Welcoming Ben Kissling

[John_Harshman]

@r_speir

We would not know the original genetic makeup of the original primate.

As it happens, we do, or we could if we tried. We can reconstruct it by looking at the genomes of its descendants. And we could tell if there was such hybridization. If you’re trying to account for the similarity of the chimp genome to the human genome by hybridization, there would be human sequences and ape sequences in the genome, and they would be recognizably different, with the human bits being within the range of human variation and the ape bits being similar to other apes. We do not see any such bimodal genome. Instead we see the same divergence from humans throughout the genome, though the small amount under purifying selection, notably protein-coding exons, is more similar to humans than the other parts. You are imagining that your personal ignorance extends to the rest of us. It does not.

@r_speir

Perhaps just once with one set of offspring, then the offspring mating only with their species after ward.

Ah, but that wouldn’t explain human-chimp similarity, would it? You need to settle on a story; but unfortunately there’s no story that would fit the facts to your scenario. They are incompatible.

@r_speir

Common ancestry? That’s just silly.

On the contrary. It accounts for the data we observe. But hybrids between distantly related mammal species have not been observed. You are free to try, though.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

This model I propose would unquestionably give the appearance that a human-chimp hierarchy existed at the current level of shared inherited traits and likely at the next lower level shared with other primates.

What model? You haven’t proposed a model.

All of this would be due to pre-Flood human-chimp (or other primate) hybridization creating the appearance of a genetic split between human and primate species.

What the fork am I reading? What’s a “pre-Flood human-chimp hybridization” and why does it “create the appearance of a genetic split between human and primate species”? (humans ARE a primate, btw).

Any primate on the Ark would have been a descendant of the hybridization event

You keep using that word, “hybridization”. I don’t think it means what you think.

[T.j_Runyon]

Human-chimp hybrids… holy cow.

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if you see similarities between organisms on the macro scale you should also see similarities on the genetic scale?

Break this down

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if you see similarities between organisms on the macro scale you should also see similarities on the genetic scale?

Yeah I second the motion for you to explain why this should be the case.

[BenKissling (YEC/ID)]

Yikes. Maybe this needs to be a new thread. Totally fine with locking my welcome thread. The Inquisition has gone on long enough.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if you see similarities between organisms on the macro scale you should also see similarities on the genetic scale?

That is only an expectation of common ancestry and evolution. If species or created kinds were created separately then there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy or a correlation between genetics and morphology. A creator could create two nearly identical looking species with completely different DNA sequences.

@r_speir

From that standpoint, all it takes is an unstable mind to begin drawing diagrams and unfounded conclusions about common ancestry. Then it is about getting enough people on board with the wild idea, then enough professionals, then it’s just a matter of selling the idea to the public. If the lie goes on long enough, it is easy to sell it at some future point as ‘established fact’.

That is a tacit admission that you have to ignore the evidence of the nested hierarchies in order to protect your views on creationism.