Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

why not? a car that is able to replicate itself isnt a car?

Because a car isn't an organic being, it's a mechanical object. It's impossible for it to replicate itself.

 

[hecd2]

why not? a car that is able to replicate itself isnt a car?

A 'car' which can replicate itself isn't a car. Cars don't reproduce. The set of thimgs that reproduce and the set of cars do not intersect. What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[xianghua]

You failed on a), because although you suggested that the biological taxonomy of families is synonymous with "kinds", you weren't sure and you suggested that there might be fewer "kinds" than families. So you have no secure way to define original "kinds".

true. but its also true for biologists who cant identify for sure a species. so there is no difference between a creationist claim and a biologists one.

You failed on c) because you provided no rationale whatsoever to explain why you have chosen to make families synonymous with "kinds". Why not species? Why not genera? Why not superfamilies or parvorders or infraorders. Your assertion is not based on any evidence or reason - you are just making it up as you go along.

actually there are a least two ways to conclude "kind" under the creation scenario:

1) looking for unique traits (unique genes for instance or unique morphology).
2) the ability to interbreed.

now, even if those criteria arent perfect, i think that in most case (say about 80-90% of cases) they will work fine, so its a good indication to identify a true "kind".

But species, genera, superfamilies, infraorders and orders also have a common ancestor in biology because of their shared phenotypic and genomic characteristics - why haven't you chosen them to represent "kinds"?

see above.

Finally, you succeeded on b) if we grant you a). As almost everyone else will have realised, if you choose families (or a higher order) to be synonymous with "kind", that puts humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans in the same "kind".

true. but the above criteria will make human a different kind since it has unique traits and he cant interbreed with chimp or gorila.

 

[xianghua]

A 'car' which can replicate itself isn't a car. Cars don't reproduce. The set of thimgs that reproduce and the set of cars do not intersect. What is so difficult to understand about that?

so this isnt a car if its able to replicate itself?:

ok. i do think its still a car, even if its able to replicate.

(image from GTM Cars - Wikipedia)

 

[xianghua]

it's a mechanical object. It's impossible for it to replicate itself.

actually scientists already did something similar:

Rise of the replicators


Researchers build a robot that can reproduce | Cornell Chronicle

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

actually scientists already did something similar:

Rise of the replicators


Researchers build a robot that can reproduce | Cornell Chronicle

But it's not reproducing or cloning itself in the biological way. A machine is not a biological organism.
You have been told this repeatedly and yet you keep ignoring it. Why do you do this?

 

[pitabread]

ok. i do think its still a car, even if its able to replicate.

But that's not what a self-replicating car would look like.

This is what a self-replicating car looks like:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is what a self-replicating car looks like:

And I have a picture of a self-replicating truck:

 

[pitabread]

And I have a picture of a self-replicating truck:

Found some self-replicating watches:

 

[hecd2]

so this isnt a car if its able to replicate itself?:

ok. i do think its still a car, even if its able to replicate.

(image from GTM Cars - Wikipedia)

It's a car. It can't reproduce.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Found some self-replicating watches:

I've even found a self-replicating heavy duty lorry.

(Oh, Lord, but we are taking this way too far, but it just shows the absurdity that any thread becomes with xianghua in it)

EDIT: Why are my pictures always so huge?!

 

[hecd2]

Let's start with human and chimp, the most closely related great apes. The accumulated mutations are identical:

they are identical, but who said they are in the same position?

Huh? You can see they are in the same position from the diagram you posted. The exon deletions are self-evidently in the same "position". So are the splice donor site mutations. As for the intra-exon indels, you can do a BLAST alignment and check. You'll find that they are. Eleven identical mutations across the 163 species of Catarrhini and you'd like us to believe that all arose independently? Pull the other one.

actually id predict it too. similar genome can just mean to expect similar mutations in general.

No you wouldn't. Do you have a reference to support that assertion? And we aren't talking about similar mutations in general; - we're talking about identical mutations from baboons to humans.

 

[xianghua]

It's a car. It can't reproduce.

but i said that in this case it can replicate. so why you choose to call it a car?

 

[Speedwell]

but i said that in this case it can replicate. so why you choose to call it a car?

What difference does it make?

If it was manufactured then you can tell it was designed.

If it wasn't manufactured than you can't tell whether it was designed or not.

It doesn't matter what it is or what you call it.

A car is not evidence of design.

A manufactured car is evidence of design.

A watch is not evidence of design.

A manufactured watch is evidence of design.

A spinning motor is not evidence of design.

A manufactured spinning motor is evidence of design.

Do you get it yet? Or do you want more examples?

 

[Astrophile]

Ferraris don't reproduce so they don't have any sort of ancestors.

I know that they don't, but I'm trying to work out the logical consequences of xianghua's premises.

 

[hecd2]

but i said that in this case it can replicate. so why you choose to call it a car?

You can choose to call it yellow but that doesn't mean you're right. I choose to call it a car because it obviously is. You say it can reproduce when it obviously can't. Why are you playing this silly game?

 

[hecd2]

true. but its also true for biologists who cant identify for sure a species. so there is no difference between a creationist claim and a biologists one.

Biologists have a pretty good working definition of species. According to Ernst Mayr the definition of the biological species concept is: "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". That's not perfect, but it's infinitely better than your definition, since you can't even agree with yourself from one post to another. Your definition below is much closer to the biological species concept definition than to making families synonymous with "kinds", which is how you defined "kinds" earlier. It is usual for different species within a family not to interbreed. For example, the Old World monkeys consist of 138 species of monkeys like langurs, colobuses and baboons, none of which interbreed naturally and most of which cannot produce any or viable offspring or at best produce sterile hybrids.

actually there are a least two ways to conclude "kind" under the creation scenario:

1) looking for unique traits (unique genes for instance or unique morphology).
2) the ability to interbreed.

now, even if those criteria arent perfect, i think that in most case (say about 80-90% of cases) they will work fine, so its a good indication to identify a true "kind".

So if you want to use this definition rather than family as you did before, you will end up with many more "kinds" within the Haplorhini than the seven or eight you claimed before. Which makes your task of explaining how, without a common ancestor, the Catarrhini (Old World monkeys and apes) all have the same broken gene degraded in the same way (and of course it gets worse for you when we include the rest of the Haplorhines)

true. but the above criteria will make human a different kind since it has unique traits and he cant interbreed with chimp or gorila.

Yes, humans don't interbreed with chimps, so humans and chimps are regarded as different species. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. But then using the same criteria, humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are all separate species as are four genera and 18 species of gibbon, all separate "kinds" according to your definition above. And yet they all share the broken GULO gene degraded in the same way. Go figure.

 

[hecd2]

I know that they don't, but I'm trying to work out the logical consequences of xianghua's premises.

I don't think logically inconsistent premises can have logical consequences.

 

[pitabread]

(Oh, Lord, but we are taking this way too far, but it just shows the absurdity that any thread becomes with xianghua in it)

Considering how badly his argument have been picked apart on this forum and yet he keeps doubling down on it, what else can we do at this point but poke fun at it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Considering how badly his argument have been picked apart on this forum and yet he keeps doubling down on it, what else can we do at this point but poke fun at it?

Agreed.
How about a picture of a self-replicating submarine?