Why are there still apes?

[April_Rose]

Another thing what is easier to believe,.. that the whole entire universe came out of one great big fart caused by nothing or that it was created by God?

 

[Tone]

Sometimes incorrectly. Sometimes correctly.

The problem with creationist claims for measuring the age of the earth is that they use bad assumptions.

I'm sure that they would say the same thing and it is debatable.

The thing with measurements is that they are based on convention.

*"The same thing" about evolution, of course.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is this better? It's a direct Biblical quote.





Revelation 20:11-15. "Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

In other words, believe this stuff...or else.

That is why folks here are so repulsed at the idea that apes could evolve to the point where they sing and dance around the campfire while dinner cooks. You have a book that tells you not to believe this. And many are afraid of what will happen if they don't believe the right things. So they cannot even think about believing something else.

But sometimes it is nice to ask questions, to explore, to ponder the possibilities, to leave the station we were given and understand life from another view. But that can not happens if one fears one will be punished for changing his or her mind on religion.

 

[coffee4u]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

There is a cliff up ahead. If you drove over it and we didn't say anything but watched you go you would then say how terrible we were to know about the cliff but not warn anyone. That is what we are doing, putting out a sign saying 'warning cliff ahead' What you choose to do after that is up to you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is a cliff up ahead. If you drove over it and we didn't say anything but watched you go you would then say how terrible we were to know about the cliff but not warn anyone. That is what we are doing, putting out a sign saying 'warning cliff ahead' What you choose to do after that is up to you.

To claim there is a cliff that you cannot demonstrate is delusion.

I'm driving through flat-land and you claim there is a cliff when you yourself have never left flatland.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm sure that they would say the same thing and it is debatable.

I am well aware of that. I was once a creationist, and I knew many arguments that the earth was young. But I now can see that they were based on faulty assumptions.

Some measurements are based on faulty assumptions. Some are based on good assumptions. Do you know how to tell which is which?

And no, the correct answer is not that whatever measurement gives me the answer I want is a correct measurement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except one small problem. Paul says it is written, but it is not written, at least not in the Bible as we know it. Was he just making this up?

No.

Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

 

[Tone]

But I now can see that they were based on faulty assumptions

What new spectacles did you decide to put on?

 

[Tone]

doesn't have to mean rejecting science.

I don't reject science, I question the findings. I thought this is what the scientific method was all about.

*Apparently measuring the age of certain things has been exhausted.

 

[ewq1938]

 

[Tone]

Do you know how to tell which is which?

According to who?

* I said this before but it was deleted and I don't know why as it is on topic.

 

[Gene2memE]

Another thing what is easier to believe,.. that the whole entire universe came out of one great big fart caused by nothing or that it was created by God?

My expertise in cosmology and theology are about on par - but maybe the one with the best evidential basis is where belief should accumulate?

 

[Jok]

First, you seem to think cognition is all or nothing, that one either has it or he doesn't. That is not true. Many animals have minimal levels of cognitive brain function.

Well I was throwing the word around loosely but nah I am fine with levels of cognition. I mostly lean towards thinking it was a progression, but I won’t say I’m 100% on it. Because they say Neanderthals were just as smart as us, but then some argue that they weren’t. Well nobody is arguing that they were more intelligent than us yet their brains were 20% larger. So this makes the progression of intelligence based on brain size argument a little suspect for me. They also say that human brain volume has a poor correlation with intelligence. So these things make me have doubts about how much weight to put on the other hominids having lower intelligence due to a smaller brain. We can’t study a non-human hominid brain they are all decomposed for thousands of years all we have is an empty skull to look at.

The skulls of the earliest hominids we find show evidence of increased cognitive power. They are nowhere close to homo sapiens in brain power.

How much can we know from an empty skull?

Patterns of things like making tools, making fire, cooking, cave paintings, etc are a better (but still vague) gage to compare intelligence levels between hominid intelligence. But even with that it’s just so far into the past, there’s such a scarcity of clues.

You also seem to have difficulty understanding the problems with having increased brainpower. Every mother can tell you that it is not easy getting a baby's head down the birth canal. So even if you are God, you cannot simply decide that the next primate to be born will have a full sized human head. The mother who tries to deliver that baby will curse your holy name. So you need a way of getting increased cognitive brainpower, while having mercy on the mothers.

But this would be a really tough situation for any species at all. Childbirth survival rates were horrible back then anyway, it isn’t like Homo sapiens were in some plush setting where it wasn’t a major problem. There are many species who stay put and don’t move around all the time not just Homo Sapiens. Ok so long infancy periods is the price you pay for having self aware cognition, so what, many species could have been given this same burden/benefit package deal.

The second trick is to allow the brain to increase in size after birth. Again, evidence shows this in our ancestors.

By ancestors do you mean infant fossils that we have of Homo Erectus and other hominids?

But in early hominids, there were enough of advantages to increased cognitive ability that natural selection favored these changes. It was a tradeoff, but it was worth it. For other primates, these changes were not worth it.

It being worth it is totally subjective though, yes it’s a tradeoff, but it makes no sense that out of millions of species it was only “Worth it” for a very select few in all of Earth’s history, and then on top of that the very few died off all except for Homo Sapiens. How could higher self aware intelligence NOT be worth it for 0.00000001% of species, but worth it for just one? “It was worth it” sounds ad hoc in order to hold onto the blind portion of evolution.

The fact that evolution started this trend of giving a boost in cognition to about a dozen different species, and they all died off except for one, and evolution never again felt the need to repeat this process, looks very guided and goal oriented. I mean we had a trend starting here! Then evolution just reverses course and pulled the plug on the cognition project? And now other species could really really use this ability because of what humans do to the world! Evolution looks more like a LINE to humanity than us blindly winning a self awareness lottery.

Also, you don't seem to recognize the resource needs of the enlarged brain. If a monkey suddenly gave birth to a monkey with a human brain, what good is that? This brain is going to require an immense amount of energy. If there is nobody around to communicate with her, if there is nobody to teach her to make a fire, make a hand axe, or organize a hunting expedition, what is she going to do with a human brain? She is going to eat like a carnivore, and add little to the community. How is she going to get all the meat she craves?

But if evolution is allowed to proceed in a slow path, with the body, brain, and available technologies all developing within a community of hominids, the result is, uh,
us!

You can’t have it both ways, you are either married to this extremely slow progression theory AND you have transitional fossils to back it up with, or evolutionary leaps happen very very fast.

How does this even work exactly, if Homo Sapiens came onto the scene at let’s say 100,000 BC then what were they in 100,100 BC? If you object and say that the transition would be WAY longer than 100 yrs, well if that is the case then we would have transitional fossils. Unless you have a lot of “Iffy” fossils that are judgment calls because they are stuck somewhere between being Homo Sapiens or being Homo Erectus for example (ie REAL transitional fossils) then how can you hold onto a very slow progression theory? But if the transition is extremely fast then that explains why you aren’t finding those fossils. BOTH situations are difficult! Yes the monkey giving birth to a human creates a problem. But what if the change was lightning fast, like 200 years? That could give us about 6 to 8 drastic generation leaps in increments (easing that problem), and a scant 200 years could also forgive no transitional fossils being found.

The hominid fossils are all drastically different.

 

[Strathos]

200 years is way too short of a time for speciation in mammals.

 

[Jok]

200 years is way too short of a time for speciation in mammals.

I know that it’s a crazy short amount of time but I feel like I get stuck in front of a fork in the road, in the one direction I agree with non-fossil arguments for evolution but I am troubled that it’s not also backed up by fossils, and in the other direction I know that a 200 year window is much slower than evolution is supposed to work but I feel like a lightning fast transition rate would be a perfect explanation for my dissatisfaction with the fossils. Another thing that makes me side with the super fast transition is I think about how on rare occasions people will be born with “Freak deformities” yet they still live. So I think to myself how far fetched can it possibly be for there be a series of “freak“ generations? Keep in mind that I am also a theist so that doesn’t exactly hurt my choice.

 

[Strathos]

The thing about fossils is that they are relatively uncommon. Expecting gaps no longer than 200 years for any hominid species is unrealistic.

 

[Shemjaza]

You use the word transitional because you believe one kind changed over time into another kind. We do not. We believe God made each kind. Lots of variety within the kind, but still the same kind.

You are repeating yourself.

Transitional can be defined as featuring traits linking to two groups. They could be created separately... but they would still be transitional.

The problem with "kind" as used by creationists is that it is basically impossible to define and identify. Especially once you look closer. The many, many physical and genetic similarities between modern humans and modern apes is why we call them "primates", a kind of animal if you will.

Once you examine the extinct species it fills out even more gaps.

So the idea of a God who came down to earth in human form to die for you out of love so you wouldn't have to is ridiculous but this,..










View attachment 284221









turning into this,.. (Sorry guys I got a thing for this guy. XD!!)








View attachment 284222










is?? Which idea seems more logical to you? Oh wait never mind,.. I didn't mean to use a picture of your dear Uncle Chester. (JK )

One is chilling all nude and fluffy and the other is shaved and covered with clothes and make up, but the underlying skeleton is pretty similar.

If you look at the skulls you can see there isn't really a missing link needed.

 

[coffee4u]

You are repeating yourself.

Transitional can be defined as featuring traits linking to two groups. They could be created separately... but they would still be transitional.

The problem with "kind" as used by creationists is that it is basically impossible to define and identify. Especially once you look closer. The many, many physical and genetic similarities between modern humans and modern apes is why we call them "primates", a kind of animal if you will.

Once you examine the extinct species it fills out even more gaps.




One is chilling all nude and fluffy and the other is shaved and covered with clothes and make up, but the underlying skeleton is pretty similar.

If you look at the skulls you can see there isn't really a missing link needed.View attachment 284235

It doesn't matter how similar things are. That only means they are similar, and why wouldn't they be when the same creator made them all?
We are told there are 3 classes of animals; cattle, creeping and beast and that within each group there were kinds, and no we don't know what those kinds were. Sea creatures and birds are sperate.
The difference between humans and apes is that God made man separately, we are made in his image and only we received a spirit. As to the similarities God said that he made both animals and man from the same material. It would be strange if there were no similarities.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I was attempting to convey was, if we didn't know about stirring a shot of instant coffee into a cup of hot water and all we knew about was diffusion, we may assume that it took longer to prepare than it actually did. So long, in fact, that we would wonder how the coffee is still so hot.

I was using an analogy for how long evolutionists believe it took humans to develop.

My whole point is that a Conscious Process was involved.

The analogy is a poor one. We know evolution has been going for billions of years because we have multiple independent lines of evidence for that.

* But you believe science is already so exhausted that it cannot show that.

Your false statements about me say more about you.

 

[Shemjaza]

It doesn't matter how similar things are. That only means they are similar, and why wouldn't they be when the same creator made them all?
We are told there are 3 classes of animals; cattle, creeping and beast and that within each group there were kinds, and no we don't know what those kinds were. Sea creatures and birds are sperate.
The difference between humans and apes is that God made man separately, we are made in his image and only we received a spirit. As to the similarities God said that he made both animals and man from the same material. It would be strange if there were no similarities.

It's the pattern of similarities.

Morphologically and genetically they are patterned as if they are a family tree.

Whales and fish live in the sea... but a whale breaths air and is genetically more like a mouse then a fish.

Also a sensible common designer probably wouldn't put switched off leg genes into a whale or switched off teeth genes into a chicken.