As my former answer implied, the answer for any Christian is the same -- regardless of their origins view -- it is because God wanted it that way.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As I asked in the OP, why should it be us? Why not the chimps? We are very similar anyway.
I also see that the question has been asked about why we are 'most intelligent'. What does God say about this? (I don't know).
Why can birds fly when we cannot? Why do giraffes have such long necks? Why can some animals sense natural disasters early enough for them to flee the site? (I mean, philosophically speaking?) One could argue that all of these developments came about so they were better able to adapt to their environments. Giraffes need their necks to reach their food, etc. Maybe we require our intelligence to keep us alive against other species. We certainly aren't naturally as strong as many other animals, nor are we as fast, etc. Maybe intelligence is humankind's 'long neck'.
But on a deeper level, I don't know that there is an answer to this question. I mean, a real true answer that would satisfy everyone, and I'm absolutely okay with this. There are plenty of other things to occupy my thoughts than feeding my vanity about why I'm so much smarter than a chipmunk. The world is diverse and many things are yet unexplained. I feel reassured that I don't have these answers, it makes life much more interesting.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor . . . which was an ape. Which is to say, yes we did evolve from apes.
Your second sentence is correct: the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees did differ from modern apes. What I am objecting to is your first sentence. The common ancestor was indeed an ape, by any definition of "ape" I've ever seen. That species is not around today, but if it were people on the street would call it an ape, and it would certainly be classified along with other apes. We routinely call other extinct ape species "apes" (try googling "Miocene apes", for example), so why should that one species be treated differently?No, humans and apes share a common ancestor that was an ape-like creature, but it was not an ape. That creature differed from modern apes.
Read what you emphasized again: the ancestor was distinct from other African apes. That means it was itself an ape. There is no dispute about the scientific issues here. It's purely a matter of semantics, but the semantic distinction you're trying to draw just doesn't hold up.The following is from the Smithsonian Institutions Human Origins Program website:
"Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes (emphasis added). This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species."
As others have pointed out, this is wrong. Chimpanzees are much more intelligent than, say, howler monkeys, which in turn are much more intelligent than guinea pigs, which are more intelligent than salamanders. Chimpanzees can use tools, can learn behavior simply by observing it, can learn to communicate using human sign language, and have intricate social interactions.If you plot an expression on the quantity of intelligence versus time, the curve would likely to be near zero until human appeared. Then the curve start to "fly" almost vertically.
No, they shouldn't. Our DNA is very similar to ape DNA, but differs in tens of millions of places. Why should we have the same intelligence?I don't think either any mutation stuff can explain that. Our DNA is "very similar" to that of ape's. So apes should have intelligence equivalent to, may be, our college level students. Shouldn't they?
Your second sentence is correct: the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees did differ from modern apes. What I am objecting to is your first sentence. The common ancestor was indeed an ape, by any definition of "ape" I've ever seen. That species is not around today, but if it were people on the street would call it an ape, and it would certainly be classified along with other apes. We routinely call other extinct ape species "apes" (try googling "Miocene apes", for example), so why should that one species be treated differently?
Read what you emphasized again: the ancestor was distinct from other African apes. That means it was itself an ape. There is no dispute about the scientific issues here. It's purely a matter of semantics, but the semantic distinction you're trying to draw just doesn't hold up.
Read what you emphasized again: the ancestor was distinct from other African apes. That means it was itself an ape. There is no dispute about the scientific issues here. It's purely a matter of semantics, but the semantic distinction you're trying to draw just doesn't hold up.
There is only one species of Homo sapiens; "Homo sapiens" is the name of a species in the genus Homo. Different living populations of Homo sapiens have on average slightly different DNA and on average will score differently on IQ tests; no one knows if there is a genetic cause for the IQ differences.How much is the difference on intelligence among species of homo sapiens? Are they similar or very different? I heard we discovered short human in some jungles. Are they less intelligent than normal people? I assume they should have the same DNA as ours.
I see no reason to think we're currently becoming smarter. Yes, we're likely smarter than the earliest stone age "people", who were not members of our species. Here is a plot of cranial capacity vs time for species related to ours:Are we now smarter than the stone age people? Are we becoming smarter through time?
Who knows? Just because we got more intelligent in the past is no reason to think we're going to continue to do so in the future. Our environment is very different than it used to be.So what ever species we will evolve to, they would eventually make flying saucers?
I definitely do not agree on this. Even I hope what you said is true.Evolution can explain 'how' but not 'why'. It's funny how creationists and atheists have so much in common in this regard.
Very true.Actually they can outperform college students in computer games, and a quick google shows estimates of Chimp IQ at between 40 and 70. That is hardly a graph climbing vertically, especially over million of years.
There are things that come in sudden leaps too, even in human development. Small children cannot handle in abstract though, then as they grow, suddenly it clicks in. Some people never get the hang of it.
Of course we have many problems. It is nice to recognize that.I also see that the question has been asked about why we are 'most intelligent'. What does God say about this? (I don't know).
Why can birds fly when we cannot? Why do giraffes have such long necks? Why can some animals sense natural disasters early enough for them to flee the site? (I mean, philosophically speaking?) One could argue that all of these developments came about so they were better able to adapt to their environments. Giraffes need their necks to reach their food, etc. Maybe we require our intelligence to keep us alive against other species. We certainly aren't naturally as strong as many other animals, nor are we as fast, etc. Maybe intelligence is humankind's 'long neck'.
But on a deeper level, I don't know that there is an answer to this question. I mean, a real true answer that would satisfy everyone, and I'm absolutely okay with this. There are plenty of other things to occupy my thoughts than feeding my vanity about why I'm so much smarter than a chipmunk. The world is diverse and many things are yet unexplained. I feel reassured that I don't have these answers, it makes life much more interesting.
Sorry juv, are you saying that when people grow and start to think in abstract thought, it is magic?Very true.
If chimp's IQ, as you quoted, is about 1/3 or 1/2 of human, then why do they never get the magic click? Could it be interpreted by a tiny tiny difference in DNA?
Are you talking about placing them in an urban setting with access to modern technology and resources produced by the rest of human society, or dropping the two groups in the middle of a rainforest with only the resources they can come up with themselves? My money would be on the chimps.If we gathered human with IQ at a similar range of chimps, and make a society, would they do better than that of chimps? Or, they would simply die off.
Try taking them on at the computer gameAnd, for the IQ number, I refuse to admit that I am only three times smarter than chimps.
It is a problem, both defining intelligence and measuring it, but then again you were happy to estimate ape intelligence at 'near zero' this morning.Well, this thread dips into the problem of measuring the intelligence. It is another black box.
Sorry juv, are you saying that when people grow and start to think in abstract thought, it is magic?
What do you think it is?
Are you talking about placing them in an urban setting with access to modern technology and resources produced by the rest of human society, or dropping the two groups in the middle of a rainforest with only the resources they can come up with themselves? My money would be on the chimps.
I think it makes no difference as long as there were no interference from outside.
Try taking them on at the computer game
This is the point. A faster reaction does not represent wisdom. Older people are slower, but are wiser.
It is a problem, both defining intelligence and measuring it, but then again you were happy to estimate ape intelligence at 'near zero' this morning.
I still do. It does not need any measurement to get this conclusion. Chimps (or dog) can learn, but they do not learn by themselves. We did and we did it very fast.
A mental ability that only emerges after our brains reach a sufficient level of development and complexity.What do you think it is?
So you are saying chimps have the intelligence of low IQ humans?I think it makes no difference as long as there were no interference from outside.
It wasn't just a speed test, it was a memory and problem solving test. Humans got worse as speed increased and the chimps didn't, but they still beat humans when it ran slower.This is the point. A faster reaction does not represent wisdom. Older people are slower, but are wiser.
Actually humans learn much slower than any animal, we just keep on learning for longer. A kitten will be out running and pouncing and learning to catch insects while a human child has barely discovered it has toes. Give a toddler a banana, put a small monkey in the room (do not try this experiment at home.) Who will end up with the banana?I still do. It does not need any measurement to get this conclusion. Chimps (or dog) can learn, but they do not learn by themselves. We did and we did it very fast.
You are off line. It seems you are arguing that chimps are smarter than human.A mental ability that only emerges after our brains reach a sufficient level of development and complexity.
So you are saying chimps have the intelligence of low IQ humans?
It wasn't just a speed test, it was a memory and problem solving test. Humans got worse as speed increased and the chimps didn't, but they still beat humans when it ran slower.
Actually humans learn much slower than any animal, we just keep on learning for longer. A kitten will be out running and pouncing and learning to catch insects while a human child has barely discovered it has toes. Give a toddler a banana, put a small monkey in the room (do not try this experiment at home.) Who will end up with the banana?
If so, why don't we see any written language of chimps? (see what image can you find this time). So compare to human culture, the chimp culture is indeed, zero.They are in some areas, the computer games shows that quite clearly, and they are certainly smarter than your average toddler. You just want to believe they have near zero IQ because you think it would support creationism, but the evidence doesn't back you up.
Also, just a random thought: I don't think you can teach animal anything without a food reward or something like that. So, if a starved person is competing food with a chimp on the speed of reaction, I guess human will win in most cases
Good. See what we can do when compared to chimps.How many toddlers write? It is a silly argument. It is not the things apes can't do that tell us how intelligent they are, it is the things they can do. You don't measure a toddler's intelligence by whether it can drive, handle quadratic equations or write a sonnet. You look at the things it can do and how well they do them.
However you could take it up with Koko the Gorilla
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][/FONT]
...if you know American Sign Language.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?