The "unified" theory of evolution

[SavedByGrace3]

I am unsure why coming from dirt is better than being transformed from a primate.

 

[dlamberth]

To wit:

"The first ape from which all the different varieties of apes, such as humans, gorillas etc descended."

vs.

"So we're not descendants of gorillas or chimps etc."

I think the term needed that corrects the reasoning of your questions is "primate". Not Ape.

 

[linux.poet]

It is just a simple fact that should have been learned by HS biology at the latest.

High School biology taught me this so called fact, and I failed to believe it. A chimpanzee would be unable to learn that fact, and would also be unable to reject it if they were given prior information to the contrary.

Humans psychology is part of human biology.

So why is human psychology a multi-billion dollar industry when the market for chimpanzee psychology is close to zero? If the entirety of psychology is biologically explained, why don't we just do all our drugs and talk therapy on chimps in order to understand the best methods of how to treat humans?

I also don't have a concept of god, like many fellow apes.

The fact that this was post was made to defend against an unwanted God-concept suggests otherwise. I believe that atheists have a God-concept that they are rejecting, which leads them to reject the existence of God entirely. One cannot reject what one does not have.

If one does not reject the existence of God, they are an agnostic, not an atheist. Chimps are probably agnostics since they don't know any better.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nobody is claiming that I am related to a bird or a fish. Claiming that I am a mere "ape" is somewhat psychologically insulting to some individuals. Chimpanzees do not wear clothes, do not have written language, have no concept of God, never went through an Industrial Revolution, do not have computers and cell phones and the Internet. There is something different about us that biology cannot explain that points to a God who created us, that said man and woman are made in the Image of God and have a soul and spirit that the other apes do not possess.

I am certainly claiming that I am related to birds and fishes and every other living thing on the planet. That's something I find fascinating and awesome and moving and delightful and a host of other positive emotions. That's not my belief, that's my acceptance of the best, currently- available, evidence-based, multiply-validated explanation for the diveristy of life.

There is an insult lurking in the terminology, however. The fact that the other apes have to share the descriptor with humans is something of an insult to them. They have avoided human hubris and have done very little if anything to severely damage the biosphere and initiate a major extinction event. Shame on our specific branch of the web of life; not very good stewards of the planet.

 

[Ophiolite]

High School biology taught me this so called fact, and I failed to believe it. A chimpanzee would be unable to learn that fact, and would also be unable to reject it if they were given prior information to the contrary.

Crows are capable of solving much more complex problems than a robin. Diversity of the character and behaviour of different, even closely related species, in not only possible, it is mandatory - it's what makes them separate species! Rejecting that possibility, as you appear to have done with several of your assertions. will naturallly lead you to the wrong conclusion.

 

[BCP1928]

The fact that this was post was made to defend against an unwanted God-concept suggests otherwise. I believe that atheists have a God-concept that they are rejecting, which leads them to reject the existence of God entirely. One cannot reject what one does not have.

I believe that atheists who come here to argue against creationism have a God concept that they are rejecting. But they are not here to reject the existence of God entirely, because they already did that. The proof of is in the number of Christians and other theists who come here to reject the same God concept.

 

[Larniavc]

I would love for you to post a pic of that common ancestor - or any link between her and humans, gorillas, chimps, bononos. Where's the beef?

There were no cameras around in those days.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There were no cameras around in those days.

Me thinks that photos of fossils won't cut it either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

High School biology taught me this so called fact, and I failed to believe it.

If you are rejecting facts, I can't help you with that.

A chimpanzee would be unable to learn that fact, and would also be unable to reject it if they were given prior information to the contrary.

Since chimps aren't known to speak or understand any of our language, I'm not sure how you could even begin to test that claim.

So why is human psychology a multi-billion dollar industry when the market for chimpanzee psychology is close to zero?

Chimps are all communists. Everybody knows that. But seriously...

If the entirety of psychology is biologically explained, why don't we just do all our drugs and talk therapy on chimps in order to understand the best methods of how to treat humans?

Again, we don't speak their language, so it would be very difficult. Part of your post seems to be a denial of the biological aspect of mind, personality, emotion, etc. Chimps have all of those.

The fact that this was post was made to defend against an unwanted God-concept suggests otherwise. I believe that atheists have a God-concept that they are rejecting, which leads them to reject the existence of God entirely. One cannot reject what one does not have.

No, this part of this post was made in response to long list of things that humans have and chimps don't that ranged from writing (which humans didn't have 6000 years ago) to cell phones (which humans didn't have until 50 years ago). So I picked the "god concept" claim. I don't have my own concept of god any more. I know a lot of people have them. I'm aware of many of them, but none make any sense to me at all, so I don't bother trying to have a specific concept of god.

If one does not reject the existence of God, they are an agnostic, not an atheist. Chimps are probably agnostics since they don't know any better.

Atheist = "doesn't believe in a god". Rejection of existence of all gods is not needed. I would add awareness of god concepts to the requirement otherwise you get silly things like atheist rocks.

"An atheist is a person who being aware of at least one concept of a god, does not accept or believe in any of them."

(I also reject the use of "agnostic" as a noun.)

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I am unsure why coming from dirt is better than being transformed from a primate.

Don't get me wrong, I know Adam and Eve came directly from dirt/dust/clay. But what came before, from chapter 1, was the primate who evolved from dirt and was transformed into "the image of the gods" by the gods. "Let us make man in our image..."
And either way, whether from the earth:

Genesis 1:24-31 KJV
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Or directly from the soil:

Genesis 2:7 KJV
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.

From dust we came and to dust we return.

 

[Shemjaza]

The reason why, is despite the biological similarities (which I also would dispute, most apes have thick coats of hair which humans do not have, thus sparing them from the use of clothing), there is an enormous psychological gulf between humans and chimpanzees that biology cannot account for.

Humans have the same amount of hair as chimps, it's just finer and shorter. Clothing is also not really necessary in all environments... it's human ingenuity and technology that expands our possible range of environments.

Chimps have emotions, social structures and some ability to reason and plan.

Nobody is claiming that I am related to a bird or a fish.

You aren't a bird but you are a vertebrate.

But my point was that creatures we call "birds" and "fish" have significantly more diversity in size, shape intelligence and genetics than humans and the other apes.

Claiming that I am a mere "ape" is somewhat psychologically insulting to some individuals. Chimpanzees do not wear clothes, do not have written language, have no concept of God, never went through an Industrial Revolution, do not have computers and cell phones and the Internet. There is something different about us that biology cannot explain that points to a God who created us, that said man and woman are made in the Image of God and have a soul and spirit that the other apes do not possess.

Not all humans have gone through all those stages. And most concepts of god appear to vary by culture and background.

I would be more than happy to let biology describe things that are biological, and use psychology to explain things that are psychological, but that seems to be the explanation for resistance to the biological idea, a lack of ability to draw a distinction between those two fields. At least, that has been the problem historically, with the song "You can't make a monkey out of me" and whatnot.

You clearly feel strongly about not being identified as an ape, but religious conviction and personal emotional intuition are not consistently useful at demonstrating the truth.

Once you accept one "mutually exclusive religious interpretation" as true, other truth that aligns with the basic belief structures of your religion you can research and debate out into place.

That's the ring isn't it? You have skipped right to accepting one as true in contrast to all the different interpretations, or even fundamentally different beliefs all also supported by firm beliefs and patterns of faith.

From my perspective, what distinguishes one religious interpretation from another is a matter of historical and literary research. Christianity is based on actual historical events in my view. But that's getting off topic - this is the science forum. However, creationism and Christianity, I contend, explains the psychological gulf I mentioned earlier much better than evolution does.

There really isn't a gulf to explain when you consider the evidence for the historical state of pre-technological humans and the significant evidence for the variety of hominids demonstrating the spectrum between modern humans and the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

I believe that all sources of knowledge, not just science, need to be considered to form an accurate view of reality, not just picking and choosing the ones I happen to like.

But creationism in a separate rejection of basically every field of science and of evidence of the most ancient archaeological evidence of modern humans.