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.
No, they don't discard junk DNA. The comparisons are between whole genomes.
Having the same base pairs.
I see that you wrote a lot of words there... but they don't actually say anything that I can see.
OK apes have more hair and cannot be seen chatting in forums like this as often. Their gait is different and their strength more balanced between hands and feet. Humans mainly have proportionally weaker arms.
Humans as hominids = common ancestry with other apes. If it turns out that we don’t have a common ancestor, the implication of that may be that we are in a different category as yet undefined. Who knows? There may be data that confirms a line of descent that fits in with the idea of us being apes, it may be that this will need to be revisited. Pretending that you ‘know’ that isn’t the case, which is the implication of your post, turns it from a question into a statement of your beliefs, posed disingenuously as a question.
My point was that the evidence that points to a common ancestor can actually be reinterpreted in a creationist understanding by simply asserting that our Common Designer differentiated his ongoing code with each new species. The tree of life is thus verified without verifying evolution. Also that the differences which do exist make all the difference whether observed or on the DNA level. Which is why the apes do not have a developed language ability, have built no pyramids and run around naked without the ability to adapt to extreme cold for instance.
And yet humans are still apes.
And apes do hold semi-communal gatherings, where they groom each other and communicate with the other. Not the exact same thing, but still.
And also, humans actually do have strong arms. It's only a myth that chimpanzees are stronger than humans (gorillas on the other hand, oh boy).
There is an overlap but human civilisation has surpassed the apes by every possible criteria. The differences make all the difference. My point which you missed earlier is that the similarities in the design of apes and humans does not undermine the creationist narrative. It merely points to a common Designer who made apes and humans with similar code. But the extra stuff he gave humans makes all the difference.
Yeah, nice and all. Still doesn't address the OP. Neither comment does.
Then you have not understood either comment.
My point was that the evidence that points to a common ancestor can actually be reinterpreted in a creationist understanding by simply asserting that our Common Designer differentiated his ongoing code with each new species. The tree of life is thus verified without verifying evolution.
This only makes sense if one assumes a designer created life to have the appearance of evolution. I know that's probably not what you want to suggest, but that is in effect what you are suggesting.
Regardless this is irrelevant to the classification of humans as great apes.
No, I do understand them. Your comments about the evolutionary tree and his comments about the same are nothing to do with the OP.
Go back and reread the OP, especially the last few lines to specifically know what question I'm asking.
So you think DNA has nothing to do with biology?!!
No it means that the similarities that there are relate to code that was reused and then differentiated for later designs by a Common Designer who solved problems in a modular fashion.
People have THEN read evolution into the evidence as they have discovered thepatterns in the creaturely types but with theassumption of far greater time spans.
And, as I showed in the OP, humans share over 95% of their DNA with all other great apes, so we are, using basic logic, apes.
It's your job, as per the question in the OP, if you can, to show me how, biologically, humans can't be considered apes.
The 1.2 -5% being the difference.
Also an appraisal of the matching mechanisms casts doubt on whether they really are local alignments or just strong matches. Hence my question to sfs to clarify which programme was being used. Some alignment programmes are focused only on one particular strand of DNA. They have lower thresholds defined for non alignment etc
You probably need to rephrase your OP to discuss physical manifestations of the difference. The DNA is the biology as far as most biologists are concerned.
The manifestations of physical difference are as follows:
1) Apes have more hair
2) Apes do not have an Appendix
3) Apes communicate with grunts and growls not words
4) Apes have less developed brains and the ape brain is about 1/3rd the size of a human brain.
So the main difference that makes all the difference is the intelligence factor that comes from having a smaller less developed brain and a limited and less flexible view of language. If you rule out the intelligence/language factor and the spiritual factor of humans being made in Gods image then the differences are not that important.
Except that's not what we observe in nature. Biological organisms for the most part appear constrained via hereditary descent.
If life was truly built in a mix 'n match modular fashion, we wouldn't expect it to fall into a convergent nested hierarchy.
In fact I just went through this exercise in another thread where I constructed hierarchies based on vehicles. The results were all over the map.
You have this completely backwards. The idea life was specially created preceded the idea of evolution. It's just the observed evidence fits the model of biological evolution better. Unless of course you assume that the designer was operating under the same constraints as evolution.
Again, this is what you are suggesting even if you don't realize it.
Do you know what biology is? Because I have a feeling that you're seriously just dancing around the topic here.
1)Apes have a lot of body hair. But so do I! I'm one hairy person. Started getting body hair when I was 14. There's also something known as Werewolf Syndrome or Hypertrichosis which means a person has a lot more body hair than normal.
2) Apes DO have an appendix actually. Actually, humans and other apes are one of the few creatures have one.
3) Apes may not be able to speak, but apes have been shown and known to communicate via American Sign Language and have been shown to teach that skill to other apes, meaning that they do have an intellect. Never heard of Koko the Gorilla?
4) Okay, I'll give you that one.
But still, three out of your four claims were wrong.
Interesting indeed. But it's not answering my question, which addresses a common claim that Creationists/ID proponents make a lot of the time on this forum: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?
Most humans are less hairy than most apes.
You are right I spoke off the top of my head on that one.
Apes are morons and their language ability never develops beyond a certain point for that reason even when trained.
How gracious of you.
The Appendix claim was false , you generalised from the exceptional case regarding hair and we disagree on the level of apes language ability / capability.
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?