If Dog-kind can have chromosome numbers from 36 to 78 and Horse-kind can
have chromosome numbers over a similar range, then why can Human-kind not
have a similar range of chromosome numbers. (Apes 48 humans 46). I
certainly would not argue that humans and apes are in the same kind (in
the sense of a baramin), but then I don't believe that there ever was a
baramin in the scriptures anyway.
To start off this self confession, I do not understand how any Biblical
view which holds to a real Adam can explain the MHC data. There, I have
admitted that I don't understand something. The lack of an explanation in
that area threatens the validity of what I believe. For the moment, I
will still believe what I do because it works, but that does not mean we
can't admit the problems with our respective views.
Below is Matzke's post.
glenn
NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE <NJM6610@exodus.valpo.edu> wrote:
>Except for a hearty cheer for Loren's altogether brilliant posts of
> late, I only have time for one comment that grabbed my attention:
>
>On the discussion of biblical kinds, Steve Jones said:
>
>"See above. They reproduced "NOT after their" *species*. Only if
>"kind" = species is Glenn's point valid. If kind = order, then they
>have "reproduced...after their kind"!"
>
>Questions for Steve, or any other interested parties:
> 1) Glenn's point is NOT valid because "kind" could actually equal
> "order", correct?
>
> 2) Therefore, the descent of one species from another could occur by
> natural processes without violating the God's word that plants and
> animals must reproduce after their kind. If kind=order, then
> supernatural action would account for the origin of new
orders/kinds,
> and natural action (whether or not ultimately controlled by God)
would
> account for the origin of family, genus, and species. Correct?
>
> 3) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) belong to the Family Pongidae,
> and humans
> (Homo sapiens) belong to the Family Hominidae. Both Pondigae and
> Hominidae belong to the Order Primates. Correct?
>
> 4) Therefore, humans and chimps (as well as monkeys, gorillas,
> orangutans,
> lemurs, and bush babies) belong to the same kind and humans could
have
> naturally developed from the same ancestors as chimps without
requiring
> supernatural intervention (as long as kind=order). Correct?
>
>I have thought through this a couple of times, and the logic looks
> pretty solid
>to me. It looks like a catch-22 for Steve and others with similar
> views:
>
>Either:
>1) you have to accept that it is possible that humans and chimps
> evolved from
>the same ancestors by a natural process allowed within the catagory of
> biblical
>kinds, OR
>
>2) you have to say that, in fact, kind does NOT equal order and must
> equal a
>lower grouping such as family, genus, or species, in which case there
> is hard,
>verifiable, documented evidence that in today's world, organisms do NOT
> always
>reproduce according to their kinds. This means that the Bible is, in
> this
>case, incorrect (or more accurately, the common (and apparently
> textually
>correct) interpretation of the meaning of this part of the creation
> story is
>incorrect).
>
>Take your pick. If you don't like either one, here's option three (my
>favorite):
>
>3) you have to admit (as has been asserted on this server) that the
> phrase that
>plants and animals reproduced after their kinds reflects nothing more
> than an
>observational report of Middle Eastern nomads 3-4,000 years ago, who
> saw little
>change in the offspring of animals and plants within their period of
>observation, which was probably about the same as their 35 year (or
> less)
>average lifespan.
>
>Enjoy,
>Nick
>
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm