Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[tas8831]

Dear Serious,

In What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr revealed to us that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

Tell me - did you read Mayr's book? I am thinking no, as that quote you provide is found, verbatim, ellipses and all, on numerous creationist and conservative sites. That happens an awful lot.
I have not read Mayr's book, but I ultimately found the quote in context, and lo and behold - in the very next sentence, the desired implication of what is so often presented starts to unravel:


"We have to make use of every conceivable clue to construct a probable scenario and then test this explanation against all the available evidence. By reconstructing climate and vegetation during the transition period we can actually discover several factors that had been neglected in the past. And we must use Darwin's favorite method: ask questions. Did any climatic change occur at the transitional period? What effect would it have on the vegetation? What are the crucial innovations in the anatomy of Homo? Why is sexual dimorphism reduced in Homo? I will try to answer these questions and a number of additional ones..."


I am forever skeptical of the creationist quote, for history and experience tells me that regardless of the source, it is a near certainty that something is left out, distorted, etc.

And this reality renders this proclamation:

In other words a made up story to make the evidence fit the hypothesis!!!

Moot and misleading.

If you are going to become a great scientist then learn to separate the actual facts we find from the hypothesis based narrative attached to explain them..STRIVE with all due diligence to not approach the data or the find with a preconceived notion other wise all you conclude will contain confirmation bias.

Good advice. Yet reading in another thread, you argued against a particular phylogenetic analysis for it placed humans more closely to rhesus monkeys than to chimps. You failed to notice that chimps had not been used in that particular analysis.

I suggest you take some of your on advice to heart.

 

[tas8831]

One way to see similarity is to look at the finished produce...a man and a chimp. Then ask a small child is we are the same. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

So, you base your reality on the musings of children?

 

[mark kennedy]

You seem to have missed my central question.

I'm unable to distinguish along a chain of fossils/skulls effectively bridging Australophithicus to neanderthal, and only happen to know a tell between neanderthal and modern human. What specific features lack transitional forms between Australophithicus and modern humans? I understand that scientists who work in the field may be familiar enough with them to notice subtle differences I miss, but as you say, "Just because someone who appears to have authority in some subject does not mean they are right, it does not mean the story accepted is actually true, and it does not mean you are not to question or see other possible explanations." So rather than asserting some expert's opinion, let's talk about whatever visible features support or contradict that opinion.

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014

These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. 3 million years ago supposed human ancestors had a chimpanzee size brain. Between 2 mya and 3 mya the only transitional is this

Notice the distinctive, gorilla-like sagittal crests, the mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull. Then two million years ago our ancestors have their cranium capacity nearly triple in size, over night, along with all the many physical characteristics that define us as human. The Neanderthals had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own, as did Cro-magnon man. It's pretty obvious what is happening here. Chimpanzee ancestors were originally gracial (smooth on top) and Paranthropus is a transitional between the Antediluvian ape ancestors. The ape ancestors get of the Ark and start migrating south into Africa and eventually the orangutans would migrate to Asia.

Like I said, there are no chimpanzee or orangutan ancestors in the fossil record. That's because they are passed off as our ancestors. Meanwhile the Neanderthal ancestors were migrating across Europe, their fossils being found from Iraq to Spain. It's pretty obvious if you look at the actual evidence.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014

These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. 3 million years ago supposed human ancestors had a chimpanzee size brain. Between 2 mya and 3 mya the only transitional is this

Notice the distinctive, gorilla-like sagittal crests, the mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull. Then two million years ago our ancestors have their cranium capacity nearly triple in size, over night, along with all the many physical characteristics that define us as human. The Neanderthals had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own, as did Cro-magnon man. It's pretty obvious what is happening here. Chimpanzee ancestors were originally gracial (smooth on top) and Paranthropus is a transitional between the Antediluvian ape ancestors. The ape ancestors get of the Ark and start migrating south into Africa and eventually the orangutans would migrate to Asia.

Like I said, there are no chimpanzee or orangutan ancestors in the fossil record. That's because they are passed off as our ancestors. Meanwhile the Neanderthal ancestors were migrating across Europe, their fossils being found from Iraq to Spain. It's pretty obvious if you look at the actual evidence.

Grace and peace,
Mark

-_- seriously? None from the same genus as us, like Homo habilis? http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/6f4c5da45d2de0a3c8c83f71f5a20b6f/misc/habilis.jpg
The skulls on the right side of this image have names that don't ring any bells? https://previews.123rf.com/images/c...derthalis-and-Homo-Antecessor-Stock-Photo.jpg

The reason why Australopithecus fossils are often brought up as transition is because species in that genus have some of the most intermediate traits between humans and our most recent cousins, chimps. Another reason is because of the shear number of fossils we have for them makes their physiology quite apparent compared to other transitional species relevant to human evolution.

Does this help?

for comparison purposes, chimpanzees have a brain size between 280 and 400 cc. So, even Lucy had a bit of a bigger brain than a chimp.

 

[pitabread]

Like I said, there are no chimpanzee or orangutan ancestors in the fossil record. That's because they are passed off as our ancestors.

Set against the many human fossils found in East Africa, the lack of specimens documenting the chimp's evolutionary story was exasperating.

Part of the problem, McBrearty explains, is that chimps tend to live in hot, wet jungle conditions that are not good for the preservation of remains. Humans, on the other hand, are thought to have lived for millennia on the savannah, where bones are less likely to rot.

- First chimp fossil unearthed : Nature News

 

[dad]

So, you base your reality on the musings of children?

They have more sense on origins issues than men of the sillyscience cloth, if the kid is a believer. It takes years of brainwashing, and indoctrination, and burning out common sense and reason to end up with a true believing evo.

 

[Aman777]

-_- seriously? None from the same genus as us, like Homo habilis? http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/6f4c5da45d2de0a3c8c83f71f5a20b6f/misc/habilis.jpg
The skulls on the right side of this image have names that don't ring any bells? https://previews.123rf.com/images/c...derthalis-and-Homo-Antecessor-Stock-Photo.jpg

The reason why Australopithecus fossils are often brought up as transition is because species in that genus have some of the most intermediate traits between humans and our most recent cousins, chimps. Another reason is because of the shear number of fossils we have for them makes their physiology quite apparent compared to other transitional species relevant to human evolution.

Does this help?

for comparison purposes, chimpanzees have a brain size between 280 and 400 cc. So, even Lucy had a bit of a bigger brain than a chimp.

Humans are the descendants of Adam. ANY other human-looking creature was created and brought forth long from WATER, on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 AFTER Adam was made on the 3rd Day which was long BEFORE the 5th Day. Gen 2:4-7

Apes, Chimpanzees and ALL other creatures, who descended from WATER, including the sons of God (prehistoric people) could NOT possibly have been Human. Can you tell us HOW Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's, Genesis 3:22 have entered the bodies of creatures who descended from Water?

 

[dad]

Humans are the descendants of Adam. ANY other human-looking creature was created and brought forth long from WATER, on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 AFTER Adam was made on the 3rd Day which was long BEFORE the 5th Day. Gen 2:4-7

Apes, Chimpanzees and ALL other creatures, who descended from WATER, including the sons of God (prehistoric people)

Not true at all

 

[Aman777]

Not true at all

Sure it is UNLESS you can tell us HOW Noah's grandsons produced children since there were NO other Humans for them to marry. I don't think you can, but go ahead and try. I promise not to laugh so just go ahead and post your thoughts. God Bless you

 

[PsychoSarah]

Humans are the descendants of Adam. ANY other human-looking creature was created and brought forth long from WATER, on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 AFTER Adam was made on the 3rd Day which was long BEFORE the 5th Day. Gen 2:4-7

Yes, according to your interpretation of a book I don't believe to accurately depict the world.

Apes, Chimpanzees and ALL other creatures, who descended from WATER, including the sons of God (prehistoric people) could NOT possibly have been Human.

I wasn't claiming that Homo erectus and the other fossil species I depicted were human. Only that they have some human and some chimp-like traits, and that their skulls indicate larger brains than chimps (but, do take note that their brains were smaller than human brains for the ones depicted in that image). Surely, you could understand the concept of these creatures being more intelligent than chimps, if not quite reaching human intelligence either?

Can you tell us HOW Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's, Genesis 3:22 have entered the bodies of creatures who descended from Water?

Not any more than you could explain the invisible glip-glorps that came out of Vishnu's anus after he ate the bowels of the unholy ones . Since I don't view human intelligence as distinct from how intelligence works in any other organism, I wouldn't think that said intelligence was injected into our species through some mystical process any more than a chimp. Heck, to be extremely blunt, if I viewed human intelligence as demanding a creator, I would view ALL animal intelligence as demanding a creator.

 

[Aman777]

Heck, to be extremely blunt, if I viewed human intelligence as demanding a creator, I would view ALL animal intelligence as demanding a creator.

Now, you've got it. His name is Jesus and without Him was not anything made which was made. God Bless you

 

[dad]

Sure it is UNLESS you can tell us HOW Noah's grandsons produced children since there were NO other Humans for them to marry. I don't think you can, but go ahead and try. I promise not to laugh so just go ahead and post your thoughts. God Bless you

Easy. People at that time, in that nature could have babies with relatives. This is news?

 

[Aman777]

Easy. People at that time, in that nature could have babies with relatives. This is news?

What relatives? Must you "add to" what is written in Scripture in a vain attempt to get your religion to agree with God's Holy Word? Of course. God Bless you

 

[dad]

What relatives? Must you "add to" what is written in Scripture in a vain attempt to get your religion to agree with God's Holy Word? Of course. God Bless you

God told the people that existed and He created to multiply and the animals too. He never said a planet of the apes was involved. Guess who invented and added stuff?

 

[Aman777]

God told the people that existed and He created to multiply and the animals too.

Chapter and verse, please. Remember that we are speaking of Noah's grandsons who had NO other Humans to marry. Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they married the sons of God (prehistoric people) and had children with them. Gen 6:4 Noah was one of "HIS" kinds or the kind made by the Hands of Jesus. The sons of God (prehistoric people) were "THEIR" kinds or the kinds created ETERNALLY by the Trinity (God).

God knew that His and Their kinds could marry and have children exactly as I have posted for years. No "fleshly" Angels involved. Amen?

 

[dad]

Chapter and verse, please.

Gen 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

Remember that we are speaking of Noah's grandsons who had NO other Humans to marry.

They had every human on earth to marry! No apes needed.

Ge 9:1 -And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Notice God said replenish the earth? Not some other planet!

Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they married the sons of God (prehistoric people)

Name a verse where prehistoric people or anything else was even mentioned!? Baloney.

and had children with them. Gen 6:4 Noah was one of "HIS" kinds or the kind made by the Hands of Jesus. The sons of God (prehistoric people) were "THEIR" kinds or the kinds created ETERNALLY by the Trinity (God).

Utter made up rubbish.

God knew that His and Their kinds could marry and have children exactly as I have posted for years. No "fleshly" Angels involved. Amen?

God never mentioned any apes to marry or anything like that.

 

[dad]

What relatives? Must you "add to" what is written in Scripture in a vain attempt to get your religion to agree with God's Holy Word? Of course. God Bless you

What relatives??? The ones that came from obeying what God said to do...multiply!

 

[Aman777]

What relatives??? The ones that came from obeying what God said to do...multiply!

Amen, but first Noah's grandsons had to find a woman. Otherwise, Noah's descendants would disappear. They found prehistoric women on our Earth, just like Cain did on Adam's Earth. Gen 6:1-4 The sons of God (prehistoric people) are THEIR kinds or the kinds which are made ETERNALLY by the Trinity. Humans (descendants of Adam) and prehistoric people can have children together because God's (Trinity's kind) and His (Jesus kinds) were made for each other. God Bless you

 

[dad]

Amen, but first Noah's grandsons had to find a woman.

You think inventing a planet of apes to have sex with is better than simply using sisters, or relatives for that day?

Otherwise, Noah's descendants would disappear. They found prehistoric women on our Earth, just like Cain did on Adam's Earth. Gen 6:1-4

No, Cain did what all peple did, found girls and all of them came from Adam and Eve.

The sons of God (prehistoric people)

Prehistoric smehistoric.

are THEIR kinds or the kinds which are made ETERNALLY by the Trinity.

Calling angels monkeys now?

Humans (descendants of Adam) and prehistoric people can have children together because God's (Trinity's kind) and His (Jesus kinds) were made for each other. God Bless you

Lame attempt to butcher the bible to try and fit what you think science needs you to believe.

 

[mark kennedy]

-_- seriously? None from the same genus as us, like Homo habilis? http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/6f4c5da45d2de0a3c8c83f71f5a20b6f/misc/habilis.jpg
The skulls on the right side of this image have names that don't ring any bells? https://previews.123rf.com/images/c...derthalis-and-Homo-Antecessor-Stock-Photo.jpg

The reason why Australopithecus fossils are often brought up as transition is because species in that genus have some of the most intermediate traits between humans and our most recent cousins, chimps. Another reason is because of the shear number of fossils we have for them makes their physiology quite apparent compared to other transitional species relevant to human evolution.

Does this help?

for comparison purposes, chimpanzees have a brain size between 280 and 400 cc. So, even Lucy had a bit of a bigger brain than a chimp.

Homo habilis was brain capacity of around 640 cm on average. But considerably smaller than the 1350 to 1450 cm³ range of modern Homo sapiens. (Homo habilis, Wikipedia)

But how? We are not taking color, size or shape, we are talking about the most highly conserved organ in the human anatomy. Changes in the molecular structure of brain related gene result in disease and disorder in modern genetics. So how do the African Great Apes get a major overhaul 2 million years ago?

By the way, Lucy had a Chimpanzee size brain and there is no serious question about that:

Lucy’s brain was probably about the size of a modern chimpanzee’s (range between 387 – 550 cc; average 446 cc) (How big was Lucy's brain? Efossils)
​

No transitionals in the human lineage for a million years and then suddenly Human size cranial capacity. Why?