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

[mindlight]

Depends on the genes. HOX genes are particularly consistent, seeing as they govern bilateral symmetry. There are most certainly genes that you have which are identical to ones seen in other species.

Which would fit with the idea that the Creator worked with templates which he tweaked for each new creation.

If you mean the alignment of the whole genome, of course none are a perfect match. It wouldn't make sense even for another human to have an identical genome to yourself unless you have an identical twin.

Alignment can prove a common designer working with code developed for less sophisticated life forms.

Proof isn't a thing in science, only in math, since proof demands that all other alternative explanations be absolutely eliminated, and one of the qualifications hypotheses and theories in science must meet is the capacity to be disproven.

So certainty is also not something that science provides. Your model could be wrong.

Also, analogy? It's not like there's a biological need for us to share so many genes with chimpanzees and other apes. Due to how redundant codons are, if I, as a designer, wanted to make it apparent that humans were specially created, I could make it such that no human genes properly aligned with any other genes of other creatures while still only using the 4 nucleotides used in everything else.

Unless you were working with templates developed for all life on earth which you then focused on the particular lifeform. The code shows that we are related to the rest of life on earth while being unique.

Of course, it all depends on what that change is. Changes as drastic as an entire chromosome being duplicated can still result in a viable organism (uncommon in mammals), yet a single base pair change can mean death. It all depends on what is impacted and how. The high mutation rate in our species is considered a contributing factor to our high miscarriage rate.

Which simply says that the integrity of the code lies in an intelligence far beyond our own and that a change in a single character can ruin everything.

Common creator, as you put it, isn't a theory. Claiming that your alternative interpretation of the data is equal is horrifically flawed, in that evolution actually predicted similarities in genomes long before those genomes were sequenced and verified the prediction. Creationism does not do this, you'll find no creationist predicting these genetic similarities prior to genomes actually being evaluated.

No creationist needs to do that since it was a purposeful decision that created the similarities and differences. One which no evolutionist could duplicate in practice. But if you look at a monkey and then at a human and then predict there are similarities in their genes have you told us anything we do not already know.

Nah, it just makes 0 sense for us to share so many viral remnants with chimpanzees without sharing ancestry. No rational designer would bother to make commonalities between non-coding regions, because they don't do anything and thus don't have to have any specified content. Especially not make some of them look like broken viral genes all inserted in the exact same places.

A common template, similar code adapting to common problems will produce an analogous mutation history since creation.

 

[mindlight]

"Common creator" isn't a theory, it's a statement of faith. If you believe in God then you believe that all creatures have a common creator whether the many species were created de novo one at a time or they evolved. Is not God the author of all?

My suggestion is that the Creator could have used developing templates as He moved from less sophisticated to more complex designs. Thus what is discerned as common ancestry is related to the hierarchy of templates used. That also mutation history following creation will share commonalities because very often it was the same code responding to the same conditions post fall and flood.

 

[mindlight]

You seem to be agreeing then that the designer was constrained by a process that gives the appearance of evolutionary descent. And that's really all science can tell us: life looks like it evolved.

In fact science treats the universe as an objective backdrop with which to test ideas. So if current life has the appearance that it is the result of billions of years of evolution, then it's the result of billions of years of evolution.

You're more than welcome to reject that idea and adopt you're own philosophical notions. But there isn't really a good way to compare ideas then if one is rejecting the basis that the universe is inherently objective.



And meanwhile life also has the appearance of having evolved over ~4 billion years. Likewise the Earth and solar system also have the appearance of having existed for ~4.6 billion years.

You can believe life's evolution happened in 2 days or 2 trillion years, but it's not going to change the fact that it appears to have taken ~4 billion years.



Which by all appearances appears to have been an evolutionary process.

Man and the universe were made to last forever. But the fall and flood have damaged them and drained the possibility of eternity from them. I interpret the appearance of age as the consequence of judgment.

 

[mindlight]

Leaving aside the fact that "common creator" has never been a scientific theory, what I find more telling is conflating the idea of a "common creator" with a common template. Even by your own description of what you believe the process to be, you're not really invoking a common creator so much as a common template. But a common template could just as easily be used by multiple creators. We see this all the time in human design

The most difficult problems were solved in the first template. But so also the Creation of the human brain seems to have been something that has distinguished us from the beasts. The bible account does not allow polytheism. Also I doubt that God delegated to smart angels after his original work as rebel angels like Lucifer would then be capable of creation using Gods templates. This does not seem to be the case.

 

[mindlight]

There are numerous software packages for whole genome alignment, LAST and MUMmer
to name two.

In the original paper (which can be found here https://www.genome.gov/pages/research/dir/chimp_analysis.pdf) they used BLASTZ and BLAT, together with a number of statistical tests.



Well, here's your chance then.



Why? I can get access to a 1000 core machine with a terra of RAM. And even if it did take a long time to run, what's the relevance?



Right. Whatever that means.

It is the same programmes as I have previously looked at then. We are talking about 40 million mutation differences between chimp and human! The similarities and differences in the genome support a creationist template theory just as easily as common ancestry.

 

[mindlight]

I'd say that bipedalism as the standard gait is another significant difference. Humans have evolved some unique skeletal modifications to accommodate this. Our spines are long, and S-shaped. The vertebral columns of the great apes are shorter relative to body size, and either straight or somewhat concave. There are also major differences in the pelvis. Ape femurs are straight, while ours tilt inward towards the knee (which directs the center of gravity down to the feet.) Humans have arched feet (which act as shock absorbers.) And unlike many apes, we lack opposable big toes, which are useful for grasping, but are somewhat of an impediment to bipedal locomotion.

Thanks. Yes I doubt even wardenofthestorm can hang from trees by his toes

 

[Skreeper]

But the fall and flood have damaged them and drained the possibility of eternity from them.

The biblical flood never happened as described in the Bible. I am surprised there are still people who believe that nonsense.

 

[Tanj]

It is the same programmes as I have previously looked at then. We are talking about 40 million mutation differences between chimp and human! The similarities and differences in the genome support a creationist template theory just as easily as common ancestry.

No, they don't. It's not the similarities or differences that matter, it's their pattern. It's not only the 1.3% point mutations, it's also the chromosomal synteny, ERV patterns, The Chimp 2A,2B fusion, nested hierarchy, just to name the first 4 that come to mind. Noting that 40 million over 3 billion is about 1.3%, it's not that much...not that a higher number would matter.

 

[Jimmy D]

Which would fit with the idea that the Creator worked with templates which he tweaked for each new creation.

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

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Biologically, can you marry your mother?
(please, say can)

What on earth does that have to do with the question in the OP?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks. Yes I doubt even wardenofthestorm can hang from trees by his toes

That comment really doesn't have anything to do with the OP question of asking creationists and ID proponents how, biologically, humans aren't apes. Can you even answer that question at all?

 

[mindlight]

No, they don't. It's not the similarities or differences that matter, it's their pattern. It's not only the 1.3% point mutations, it's also the chromosomal synteny, ERV patterns, The Chimp 2A,2B fusion, nested hierarchy, just to name the first 4 that come to mind. Noting that 40 million over 3 billion is about 1.3%, it's not that much...not that a higher number would matter.

You accepted that even one change in a base pair could be fatal. Yet you cannot accept that 40 million differences point to an even more significant difference and de novo design intervention.

The idea of nested Templates being further developed with more complex species by a Creator would actually account for most of the patterns you listed. The notion that similar code in 2 different species will generate a similar mutational history in response to a shared environment will account for most of the others.

 

[mindlight]

That comment really doesn't have anything to do with the OP question of asking creationists and ID proponents how, biologically, humans aren't apes. Can you even answer that question at all?

Does that mean you as a human are able to hang from a tree by your toes? If not there you have an important difference. Humans have arches and lack opposable toes and are better adapted to walk on their feet more than apes do. Humans swing in the trees less

I'd say that bipedalism as the standard gait is another significant difference. Humans have evolved some unique skeletal modifications to accommodate this. Our spines are long, and S-shaped. The vertebral columns of the great apes are shorter relative to body size, and either straight or somewhat concave. There are also major differences in the pelvis. Ape femurs are straight, while ours tilt inward towards the knee (which directs the center of gravity down to the feet.) Humans have arched feet (which act as shock absorbers.) And unlike many apes, we lack opposable big toes, which are useful for grasping, but are somewhat of an impediment to bipedal locomotion.

 

[mindlight]

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

Extinction events and dead end microevolutionary history in a fallen and broken universe would account for those.

 

[Skreeper]

Does that mean you as a human are able to hang from a tree by your toes? If not there you have an important difference. Humans have arches because they walk on their feet more than apes do. Humans swing in the trees less

And what about the countless similarities we have with the other apes? Do you just get to ignore them and concentrate on the few differences?

 

[mindlight]

And what about the countless similarities we have with the other apes? Do you just get to ignore them and concentrate on the few differences?

I have not ignored them you just have not understood my argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Does that mean you as a human are able to hang from a tree by your toes? If not there you have an important difference. Humans have arches and lack opposable toes and are better adapted to walk on their feet more than apes do. Humans swing in the trees less

And yet, humans are still apes.
We are classed as apes.
We are great apes.

You are ignoring massive similarities and focusing on minute differences here.

 

[Larniavc]

This is a common claim I see, and I'm sure everyone on this forum sees, very often from creationists/ID proponents that goes: "Humans aren't apes".

Even though:
Humans are in the family Hominidae which puts us in with the other great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and Bonobos).
We share 97.3% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 97% with orangutans, 99% with bonobos and 98% with gorillas, our body structures are very nearly the exact same.
We share virtually the exact same body structures, albeit with structurally differences based on arboreal living conditions.
We are all mammals, with warm blood, with females giving live births and breastfeeding from external mammary glands.

I really could go on with the similarities since there are many, but one thing that bugs me when I see creationists/ID proponents make the claim that "Humans aren't apes", I can't help but ask... how?

For this, I would like an answer: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?
Don't try and include things like intelligence or anything like that, since that's not what this is about. The question is about biology.
So... Biologically, how aren't humans apes?

Because Jesus, silly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because Jesus, silly.

I'll be honest: best answer I've had throughout this whole thread.

 

[juvenissun]

What on earth does that have to do with the question in the OP?

Did you restrict human behavior to "biological"? Is that one of thing you can do very well biologically?