Did humans descend from Apes?

[Brightmoon]

Because they haven't the ability we have, which is to be able to contain our appetites for abstract reasons. We can decide not to have sex, even when we want to. .

This is accurate. One of the behavioral differences between humans and chimps is the fact that we actually evolved to cooperate. If you put 100 people on a bus they’ll quietly sit or stand until they reach their stops. With 100 chimps there would be fights, rapes, severe injuries, and murders before the bus went 20 blocks .

 

[Brightmoon]

Do not use taxonomy to argue that human is an ape.

Why not? Ok then, anatomy and genetics. The same bones in a dog’s foreleg are in your arm . And every other vertebrate with forelimbs has the same pattern. In vertebrates without limbs we see the same genes for making limbs. The big difference between the other great apes and humans is how the spinal column inserts into the skull. Human spines insert from underneath and in the other apes it’s more to the back of the skull. This is how we can tell if a protohuman walked upright,by the way, even if we just have the skull.

Anyway, since you mentioned males and females, that women have to be submissive nonsense is chimpanzee behavior. The males abuse the females because the males are very much larger. In humans there is not much of a size difference between the sexes and we’ve lost those huge canines so the males don’t fight as much. As I’ve stated before humans evolved to cooperate.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly, that demonstrates the taxonomy is unable to address the origin problem.

Lol, what? Taxonomy is just organization of living organisms in a way we find useful. It has nothing to do with the origin of humans or any other organism.

We share so many biological similarities with chimps and other apes that we'd inevitably be put in the same category as them even if evolution was disproven.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Because he only saw the skeleton, but not the real life.
We are much much much better than animals.

Are you not a heterotrophic, multicellular eukaryote?

Exactly, that demonstrates the taxonomy is unable to address the origin problem. Do not use taxonomy to argue that human is an ape.

Why not? Behaviour is determined biologically as well. That type is included. Let me introduce to you the order carnivora.
Behaviour is also influenced by the surroundings which are different for each organism. So it is not included because there is no fixed behaviour.
Taxonomy is fine.
And since we are dealing with a science, to know that it and evolution are correct, just look at its practical applications. The most obvious being medicine. Ask doctors why they test human medicines on other mammals.
Ask them why you need a flu shot each season.
You will not like the answer.

 

[juvenissun]

Lol, what? Taxonomy is just organization of living organisms in a way we find useful. It has nothing to do with the origin of humans or any other organism.

We share so many biological similarities with chimps and other apes that we'd inevitably be put in the same category as them even if evolution was disproven.

So, taxonomy should NOT be used to argue that human is an ape. Because human is much much more than an ape. It is a wrong classification.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you not a heterotrophic, multicellular eukaryote?

Why not? Behaviour is determined biologically as well.

Absolutely not.
Why do you wear clothes, but animals don't?

 

[USincognito]

Absolutely not.
Why do you wear clothes, but animals don't?

Animals do wear clothes.

 

[Halbhh]

This is accurate. One of the behavioral differences between humans and chimps is the fact that we actually evolved to cooperate. If you put 100 people on a bus they’ll quietly sit or stand until they reach their stops. With 100 chimps there would be fights, rapes, severe injuries, and murders before the bus went 20 blocks .

To compare, this should be really interesting about the signs of violence perserved in ancient human bones:
First Face of America
Compare to Genesis 6:11

 

[juvenissun]

Animals do wear clothes.

If so, they do not take off clothes.

 

[SilverBear]

Sorry, but I use the KJV because it is less altered.

 

[SilverBear]

Sorry, but I use the KJV because it is less altered.

 

[USincognito]

If so, they do not take off clothes.

No. We clothes wearing animals take them off as well.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Now I know the world is fallen but unfortunatedly we have to live side by side with a pack of 13 unafraid wolves in our village and the neighbour village. Eu rules, if they walk in our garden we may not play there and I suppose those that live where tigers and gorillas live have similar problems. We are not allowed to shoot them either, not even if they attack our animals. So if they attack our kids or ourselves, are we then also imprisoned for harming animals? Who knows. In the 150 years there were wolves in my country atleast 77 kids were killed and I still do not know how to cohabit safely with the wolf. God said rule over the animals but after the fall some animals are such predators so we rather have them caged in some big nationalpark and not free to eat us.

 

[Larniavc]

Horses, dogs and cats use that too

No they don’t.

 

[Roseonathorn]

I use Jewish new testament bible and also the old testament by Jewish translation. I've also had Kjv and Swedish version and read German version some years ago and an interesting modern language bible called the message. I also had my grandfathers from dads side armybible a small one that has room in the breastpocket, it is made more like a bulletproof bible, I prefer the Jewish version.

 

[Larniavc]

If the redhaired greeneyed people were not in the image of God but indeed of the devil and were witches and had to be killed and if they were responsible for all disease and evil on earth.

Don’t ridiculous. There is no difference between gingers and anybody else.

Apart from them not having souls, that is.

 

[Roseonathorn]

No they don’t.

If You mean they call out doggie for a dog, no. But the funny talking dog in Britain's got talent truly said sentences like She called her owner You stupid idiot when He said something really stupid and She also barkedtalked No and Yes and other things. She was a white small cute hilarious dog and very well trained. I also think She could say, I love You, but I am not quite sure. I might have to google it to find it again.

 

[Larniavc]

But the funny talking dog in Britain's got talent truly said sentences like

Oh for God’s sake.

That idea is stupid (you’re not mind).

It’s like when Gal Gadot wears a hideous out fit: she is gorgeous but the outfit is a pile of crap.

I’m sure you’re not stupid but believing that a tv dog can talk is like wearing the dumbest, stupidest outfit imaginable.

With an idiotic hat, to boot.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Don’t ridiculous. There is no difference between gingers and anybody else.

Apart from them not having souls, that is.

I would want to suggest that redhaired individuals has more soul and emotions than the blondes and brownhaired and blackhaired together and they are usually very intelligent too, but often impatient and stubborn. That is my experience of all the redhaired I know and I've had a few friends and many redhaired close relatives as does my husband.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Oh for God’s sake.

That idea is stupid (you’re not mind).

It’s like when Gal Gadot wears a hideous out fit: she is gorgeous but the outfit is a pile of crap.

I’m sure you’re not stupid but believing that a tv dog can talk is like wearing the dumbest, stupidest outfit imaginable.

With an idiotic hat, to boot.

Oh, perhaps She should have worn kickboxing shorts and a top. That would have been her style today. But I am afraid they had nothing except corsettes those days so She stuck to her old outfit. It is true You can't fight in a dress. You need Shorts or pants.