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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by EarthScienceguy]

Or acknowledge that reproduction errors can occur.

[Zzyzx]

.

Apes have 48 chromosomes and humans only have 46.

Is this information provided by theology or biology?

Anatomically humans are much more like orangutans than chimps.

Thank you

Evolutionist lose on both ways in which organisms are classified.

Evolutionist lose? To theology?

Is it preferable think that all life forms poofed into existence supernaturally?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 21 by Willum]

Acknowledgement that fusion of chromosomes do not happen end to end in mammals.

Two studies published by Fan brought to light a number of serious problems that completely contradicted the fusion model.

First, was the problem of lack of synteny with chimpanzee surrounding the putative fusion region on human chromosome 2

Second, the putative fusion sequence is highly degenerate

Third The location of the putative fusion sequence inside a functional and highly expressed gene associated with a wide variety of cellular processes strongly negates the idea that it is the by-product of a hypothetical head-to-head telomeric fusion.



Fan, Y., E. Linardopoulou, C. Friedman, E. Williams, and B. J. Trask. 2002a. Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 12, no. 11:1651–1662.

Fan, Y., T. Newman, E. Linardopoulou, and B. J. Trask. 2002b. Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions. Genome Research 12, no. 11:1663–1672.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 22 by Zzyzx]

Is it preferable think that all life forms poofed into existence supernaturally?

That is what the fossil record indicates happen and also the strata layers.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 21 by Willum]

Acknowledgement that fusion of chromosomes do not happen end to end in mammals.

Two studies published by Fan brought to light a number of serious problems that completely contradicted the fusion model.

First, was the problem of lack of synteny with chimpanzee surrounding the putative fusion region on human chromosome 2

Second, the putative fusion sequence is highly degenerate

Third The location of the putative fusion sequence inside a functional and highly expressed gene associated with a wide variety of cellular processes strongly negates the idea that it is the by-product of a hypothetical head-to-head telomeric fusion.



Fan, Y., E. Linardopoulou, C. Friedman, E. Williams, and B. J. Trask. 2002a. Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 12, no. 11:1651–1662.

Fan, Y., T. Newman, E. Linardopoulou, and B. J. Trask. 2002b. Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions. Genome Research 12, no. 11:1663–1672.

Certain folks will argue the minute details of evidence-based science and concomitant theories until the cows come home …

But not mention a word of certain biblical alternatives …

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

For me, the biblical mud-man is make-believe.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is it preferable think that all life forms poofed into existence supernaturally?

That is what the fossil record indicates happen and also the strata layers.

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

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

Some current religionists still prefer the simplistic ancient / religious ‘explanations’ in spite of information developed over centuries by people who actually study such things. Some even propose a vast conspiracy of scientists worldwide to discredit religion.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by EarthScienceguy]

That only means there were intermediary steps.
You are operating under the fallacy that things happened spontaneously, instantly. That is magical thinking. Although change can happen quickly, the observation of what we see is that it happens in a response to environmental changes, and so, only when the environment changes rapidly, should you expect to see drastic changes, and the expectation of that change is really extinction.
And as Zzyzx said, where did your information come from, was it provided to you from divine revelation, or scientific investigation.

If the latter, then you really can't criticize.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 26 by 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.’

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, 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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 27 by Willum]

That only means there were intermediary steps.
You are operating under the fallacy that things happened spontaneously, instantly. That is magical thinking. Although change can happen quickly, the observation of what we see is that it happens in a response to environmental changes, and so, only when the environment changes rapidly, should you expect to see drastic changes, and the expectation of that change is really extinction.
And as Zzyzx said, where did your information come from, was it provided to you from divine revelation, or scientific investigation.

There is magical thinking but it is on the part of those who believe in the religion of evolution. For example, no one has observed progressive stages of “prebats� in the fossil record showing a mouse-like mammal gradually evolving into a bat with its long fingered wings. Evolutionists concede that what they consider to be the oldest bat fossils are 100 percent bats with some even showing evidence of sonar navigation.

Or maybe you are one of those true believers that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This belief gives new meaning to Edgar Allen Poe's poem "The Raven." But there are a few problems with this belief in evolutionary folk lore.

1. Birds are warm blooded dinosaurs would also have to be warm blooded for this story to take place the way evolutionary lore says it does, although there is no evidence to support that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

2. All dinosaurs are divided into two major groups based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard-hipped dinosaurs (saurischians) and the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithiscians). The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird-hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as it is in birds) rather than entirely to the front (as it is in mammals and reptiles).

But in most other respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, including such bizarre creatures as the armor-plated ankylosaurs and the horned ceratopsian dinosaurs, are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs such as the theropods.

3, One of the main lines of evidence cited by evolutionists for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs is the three-fingered “hand� found in both birds and theropods. The problem is that recent studies have shown that there is a digital mismatch between birds and theropods.

Most terrestrial vertebrates have an embryological development based on the five-fingered hand. In the case of birds and theropod dinosaurs, two of the five fingers are lost (or greatly reduced) and three are retained during development of the embryo. If birds evolved from theropods, one would expect the same three fingers to be retained in both birds and theropod dinosaurs, but such is not the case. Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb� is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4

4. One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs. Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight. Bird respiration involves a unique “flow-through ventilation� into a set of nine interconnecting flexible air sacs sandwiched between muscles and under the skin. The air sacs contain few blood vessels and do not take part in oxygen exchange, but rather function like bellows to move air through the lungs.

An avian lung
The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow of air through the lungs resulting in higher oxygen content than is possible with the bidirectional air flow through the lungs of reptiles and mammals. The air flow moves through the same tubes at different times both into and out of the lungs of reptiles and mammals, and this results in a mixture of oxygen-rich air with oxygen-depleted air (air that has been in the lungs for awhile). The unidirectional flow through bird lungs not only permits more oxygen to diffuse into the blood but also keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearly constant, a requirement for maintaining a level flight path.

A reptillian lung
If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird. Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver, much as you see in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). These observations suggest that this theropod was similar to an ectothermic reptile, not an endothermic bird.

Evolutionary lore is very good at making up stories when the FACTS do not fit what they believe.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 25 by SallyF]

Certain folks will argue the minute details of evidence-based science and concomitant theories until the cows come home …

But not mention a word of certain biblical alternatives …

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

For me, the biblical mud-man is make-believe.

People are free to believe anything they want to believe but the FACTS indicate that life occurred exactly as the Bible said it did.