Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, apes cannot reproduce with any other ape. The Gorilla kind being classified as an ape cannot have offspring with the orangutan kind.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. So "ape" is NOT a kind. There is no "ape" kind as that would be an oxymoron. So you are definitely a "species" kind of guy. Gotcha. See what I mean by, "depends upon who you ask?" AiG is one of those groups that indeed says "ape" is a kind. One needs a program guide just to keep straight all these players delving in what exactly a "kind" is.
So we should completely disregard your comment.
Quote:
Apes are a kind (a single kind) because apes only produce offspring among their kind.
Humans are not of the ape kind because humans cannot produce offspring by having sex with apes. Humans are of the human kind and apes are of the ape kind.
Now if you had said that Ape was a group of several kinds, I could understand what you meant.
Eusie, first you say an ape is a kind and can only produce offspring when they mate together then you say a gorilla is a kind and a chimp is a kind and they csn only mate with their own kind. Which is it? Are you now admitting that a human can only mate with anither human and a chimp with a chimp or can any ape mate with any other ape?
Eusui, first you say an ape isca kind and can only produce offspring when they mate together then you say a gorilla is a kind and a chimp is a kind and they csn only mate with their own kind. Which is it? Are you now admitting that a human can only mate with anither human and a chimp with a chimp or can any ape mate with any other ape?
I need a program guide just to follow Eusi's take on what a kind it. Like I said in an earlier post, it is a term of convenience where its meaning shifts to whatever works best in a given situation. But usually people stick to one variation. Eusi is all over the chart.
Apes are a kind because apes only produce offspring among their kind.
Humans are not of the ape kind because humans cannot produce offspring by having sex with apes. Humans are of the human kind and apes are of the ape kind.
No. When YOU classify humans, YOU classify them as apes.
When I classify humans I classify them as the human kind and apes fall into their own ape kind.
You are confused.
Any apes which can have offspring among themselves are of that kind. If a Gorilla cannot breed with an Orangutan then they are each of a different kind. If a human can't breed with either that is because the human is of the human kind and not of the ape kind.
Then not only is the definition changed from the Bible which designated animals by the way they looked and had no idea whether they could interbreed or not, but you appear to talking of speciation but calling it "Kinds' and pretending it validates the Creationist take on the Bible word. You are just confirming what i posted before about adapting the Bible to science and pretending it makes the Bible right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
It just depends on who you ask. As used in antievolutionary writing (young earth or ID varieties),"microevolution" is "evolution I accept" and "macroevolution" is "evolution I reject." That is what it boils down to. This conveniently conceals the vast disparity between evolution accepted by you and say, Wells, for instance (within a "kind," with "kind" at species level, in conventional classification) versus AIG and ICR (within a "kind", with "kind" suggested to be about at family, in conventional classification) although that is being very generous, versus Behe (pretty much full common descent with God just tweaking a bit, every now and then). It also conveniently allows any particular example of evolution to be dismissed as mere microevolution. So, it just depends on who you ask.
Exactly so. I watched a very interesting talk on the history of Creationism and their current thinking. I ought to find and post it.
If gorillas are classified as apes and if orangutans are classified as apes by modern science, then that is their problem, not mine.
Since a gorilla cannot produce offspring with an orangutan, then, biblically speaking, they are not in the same "kind."
An ape, according to the dictionary is: a large primate that lacks a tail, including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons.
However, if a gorilla cannot mate with a chimp, then they are not of the same "kind." If the gorilla cannot mate with an orangutan then they are not of the same "kind."
While I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not God. God created the different kinds, not evolution.
But it is your problem if you want science credibility. If you limit apes to those that can interbreed, then you have to say which ones are the ape -kind and which are not. The problem is that it isn't sure which can interbreed and which can't because the reason they don't is because they live in different parts of the world. Since Chimps and Bonobos in captivity can breed, they are "Chimp -kind", but are they apes or not? if not, which are? It is a problem you have that you made for yourself, not by science and it is not a problem for science.
P.s I would bet good money on what your solution to the problem will be.
But it is your problem if you want science credibility. If you limit apes to those that can interbreed, then you have to say which ones are the ape -kind and which are not.
No, please think about this. Different ***kinds*** are classified under the heading of "APE." A gorilla and orangutan are classified as "ape." But the gorilla is a different "kind" from the orangutan because together they can't reproduce.
Quote:
The problem is that it isn't sure which can interbreed and which can't because the reason they don't is because they live in different parts of the world. Since Chimps and Bonobos in captivity can breed, they are "Chimp -kind", but are they apes or not?
If today they are classified as "apes" then that is what YOU have to work with. If a chimp and Bonobo can breed then they are of the same "kind."
Quote:
if not, which are? It is a problem you have that you made for yourself, not by science and it is not a problem for science.
No, you have created the problem not me and certainly not the Bible.
Then not only is the definition changed from the Bible which designated animals by the way they looked and had no idea whether they could interbreed or not, but you appear to talking of speciation but calling it "Kinds' and pretending it validates the Creationist take on the Bible word. You are just confirming what i posted before about adapting the Bible to science and pretending it makes the Bible right.
No the Bible is quite clear that the plants and animals reproduce according to its kind. It wasn't a matter of how they looked as you suggest. Read the Genesis account again. You are making up stuff as you go along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
