Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zadok001 · 05-19-2003, 02:30 PM

Some good news to all ya'll who don't care too much for AIG. From Christian Forums, courtesy of one zthibault:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41923-7.html

The last post on that page is the one to pay attention to, it is the same as the text below. Full text of the post (with minor modifications to quotes for ease of reading):

Quote:

Lucaspa:
AiG left themselves an escape hatch.

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind."

zthibault:
Definition of fertilization from the Life Science Dictionary ( http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/searc...=fertilization ):
fertilization: The union of male and female gametes.

From FertiliText ( http://www.fertilitext.org/glossary/...#fertilization )
Fertilization:
union of the male gamete (sperm) with the female gamete (egg)

From Medicine.Net ( http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...rticleKey=3413 ):
Fertilization: Fertilization is the process of combining the male gamete, or "sperm," with the female gamete, or "ovum."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...1&dopt=Abstract

From the cited article:
Anat Rec 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.

zthibault:

According to the text of the article, the fertilized zygotes were destroyed after this research.

Ladies and gentlemen. AIG is nuked.

Coragyps · 05-19-2003, 02:50 PM

This work appears to suggest that a person may not really be able to be a son of a bitch, but that his daddy could in fact be nuthin' but a hound dog!

Bubba · 05-19-2003, 02:55 PM

They'll just write it off as evidence of a common designer....excellent post none the less.

In Darwin

Bubba

Zadok001 · 05-19-2003, 02:59 PM

I don't care if they write it off as evidence of a common designer. It doesn't matter:

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind."

Humans can hybridize with some species of ape. To reiterate: "then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind."

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 05-19-2003, 05:45 PM

This will help their cause, you know. We didn't descend from monkeys--monkeys descended from US! It's a result of sin, doncha know. All the sinners of some places descended into monkeys because of God's Wrathtm . The reason this wasn't in the Bible is that it occured outside of the ken of the tribes of Israel. Why write about something that the Jews had no direct knowlege of in a book for Jews and guding their lives? Soddom and Gomorrah were written because the peoples of that area knew of the devastation wrought upon those two sin-cities, and thus, God's intervention was recorded. But just because the Israelites didn't know about a place, doesn't mean God wasn't whupping ass when he needed to. In the case of the monkeys, it was because they had a better (albeit insufficient) excuse for their behaviour--they were so far from the Source of Morality through the sins of their parents.

Make bets on a poster responding with something like that?

Kevbo · 05-19-2003, 06:46 PM

No, I think they'll resist the possibility that any type of animal can be related to humans in any way, whatever the cost.

It's the fundamentalist paradox: depending on the context, humans are either quasi-divine creatures created in the image of God or pitiful sinners without hope.

It's like a "favored child" syndrome. The fundamentalist needs the strict, reassuring commands of an immutable father figure, but still wants to be praised by the father figure as the best of all the children.

Albion · 05-19-2003, 08:45 PM

The Bible says that humans are separate creations from all other animals, and the Bible takes precedence over mere science at AiG. I expect that if this article starts becoming an embarrassment, the wording of the definition of "kind" will be amended slightly and it'll be business as usual. I mean, we all know tht AiG isn't really bothered about science.

Qinopio · 05-19-2003, 10:48 PM

Would differences between the two species (number of chromosomes, etc) cause the zygotes to have all died before any real development occured? How long could they have lived? How much alcohol did they have to give the gibbons before they found human males attractive?

nogods4me · 05-20-2003, 05:25 AM

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

MrDarwin · 05-20-2003, 06:01 AM

They'll just say that unless the "fertilized" egg goes on to form an embryo, then it wasn't really fertilized in the first place (even if penetrated by the sperm).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2003, 02:50 PM	#2
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	This work appears to suggest that a person may not really be able to be a son of a bitch, but that his daddy could in fact be nuthin' but a hound dog!

05-19-2003, 02:55 PM	#3
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	They'll just write it off as evidence of a common designer....excellent post none the less. In Darwin Bubba

05-19-2003, 02:59 PM	#4
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	I don't care if they write it off as evidence of a common designer. It doesn't matter: "If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind." Humans can hybridize with some species of ape. To reiterate: "then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind."

05-19-2003, 05:45 PM	#5
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	This will help their cause, you know. We didn't descend from monkeys--monkeys descended from US! It's a result of sin, doncha know. All the sinners of some places descended into monkeys because of God's Wrathtm . The reason this wasn't in the Bible is that it occured outside of the ken of the tribes of Israel. Why write about something that the Jews had no direct knowlege of in a book for Jews and guding their lives? Soddom and Gomorrah were written because the peoples of that area knew of the devastation wrought upon those two sin-cities, and thus, God's intervention was recorded. But just because the Israelites didn't know about a place, doesn't mean God wasn't whupping ass when he needed to. In the case of the monkeys, it was because they had a better (albeit insufficient) excuse for their behaviour--they were so far from the Source of Morality through the sins of their parents. Make bets on a poster responding with something like that?

05-19-2003, 06:46 PM	#6
Kevbo Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NY Posts: 212	No, I think they'll resist the possibility that any type of animal can be related to humans in any way, whatever the cost. It's the fundamentalist paradox: depending on the context, humans are either quasi-divine creatures created in the image of God or pitiful sinners without hope. It's like a "favored child" syndrome. The fundamentalist needs the strict, reassuring commands of an immutable father figure, but still wants to be praised by the father figure as the best of all the children.

05-19-2003, 08:45 PM	#7
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	The Bible says that humans are separate creations from all other animals, and the Bible takes precedence over mere science at AiG. I expect that if this article starts becoming an embarrassment, the wording of the definition of "kind" will be amended slightly and it'll be business as usual. I mean, we all know tht AiG isn't really bothered about science.

05-19-2003, 10:48 PM	#8
Qinopio Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 40	Would differences between the two species (number of chromosomes, etc) cause the zygotes to have all died before any real development occured? How long could they have lived? How much alcohol did they have to give the gibbons before they found human males attractive?

05-20-2003, 05:25 AM	#9
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

05-20-2003, 06:01 AM	#10
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	They'll just say that unless the "fertilized" egg goes on to form an embryo, then it wasn't really fertilized in the first place (even if penetrated by the sperm).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.