Are humans related to apes?

[Zzyzx]

.
Are humans related to apes?

Geneticists (people who study such things) tell us that H. sapiens have great genetic similarity to members of the taxonomic group Family: Hominidae (great apes).

This seems to offend some people or to contradict their religious beliefs.

On what basis can argument be made that the classification is in error?

[Zzyzx]

.

Correction: The fossil record and stratigraphy (as well as biology) indicate that life forms developed very slowly over LONG periods of time.

The cambrian "explosion" is well documented with the all of the problems that it causes for evolutionary theology.

But adding to that problem is the so called missing time between strata layers. For example:

The Redwall Limestone is assigned by evolutionary geologists to the so-called Mississippian Period (or the Lower Carboniferous to Europeans and Australians), said to have been 310-355 million years ago, whereas the Muav Limestone is said to belong to the so-called Cambrian Period, believed to be 510-570 million years ago. That means that where the Redwall Limestone rests directly on top of the Muav Limestone there is said to be a time gap of at least 155 million years during which the land surface was supposed to have been exposed to the forces of weathering and erosion.

As further evidence of this supposed time gap, the trail that crosses the boundary between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone, there is a sign posted by the National Park Service. There is a sign that reads;

Rocks of Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing in Grand Canyon. Temple Butte Limestone of Devonian age occurs in scattered pockets. Redwall Limestone rests on these Devonian rocks or on Muav Limestone of much earlier Cambrian age.

Decades ago I taught geology courses at a university, including freshman level. In those introductory courses we discussed deposition of sediments, lithification processes (loose sediments to rock), and erosion.

Deposition tends to occur in lowlands, lakes, river valleys, seas and oceans. With compaction and cementation sediments can form sedimentary rock layers (called strata). If environmental conditions change, former deposition areas can become erosional areas.

For instance, sediments from surrounding highlands can be deposited in a lake and lithified. If the lake later drains, the newly formed rocks are subject to erosion " which may eventually remove most or all of the new sedimentary rock. Later still, the area can again become a depositional area with newer (younger) rocks deposited on whatever surface was left.

In geological terms this is an 'unconformity' (Google the terms if unfamiliar). It is NOT uncommon for sediments of different ages to be in proximity.

This is Geology 101.

Ancient people without access to such information used their imagination to explain that plants and animals appeared suddenly in (or near) present form.

It does not matter what ancient people thought or taught,

Correction: Many current people base their 'understanding' of the Earth and its materials and processes on ancient tales.

Some attempt to defend ancient ideas by sprinkling their ideas with pseudo-scientific 'facts'.

observations in modern science indicate strata layers that were all laid down by turbulent water with new phyla occuring abruptly in the fossil record in which it was first encountered.

Correction: Modern geology recognizes that sediments can be deposited in ways OTHER than 'all laid down by turbulent water'. Some sediments / strata are deposited by wind action, some by glacial action, some in very quiet (non-turbulent) water. Salt and gypsum deposits are an example of the latter. Moraines and drumlins are examples of glacial deposition. Loess and dune deposits are examples of wind (Aeolian) deposits.


What point are you trying to make?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 31 by Zzyzx]

Decades ago I taught geology courses at a university, including freshman level. In those introductory courses we discussed deposition of sediments, lithification processes (loose sediments to rock), and erosion.

Deposition tends to occur in lowlands, lakes, river valleys, seas and oceans. With compaction and cementation sediments can form sedimentary rock layers (called strata). If environmental conditions change, former deposition areas can become erosional areas.

For instance, sediments from surrounding highlands can be deposited in a lake and lithified. If the lake later drains, the newly formed rocks are subject to erosion " which may eventually remove most or all of the new sedimentary rock. Later still, the area can again become a depositional area with newer (younger) rocks deposited on whatever surface was left.

In geological terms this is an 'unconformity' (Google the terms if unfamiliar). It is NOT uncommon for sediments of different ages to be in proximity.

This is Geology 101.

Oh!!! Wonderful!!! someone I can talk rocks to.

Well, if you taught geology then you should know that there should be some signs in the rocks that erosion happen, especially erosion over 155 million years, because that is a long time.


1. obvious erosion features incised into the top of the Muav Limestone;

2. boulders and cobbles of eroded Muav Limestone at the base of the Redwall Limestone;

3. the layering (bedding) in the Muav Limestone dipping at an angle to the layering in the overlying Redwall Limestone;

4. the layering in the Muav Limestone being somewhat more folded than the layering in the Redwall Limestone:

5. more complex joint systems developed in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone;

6. more faulting (that is, fracturing and displacement of the layering along fractures) in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone;

7. a noticeable difference in the sedimentary material within each of the two limestones due to changes in the regional environments between the times of deposition of each of these two limestones.

Do we see any of these features?

In fact it can be shown that all sedimentary layers were laid down in a turbulent water environment.

There should be significant faulting in the Mauv limestone over a 155 million year period. Along with a serious amount of erosion. Theories of Grand Canyon formation say it was formed over a period of 6 million years.

Correction: Many current people base their 'understanding' of the Earth and its materials and processes on ancient tales.

Some attempt to defend ancient ideas by sprinkling their ideas with pseudo-scientific 'facts'.

You mean like the observed facts that all layers of rock strata were all laid down in a turbulent water environment.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

observations in modern science indicate strata layers that were all laid down by turbulent water with new phyla occuring abruptly in the fossil record in which it was first encountered.

Correction: Modern geology recognizes that sediments can be deposited in ways OTHER than 'all laid down by turbulent water'. Some sediments / strata are deposited by wind action, some by glacial action, some in very quiet (non-turbulent) water. Salt and gypsum deposits are an example of the latter. Moraines and drumlins are examples of glacial deposition. Loess and dune deposits are examples of wind (Aeolian) deposits.

You mean like the Coconino layer in the Grand Canyon, complete with animal tracks and sand dunes. Do you know what else makes mounds of sand? That is right underwater turbulent currents. Do you know how you can tell the difference between a sand dune caused by the movement air and those dunes caused by the movement of water? The angle of the dune is how the difference is determine. Dunes made by water have a 24 degree angle on the dune they make and wind dunes have an angle of 37 degrees. The Coconino dunes in the Grand Canyon have a 24 degree angle so Coconino was not actually a desert but formed in a turbulent water environment.

The tracks that were fossilized were shown to be at an angle different than the direction they were moving. Do you have any idea what this indicates? That the animal was moving against a current. Besides can you explain how tracks are fossilized in a dry sand environment. This should be interesting.


What point are you trying to make? That modern science points to events happening just like the Bible said they did.
_________________

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Clearly humans are biologically related to apes. It is also clear that there are vast differences in ability, language, culture, achievement, industry, artistry, etc. And spirituality. Do apes believe in a higher power? I see no evidence that they do.

Now whether the inclination to belief is evidence of a higher or lower state of being, I leave it up to the reader to decide. .

And given that we are related to the great apes, what are we to conclude? To think lower of ourselves? Or to think better of the ape.

It seems to me that we humans are somewhere between the apes and the angels in the grand scheme of things.

[Zzyzx]

.

Oh!!! Wonderful!!! someone I can talk rocks to.

Don't attempt to 'talk rocks' by plagiarizing material (word for word without acknowledgment) from Answers in Genesis.

Well, if you taught geology then you should know that there should be some signs in the rocks that erosion happen, especially erosion over 155 million years, because that is a long time.

1. obvious erosion features incised into the top of the Muav Limestone;

2. boulders and cobbles of eroded Muav Limestone at the base of the Redwall Limestone;

3. the layering (bedding) in the Muav Limestone dipping at an angle to the layering in the overlying Redwall Limestone;

4. the layering in the Muav Limestone being somewhat more folded than the layering in the Redwall Limestone:

5. more complex joint systems developed in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone;

6. more faulting (that is, fracturing and displacement of the layering along fractures) in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone;

7. a noticeable difference in the sedimentary material within each of the two limestones due to changes in the regional environments between the times of deposition of each of these two limestones.

Notice the 'similarity' with something from Answers in Genesis:

1. obvious erosion features incised into the top of the Muav Limestone;
2. boulders and cobbles of eroded Muav Limestone at the base of the Redwall Limestone;
3. the layering (bedding) in the Muav Limestone dipping at an angle to the layering in the overlying Redwall Limestone;
4. the layering in the Muav Limestone being somewhat more folded than the layering in the Redwall Limestone:
5. more complex joint systems developed in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone;
6. more faulting (that is, fracturing and displacement of the layering along fractures) in the Muav Limestone than in the Redwall Limestone; and
7. a noticeable difference in the sedimentary material within each of the two limestones due to changes in the regional environments between the times of deposition of each of these two limestones.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... ogic-time/

Attempting to sound knowledgeable by copying and pasting material from a Creationist site is not likely to prevail in debate or to favorably impress readers.

Have you personally studied the Grand Canyon geology? Seen it first hand?

I have. I spent time in the Canyon in 1980, including a hike from its rim to the Colorado River -- passing through the formations mentioned. This is in addition to previous academic study of the area geology. I do not rely on a website for my information.

[Zzyzx]

.

And given that we are related to the great apes, what are we to conclude? To think lower of ourselves? Or to think better of the ape.

Why involve 'lower' or 'better'?

It seems to me that we humans are somewhere between the apes and the angels in the grand scheme of things.

We can demonstrate that apes exist. Can the same be said for 'angels'?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Clearly humans are biologically related to apes. It is also clear that there are vast differences in ability, language, culture, achievement, industry, artistry, etc. And spirituality. Do apes believe in a higher power? I see no evidence that they do.

Now whether the inclination to belief is evidence of a higher or lower state of being, I leave it up to the reader to decide.

I do not see why belief in something imaginary would be considered "higher." As there are thousands of religions, and only one of them may not be imaginary, it is hardly impressive.
The only real difference between man and ape I can see is an evolved larynx. It certainly took us a very long time to develop language, culture, industry and artistry. We could have gotten there better by random chance, with repeatability.

And given that we are related to the great apes, what are we to conclude? To think lower of ourselves? Or to think better of the ape.

Acknowledge our ancestors filled a niche, like an acorn worm... better or worse being determined by survival. Although it looks like we are making it difficult for ourselves and others to survive if Australia is an indicator of future events

It seems to me that we humans are somewhere between the apes and the angels in the grand scheme of things.

It seems to me those hairy hairy apes you refer to, have their advantages, and we not-so-furry apes have our own.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 34 by Zzyzx]

You still have not addressed any of the problems with the different layers.

[Zzyzx]

.

You still have not addressed any of the problems with the different layers.

I retired from teaching introductory geology forty years ago -- and have no inclination to teach it here in response to someone plagiarizing Answers in Genesis while attempting to make an argument.

The 'problems' cited are indication of LACK of knowledge regarding geological materials and processes.

[Tcg]

And given that we are related to the great apes, what are we to conclude? To think lower of ourselves? Or to think better of the ape.

As Danmark has already pointed out, we aren't related to great apes, we are great apes.

One of the major differences between us and other great apes is that we have destroyed the habitat of other great apes and are in the process of destroying our own habitat. Perhaps if so many of us didn't believe in the perfectly unevidenced life after death, we'd care a great deal more about the only habitat we know for certain we'll ever live in.


Tcg

[Elijah John]

And given that we are related to the great apes, what are we to conclude? To think lower of ourselves? Or to think better of the ape.

As Danmark has already pointed out, we aren't related to great apes, we are great apes.

One of the major differences between us and other great apes is that we have destroyed the habitat of other great apes and are in the process of destroying our own habitat. Perhaps if so many of us didn't believe in the perfectly unevidenced life after death, we'd care a great deal more about the only habitat we know for certain we'll ever live in.


Tcg

Way to turn a biological question into a political one. So there are only negative differences, and we humans suffer by comparison?