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?

[SallyF]

[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.

I addressed the OP question.

Biblically, humans are related to apes.

Same god.

Same mud.

[FarWanderer]

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'.

If that were my intention I would have simply said those exact words.

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.

Do please note that I never said it was "just" an idea. I said it has not been shown to be anything other than an idea.

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.

Yes. We are in agreement here.

One is just an idea, the other, something more.

Oh please. Such weak, meaningless language! A complete non-argument! Next you'll be telling me that souls exist, because humans are "something more" than a bag of cells.

How about: "One ignores everything we have learned so far, the other, builds on our hard-earned knowledge." How's that sound?

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.

One is a far, far more arbitrary idea than the other. Satisfied?

[marco]

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.

Moderator Warning


You've already had a comment about being uncivil. Restrict your replies to a comment on what has been posted and do not insult a poster. The discussion between you seems informed so why spoil it with incivility?

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

Do please note that I never said it was "just" an idea. I said it has not been shown to be anything other than an idea.

Post 99: Nowhere does this quote show abiogenesis to be anything but an idea.

It is nothing, 'but an idea'.
In other words, just an idea.

Oh please. Such weak, meaningless language! A complete non-argument! Next you'll be telling me that souls exist, because humans are "something more" than a bag of cells.

I'll make my own arguments thank you.
Be assured that you are mistaken here and this is not an arguement you will hear from me.

How about: "One ignores everything we have learned so far, the other, builds on our hard-earned knowledge." How's that sound?

If we are going to call them ideas, it seems that we agree that they are not equal.

One is a far, far more arbitrary idea than the other. Satisfied?

I believe you have done a service to those reading here.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 104 by Difflugia]

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

The problem with your long age theory are the observations of how well preserved fossils can be. David Martill when looking at the different body parts of animals that were fossilized began to realize how quickly animal fossils had to be fossilized in order to preserve different body parts like gills and petrified remains in the stomach of organism.

He measured how long it took for different body parts to decay and concluded the following.

As Martill looked at his fish-rocks, he realized the animals must have turned to stone very quickly. If not, their guts and gills would have rotted away and disappeared. Martill refers to this as “the Medusa effect.� He named it for the mythical monster, with snakes for hair, whose gaze could turn people to stone. It seemed these fish actually had turned to stone in the blink of an eye. How that happened was a mystery. But Martill was determined to solve it. That was the purpose of his fish-rotting experiments.


“The fossilization process was probably taking just a few hours,� he says, “but no more than a few days.�
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/ ... sils-flash


That is the problem with your theory. Fossilization had to happen quickly so millions of years just does not work. Now if you are trying express that the calcium carbonate was replaced by the quartz then heat and pressure would have no effect on the fossils. The minerals would simply be replaced.

[Danmark]

The problem with your long age theory are the observations of how well preserved fossils can be. ...
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/ ... sils-flash

"Long age theory?" Your own reference speaks of evidence 500 million years old. "These come from some of the first animals to evolve on Earth — 580 million years ago."
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/ ... sils-flash

[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.

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

Our very good Christian friends at Creation.com give us the following:



If what God says in the Bible about creation is deemed to be wrong or to need modernizing, this opens the door for non-believers to regard as wrong or needing modernizing other things that God says in the Bible. https://creation.com/can-christians-add ... g-to-bible

"God" is never shown to have said ANYTHING in the Bibles, because "God" is never shown to have anything whatsoever to do with these human fabrications.

No matter HOW much we deflect attention away from biblical fantasy literature …

It remains there in front of us telling us about the mud-man and the rib-woman.

I suggest that those who identify as Christian and yet do not defend the biblical mythology, know that they are dealing with fantasy literature.

Fantasy literature that tells us apes and wombats and humans and dinosaurs were created from the same mud by the same mythological god on the same day.

Humans ARE related to apes, both scientifically and biblically.

[EarthScienceguy]

[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

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 116 by Danmark]

"Long age theory?" Your own reference speaks of evidence 500 million years old. "These come from some of the first animals to evolve on Earth — 580 million years ago."
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/ ... sils-flash

The discussion is not on long ages but on whether or not fossils can form quickly. the fact that this source believes in long ages and that fossils can form quickly further supports my argument.

[Clownboat]

[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

In case you are interested in other possibilities as to why humans have these notions:
(Don't look in to this if you are trying to maintain a preconceived religious belief though).
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.