a humanzee from coming forth. If there was a humanzee would that be evidence that chimps and humans are the same kind?

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/02 - 23:54 GMT

O.k. We'll put morals aside for a second and for the sake of science suppose that you mated with a chimp. I doubt you could fertilize thier egg. I say you, because, I guess for evolutionists it's not wrong if you want to mate with a chimp. Don't get me involved in that business, but moraly I guess you guys could do it. Naturally, again, I don't think it is possible. If science tinkers with the possibilities then maybe, but then it wouldn't be natural. I'm sure communist countries like Russia has tried it. Humans are unique and can only mate with humans, and are naturally only attracted to humans. Most normal people are not attracted to animals. So, question: would you guys legalize beastiality, since it's morally O.K. for evolutionists?

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:16 GMT

“I'm sure communist countries like Russia has tried it.”

It’s not the Cold War anymore Bigdog, the Russians mean you no harm. Don’t forget, Jesus says to love thy neighbor.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:59 GMT

I love them. So is anyone going to answer my question?

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 1:21 GMT

Sure, I’ll answer it. Why would you think that beastiality is morally ok to evolutionists? Yes, it is physically possible for a human to have sex with another species. It’s also physically possible to kill, rape and steal. But the fact that something can be done doesn’t make it morally acceptable.

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 1:35 GMT

O.k. We'll put morals aside for a second and for the sake of science suppose that you mated with a chimp.

Let's be clear that I said scientists find it immoral to do so. I don't want you to try to claim a moral high ground for repeating what I said.

I doubt you could fertilize thier egg.

Human sperm can fertilize chimp eggs. I will find the paper for you. We don't know if the egg can then reproduce to form a blastocyst.

I say you, because, I guess for evolutionists it's not wrong if you want to mate with a chimp.

Very good. It took you only 3 sentences to have an ad hominem attack.

Don't get me involved in that business, but moraly I guess you guys could do it.

No morally we could not which is why I stated as much in my post.

Naturally, again, I don't think it is possible.

We can go with what we think or we can actually do experiements. Which do you think is science?

If science tinkers with the possibilities then maybe, but then it wouldn't be natural.

There are a lot of unnatural things that happen.

I'm sure communist countries like Russia has tried it.

Why the attack on Russia? The US paid for a lot of similar research.

Humans are unique and can only mate with humans, and are naturally only attracted to humans.

What makes humans so unique? I agree that all species are generally only attracted to their own species.

Most normal people are not attracted to animals.

Agreed.

So, question: would you guys legalize beastiality, since it's morally O.K. for evolutionists?

Again, you have no logical response so you must attack science.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 3:41 GMT

So morally dog species can mate with other K-9 species, but 'morally' humans and chimps can't? Why not, if you believe them to be a close species?

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:12 GMT

Dogs also mate with their siblings and parents, eat their own poop, sniff each other’s bums and pee on people’s lawns. I don’t think dogs set the moral standard humans follow.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:24 GMT

O.K. What about chimps and humans if they're not close relatives? Would that be O.K. since you believe we're of the same species? Just Curious.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:25 GMT

What about them?

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:26 GMT

Do you believe it's ok to mate with them since you believe they're of the same species?

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:30 GMT

No, because unlike other animals we’ve developed a society, and societies have values that they withhold. We don’t mate with other species for the same reason that we wear clothes in public. It’s part of the societal norm. And I don’t believe that chimps are the same species as us, they’re a different species. They’re more closely related to us than other animals though.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:37 GMT

Isn't that discrimination? Chimps have societies too.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:44 GMT

I guess in a sense they do, depending on you define society. Animals have certain “rules” that they abide to, like how many partners they mate with or whether they respect one another’s territories. But how is that discrimination? We’re not chimps, we’re humans. We follow our own set of norms. I already said that we’re not the same species, we’re just a closely related species.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 5:03 GMT

But obviously other different animal species mate. I'm just asking for the sake of evolution.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 5:07 GMT

And other animal species walk around naked. So what? Evolution doesn’t promote acting like a different species. We’re humans, we behave like humans and we follow the rules that human societies have instilled in us.

JarethP

11 hours - 717v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 16:14 GMT

He has to make personal attacks on people when he knows his position is bollocks, when there is no proof for it, and when he is so brainwashed into believing something without evidence and shunning every other evidence for something.

Excuse Bigdog for being this way, he is just ignorant.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 16:58 GMT

How am I making a personal attack? These are legitimate questions, because I like to know your reasonging if chimps are so close of kin to you.

JarethP

11 hours - 717v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 23:22 GMT

Have you not read ANYTHING you or anyone on this forum has posted? Seriously, READ the forum READ it. If you don't realize how woefully and selectively ignorant you are being I pity you.

Just read the posts just read them. This has all been explained and you were attacking others saying "Evolutionists" are immoral. If that isn't an attack what is? Or are you just choosing to stay ignorant because it makes too much sense? Your questions were intentionally negligent of any serious question pertaining to the topic. You just wish to degrade someone by saying their morals are poor or non existent. Just because chimps are so closely related genetically doesn't mean we will mate with them. Even if we set morals aside it is understood that mating with a chimp would be illogical, as it wouldn't benefit the species. Whether you know this consciously or subconsciously this is how we pick our mates. You're trying to use this to say "Evolutionists" are bad people which is decieteful and fallicious.

"So you're saying we can mate with them so it's okay to do that?"

"No."

"Yes you are."

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/03/17 - 1:49 GMT

You know Jareth to be honest you would have to condemn the evolutionists at least as much as Big Dog for this negative attitude so climb down off your soap box and take a sniff of reality. Very few on this sight act like serious researchers which is why we get no common ground. This is not science.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/17 - 14:12 GMT

"Very few on this sight act like serious researchers which is why we get no common ground. This is not science."

k, IT'S SITE!! SITE!!!NOT SIGHT!

that aside.

just exactly what kind of recearcher are you then? would you please state that.

i can say for myself i have linked plenty of articles sites or vids amde by people who actually know the subject better than me. not to mention i grounded most of my agruments with logic or i expose faulty logic in the rebuttals. I am not a scientisct, at least not yet. I am going to study biotechnology, so im pretty sure im gonna come up against your 2 most "strongest" arguements for design in my classes( irreducable complexity and complex information) . and im sure that no one will fail to explain to me exactly why they aren't really arguemtenst for such a thing at all. or at least in a better formulated manner then i already know to debunk that now with my current knowledge of biology and chemistry.

However the thing i take most offence with is the fact that we could supposedly reach a commen ground as "scientists" when "our" side is actually science and has been published, tested and strengthend in peer reviewed journals, and your side only has pseudo science, scripture and misenterpreted and misquoted evidence WHICH A COURT OF LAW, did not deem sufficient to provide and alternative scientific theory, let alone refute the theory of evolution, instead naming it a polotical movement with a religious agenda. and that WITH a busha ppointed judge.

not to forget that almost no 1 on either side is actually a scientist, or at least they haven't showed their credentials.

if there are any out there, on either side, please note your credentials. so we might actually knows what is coming from a REAL scientist, and what from a person who reads science.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 24 Replies