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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia]

Whether you believe me or not, what I've told you isn't just rhetorical sparring. If there's a fast way of generating the kind of petrified wood found in Arizona, I don't know what it is. I'm pretty sure Answers in Genesis doesn't know, either, because none of the papers Snelling quoted describe a way to do it. With the exception of Ohler, they all describe mineralization of wood with amorphous silica. Ohler describes converting amorphous silica into quartz by crushing it in an industrial press. Combining the two processes doesn't somehow get you petrified wood and Snelling describes the papers accurately enough that I'm convinced that he knows that.

I really hate to say that you do not know what you are talking about but I think you really do not know what you are talking about. Because the Japanese guys conclude this.

Akahane and his fellow Japanese scientists concluded that silicified (petrified) wood had been formed naturally under various conditions by deposition of tiny silica spheres (opal) within it. Although there had been a different rate of silicification within each piece of wood studied, at 7 to less than 36 years the silicification of the wood had been very rapid, compared with claims of several millions of years. They also concluded that petrified wood in ancient volcanic ash beds and sedimentary strata in volcanic regions could have thus been silicified by hot flowing ground water with high silica content in "a fairly short period of time, in the order of several tens to hundreds of years" by the same mechanism.

These experimental findings validate, and vindicate, the evidence documented by Snelling (1995) in Creation magazine "that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification," and "thus the timeframe for the formation of petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood." Furthermore, because the silica in the rapidly petrified wood in these experiments is in the form of opal, this also confirms creationist documentation of other experiments that demonstrate opals form rapidly within months. 4
https://www.icr.org/article/rapid-petri ... irmation-c

And here is another paper saying the same thing can happen.
file:///C:/Users/hammcl01/Downloads/geosciences-07-00119-v3.pdf

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 91 by Diagoras]

All you are doing here is avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on your accuser - you answer criticism with criticism. This is the classic logical fallacy known as tu quoque.

If you would look at the entire list I did engage the criticism.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 86 by bluegreenearth]

Unless I'm mistaken having just wandered into this conversation, I think Difflugia's point is that large uniform silica crystals visible to the naked eye like those found in amethyst geodes can only form in magma that slowly cools for millions of years and not within just a few years. The experiment you've cited actually confirms that the rapid silica deposition observed in the alder wood fragments is only able to form in amorphous spheres and not the large tetrahedral structures we find in the silica crystals mined from cooled and uplifted magma chambers.

This is not true either. Quartz crystals can be made in a pressure cooker. In 1845, the German geologist Karl Emil von Schafhäutl succeeded in making quartz the first crystal grown by hydrothermal synthesis. Modern techniques can be used to grow large single crystals. https://www.thoughtco.com/growing-quart ... ome-607657

Furthermore, I'm not sure if this was already mentioned, but the type of permineralization described in the experiment you cited is not at all the same type of permineraliztion process responsible for most of the fossilized plant and animal remains observed in the fossil record. Where we do find fossils exhibiting the type of permineralization described by that cited experiment, scientists can indeed conclude those specific fossils formed much quicker than most of the other types of permineralized fossils that have been found. However, it would be intellectually dishonest to extrapolate a young Earth creation from that evidence.

I am simply saying that it does not take millions of years for permineralization to happen.

For example, wood from trees rapidly buried under a thick layer of volcanic ash that was subsequently saturated with mineral rich groundwater at a high temperatures could have quickly precipitated silica in the pores of the wood, but that entire stratigraphic segment could subsequently become isolated for millions of years before tectonic forces uplift it to the point where it becomes exposed at the surface again by erosion. Just because we find the fossilized wood had been quickly permineralized, it doesn't follow that the trees must have only been buried by the volcanic ash a few dozen years ago. It also doesn't follow that every fossil found in every other stratigraphic context must have permineralized in the same way. As the paper you cited states, silicified wood can form under suitable conditions in short time periods. Outside of those "suitable conditions," geologic time scales may be required to achieve permineralization.

The flood would have caused those conditions over many parts of the world.

[Difflugia]

I really hate to say that you do not know what you are talking about but I think you really do not know what you are talking about.

Then perhaps you'd address the difference between fossils composed of opal and those composed of quartz?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 95 by FarWanderer]

Abiogenesis has never been shown to be anything other than make-believe, either.

That seems to me to be a misrepresentation of the current status of abiogenesis. How does it qualify as make-believe? It is not as if the concept has simply been plucked out of the air and constructed from whole cloth.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."

Nowhere does this quote show abiogenesis to be anything but an idea. It's an unverified, yet believed, idea. Is that not "make-believe"?

I realize the term "make-believe" sounds pejorative. I only used it to mirror the original quote.

"Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."

To call this "just an idea" seems like an attempt to down play it.
If we are to be accurate, it is an uncontroversial idea. Not 'just some idea' as you seem to be trying to portray it.

"Uncontroversial" means nothing to me. Christianity has been uncontroversial in our society until relatively recently.

I am not trying to portray abiogenesis as any more or any less than it is.

If we are to call it an idea, we need to acknowledge that ideas come in varying forms and not all ideas are equal.

"Researchers study abiogenesis through a combination of molecular biology, paleontology, astrobiology, oceanography, biophysics, geochemistry and biochemistry, and aim to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life."
Just an idea? Is that the best and most accurate way to describe it?

God concepts would be 'just ideas'. Researchers have nothing to study that points to any god concepts that I'm aware of. No mechanisms to point to that I'm aware of, unlike abiogenesis.

Yes. Like I said a couple posts ago: magic.

If you are to define them both as ideas, it is obvious that they are not equal.

(Further differences in these 'ideas')
Anyone can study abiogenesis and see that it could be valid.

It "could be" valid. There's always a leap of imagination in an unproven theory. There is categorically no way to distinguish between a miracle and a natural process not understood.

(This is why it's silly when apologists try to prove the existence of miracles with evidence)

It us uncontroversial among scientists.
Only Christians find the Jehovah god to be a valid idea. Only Muslims find Allah to be a valid idea. Only.... you get the idea I'm sure.

You are compartmentalizing rather arbitrarily here. Not all scientists agree on everything regarding abiogenesis, and not all religious disagree on everything regarding their deities.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 104 by Difflugia]

Then perhaps you'd address the difference between fossils composed of opal and those composed of quartz?

Fossils are mostly made of cryptocrystalline quartz. Cryptocrystalline quartz is like carnelian, chrysocolla are opaque. Macrocrystalline quartz like citrine, amethyst, and smoky quartz are translucent.

Now to address your assertion that quartz takes millions of years and the pressure would crush the fossil.

Quartz can be made in a home pressure cooker. You know what else can be made in a pressure cooker? Canned beans. Do you know what does not happen when people can beans? The beans do not get crushed because the pressure is equalized.

So let's say assertion that macrocrystalline quartz can only be made at high pressures quickly. The equalization of the pressure would keep the fossil bone or whatever it was from being crushed. Fish at the bottom of the ocean also do not get crushed with the great pressures we find there because of pressure equalization.

So anyway you slice it it does not take millions of years to make petrified fossils.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 103 by EarthScienceguy]

The crystals grown by German geologist Karl Emil von Schafhäutl were microscopic quartz. Thus, this evidence does not support your claim.

[Clownboat]

I am not trying to portray abiogenesis as any more or any less than it is.

You are attempting to portray it as 'just an idea'.
It is more than just an idea it seems.

"Researchers study abiogenesis through a combination of molecular biology, paleontology, astrobiology, oceanography, biophysics, geochemistry and biochemistry, and aim to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life."

I could have an idea that life arose due to a supreme being exploding and sending its DNA throughout the universe.
Reasearchers are not going to study such a thing via molecular biology, paleontology, astrobiology, oceanography, biophysics, geochemistry and biochemistry until I can show that my idea is credible enough. My statement is 'just an idea'.

Abiogenesis sound like more than just an idea to me.

God concepts would be 'just ideas'. Researchers have nothing to study that points to any god concepts that I'm aware of. No mechanisms to point to that I'm aware of, unlike abiogenesis.

Yes. Like I said a couple posts ago: magic.

There is no area of research that I'm aware of that studies magic.
Abiogenesis is being researched.
One is just an idea, the other, something more.

It "could be" valid. There's always a leap of imagination in an unproven theory. There is categorically no way to distinguish between a miracle and a natural process not understood.

"Therefore, abiogensis is just an idea" does not follow.

It us uncontroversial among scientists.
Only Christians find the Jehovah god to be a valid idea. Only Muslims find Allah to be a valid idea. Only.... you get the idea I'm sure.

You are compartmentalizing rather arbitrarily here. Not all scientists agree on everything regarding abiogenesis

Where did I say that all scientists agreed on everything regarding abiogenesis?

and not all religious disagree on everything regarding their deities.

Again, not a claim I have made.

I'm not claiming that abiogenesis is a fact or that it is understood. I'm saying that to consider it 'just an idea' like how the earth was perhaps once jello is just an idea is to do a diservice to those reading here.

The idea that the earth was once jello is not credible. It is just an idea I invented.
The idea (to use your term) that abiogenesis is a possible credible mechanism for how life has arisen is credible is something that is uncontroversial among scientists.

I don't take issue if you want to call them both ideas, I take issue that your statement makes them out to be equal ideas.

[SallyF]

Are humans related to apes?

Well, according to reports in this thread, indeed they are …!

Both scientifically AND mythologically they ARE related.

Evidence-based science has the genetics almost identical.

Faith-based biblical mythology has the SAME god create them both from the SAME mud.

So once again the ancient biblical writing is in complete accord with modern fact.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 109 by SallyF]

Well, according to reports in this thread, indeed they are …!

Both scientifically AND mythologically they ARE related.

Evidence-based science has the genetics almost identical.

Faith-based biblical mythology has the SAME god create them both from the SAME mud.

So once again the ancient biblical writing is in complete accord with modern fact.

You did not address why I said it was not possible for man to come from apes. You may need to read the list in its entirety.