I have read somewhere sometime ago that pigs are closer genetically to humans than monkeys or apes. what gives?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think this is a form of convergent evolution. As humans evolve, they behave more like pigs.ServantofTheOne said:I have read somewhere sometime ago that pigs are closer genetically to humans than monkeys or apes. what gives?
Tomk80 said:On a serious note, what you read is not true. Apes and monekys are genetically closer to humans than pigs.
ServantofTheOne said:I have read somewhere sometime ago that pigs are closer genetically to humans than monkeys or apes. what gives?
coyoteBR said:Actually...
The whole proccess of formation of earth, the slow million of years of evolution, the way everything slowly matched on the several isolated fauna and flora systems and how they all get together to make this planet flow with life... The fact that everything slowly evolved for incontable eras...
That makes me admire God even more.
Asimov said:You mean the lack of historicity of the Gospels should be unconvincing? I slip up like that all the time, common mistake.
cze_026 said:Perhaps you should read your namesakes book "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" which now comes convieniently in 2 volumes in one edition. Goes into great length covering the history and the archeology that support the teaching and events in the bible
ServantofTheOne said:I have read somewhere sometime ago that pigs are closer genetically to humans than monkeys or apes. what gives?
Edx said:Not exactly on topic where is the evidence of an eclipse and an earthquake so great it caused graves to open and the dead to crawl out and do zombie things in the streets of Judea like Matthew tells us?
JohnR7 said:What is your point? That your going to skip over the 100 things we do have evidence for to look at the one thing we do not have evidence for yet? There are people who have devoted their whole life to finding evidence that the Bible is true. Then people like you come along that will not even lift their little finger to put out any effort and just complain about how there is not enough "evidence" when you do not examine the evidence that has been provided for you. So, why don't you start with what evidence has already been secured, and when your done with that, we will give you some more.
Would you not agree that it would be a little absurd for us to give you additional evidence when you have not yet examined the evidence that has already been provided for you?
Most anthropoids, (primates) and certainly all haplorhines (monkeys) are hind-leg dominant. Some lemurs are exclusively bi-pedal, and most monkeys alternate. Apes (hominoidea) are a sub-group of Catarrhines (Old World monkeys), which are mostly bi-pedal, including some Hominids (great apes) which are entirely bi-pedal, and I'm not just talking about fossil species. When on the ground, gibbons and Siamangs as well as orangutans are all exclusively bi-pedal. Among extant ground-dwelling non-human hominids, only gorillas and chimpanzees are true knuckle-walkers. Their brain stem is located more toward the backs of their skulls where Australopithecines, Paranthropines, and the earliest humans have the skull balanced on the brain stem connected at the bottom. So it would be almost as awkward for an Australopith to go about on all fours as it would be for us, even though their arms and legs are of equal length. Gorillas and chimps have longer arms which makes it a bit easier for them. But Homo habilis, erectus, sapiens, etc., all have slightly longer hind legs, turning our faces even more to the ground on all fours, so it is ridiculous for any of us to go about that way.Matthew777 said:Given that the Homo erectus skull and body size is within the range of modern human variation, the best fossil evidence that evolutionists have provided is the Australopithecine. If they did walk fully upright and if they walked upright in the way that humans do then it could qualify as a human ancestor.
On the other hand, what reason do we have to believe that they walked fully bipedally in the way that humans do? Our evolutionist assumptions?
May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
JohnR7 said:What is your point? That your going to skip over the 100 things we do have evidence for to look at the one thing we do not have evidence for yet?
There are people who have devoted their whole life to finding evidence that the Bible is true. Then people like you come along that will not even lift their little finger to put out any effort and just complain about how there is not enough "evidence" when you do not examine the evidence that has been provided for you.
So, why don't you start with what evidence has already been secured, and when your done with that, we will give you some more.
Would you not agree that it would be a little absurd for us to give you additional evidence when you have not yet examined the evidence that has already been provided for you?
Aron-Ra said:When on the ground, gibbons and Siamangs as well as orangutans are all exclusively bi-pedal.
What would you say would qualify them as ancestors?Matthew777 said:But they do not walk upright in the way humans do.
The fact that there are other primate species who can walk bipedally should show that the bipedalism of Australopithecus does not necesarrily qualify it as an ancestor.
Just bumping this up to see if you're avoiding my points and queries.Aron-Ra said:What would you say would qualify them as ancestors?
Gibbons and orangutans are primarily arboreal, so they don't have the same gait we do. Gibbons have such long arms that they have to hold them over their heads. Orangutans don't have to do that, but they don't walk as fast as we do. However, both of them do indeed walk upright. And the fact that so many other primate species are bi-pedal should show that bipedalism is a typical trait among hominids which is why humans have that trait too. But Australopithecus was not arboreal. According to what we've seen of their spines, knee joints, and trackways, they had the same gait as we do, which, when compared to later Homo species, definitely does qualify them as ancestors.
And why didn't you answer the question I asked you earlier? Since you admit that you are a primate yourself, as were your parents, grandparents, etc., then wouldn't you have to concede that you are in fact descended from earlier primates?
Bargainfluger said:As an unrelated issue, I had no clue we had no less than 80 evolutionists here. I've never seen more than 20 or so votes for any poll done in here so far. I just thought it was rather interesting, that's all.
Yet when they tried to transplant a kidney from a chimp or gorilla (can't remember which primate) to a person, it didn't work. When they did it with a pig's, it did work...Tomk80 said:I think this is a form of convergent evolution. As humans evolve, they behave more like pigs.
On a serious note, what you read is not true. Apes and monekys are genetically closer to humans than pigs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?