Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
why not? a car that is able to replicate itself isnt a car?
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".
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.
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"?
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".
so this isnt a car if its able to replicate itself?: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?
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
ok. i do think its still a car, even if its able to replicate.
It's a car. It can't reproduce.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)
Found some self-replicating watches:
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.they are identical, but who said they are in the same position?hecd2 said:Let's start with human and chimp, the most closely related great apes. The accumulated mutations are identical:
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.actually id predict it too. similar genome can just mean to expect similar mutations in general.
What difference does it make?but i said that in this case it can replicate. so why you choose to call it a car?
Ferraris don't reproduce so they don't have any sort of ancestors.
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?but i said that in this case it can replicate. so why you choose to call it a car?
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.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.
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)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".
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.true. but the above criteria will make human a different kind since it has unique traits and he cant interbreed with chimp or gorila.
(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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?