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

[Jimmy D]

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

Yes, I'm aware that creationists like to dismiss established scientific principles without reasonable justification.

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

OK, you've changed your tune a bit, but fair enough. H Erectus cranial capacity lower range overlaps with H Habilis, A Boisei, A Robustus etc do you think that they're human too?

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

Unsubstantiated speculation. Is there any evidence for "richer" gene pools in the past? What does that even mean?

Immediate Post flood humans also had less damaged genes and the level of their adaptation to harsh post flood conditions would have been faster.

I'm getting a bit confused now, are you suggesting that these extinct hominins lived after or before this flood? I'm not sure that you have a clear idea about this, you are just offering ad hoc justifications with each post.

It sounds unrealistic (to be kind) to think that H Erectus et al could have speciated from a population of eight H Sapiens on the ark, populated two continents, become extinct and then fossilized all in 5000 years.

I apologize if that's not a true representation of what you believe, it's kind of hard to tell.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Just because you've never made the claim doesn't mean the claim hasn't ever been made.

I didn't say a word about me personally making the claim. Evasion is bliss.

And why does it have to have a point? I'm simply asking a question: how, biologically, are humans not apes, according to creationists and ID proponents?

Why? well I suppose every post I've seen CF alone thus far has a point, so pretty good indication it's a good idea. But hey if you have decided to keep the point hidden, probably a good idea now that you realize, there is none.

How they aren't apes? 1.2%.

And?

 

[xianghua]

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.

as far as i remember the last evolutionery prediciton you make has been falsified (ervs distribution). so you cant realy claim that evolution has predictions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didn't say a word about me personally making the claim. Evasion is bliss.



Why? well I suppose every post I've seen CF alone thus far has a point, so pretty good indication it's a good idea. But hey if you have decided to keep the point hidden, probably a good idea now that you realize, there is none.

How they aren't apes? 1.2%.

And?

I think that you're being deliberately obtuse and, for lack of a better term, arrogant with these posts in an attempt to get me to engage with you emotionally.
I won't fall for it. So please don't bother responding to this thread, myself or anyone on this thread.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think that you're being deliberately obtuse and, for lack of a better term, arrogant with these posts in an attempt to get me to engage with you emotionally.
I won't fall for it. So please don't bother responding to this thread, myself or anyone on this thread.

No, not at all, I thought you were being obtuse, especially when you claimed there was no point to your thread. You may report me, but as far as I know you don't have a say where I post, however you can ignore me.

No, not interested in emotional engagement at all, or not. People get emotional if we merely disagree with them so whatever on that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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 impact of mutations entirely depends on where in the DNA it occurs, and what that mutation is. Genes absolutely critical for function, such as the HOX genes, have very little variation even between organisms as dissimilar as humans and snakes just because of how detrimental small changes in them can be. Eye color isn't so critical. You seem to be assuming that the majority of genes absolutely must stay the same for an organism to be viable, when in reality most of them have plenty of wiggle room. Especially considering that every human has 2 pairs of chromosomes; it's not like the same detrimental mutations hit both. Detrimental mutations that result in the loss of gene function are typically recessive for this reason; the one still functional copy on the other chromosome can pick up the slack... assuming this wasn't a gene with multiple copies to begin with.

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.

Not for an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Such a being needs no templates, because the concept of anything becoming easier doesn't really apply. What further doesn't make sense is that you guys act as if this is obviously the best explanation, when it has so many logical flaws. Why would said creator go so far to create the illusion of evolution occurring when it really didn't?

In any case, even if your story was of a flawed creator that wanted to make life on this planet seem to have evolved, the lack of any evidence for said creator makes this explanation for the origin of species more flawed than the theory of evolution. You can claim that the end result of either would be the same, but that would be an admission that there is nothing distinct enough about your view to actually provide evidence for it, because you've made it such that any evidence you could apply to your view would fit equally well with the theory of evolution, which has less plot holes.

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.

It won't account for ERVs. Viruses don't purposely insert within the same locations, and get mutated in the same way in different lineages to leave identical remnants of viral genes.

 

[mindlight]

-_- the impact of mutations entirely depends on where in the DNA it occurs, and what that mutation is. Genes absolutely critical for function, such as the HOX genes, have very little variation even between organisms as dissimilar as humans and snakes just because of how detrimental small changes in them can be. Eye color isn't so critical. You seem to be assuming that the majority of genes absolutely must stay the same for an organism to be viable, when in reality most of them have plenty of wiggle room. Especially considering that every human has 2 pairs of chromosomes; it's not like the same detrimental mutations hit both. Detrimental mutations that result in the loss of gene function are typically recessive for this reason; the one still functional copy on the other chromosome can pick up the slack... assuming this wasn't a gene with multiple copies to begin with.


Not for an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Such a being needs no templates, because the concept of anything becoming easier doesn't really apply. What further doesn't make sense is that you guys act as if this is obviously the best explanation, when it has so many logical flaws. Why would said creator go so far to create the illusion of evolution occurring when it really didn't?

In any case, even if your story was of a flawed creator that wanted to make life on this planet seem to have evolved, the lack of any evidence for said creator makes this explanation for the origin of species more flawed than the theory of evolution. You can claim that the end result of either would be the same, but that would be an admission that there is nothing distinct enough about your view to actually provide evidence for it, because you've made it such that any evidence you could apply to your view would fit equally well with the theory of evolution, which has less plot holes.


It won't account for ERVs. Viruses don't purposely insert within the same locations, and get mutated in the same way in different lineages to leave identical remnants of viral genes.

A development from simple to complex with nested hierarchies of shared genetics could imply the path a developer followed. That you think it must imply evolution is due to your faith in that theory. There is no attempt to give the impression of evolution but there is a revelation of the Creators development style.

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.

 

[mindlight]

Unsupported assertion.

Please demonstrate that this is o.




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:

What makes us human? Unique brain area linked to higher cognitive powers

 

[AnotherAtheist]

What makes us human? Unique brain area linked to higher cognitive powers

From your article:

'We tend to think that being able to plan into the future, be flexible in our approach and learn from others are things that are particularly impressive about humans.

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.

 

[hecd2]

A development from simple to complex with nested hierarchies of shared genetics could imply the path a developer followed. That you think it must imply evolution is due to your faith in that theory. There is no attempt to give the impression of evolution but there is a revelation of the Creators development style.

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.

And did the developer arrange for that common vulnerability to result in the insertion of the same ERVs in syntenic genomic locations in related taxa? Did the developer create and then break the L-gulonolactone-oxidase gene in the same way in all simians (monkeys and apes) including humans? Did the developer create two chromosomes for humans that look very like chromosomes 2a and 2b in the other great apes, and then stick them end to end to make the human chromosome 2?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The bible says God made us from the clay in a single day. It seems to me that the shared DNA across species is testimony to that shared Designer who in a sense followed a template for life which he differentiated at each stage of His creation process until he had the final types.

Only if that "designer" (why don't you just say "god"? we all know that's who you mean...) deliberatly set out to mislead and trick us in the most devious manner to believe that we all evolved from common ancestors.

The evidence of a tree of life is consistent with this Design process

It is not. It is, instead, consistent with a family tree.

Subsequent to that we have also seen further differentiation by microevolution which is scientifically observable so that for example now we have lots of kinds of sparrow and dog.

Their is no difference between micro/macro in terms of the process of evolution.
Macro is simply the accumulation of micro. That's it.

Consider the act of "walking".
You do it one step at a time.
After 10 steps, you will have moved some 10 meters. That's "micro".
After 1000s of steps, you will have moved several miles. That's "macro".

Each are accomplished, step by step. "macro walking" isn't some special type of "walking".

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Are you not aware that humans were classified as primates, even before evolution theory was a thing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK apes have more hair

Ever had goosebumps? What do you think those things are?

and cannot be seen chatting in forums like this as often.

So?

Their gait is different and their strength more balanced between hands and feet. Humans mainly have proportionally weaker arms.

So?

Is "having strong arms" one of the criteria to be a categorised as a Primate?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is an overlap but human civilisation has surpassed the apes by every possible criteria.

For the VAST majority of homo sapiens history, we actually didn't have any civilisation or even settlements.

The differences make all the difference.

There are differences between housecats and lions and tigers as well. In fact, biologically, those differences are even bigger then between chimps and humans for example.

Yet, I bet you don't have any problem calling them all "felines".

It seems that the problem is that you want to be "special".

My point which you missed earlier is that the similarities in the design of apes and humans does not undermine the creationist narrative.

It does, when properly understood.

It merely points to a common Designer who made apes and humans with similar code

In the most devious manner, by making sure these "similarities" are distributed in such a way that they are perfectly consistent with a family tree.

But the extra stuff he gave humans makes all the difference.

What extra stuff?
And how do you know this was "given" to humans by a "he"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Really?

So, explain why this "designer" felt it necessary to give both humans and chimps thousands of matching ERV's?

Explain why this "designer" felt it necessary to give them both a broken GULO gene (and broken in the exact same way)?

See, the thing is - what you have here are just "statements". You can not back them up. The actual facts make no sense in light of your statements.

And when the facts do not match your a priori beliefs... it's not the facts that are wrong!

People have THEN read evolution into the evidence as they have discovered the patterns in the creaturely types

Indeed. That is how science works. You gather data, analyse it and then build hypothesis to explain said data. Then you test the hypothesis. And evolution theory has passed those tests with flying colors.

You START with data to explain. You don't start with a supposed "explanation" first - like creationists are doing.

but with the assumption of far greater time spans.

It's not an assumption that life has existed on this planet for at least 3.8 billion years. It's a fact. A demonstrable fact.

 

[Tom 1]

Are you not aware that humans were classified as primates, even before evolution theory was a thing?

Nope. Not really a science person. I accept it as far as I understand it, I just get a little irritated when ideas based on incomplete data are put forward as indisputable fact rather than ‘probably the case’. Maybe because most of the people I have discussed this with are in the same boat as me, i.e was taught this at school, makes sense as far as I understand it but don’t really know much about it, but who will insist vehemently that it is all entirely and objectively ‘true’. I don’t have any issue with the fundamental idea that humans may well have a common ancestor with apes or any related idea, I’ve just read enough around it to question whether or not this should simply be accepted as fact (yet).

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Nope. Not really a science person. I accept it as far as I understand it, I just get a little irritated when ideas based on incomplete data are put forward as indisputable fact rather than ‘probably the case’.

Can you understand how, from my atheistic point of view, that I get irritated when ideas based on no data at all are put forward as indisputable fact?

 

[Tom 1]

Can you understand how, from my atheistic point of view, that I get irritated when ideas based on no data at all are put forward as indisputable fact?

Lol yes, with you on that from the other side of the divide.

 

[xianghua]

Did the developer create two chromosomes for humans that look very like chromosomes 2a and 2b in the other great apes, and then stick them end to end to make the human chromosome 2?

no. its just means that human get a chromosomal fusion in the past, as you can see in this figure:

 

[Jimmy D]

A development from simple to complex with nested hierarchies of shared genetics could imply the path a developer followed. That you think it must imply evolution is due to your faith in that theory. There is no attempt to give the impression of evolution but there is a revelation of the Creators development style.

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.

What you suggest could be possible I suppose, but there is absolutely zero evidence for it, nothing. If it wasn’t for people trying to justify religious beliefs why on earth would anyone think such a thing when we have observed speciation occurring via natural mechanisms?