Do Apes Shave?

[Pete Harcoff]

PS I am very thankful I'm a Christian. Christians are not religious----- Christians have a real FRIEND in JESUS. Religion is something man makes up to fill a gap----like Evolution for instance...

I don't know what your definition of "religion" is, but as per any commonly used definition, Christianity is a religion.

 

[mikeynov]

I'm a bipedal primate with no tail. I shave.

Therefore, apes do shave, as I am one.

 

[theFijian]

It means he isn't an ape. Apes cannot grow beards...

I also have a friend who can't grow a decent beard, are you saying he is an ape?

 

[theFijian]

So are you of the belief that our ancestors didn't need to shave or that the ancestors of the ape and monkey did?

Did they use Gillette or Wilkinson Sword? Remmington perhaps?

 

[random_guy]

Why is it that apes and monkeys have no beards or mustaches. Apes do not seen to be into body art or body piercing either. This is just an observation. Beards have been around seemingly since Adam and yet I see no connection with primates. Come to think of it, I've seen no ape sporting the "Tarzan" look. After supposed "millions" of years of cavemen hanging around with apes, apes still are not into sporting clothing. In fact, they (unlike us) do not even seem to understand the idea of modesty. It would seem that apart from a few similarities in form, that is where the similarities end. They are animals-----we are humans.

Certain humans are born without the ability to grow a beard (or any hair whatso ever). Does that make them not human? Certain tribes of human do not understand modesty. Does that make them not human?

Your argument is horrible. You're basing human-ness off of quantative traits, where as for every a qualative trait in a human, it is possible to find in the animal kingdom.

 

[Beastt]

Why is it that apes and monkeys have no beards or mustaches. Apes do not seen to be into body art or body piercing either. This is just an observation. Beards have been around seemingly since Adam and yet I see no connection with primates. Come to think of it, I've seen no ape sporting the "Tarzan" look. After supposed "millions" of years of cavemen hanging around with apes, apes still are not into sporting clothing. In fact, they (unlike us) do not even seem to understand the idea of modesty. It would seem that apart from a few similarities in form, that is where the similarities end. They are animals-----we are humans.

Can a cheetah retract it's claws? (The answer is, "no".) Then I guess they're not a part of the cat family. Does a snow owl have ear tufts like the Great Horned Owl? (The answer is, "no".) So I guess they're not both owls. Since mammals tend not to be venomous, I suppose any animal that is venomous isn't a mammal, correct? What about the male platypus?

The thing that makes one species different from another is that they have differences. If they didn't have differences, they'd be of the same species. (Slow me down if I start to move too fast for you.) Since most men grow facial whiskers and most women don't, does that mean that men and women are of unrelated species?

So the fact that humans have a difference in facial hair from some other primates doesn't make them other than primates. You seem to overlook the similarities and have to dig down to the follicle distribution in order to find a significant difference. Isn't that making a little bell go off in your head or did you intentionally silence that bell years ago when it started to interfere with what you were being taught?

Take a human corpse and another primate, (Obviously, don't really do this. Just imagine.) Cut them both open and dump the contents of the chest cavity, skull and abdominal cavity into large vats, one for the human, one for the other primate. Cut them up and stir them around. Now take equal volumes from each vat, have someone else swap them around for you and then you tell me which is which. We're primates and that means we're animals.

By the way, modesty is learned, not instinctive.

Butter beans share about 98% of our DNA (or so I''m told). I do not seriously believe that I am related to butter bearns. I would think that shaving might be considered a defect. There are better ways to spend time than shaving or getting tattooed or getting a haircut. Do butterbeans shave?

This is what can happen when you base the acceptance of what you are told simply upon what you wish to believe rather than upon research and confirmation. Butter beans do not share anywhere close to 98% of our DNA.

Shaving is a choice. If you think it's a waste of time, stop shaving. Tattoos and haircuts are also completely optional. Do you really believe that man has shaved, tattooed himself and cut his hair from the very first emergence of the human species?

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't know what your definition of "religion" is, but as per any commonly used definition, Christianity is a religion.

Christianity is uncommon, it is not common. Evolution is common. Evolution is a religion.

 

[LittleNipper]

Can a cheetah retract it's claws? (The answer is, "no".) Then I guess they're not a part of the cat family. Does a snow owl have ear tufts like the Great Horned Owl? (The answer is, "no".) So I guess they're not both owls. Since mammals tend not to be venomous, I suppose any animal that is venomous isn't a mammal, correct? What about the male platypus?

The thing that makes one species different from another is that they have differences. If they didn't have differences, they'd be of the same species. (Slow me down if I start to move too fast for you.) Since most men grow facial whiskers and most women don't, does that mean that men and women are of unrelated species?

So the fact that humans have a difference in facial hair from some other primates doesn't make them other than primates. You seem to overlook the similarities and have to dig down to the follicle distribution in order to find a significant difference. Isn't that making a little bell go off in your head or did you intentionally silence that bell years ago when it started to interfere with what you were being taught?

Take a human corpse and another primate, (Obviously, don't really do this. Just imagine.) Cut them both open and dump the contents of the chest cavity, skull and abdominal cavity into large vats, one for the human, one for the other primate. Cut them up and stir them around. Now take equal volumes from each vat, have someone else swap them around for you and then you tell me which is which. We're primates and that means we're animals.

By the way, modesty is learned, not instinctive.


This is what can happen when you base the acceptance of what you are told simply upon what you wish to believe rather than upon research and confirmation. Butter beans do not share anywhere close to 98% of our DNA.

Shaving is a choice. If you think it's a waste of time, stop shaving. Tattoos and haircuts are also completely optional. Do you really believe that man has shaved, tattooed himself and cut his hair from the very first emergence of the human species?

Male primates don't shave. They never shaved. They do not grow beards. Male humans who never shave grow beards. Therefore humans and primates do not share a common ancestor.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Christianity is uncommon, it is not common. Evolution is common. Evolution is a religion.

Huh? Are you inventing your own dictionary? Because we are having a failure to communicate...

 

[Mystman]

I'm REALLY starting to think this forum is actually infested with 25% Christian Trolls, 25% sane Christians (and no, that doesn't mean that they have to believe in theistic evolution.. you can be a YEC and still be sane! (but just uninformed ), and 50% atheists who have a hard time seeing who are just trolling, and who are actually trying to make a point.

I mean, the OP, come on. That isn't even worthy of a response.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm REALLY starting to think this forum is actually infested with 25% Christian Trolls, 25% sane Christians (and no, that doesn't mean that they have to believe in theistic evolution.. you can be a YEC and still be sane! (but just uninformed ), and 50% atheists who have a hard time seeing who are just trolling, and who are actually trying to make a point.

I mean, the OP, come on. That isn't even worthy of a response.

A troll seems to be anyone you disgree with but cannot discredit.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Christianity is uncommon, it is not common. Evolution is common. Evolution is a religion.

Congradulations. You just won the debate. Go to your local Staples store and buy a pack of GOLD STARS for yourself! Now everytime you put something in writing, you can give yourself a gold star.

 

[Mystman]

A troll seems to be anyone you disgree with but cannot discredit.

Summary of the opening post:

"humans wear clothes!

therefore

evolution is false!"

Great argumentation there. Yeah, just awesome work.

edit: well, actually you didn't even give the conclusion, but I thought you implied it. If not, the OP would be this summarized:

"humans wear clothes!"

Oh my god, I wish I noticed that before!

 

[gladiatrix]

Butter beans share about 98% of our DNA (or so I''m told). I do not seriously believe that I am related to butter bearns. I would think that shaving might be considered a defect. There are better ways to spend time than shaving or getting tattooed or getting a haircut. Do butterbeans shave?

The only people who make such a bogus claim are creationists like Dr. Gish. If folks want to know just where LittleNipper gets this sort of misinformation read all about it here in

THE BULLFROG AFFAIR or The Enchanted Prince Croaks

FROM this long article:

"Creation scientists" try to counter this body of biochemical evidence by claiming that certain protein comparisons actually show humans to be more closely related to vastly different organisms (e.g. bullfrogs, chickens, rattlesnakes) than to chimpanzees. A classic example comes from early writings of former biologist Gary Parker, formerly of the ICR: Creation: The Facts of Life, Creation-Life Publishers, 1980; also Homology, Embryology, and Vestigial Organs: Common Ancestor or Common Plan?, Institute for Creation Research). In them, he names a number of molecules that purportedly show humans to be more closely related to quite different organisms than to apes. Frank T. Awbrey and William M. Thwaites listed Parker's molecules in their article, "A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data that 'Support' Creation"

(_Creation/Evolution_ Issue VII, 1982, pp 14-17):

Molecule Nearest Relative to Humans
-----------------------------------
Fetal Hemoglobin ==>Horse
Tear Enzymes ==>Chicken
Albumin ==>Bullfrog
Blood Antigen A ==>Butterbean
Cholesterol Level ==> Gartersnake
Milk Chemistry ==>Donkey
-----------------------------------

[NOTE: The current edition of Parker's Creation: The Facts of Life is
a revised edition published in 1994. In that revised edition, this claim for all the molecules listed above has been removed, except for the chicken tear enzyme,lysozyme. That claim is described in more detail later in this article.]

Then Drs. Awbrey and Thwaites examined the literature and Parker's referencesand found (quoting freely) that for:

Fetal Hemoglobin --
Hemoglobin has four globin molecules, each arranged around a central iron atom and a porphyrin ring. Human fetalhemoglobin has two alpha globins and two gamma globins,each with 146 amino acids. Horses don't have gamma globins. Chimpanzees do, and it is identical to that of humans. So creationists conclude that a molecule that doesn't existis more similar to a human molecule than is an identical chimpanzee molecule.

Tear Enzymes --
The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in human milk, tears, leukocytes, etc. Variants exist in tissues of other species, for example, in chicken egg whites. Chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme by 51 out of 130 amino acids. Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme. Either creationists have ignored the literature or they apparently believe that 51 is less than zero.

Albumin --
Human and chimpanzee albumin differ by six out of 580 amino acids. Human and bullfrog albumins differ so much that they don't cross-react in immunological tests.

Blood Antigen A --
This is one of the molecules that determine blood types. They are called glycoproteins because they have sugars attached to a protein. Butterbeans contain a sugar configuration that is similar enough to the glycoprotein sugar that it can react with antibodies directed against the A blood type if the butterbean sugar is at a high concentration. Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are identical or nearly identical to those of humans. Having no blood, butterbeans obviously have no blood antigens.

Cholesterol Level --
Cholesterol is a simple lipid (a wax) and its structure doesn't vary among species. Furthermore, its concentration can vary several hundredfold in an individual human depending upon diet and genetic background. Therefore, it is a useless molecule for determining genetic similarity. This datum isn't just wrong, it's nonexistent.

Milk Chemistry --
No direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry could be found. However, it was found that human milk proteins (whey and casein) are much more like macaque milk than donkey milk. Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical. Even this limited comparison disproves the creationist claim that the donkey is our nearest relative based on milk chemistry.

The Bullfrog Affair itself starts with the KPBS production, "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", which aired 7 July 1982. After Dr. Doolittle related his story of the chimpanzee blood proteins (see above), Dr. Duane Gish responded:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."

This was immediately followed by Dr. Doolittle's response, "Oh bullfrog! I've heard that gibberish before, I have to tell you." This was the first recorded use of "Bullfrog" that I am aware of. Then Doolittle indicated a book full of amino acid sequences from thousands of proteins taken from many hundreds of species and offered Gish all his worldly belongings, a '63 VW and half a house, if Gish could find just one protein in chickens or bullfrogs that is more closely related to human proteins than chimpanzee proteins.

 

[Beastt]

Christianity is uncommon, it is not common. Evolution is common. Evolution is a religion.

You're fooling yourself. Christianity is as common as every other religion. It's based on a book, written by men, unverifiably attributed to God. It carries all of the standard, common, religeous earmarks. Indeed, there is nothing about Christianity which sets it apart from the dozens of other common world religions. You can say it isn't common, but until you qualify that statement, it's just an unsubstantiated comment.

 

[z3ro]

Male primates don't shave. They never shaved. They do not grow beards. Male humans who never shave grow beards. Therefore humans and primates do not share a common ancestor.

Yes, you've done it. You've discredited an entire field of science with one well thought out post. Congratulations!

 

[LittleNipper]

You're fooling yourself. Christianity is as common as every other religion. It's based on a book, written by men, unverifiably attributed to God. It carries all of the standard, common, religeous earmarks. Indeed, there is nothing about Christianity which sets it apart from the dozens of other common world religions. You can say it isn't common, but until you qualify that statement, it's just an unsubstantiated comment.

Christianity is supported by a series of books that cover thousands of years and were taken down by a large number of individuals from a broad range of backgrounds. The oddity is that the entire BIBLE comes together as ONE complete piece of literature without contradiction and with one single theme--------the divine gift of salvation.

 

[z3ro]

Christianity is supported by a series of books that cover thousands of years and were taken down by a large number of individuals from a broad range of backgrounds. The oddity is that the entire BIBLE comes together as ONE complete piece of literature without contradiction and with one single theme--------the divine gift of salvation.

Number one, it is easy to make a book coherent when you can A)read what the authors before you wrote, and B)pick what books go into it.

Number two, the bible hardly has one single theme. The early books have rules for a jewish nation and a vengeful god, the later books are the rules for salvation and a loving god.

Number three, the bible is hardly free from contradiction. Here's and easy one for you - has man seen god? Because the bible gives two different answers to this question.

 

[f U z ! o N]

You're fooling yourself. Christianity is as common as every other religion. It's based on a book, written by men, unverifiably attributed to God. It carries all of the standard, common, religeous earmarks. Indeed, there is nothing about Christianity which sets it apart from the dozens of other common world religions. You can say it isn't common, but until you qualify that statement, it's just an unsubstantiated comment.

except for the fact that it is a relationship with God not a religion. also, good works are not required to get to Heaven

 

[Mystman]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Christianity

Chris·ti·an·i·ty: The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.

..