Re: complex specified information

"On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:13:03 -0400, in article
<proto-4FDF3A.17130309032009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Walter Bushell stated..."

In article <246616914.00012b7a.020.0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
TomS <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:03:32 -0400, in article
<proto-646333.12033109032009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Walter Bushell stated..."

In article <Op0sl.12127$9a.365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Your DNA proves you were created. DNA is not random but an organized
blueprint.

And even though humans are closest to chimpanzees in DNA sequencing,
there are still some 40 million differences

How many of those differences are not random? How would you tell? Does
"40 million" sound so much more impressive to you than "1.3%"?

Not really.

The differences, while slight in numbers, are huge enough to completly
seperate us from them.

And you know what that means right? That means we cannot even mate with
them. Which means we are not of the same kind.

Like the bible says.

Zing, if not mating makes a different kind, the Arc was not big enough
to carry the beetles, for which, as you know, God has an inordinate
fondness.


The Bible does not say that not mating means different kinds.

Madman stated above that they do, he's free to define "kind" however he
wants, if he sticks with a definition.

The Bible does not say that chimpanzees are of a different kind
from humans.

I'm pretty sure the Bible makes no mention of chimps or bonobos, or any
definition of "kind" for that matter.

The word "ape" in the language of the KJV referred to what we would
call "monkeys" today. Chimps, bonobos, orangs, gibbons, siamangs, and
gorillas were not known in the English-speaking world of the early
17th century.

The word "kind" (as a translation for the Hebrew "min") is only used
in a very particular context, "according to his/her/its/their kind".
That tells me that it is some kind of an idiom, and it very well may
be a mistake to think that "kind" refers to anything at all - much
less that it refers to a collective for living things - much much less
that it has some sort of biological significance (like genetic
relationship).


The Bible does not say that humans do not mate with chimpanzees.

So, what is it that is: like the Bible says?



--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: humans, chimpanzee, and bonobo genome comparisons
    ... bonobos would be most closely related to each other and that both ... would be equally distant from humans. ... "Nearly 99 percent alike in genetic makeup, chimpanzees and humans ... Cornell professor of molecular biology and genetics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: humans, chimpanzee, and bonobo genome comparisons
    ... more closely related to chimpanzees ... bonobos would be most closely related to each other and that both ... would be equally distant from humans. ... Cornell professor of molecular biology and genetics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • I wonder how they would score on an IQ test?
    ... YOUNG CHIMPS TOP ADULT HUMANS IN NUMERICAL MEMORY ... Young chimpanzees have an ~Sextraordinary~T ability to remember numerals ...
    (sci.research.careers)