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

[Lily of Valleys]

What's interesting is it is human who put those apes like chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos and gorillas in zoos, not the other way round, and none of those apes put the other apes into cages either.

It is humans who rule over them, not the other way round.

 

[Skreeper]

What's interesting is it is human who put those apes like chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos and gorillas in zoos, not the other way round, and none of those apes put the other apes into cages either.

It is humans who rule over them, not the other way round.

And your point is?

 

[Lily of Valleys]

And your point is?

My point is the small percentage of difference in DNA makeup must be significant to account for those differences between human and the other apes. Or that there is more than simply difference in DNA makeup to account for the differences between human and the other apes, considering none of those other apes build high-rise, make spacecraft, invent missiles, plant gardens, design landscape, etc.

 

[Skreeper]

My point is the small percentage of difference in DNA makeup must be significant to account for those differences between human and the other apes. Or that there is more than simply difference in DNA makeup to account for the differences between human and the other apes, considering none of those other apes build high-rise, make spacecraft, invent missiles, plant gardens, design landscape, etc.

You should focus more on the similarities rather than the differences. The fact that we share so much with the other great apes is why we classify humans as part of the ape family.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

You should focus more on the similarities rather than the differences. The fact that we share so much with the other great apes is why we classify humans as part of the ape family.

Considering there are more similarities between the other apes from each other, while human stands out from the rest of the apes, it wouldn't be a good fit to put human in the same family.

 

[Wet Squirrel]

Part me of me did realise that it's a bit of bad logic... but so much of creationism is bad logic, and creationist also use bad logic a heaping heck of a lot so... *shrug*

Creationism is not bad logic , evolution is disproven by mutations simple as that .

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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

Can I give you props for posting something that correctly characterises the evolutionary model, makes sense, and promotes debate.

Now we need an explanation why, in the creationist model, humans had DNA so incredibly similar to chimps before the chromosomal fusion.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Creationism is not bad logic , evolution is disproven by mutations simple as that .

How does not survival of the fittest and the demonstrable existence of beneficial mutations not fit perfectly with evolutionary theory?

 

[Skreeper]

Considering there are more similarities between the other apes from each other, while human stands out from the rest of the apes, it wouldn't be a good fit to put human in the same family.

Well according to the scientific community and based on our current classification system it is a good fit.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Well according to the scientific community and based on our current classification system it is a good fit.

If a classification system defines a class based only on a number - the percentage of DNA, perhaps you can say that. The only thing is, a number does not mean much though, considering humans stand out from the rest of the other apes, while the other apes are more similar to each other.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If a classification system defines a class based only on a number - the percentage of DNA, perhaps you can say that. The only thing is, a number does not mean much though, considering humans stand out from the rest of the other apes, while the other apes are more similar to each other.

It's not just DNA, it's physiology, biochemistry, bone structure, dentition, etc. etc. Overall morphology isn't a good indicator of relatedness, otherwise dolphins would be considered to be closely related to fish.

BTW: I would say that properly collected statistics from DNA (it's not trivial how to count relatedness) are not 'just a number' but an extremely important and useful statistic that can be used to compare life. You cannot dismiss something just because it's a 'number', as numbers can convey incredible and deep meaning.

 

[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?

Personally I think that the conflicts usually arise when attempts are made to interpret or reinterpret the scriptures in terms of one or another scientific theory, and then accept or reject the theory based on that interpretation. That’s my view. Based on the writings of several scholars writing from Christian, Judaic and secular perspectives I’ve become convinced that it is necessary to have some idea of the original cultural, intellectual context in order to understand what information, values, meaning and so on the text is meant to convey, and what it isn’t. Regarding the creation texts relevant to perspectives on evolution this would mean understanding that the original writer and audience were concerned not with material creation but with the creation of order, boundaries, roles and so on. The modern preoccupation with ‘what is all this stuff, where did it come from and how does it work’ was, according to a lot of research into shared conceptions in the Ancient Near East, a completely alien concept at the time. That wasn’t how people thought about creation. Although I’m sure other people will disagree with me on this I tend to think that YEC arguments reduce God to the role of some old duffer for whom all of this ‘science-y stuff’ is too complicated. On the other hand, I don’t get the argument that having some ideas about how parts of the physical universe work has some bearing on whether or not God exists. Arguments like those of Richard Dawkins etc are, I think, far to reliant on supposed ‘metaphors’ about ‘the appearance of purpose’ (as opposed to actual purpose) and life ‘finding a way’ etc in a completely blind fashion. My own study of the bible in relation to what is known about the physical world leads me to believe that God is as fascinated with all of this stuff as we are, and that it is the complexity of it all that can make the purpose behind it difficult to grasp, in a wood vs trees fashion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope.

Well, then now you know.
Linnaeus classified humans as apes a century before Darwin came up with evolution.

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’.

That humans belong to the genus of apes IS an indisputable fact. Anatomically, genetically, we ARE apes/primates/mammals/...

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

Not knowing much about it, is not a problem. You are in luck. You live in the 21st century with access to the interwebs and thus very detailed information in massive amounts concerning just about any subject.

, 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).

That's cool.
But surely you understand that, given even your own admission that you don't know much about it, doesn't really put you in a position to question these facts...

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

View attachment 222655

Okay.

Now explain ERV's.

 

[Skreeper]

Okay.

Now explain ERV's.

Something something self-replicating robot penguins

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

What do you mean by that?

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

No. That such a pattern supports evolution theory, is not because "we say so". It is because a process like evolution could only result in such a hierarchy.

It's how family trees work.... You inherit traits from your parents, not from your cousins.
If this hierarchy didn't exist, then evolution theory would be falsified.

But it does exist.

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

That makes no sense.
No "developer" works like that. It is inefficient, wastefull and unecessarily complex. It also limits you in development. For example, it prevents you from "creating" a bird with hair or a mammal with feathers.

And it totally doesn't make sense in other places, like giving several species the exact same gene that is "broken" in the exact same way (GULO).

So yes, IF a "developer" would go that much out of his way to create a productline with such a distribution of shared genetics, then I can't explain it any differently then to say that this "developer" was very deviously trying to make it look as if no developer had anything to do with it and to "trick us" into believing they evolved over time.

Especially considering that this "developer" then made genetic reproduction work in such a way that we could even observe the process in real-time (reproduce and pass on genes mutate, survive, repeat).

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.

ERV's don't work like that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point is the small percentage of difference in DNA makeup must be significant to account for those differences between human and the other apes. Or that there is more than simply difference in DNA makeup to account for the differences between human and the other apes, considering none of those other apes build high-rise, make spacecraft, invent missiles, plant gardens, design landscape, etc.

Objectively speaking, purely from a "mental capacity" viewpoint, the difference between using a rock to crack a nut on the one hand, and building the international spacestation on the other, isn't quite that big, actually.....

I know you'll have trouble accepting that. It's because you're blinded by the results. Yes nutcracking with a rock, doesn't look that impressive compared to a space shuttle.

But the psychological processes that underline both, are really not that different.

 

[Tom 1]

But surely you understand that, given even your own admission that you don't know much about it, doesn't really put you in a position to question these facts...

My questioning of it, as far as it goes, is mainly about developing a better understanding about something I’m only really mildly curious about. Given that there are other things I’m more interested in I haven’t spent much time on it, but I thought that the author of this book/website raised some interesting points: Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design
Beyond that I suppose I am projecting on this thread for the sake of argument the irritation I feel sometimes at claims along the lines of ‘evolution theory proves there is no God’, which I think takes scientific endeavour out of context, and is also rooted in a misunderstanding of biblical narratives e.g Genesis 1.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My questioning of it, as far as it goes, is mainly about developing a better understanding about something I’m only really mildly curious about. Given that there are other things I’m more interested in I haven’t spent much time on it, but I thought that the author of this book/website raised some interesting points: Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design
Beyond that I suppose I am projecting on this thread for the sake of argument the irritation I feel sometimes at claims along the lines of ‘evolution theory proves there is no God’, which I think takes scientific endeavour out of context, and is also rooted in a misunderstanding of biblical narratives e.g Genesis 1.

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about gods or anything supernatural. At best (or worse, depending how you look at it), god(s) and the supernatural are simply irrelevant.

As for your "evolution 2.0" link.... I'll go ahead and advice you to look up information using proper science sources. If evolution is what you wish to learn about, that is.

 

[tas8831]

What's interesting is it is human who put those apes like chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos and gorillas in zoos, not the other way round, and none of those apes put the other apes into cages either.

It is humans who rule over them, not the other way round.

I fail to see any relevance to any topic at hand.

"Rule over them"? Whatever...