If common appearance = common DNA

[AV1611VET]

"Mankind" is not a taxonomic classification in biology.

Of course not. We wouldn't want the Bible to predict the rise of taxonomy now, would we?

Taxonomically speaking, humans are a member of the Hominidae family, also known as the "great apes" which also includes chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

Is Jesus so taxed as well?

 

[Doveaman]

So?

Yes.

"Mankind" is not a taxonomic classification in biology.

Taxonomic classification in biology is a human invention. It's found only on paper, not in nature.

Taxonomically speaking, humans are a member of the Hominidae family, also known as the "great apes" which also includes chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

Biblically speaking, humans are members of the God family, also known as the body of Christ, which includes Adam and Eve.

And Felidae is a taxanomic family of felines (e.g. house cats, lions, tigers, etc.)

House cats, lions, tigers, etc are all sub-kinds of the feline kind:

"God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good." -- (Gen 1:25).

in the same way that Hominidae is a taxanomic family which includes humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

Except that humans are members of the God kind:

"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" -- (Gen 1:26).

 

[pitabread]

Taxonomic classification in biology is a human invention. It's found only on paper, not in nature.

This is true. But are you disagreeing with biological classifications of organisms? What is your point exactly?

Biblically speaking, humans are members of the God family, also known as the body of Christ, which includes Adam and Eve.

Again, so what? This doesn't change the fact that biologically, humans are members of the great apes family.

You can overlay whatever religious philosophy you want; it doesn't have any impact on the biological classification of organisms by biologists.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It's a term used biblically.

I wouldn't expect the writers of the bible to understand biology. Thankfully we've gotten to a point where we understand taxonomy.

Humans are defined as Mankind.

Humans are apart of the family hominidae, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans. Also called "The Great Apes"

Yes, the feline kind.

So hominidae would be a kind as well then? So according to you a house cat and a lion are related but a human and a chimpanzee....no? This is the problem with using the word "kind" It has no real definition. Using it would earn you an F in biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans are apart of the family hominidae, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans. Also called "The Great Apes"

I agree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Taxonomic classification in biology is a human invention. It's found only on paper

, not in nature

Biological taxonomy is a descriptive classification of nature, based on the very make-up of nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Biological taxonomy is a descriptive classification of nature, based on the very make-up of nature.

We call it: connect-the-dots.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Is the designer just messing with us?

That is the way the branches grow on the tree of life. God does not mess with us, man is the one that grafts wild branches into a natural tree.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Kind" is not a term used in biology.

Of course it is. A lot of biology is involved with telling us what a "kind" is. This is why we have biological diversity. There are 32 verses in genesis chapter one and hundreds of thousands of science books that explain those 32 verses.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Humans are created according to the God kind:

God became a part of His Creation: "The Word became Flesh" John 1 14

Creation needed redeemed and restored.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Amazing how no matter what the evidence shows, creationists can just hand wave it away.

R U sure ur not just telling us about yourself?

 

[Doveaman]

I wouldn't expect the writers of the bible to understand biology.

They understood enough:

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." -- (Genesis 2:19).

Adam named the animals according to their biological appearance.

Thankfully we've gotten to a point where we understand taxonomy.

I think you messed up a few things along the way.

Humans are apart of the family hominidae, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans. Also called "The Great Apes"

And there's the mess.

Humans are created in God's image and likeness.

God is indeed Great, but He is certainly not an Ape.

So hominidae would be a kind as well then?

Except for humans. Humans are Mankind.

So according to you a house cat and a lion are related but a human and a chimpanzee....no?

That's correct.

This is the problem with using the word "kind" It has no real definition.

Actually, it's an elegantly simple definition.

What you call Felidae, I call Kind.

What you call Felinae, Pantherinae and Acinonychinae, I call Sub-kinds.

It's not complicated compared to your definitions.

Using it would earn you an F in biology.

In a biology exam I would write the answers expected of me even though I don't agree.

 

[Doveaman]

This is true. But are you disagreeing with biological classifications of organisms?

Some, not all.

I think you are trying to force fit humans among the apes.

Humans aren't built to hang from trees by their feet.

What is your point exactly?

Humans are not apes.

This doesn't change the fact that biologically, humans are members of the great apes family.

Biologically, it is not a fact. It's a written classification. Animals were around long before your written classification.

You can overlay whatever religious philosophy you want; it doesn't have any impact on the biological classification of organisms by biologists.

Likewise, you can overlay whatever biological classification you want; it doesn't have any impact on my religious philosophy.

 

[Doveaman]

Biological taxonomy is a descriptive classification of nature, based on the very make-up of nature.

I reject your description in favor of my own.

 

[Doveaman]

Amazing how no matter what the evidence shows, creationists can just hand wave it away.

Evidence does not have a voice. Evidence cannot speak for itself, nor does evidence speak on the behalf of you or me. Evidence must be interpreted. It is the interpretation of the evidence that forms the theory and not the evidence itself.

We creationists simply reject your interpretation of the evidence in favor of our own interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Doveaman]

God became a part of His Creation

I like to think of creation becoming a part of God since in the beginning there was only God, and then the creation was born.

"The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed...For we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." -- (Rom 8:19-22).

 

[Socrates2718]

Common appearance does not imply common DNA. That is just patently false. Your entire question is meaningless because of this.

 

[pitabread]

Humans aren't built to hang from trees by their feet.

So? Last time I checked "hang from a tree" was a not requirement for biological classification of the great apes. Hominidae - Wikipedia

Humans are not apes.

And yet we're classified as apes, biologically speaking.

Biologically, it is not a fact. It's a written classification. Animals were around long before your written classification.

Again so what? Biologists classify species primarily based on genetic as well as morphological features.

Likewise, you can overlay whatever biological classification you want; it doesn't have any impact on my religious philosophy.

Okay. That doesn't invalidate biological classification.

 

[pitabread]

Common appearance does not imply common DNA. That is just patently false. Your entire question is meaningless because of this.

Um, that was kind of the point.

 

[USincognito]

No, the designer is just showing that humans and apes are not cousins even though they have common appearance and common DNA.

Why does the designer have both of us sharing 203,000 ERVs and a broken GULO gene?