Human & Ape Inquiry

[SLP]

That's not my desperation you smell.

Yes, it is. It really is. The odor also consists of snarky one-liners in response to posts containing documentation of your erroneous claims/assertions, etc.

It is a common smell on forums like this. I shall call it "Creatofunk."

 

[46AND2]

It doesn't bother me that you think that way, I'm just pointing out a legitimate reason why you're not correct... it frustrates you because you realize what I'm saying is true, you know its there and have no answer for it. All you want to do is scramble it by attacking and ridiculing.

If humans are not animals, and are special in some mysterious way, why are there so many similarities? Why do we conceive our young like animals do? Why do we birth them like animals do? Feed them like animals? Why is our bone structure similar? Why is our DNA so similar? Why are we SOOO similar to animals that we LITERALLY FIT THE DEFINITION of an animal?

If god wanted us to stand out as special, why is the only "significant" difference an ambiguous "feeling" that you yourself admittedly can't define?

I've got hundreds of similarities I can list AND define...you've got one ethereal difference which you can't support with anything other than "feeling."

 

[SLP]

???

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul....

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him... the Lord God formed every beast of the field... and brought them unto Adam...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

[SLP]

why does it bother you so much that science correctly states that humans, biologically and functionally, are animals? Why?

... I'm just pointing out a legitimate reason why you're not correct...

ANIMAL:

Any of the eukaryotic multicellular organisms of the biological kingdom Animalia that are generally characterized to be heterotrophic, motile, having specialized sensory organs, lacking cell wall, and growing from a blastula during embryonic development



I'm guessing that your lack of biology knowledge is part of the problem, so I will waste some more time explaining things to you.

Eukaryotic - cells with true nuclei. Our cells have true nuclei. We are, thus, eukaryotic.

Multicellular organism - living things made up of multiple cells. We are made up of trillions of cells. We are multicellular organisms.

Heterotrophic - obtaining nourishment from external organic compounds as a source of carbon. We eat. We are heterotrophs.

Motile - having the ability to move. We move. We are motile.

Having specialized sensory organs. We, like all multicellular eukaryotic organisms, have specialized structures, ranging from the bare dendrites of nociceptors to the several accessory structures associated with the organ for sight, that are used to detect particular changes in our environment. We have specialized sensory structures.

Lacking a cell wall - individual cells do not have a rigid or semi-rigid covering around our cells, which is characteristic of plant cells and some bacteria. Our cells do not have cell walls.

Growing from a blastula - A blastula is an early embryonic structure generally characterized as being a sphere of cells within which a fluid filled area develops, thus giving the sphere of cells a polarity which is a precursor to differentiation of cell types. In humans (and all mammals - heck, all multicellular amniotes), a blastula forms after the morula stage and prior to the gastrula stage of development. We go through a blastula stage.

Kingdom Animalia - taxonomically, members of this group are assigned to it because they exhibit all of the above characterisitcs.

WE exhibit all of these characteristics

Humans fulfill all of these basic criteria for being considered Animals, and so ARE Animals.

No amount of pouting, foot-stamping, dubious quotes, repeated assertions, references to your idiosyncratic interpretations of ancient stories, etc., will change that.

Grow up. Face facts. Stop pretending that your Holy Book is a science book. Be a man. Admit you are wrong.

 

[SLP]

I know of none that would pose a barrier to macroevolution.

Talk about a blatantly false statement... being able to observe and re-create a situation that occured millions of years ago?

As one that has claimed to have studied evolution, and to have an education in science, I am shocked (not shocked) at your counter - do you accept that there was a great earthquake in San Francisco in 1906? Why? When was it re-created?

As you should understand by now, seeing as how I presented several times with an actual biology definition of it, macroevolution is a field of study regarding successive rounds of speciation and the patterns that these rounds of speciation produce. Macroevolution is not "an event", and thus cannot be "reproduced" (unless you mean re-observing the patterns produced via data anaylses?).

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."
- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.​

That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.

Your "barrier" is one of understanding - you and your masters want to believe that macroevolution is an event, an event for which there is no evidence and which is insurmountable. But this is not what macroevolution is or means in actual evolutionary biology.

Look at it this way - when you look at a road map, what do you see?
A big network of roads and highways?
But a big network of roads on a map is made up of many individual roads and highways.

You and your masters will have us believe that you cannot make a roadmap by just plotting the individual roads on a 'chart' and 'morph' them into a roadmap!

 

[inquiring mind]

If god wanted us to stand out as special, why is the only "significant" difference an ambiguous "feeling" that you yourself admittedly can't define?

Well, at least you acknowledge it.

I've got hundreds of similarities I can list AND define...you've got one ethereal difference which you can't support with anything other than "feeling."

Yes, and yours are just similarities, mostly with the bar set very low. I'm just curious as to why the difference we are speaking of is so apparent to you, yet so devoid of any attempt on your part to try to understand, and even upsetting to you in an obvious way?

 

[Speedwell]

Well, at least you acknowledge it.

We acknowledge that you feel it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It doesn't bother me that you think that way, I'm just pointing out a legitimate reason why you're not correct... it frustrates you because you realize what I'm saying is true, you know its there and have no answer for it. All you want to do is scramble it by attacking and ridiculing.

Stop pretending your a mind reader. You're not doing a good job at it.
Seriously: why does it bother you so much that science correctly states that humans, biologically and functionally, are animals? Why?

 

[46AND2]

Well, at least you acknowledge it.

I don't acknowledge it. I think it's an utterly ridiculous proposition, and easily explained within the framework of evolution. As speedwell says, I acknowledge that YOU feel there is some magical difference between us and animals.

Yes, and yours are just similarities,

No, mine are a persistent pattern of similarities AND DIFFERENCES, which are consistent with, and only ever seen within, inheritance.

mostly with the bar set very low.

Bar set low? It's in our very genetics. It's a far higher bar than what you have set for yours....a feeling.

Mine are testable to the point of being measurable, whereas yours is wistful and so intangible that you admit that you even have difficulty describing it.

I'm just curious as to why the difference we are speaking of is so apparent to you, yet so devoid of any attempt on your part to try to understand, and even upsetting to you in an obvious way?

Devoid of an attempt to understand? I explained to you pretty explicitly my "attempt to understand." And it was even reasonable enough to you, that had to admit that it was a plausible explanation as long as I accept, which I do, that humans have been diverging from chimps for the last 6+ million years. And frankly, it was trivially easy to consider.

 

[46AND2]

No, mine are a persistent pattern of similarities AND DIFFERENCES, which are consistent with, and only ever seen within, inheritance.

For example: The GULO gene gives all mammals except great apes, guinea pigs, and some bats the ability to produce vitamin C. The similarity that we share with great apes is that our gene doesn't work because it has been broken by the same mutation. The difference between us and guinea pigs and bats, and the difference between guinea pigs and bats are that our genes are all broken by DIFFERENT mutations. Which is exactly the pattern we would expect based on how closely related we species all are to each other. The same type of thing can be done with literally hundreds of thousands of ERVs which even reveal a pattern of relationship among great ape species (including humans).

 

[inquiring mind]

Stop pretending your a mind reader. You're not doing a good job at it.
Seriously: why does it bother you so much that science correctly states that humans, biologically and functionally, are animals? Why?

I think I've already answered this a couple of times.

 

[inquiring mind]

For example: The GULO gene gives all mammals except great apes, guinea pigs, and some bats the ability to produce vitamin C. The similarity that we share with great apes is that our gene doesn't work because it has been broken by the same mutation. The difference between us and guinea pigs and bats, and the difference between guinea pigs and bats are that our genes are all broken by DIFFERENT mutations. Which is exactly the pattern we would expect based on how closely related we species all are to each other. The same type of thing can be done with literally hundreds of thousands of ERVs which even reveal a pattern of relationship among great ape species (including humans).

People, I know what you're thinking... why does he keep subjecting himself to this stuff?

 

[inquiring mind]

Here's the truth... Biology, a great observational tool in and of itself, has been stretched to ridiculous limits in the support of macroevolutionary science, which the scientific community wants so bad to be true. They need it to be true because they’ve hung their hats on it, and realize at this point how ridiculous they will look if they don’t keep it alive and well. So, they are continually doubling down and making the theory look like a reasonable assumption, despite it still being very much speculative in nature. They create and change well-established definitions and meanings (such as ‘kind’ to ‘species’) and assign characteristics in such a way as to codify the idea where they can defend it in a seemingly irrefutable scientific manner. With this well-designed approach, anyone disputing them is made to look ignorant, by their own design. Yet, the promoted model of macroevolution is impossible to observe, impossible to re-create, incapable of being accurately measured, impossible to study without the fallibility of men in such an attempt, and on and on. And, we Creationists are labeled stupid for believing God’s Word… go figure.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's the truth... Biology, a great observational tool in and of itself, has been stretched to ridiculous limits in the support of macroevolutionary science, which the scientific community wants so bad to be true. They need it to be true because they’ve hung their hats on it, and realize at this point how ridiculous they will look if they don’t keep it alive and well. So, they are continually doubling down and making the theory look like a reasonable assumption, despite it still being very much speculative in nature. They create and change well-established definitions and meanings (such as ‘kind’ to ‘species’) and assign characteristics in such a way as to codify the idea where they can defend it in a seemingly irrefutable scientific manner. With this well-designed approach, anyone disputing them is made to look ignorant, by their own design. Yet, the promoted model of macroevolution is impossible to observe, impossible to re-create, incapable of being accurately measured, impossible to study without the fallibility of men in such an attempt, and on and on. And, we Creationists are labeled stupid for believing God’s Word… go figure.

This couldn't be further from the truth. When the theory of evolution was first proposed, the great majority of top-rank scientists (e.g. The Royal Society) were believers in special creation; but the clear exposition of Darwin & Wallace, the fundamental simplicity of the underlying theory, and the reams of supporting data (observations and specimens) Darwin provided were instrumental in changing their minds and opening a new chapter in biology. It's sad that, even today, that level of intellectual honesty is not more widespread.

 

[Speedwell]

Here's the truth... Biology, a great observational tool in and of itself, has been stretched to ridiculous limits in the support of macroevolutionary science, which the scientific community wants so bad to be true.

Why? What's the motive?

They need it to be true because they’ve hung their hats on it, and realize at this point how ridiculous they will look if they don’t keep it alive and well.

No more than with any other scientific theory which has succumbed to new evidence. The history of science is littered with them.

So, they are continually doubling down and making the theory look like a reasonable assumption, despite it still being very much speculative in nature. They create and change well-established definitions and meanings (such as ‘kind’ to ‘species’) and assign characteristics in such a way as to codify the idea where they can defend it in a seemingly irrefutable scientific manner.

"Kind" was never a taxonomic category. Linguistically, it's a relative qualifier.

With this well-designed approach, anyone disputing them is made to look ignorant, by their own design. Yet, the promoted model of macroevolution is impossible to observe, impossible to re-create, incapable of being accurately measured, impossible to study without the fallibility of men in such an attempt, and on and on.

The fallibility of man is all we've got in science. What other scientific theories do you dislike for that reason?

And, we Creationists are labeled stupid for believing God’s Word… go figure.

Many Christians who believe in God's word accept evolution as well.

 

[inquiring mind]

"Kind" was never a taxonomic category.

Exactly, that's my point. That was a term that gave evolutionary scientists a problem... so, they eliminated it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think I've already answered this a couple of times.

Not that I've seen on this thread.
So I'll ask again: why does it bother you so much that science correctly states that humans, biologically and functionally, are animals? Why?

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly, that's my point. That was a term that gave evolutionary scientists a problem... so, they eliminated it.

Eliminated it from what? Species were defined well before the theory of evolution was proposed. "Kinds" as a relative qualifier never figured into a taxonomy in any way.

 

[Shemjaza]

Exactly, that's my point. That was a term that gave evolutionary scientists a problem... so, they eliminated it.

The problem with "kind" is that it can't be detected in a useful, consistent manner.

It's a label for the gut feeling creationists get when they think about what they believe the base lines of life are.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not that I've seen on this thread.
So I'll ask again: why does it bother you so much that science correctly states that humans, biologically and functionally, are animals? Why?

So, I'll answer again. From post #467, "There is zero proof that species gradually appear through a slow transformation from a common ancestor (something other than man). In fact, you could say its science fiction because it has not been observed happening, and there is no way to test it, thus it cannot be confirmed. So, people should speak up, and not be ashamed or be made to feel stupid if they believe in Creation. That’s my issue here."