Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[DogmaHunter]

You could argue that they have two primary sources of evidence from scientific facts and from limits set by eye witness testimony.

The scientific facts, point to evolution and "eye witness testimony" is not part of this equation.

The rest is explanation.

aka, religious belief.

Evolutionists by contrast use the same facts but with no firm boundaries relating to the original context

The facts ARE the "original context".

What you are calling "original context" here, is merely that which is believed religiously a priori

 

[pitabread]

this is because a common designer- ferrari company in this case. so a common similarity can point to a common designer.

Considering the results of doing phylogenies of vehicles in the other thread, I'm surprised you're claiming this here. And especially since it's pretty easy to see this claim doesn't hold up in the slightest when considering both contemporary vehicles manufacturers create, as well as the historical changes in vehicle design.

(Also using Ferrari as an example is especially silly given the number of companies that make Ferrari body kits to convert other vehicles into replica Ferraris. Just Google "Ferrari replica" and you'll find plenty of examples.)

Below is an example of how physical design does not indicate manufacturer. The top and bottom cars are Cadillacs, the middle one is not. Physical design here is a representation of the era they are from, not the manufacturer.

 

[Aman777]

If this was true we’d find verifiable physical evidence and we don’t . The noachian flood was deliberately looked for all thru the 1700s-1800s. Not one shred or iota was found. Instead the geological record gave definitive evidence that the earth was very old and the Flood never occurred Hutton might have been the most famous but he wasn’t the last.

Amen. The traditional ancient view of the flood is in error. What the story shows is that Adam's small miles wide universe/heaven was totally destroyed in the flood on the 150th day after the flood began. The windows on high had been opened and the firmament began to fill with water. It took 40 days and nights of rain before the 450 ft Ark rose from Adam's Earth Gen 7:17 Adam's world can be compared to a self sufficient Submarine. Gen 1:6-7

On the 150th day after the flood began, the bottom of the solid firmament filled with water and sank in Lake Van, Turkey 11k years ago, according to the History of the first Human farming on this Earth. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE The solid miles wide bottom of Adam's firmament will be found soon. When it happens, you will remember what I told you today. God Bless you

 

[xianghua]

Yes, I see that, but that's not the point. Let me spell it out.

According to the Theory of Evolution, humans and the great apes have a common ancestor. However, the chromosome count of humans is 46 and that of the great apes is 48. So we make a hypothesis that there has been a fusion of two of the ancestral chromosomes in the human lineage, some time after the divergence of the lineages leading to chimpanzees and humans. When we were able to test that hypothesis, by developing the technology of genome sequencing, we find there is indeed such a fused chromosome in the human lineage: human chromosome 2 is an end to end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes which very closely matches the separate chromosomes 2p and 2q of chimps. The prediction consistent with the Theory of Evolution and the proposition that the great apes and humans share a common ancestor pans out. The fact of the fusion is entirely consistent and supportive of common ancestry. Now, of course you can explain any observation by positing a supernatural event, but such explanations are not just superfluous and lacking in parsimony, but fall outside the remit of science. As Bertrand Russell said: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

actually the creation model predict it too. this is because of the fact that we already knew that human and chimp share about 98%. therefore if human lack 2 chromosomes we can predict that they stil exist in the genome. no evolution required here.

Now what about the broken GULO gene in simians including humans?

no problem. but lets first deal with your first argument about ervs and chromosomal fusion. by the way as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there.

 

[pitabread]

actually the creation model predict it too.

Except there is no "creation model" and consequently no predictions derived from it.

 

[xianghua]

However, I am not aware of any case in which an ERV has been co-opted to provide a fuction which is essential to the survival of the host - perhaps you could cite such a case?

see here:

Paleovirology of ‘syncytins’, retroviral env genes exapted for a role in placentation

Anyway, the fact that some ERVs are co-opted to provide a fuction is entirely consistent with evolutioary biology

its not consistent with evolution at all, since evolution cant explain how the creature survived before it get this erv.

 

[xianghua]

The cars are a counter-example for an intelligent creator of life, because the cars will re-use design when it's logical and sensible to do so. The cars design is an efficient re-use of information, the examples of life are not so. Unless you wish to claim that Ferrari engineers are far superior as 'creators' than your God, the analogy simply doesn't work.

EDIT: To expand on this a bit: Ferrari cars don't have the remnants of earlier propulsion systems as part of their design. You don't find that there are 'primitive' Ferraris with headlights that only produce a dull glow which slightly reduces the risk of accidents in cities, but are of no use for driving in the countryside in the dark. We don't find Ferraris where the fuel lines take an unreasonably long route to get from the fuel tank to the injectors because that was a much shorter route in an earlier car.

We don't see any of these things because the Ferrari engineers are competent at their job. Are you suggesting that God is not?

are you talking now about "bad design"? the original claim was about common similarity. so i showed that a common similarity can point to a common designer. if you want to move to a "bad design" argument thats fine. so first we both agree that a common similarity isnt evidence for evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A development from simple to complex with nested hierarchies of shared genetics could imply the path a developer followed.

It doesn't because a creator doesn't have to resuse anything, especially with how redundant codons are. Heck, we as humans designed an organism with 6 different nucleotide bases just to see if we could, and it survives and divides just fine.

To say that similarities between organisms implies a path a developer followed is to act as if, say, video game developers will only ever make games using one type of coding. Some do, sure, but they don't have to.

That you think it must imply evolution is due to your faith in that theory.

I have never said that, don't put words in my mouth. There isn't any evidence for any creator, thus, explanations which don't require one currently win out in terms of evidence. No more and no less. Note that I said evolution doesn't REQUIRE a creator, not that it demands exclusion.

There is no attempt to give the impression of evolution but there is a revelation of the Creators development style.

These were made by the same person:
http://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/images/works/28.jpg
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9eaea495a6662fb38b5e5c01251b825c-c

and this one was made by a different person:
https://i2.wp.com/emillionsart.com/...Coeur-e1500952338447.jpg?resize=600,599&ssl=1

Clearly, creators are not limited to 1 style in their work, nor are creators incapable of imitating the styles of the work of others. Thus, your line of reasoning is erroneous.

The point you made about ERV viruses in the common history of multiple species could just as easily imply a common vulnerability to that virus because of shared genetics.

Negatory, because the viruses don't consistently insert in the exact same locations. Additionally, these ERVs have acquired mutations, and there is no logical reason that they would have the same mutations on them in different species.

 

[klutedavid]

Given this mysterious designer's many discarded templates I'd question either it's competence, or the validity of your argument.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens

Hello Jimmy.

I looked up two of the so called, 'templates', you provided as links above.

If you check the underlined phrase in two of these templates provided below, we seem to be extrapolating to the extreme.

Kenyanthropus platyops (Fossils)
This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth.

Australopithecus garhi (Fossils)
This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species. They show a humanlike ratio of the humerus and femur, but an apelike ratio of the lower and upper arm. (Groves 1999; Culotta 1999)

I would not speculate on the basis of a partial skull.

 

[xianghua]

The scientific conclusion is that humans and both species of chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than chimpanzees are to gorillas or orangutans

not according to those scientists:

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."

 

[xianghua]

This is one of many areas where creationism makes no prediction, while common descent makes a prediction that turns out to be correct.

see above. its simply not true. creationism actually make the same predicition.

 

[PsychoSarah]

not according to those scientists:

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."

We've told you before that this specific scientist is a wingnut with questionable and unrepeatable experimental results.

 

[pitabread]

creationism actually make the same predicition.

Creationism doesn't make any predictions because there is no scientific model of creationism to derive predictions from.

Unless you can pull out a scientific model of creationism and demonstrate how it can make testable predictions, your claim is false by default.

 

[Speedwell]

see above. its simply not true. creationism actually make the same predicition.

ID is unfalsifiable, therefore it can make any prediction. Whatever you find in nature you can say, "It was designed that way."

 

[Brightmoon]

actually the creation model predict it too. this is because of the fact that we already knew that human and chimp share about 98%. therefore if human lack 2 chromosomes we can predict that they stil exist in the genome. no evolution required here.


no problem. but lets first deal with your first argument about ervs and chromosomal fusion. by the way as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there.

 

[Brightmoon]

Humans aren’t missing those chromosomes. The two Non-human ape chromosomes are joined together in humans. That’s why we’ve got 23 pair and they’ve got 24

 

[Brightmoon]

How the heck did I do that

 

[mindlight]

Because a microevolutionary model makes no predictions about genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. My model does make such a prediction, and the prediction is borne out by the data.

I continue to await your prediction of the transition-transversion ratio based on creationism or ID.


It seems you don't understand the issue. We know from various sources what mutations look like, including things like the transition-transversion ratio. The model of common descent predicts that differences between humans and chimpanzees should look like accumulated mutations. If there is no common descent, there is no prediction.
My prediction was correct. That means my model is supported by data and your model is useless.

This does not really constitute predictions. Based on an understanding of Chimp and Human DNA as they are you then "predict" that the ti/tv ratio is 2.1. But a real prediction is when you say that something that is not there now will emerge.

Also transitions and transversions mean that there are differences between chimp and human DNA which is my point really. 40 millions mutational differences are the difference between monkeys playing with sticks and grunting at each other and a space programme.

Claiming to understand something you cannot duplicate is the falsity of modern biological science. A theory explains something when it can identify the causation to make this thing occur so that is can be duplicated. I know someone who can do this is my position and the evidence while pointing to his handiwork is not something that can be systematised by scientists who claim they can explain something which they cannot do.

 

[mindlight]

From your article:



None of the mental capabilities described there are unique to humans. We are very good at all of those, but other animals can plan for the future, be flexible in their approaches, and learn from others.

Human brains are more developed than those of other apes, and the research described appears to be a useful contribution to understanding the differences. However, both you and the authors appear to be exaggerating the mental differences between humans and animals.

Human beings are not just more developed. Our brains are better organised, have new areas, denser numbers of neurons and work in ways we cannot yet quantify to give unparalleled intelligence, Self, Other Nature and God consciousness and spirituality unique to us

 

[mindlight]

Yes, I know. I was pointing out that there is no reason to be introducing supernatural events to the discussion of chromosome 2, even for a creationist.

Creation was an unanalogous supernatural event. If there is a process here it occurred over a single day. We now view the history of that event through the mutated DNA of distant descendants whose story is disrupted by fall and flood. Unless you can claim to have Adams DNA that is.

To claim any degree of certainty here is a kind of arrogance and especially when it is an explanation that cannot duplicate and which therefore does not really understand what happened.

The only honest model is an open ended set of questions and observations. Certainty is dishonest.