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

[Skreeper]

No it is the biblical distinction made between apes and humans that matters. God made us in His image while apes are just another animal. It seems that what it means to be made in Gods image biologically is focused very much on the brain and how intelligence, consciousness, spirituality shapes the way we then regard and use our bodies.

Except that's not the way how we classify animals. How the bible classifies animals is irrelevant.

 

[mindlight]

But if God made us in His image, then why are humans massive similar, in virtually every biological sense, to other apes, enough for scientists to classify humans as apes?

Because like the ape we were created in a natural order which requires similar solutions to similar problems. Our connection with the natural world is clear. But with our brains we have something extra. We are made with intrinsic attributes that by language, conception, problem solving etc allow us to transcend our immediate locale, indeed our own biology and reach for the Divine.

Our capacity to travel to and even live in places where no ape could survive whether Antartica, the moon or Mars is evidence of this transcendence. We are the only creature that can reach beyond its programming.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because like the ape we were created in a natural order which requires similar solutions to similar problems. Our connection with the natural world is clear. But with our brains we have something extra. We are made with intrinsic attributes that by language, conception, problem solving etc allow us to transcend our immediate locale, indeed our own biology and reach for the Divine.

That logic doesn't follow. If humans are meant to be above apes, then why would God go out of his way to make us look over 95% similar to other apes? For an omnipotent being, that seems like a colossal amount of needless busy work.
And also, to even support your claim that humans "are made with intrinsic attributes that by language, conception, problem solving etc allow us to transcend our immediate locale", you would first have to actually show that we are made and not evolved.

 

[mindlight]

That logic doesn't follow. If humans are meant to be above apes, then why would God go out of his way to make us look over 95% similar to other apes? For an omnipotent being, that seems like a colossal amount of needless busy work.
And also, to even support your claim that humans "are made with intrinsic attributes that by language, conception, problem solving etc allow us to transcend our immediate locale", you would first have to actually show that we are made and not evolved.

The human brains sudden ( by evolutionist timescales) appearance is an impossibility unless there is a Creator. Basically evolutionists cannot explain the sudden emergence of so much extra de novo stuff.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The human brains sudden ( by evolutionist timescales) appearance is an impossibility unless there is a Creator. Basically evolutionists cannot explain the sudden emergence of so much extra de novo stuff.

But it's not a sudden appearance. When you look at the progression of early hominids up to Homo Sapiens, you can see the cranium and the brain grow steadily larger.
Your entire line of logic reeks of personal incredulity.

 

[Skreeper]

The human brains sudden ( by evolutionist timescales) appearance is an impossibility unless there is a Creator. Basically evolutionists cannot explain the sudden emergence of so much extra de novo stuff.

Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument against evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Dating the flood and fossils is out of scope to this thread. But basically your extended timescales are inferred not proven. The flood occurred about 5000 years ago and was global. Microevolution is considered a more rapid process by creationists than by evolutionists it seems and harsh conditions and the previous longevity of preflood and immediate post flood humans are not properly factored in by evolutionists.

Cheers, I won't comment as I agree it's off topic, it just helps to understand another's position if when discussing such issues.

When God created man he seems to have used much of the same stuff he used to create apes. But the big difference and the extra development cost is concentrated in the human brain. This development is unprecedented in the animal world and distinguishes us from them. It also required a significant amount of completely new design work

Why does it "require a significant amount of completely new design work".

You already said that H Erectus was a "mutated ape" / "mutated human".

You also said that the cranial capacity of H Erectus is similar to a human child's.

Which suggests that mutations were an adequate explanation for an increase in cranial capacity.

Why are you now claiming "significant design work" is necessary, is there any evidence for this design work, how do we identify it? It seems like you're invoking a mysterious, undetectable influence for which we have absolutely zero evidence or precedent and ignoring well evidenced and observed mechanisms.

 

[Jimmy D]

The human brains sudden ( by evolutionist timescales) appearance is an impossibility unless there is a Creator. Basically evolutionists cannot explain the sudden emergence of so much extra de novo stuff.

Obviously the fossil record is incomplete - yet it still paints a picture of gradual change. Where is this impossible jump that you speak of?

According to your proposition of an invisible influence tinkering with templates, where do these other hominins fit?

 

[mindlight]

Obviously the fossil record is incomplete - yet it still paints a picture of gradual change. Where is this impossible jump that you speak of?

According to your proposition of an invisible influence tinkering with templates, where do these other hominins fit?

Your sense of progression is contingent on your dating scheme. Creationists do not accept your way of dating.

I think Homo Erectus was human cause of cranial capacity and Neanderthals were because of DNA evidence to that effect.

Preflood humans lived longer and coming from a richer original gene pool probably had a greater degree of diversity. Immediate Post flood humans also had less damaged genes and the level of their adaptation to harsh post flood conditions would have been faster. So I would explain the diversity in terms of that adaptation and the difference between human beings that lived 1000 years as opposed to the current 80.

 

[Skreeper]

Preflood humans lived longer and coming from a richer original gene pool probably had a greater degree of diversity. Immediate Post flood humans also had less damaged genes and the level of their adaptation to harsh post flood conditions would have been faster.

Evidence for any of this?

 

[mindlight]

Evidence for any of this?

There is no dispute on what the evidence is. It is how it is explained that is in dispute.

 

[tas8831]

And I wonder what percentage of our DNA matches up with a cow?

Probably a lot, being mammals and all.

Do you know WHY ALL animals have a certain amount of DNA 'in common', and why all mammals have MORE DNA 'in common', and so on?

Let's start with something more basic - why do you suppose ALL eukaryotes, from yeast to us, have a lot of DNA 'in common'?

If you answer, I will explain why I asked.

...The fact DNA was used on everything doesn't mean we evolved and it doesn't take God from the picture of creation.

If only the DNA issue were as simplistic and shallow as you seem to need it to be.

It is NOT that DNA 'was used on' everything. It isn't even really the total amount of similarity between taxa that is all that important - it is, but the real issue as far as discerning things like shared ancestry is the extent of shared, unique mutations. Because when we see shared unique mutations, we infer ancestry, and we do that because as has been posted on this forum many times, we have tested that notion on known phylogenies.

And FWIW, we need to pay attention not so much to the high percentage of like DNA, but the low percentage that isn't alike, that makes all the difference.

That is not worth much - that is creationist diversion.

Of course, the low percentage that is not the same gets larger the farther away we go from, say, humans and chimps.

 

[tas8831]

Pardon?



Please describe further the shared environment between camel and dolphin, given they are genetically closer together than dolphin and fish.

And then he can explain why living in a similar environment should produce similar mutations.... That will be most informative, I am sure...

Wait - do you think he thinks mutations are morphological?

 

[tas8831]

False. It was created the way He saw fit.

Unsupported assertion.

The way you look at fossils and DNA is skewed and makes things look a certain way to you.

And back at you. The difference is, he understand biology.

 

[tas8831]

But basically your extended timescales are inferred not proven. The flood occurred about 5000 years ago and was global.

Am I the only one that sees a major, laughable, double standard being employed from the first sentence to the next?

 

[tas8831]

Jesus was His incarnation and demonstrated who God is to the fullness of human understanding.

2 unsupported assertions that did not address the question.

Thanks,

 

[tas8831]

The human brains sudden ( by evolutionist timescales) appearance is an impossibility unless there is a Creator.

Unsupported assertion.

Please demonstrate that this is o.

Basically evolutionists cannot explain the sudden emergence of so much extra de novo stuff.

What de novo stuff?


Virtually nothing in the brains of humans is not there in the brains of other apes. Our brains differ in degree, not kind. The neocortex is present in chimps, ours is just expanded.

But no, please show us the 'de novo' brain stuff.

And is this a chimp brain or a human brain:

 

[Larniavc]

The human brains sudden ( by evolutionist timescales) appearance is an impossibility unless there is a Creator. Basically evolutionists cannot explain the sudden emergence of so much extra de novo stuff.

Please demonstrate how this is correct.

 

[tas8831]

Why are you now claiming "significant design work" is necessary, is there any evidence for this design work, how do we identify it?

Oooo oooo! I think I know!

 

[tas8831]

Your sense of progression is contingent on your dating scheme. Creationists do not accept your way of dating.

Why? Because it does not fit the biblical narrative?

Preflood humans lived longer and coming from a richer original gene pool probably had a greater degree of diversity.

What is the evidence that there was a "richer gene pool"?

So I would explain the diversity in terms of that adaptation and the difference between human beings that lived 1000 years as opposed to the current 80.

What is the actual EVIDENCE that humans could ever have lived that long?