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?

[Bust Nak]

1) My parents are apes.
2) I am related to them.
3) humans are related to me.
4) "Related" is a transitive relationship.
5) therefore humans are related to apes.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 117 by SallyF]

In my many years of experience, I have NEVER seen a Christian debate the details of the two contradictory creation myths. It's ALWAYS a critique of science.

In the Christian worldview the energy for the universe came from a creator God.

Where did energy come from if not from a creator God?

I have demonstrated that biblically, humans ARE related to apes.

Your claim is that Australopithecus is a human ancestor so how many chromosomes did Australopithecus have?

Even secular scientist claim that man was created with a need to worship God. (A God shaped hole in his heart). Did Australopithecus have a God shaped hole in its heart.

But even if the world’s troubles were miraculously solved and we all led peaceful lives in equity, religion would probably still be around. This is because a god-shaped hole seems to exist in our species’ neuropsychology, thanks to a quirk of our evolution.

Man also has a dualistic view of himself. Because he sees himself in two parts. Secular scientist call the mind and body. Christians would call this soul and body. Christianity has always taught that man is composed of two parts.
Did australopithecus think it was made of soul and body?

Similarly, System 1 encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul – that their essence or personhood existed somewhere prior to their birth, and will always continue to exist. This disposition easily assimilates into many existing religions, or – with a bit of creativity – lends itself to devising original constructs.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2014 ... -disappear

I'm a mythologist.

I leave discussion of science to scientists.

You have STILL not discussed the details of either biblical creation myth.

Why ever not …?

This New Atheist LOVES discussing Bible creation mythology with Christians …

Interestingly …

It almost NEVER happens.

I think I hear a cock about to crow.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 122 by SallyF]

I'm a mythologist.

I leave discussion of science to scientists.

How are you suggesting that we speak of the creation of the universe, without scientific principles?

How can you possibly claim Australopithecus is a human ancestor without discussing science?

You have STILL not discussed the details of either biblical creation myth.

Why ever not …?

This New Atheist LOVES discussing Bible creation mythology with Christians …

I am sure they do without science. Because facts can then be thrown out the window.

Creationist do not fear the facts because the facts support Biblical creation.

So how would you like to frame the conversation without the use of science.

[SallyF]

How are you suggesting that we speak of the creation of the universe, without scientific principles?

.

By speaking of biblical mythology …




You know, with the biblical universe being made of water and everything.

Please feel free to fill us in on the details of biblical creation mythology.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 124 by SallyF]

You know, with the biblical universe being made of water and everything.

This is a very scientific question.

Abstract

God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets. Within seconds after creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet, maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a 6000-year age for the solar system. This theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists.

Here's the paper if you wish to read it.
posting.php?mode=post_reply&p=997060&post_num=124

[SallyF]

God could have ...

"God could have …" looks a whole bunch like imagination piled on top of imagination to me.

But this thread is about humans and apes.

So …

Then the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

How about some evidentiary detail of what Jehovah actually DID …?

Because if there isn't any evidentiary detail to present …

Then this New Atheist must agree with those Progressive Christians who agree that we are dealing with mythology.

And mythology is just people makin' stuff up.

And believing in mythology and other made-up stuff is called "faith" …

In my experience.

But my scientifically semi-literate door is WIDE open for the tiniest waft of anything at all that is redolent of that evidence stuff to just drift through and demonstrate that Jehovah created a single male human - and then some apes and wombats and tape worms and such - out of mud …

About 6,000 years ago.

WIDE open ….

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 126 by SallyF]

B

ut this thread is about humans and apes.

So …

Then the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

How about some evidentiary detail of what Jehovah actually DID …?

In this passage the Lord states that He formed man formed man from the dust of the ground. That would be the physical part of man. He also breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living being. That would be the soul of man. So in this passage the Bible is saying the man is dualistic in nature.

So is there evidence that man is dualistic in nature and there is.

Similarly, System 1 encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul – that their essence or personhood existed somewhere prior to their birth, and will always continue to exist. This disposition easily assimilates into many existing religions, or – with a bit of creativity – lends itself to devising original constructs.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2014 ... -disappear

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 126 by SallyF]

B

ut this thread is about humans and apes.

So …

Then the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

How about some evidentiary detail of what Jehovah actually DID …?

In this passage the Lord states that He formed man formed man from the dust of the ground. That would be the physical part of man. He also breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living being. That would be the soul of man. So in this passage the Bible is saying the man is dualistic in nature.

So is there evidence that man is dualistic in nature and there is.

Similarly, System 1 encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul – that their essence or personhood existed somewhere prior to their birth, and will always continue to exist. This disposition easily assimilates into many existing religions, or – with a bit of creativity – lends itself to devising original constructs.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2014 ... -disappear

I still don't see any evidence concerning the details (scientific or otherwise) of how the mythological god created the mud man and then the mud-apes.

The topic concerns the relationship (if any) of apes to humans.

Biblically, the relationship is mud.

We've had lots of critique of the details of science.

May we please have a detailed critique of the mud …?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 126 by SallyF]

B

ut this thread is about humans and apes.

So …

Then the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

How about some evidentiary detail of what Jehovah actually DID …?

In this passage the Lord states that He formed man formed man from the dust of the ground. That would be the physical part of man. He also breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living being. That would be the soul of man. So in this passage the Bible is saying the man is dualistic in nature.

So is there evidence that man is dualistic in nature and there is.

Similarly, System 1 encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul – that their essence or personhood existed somewhere prior to their birth, and will always continue to exist. This disposition easily assimilates into many existing religions, or – with a bit of creativity – lends itself to devising original constructs.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2014 ... -disappear

For anyone curious about other ways that this claimed disposition might have come about:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ble-beings

Barrett suggests we have evolved to be overly sensitive to agency. We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.

This is much more credible than claiming that some of the gods are real.

Compare the above to:
"the Lord states that He formed man formed man from the dust of the ground."
"He also breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living being."
And this is just one god concept out of many that humans have invented throughout the ages.

Here is another fun one:
The God Mbombo
In the beginning, there was Mbombo, the creator, along with water and darkness. Mbombo, or Bumba as he is called in the Boshongo tradition, is said to be a giant white-coloured figure who had been ill for millions of years. The reason for his illness was his incurable loneliness.
Mbombo vomited and produced the sun creating light and day. This caused the water to dry which created land. Mbombo threw up a second time and created the moon and the stars which divided day and night. Again, he threw up and out came nine animals...
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-l ... bo-0010755

I present to you the idea that Mbombo was the agent invented by the Kuba people of central Africa to explain how these self aware humans arrived on the planet.

Same thing that the ancient Hebrews did IMO. And virtually every human civilization known to man!

The psychological explination at least makes sense. Mud man and vomit man and their ilk, do not.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat]

Barrett suggests we have evolved to be overly sensitive to agency. We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.

So how does this equate to a dualistic view of self?

Does an ape think he has a soul and body?

How many chromosomes does Australopithecus have? You can pick whichever Australopithecus you want to pick.