Why do we look so much like apes?

[Assyrian]

You do realize humans are apes, right?

And let me take this a step further:

Give us the genetic reasons WHY that after scientists attempted to reproduce 50,000 generations of flies the results were, (guess what?)...

flies? Was there even one species among the variety of different organisms that they classified identifiably as a non-fly? Nope.

Now explain to the readers the genetic reasons why.

Iscarol explains to you humans are still apes and your response is to say flies are still flies

(Hint: Mendel knew). Quote:
Success of transformation experiments led
Gartner to disagree with those scientists
who contest the stability of plant species
and assume continuous evolution of plant
forms. In the complete transformation of
one species into another he finds unequivocal
proof that a species has fixed limits beyond which it cannot change.

http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/mendel.pdf

Aren't you embarrassed using this quote again so soon after being shown (link) from the very Mendel letter your quote is taken from, that Mendel was:
(1) an evolutionist,
(2) said that other types of hybrids, constant hybrids, did form new species, and
(3) that these hybrids were of special important in the evolution of plants.


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Assyrian]

The key word in dispute is "humble". It doesn't match with "Well suited to the environment it happens to reside in." Check for yourself before you swallow untruth. Do you see a match?

Bible and Library Search: humble

You were trying to contrast 'humble' with a mistaken understanding of evolution, isn't it enough to show your idea of fitness is wrong, to show your argument is mistaken? What have these verses got to do with evolution anyway, isn't the meek shall inherit the earth, about the future not how the world was created?

 

[SkyWriting]

You were trying to contrast 'humble' with a mistaken understanding of evolution, isn't it enough to show your idea of fitness is wrong, to show your argument is mistaken? What have these verses got to do with evolution anyway, isn't the meek shall inherit the earth, about the future not how the world was created?

I hear your pain. I wasn't mistaken about the weak and starving animals of any species, but I'm happy to accommodate your personal definition, or any other, and show it to be incompatible with Christian teachings as well. Rather than running from my first usage, I'l take on any wacky definition of natural selection you offer and blast it to kingdom come.

The world was created and runs under system that favors the species that are most fit for a particular, extremely hostile environment. Easy to get food, water and shelter are a rare combination. We are a product of "this system" that allows for the weak and the hungry to die off leaving the strongest and best fit for the environment to live on. That's where humans came from. We split off some line of.....what God tells us is food. So we eat our cousins and ancestors and God is OK with that. It's a perfect world without any Sin. Lots of munching on relatives, death to any weak or disabled folk, and lots of killing for food and resources. A perfect system.

Then along comes God and explains that those who are meek and humble before Him will inherent the Earth. Not now, but sometime in "the future" all the weak and meek who ever died shall inherent the Earth.

I've studied cult religions, and this one fits right in.

 

[SkyWriting]

Iscarol explains to you humans are still apes and your response is ...

Humans are only apes by some persons definition.
And you'll have a hard time with Scriptural support on that.

There are other authorities that don't agree
with that classification system as well.
For example, people are not legally animals.
I'm cool with letting the legal system decide.
A much higher authority than Incarol.

 

[SkyWriting]

...and are still apes. For God's sake,

Everything under "hominoidea" is an ape. This is NOT a complicated concept. Young children are cognitively capable of linking concepts in this manner, so this isn't something people here should be having trouble understanding.

The we should stop eating monkeys?
Because they are our relatives?
Could a child understand that?

 

[SkyWriting]

I guess to them, we're weird, ugly looking creatures who can only walk on 2 legs and are pretty puny, weak little things.

I'm sure they would have 100's of reasons why we are not apes.
Trying to include us would be the last thing on their minds.
But some people insist on a blood connection. I wish them
a happy marriage with one.

 

[Incariol]

The we should stop eating monkeys?
Because they are our relatives?
Could a child understand that?

Sure, a child could those. They were three fairly simple sentences.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, a child could those. They were three fairly simple sentences.

Then why do we continue eating them?
I guess you are wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

Welcome to Superfamily Hominoidea with the rest of us apes.

LOL. Animals have a "Sense" about such things not influenced by false ideas and notions.

Naturally, they don't give a hoot about humans or sense any family ties.
Would you like to test my claim a few thousand times?
Or do you reject the opinion of your clan.
Your little piece of paper will get eaten. Literally.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Oh, yes, but I can and I just did. In case you unaware there is this control panel on this board that has the word 'ignore'. All one needs do is click it.

I hope you didn't treat your "students" like this, otherwise you'd have an empty classroom. What area of biology did you teach anyway?

The we should stop eating monkeys?
Because they are our relatives?
Could a child understand that?

Eating monkey meat is not expressly forbidden, but they are not considered Kosher. There was probably good reason for this - humans can pick up diseases from eating monkeys and apes because we are genetically similiar. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease for example often results from cannibalism, and can be caught by eating monkey brains.

Everything under "hominoidea" is an ape. This is NOT a complicated concept. Young children are cognitively capable of linking concepts in this manner, so this isn't something people here should be having trouble understanding.

I suspect we wouldn't have the same problem if we said "humans are vertebrates" or "humans are mammals".

 

[Kirkwhisper]

If I have misunderstood statements you've made then yes, I apologize.

Perhaps you could also extend some civility by apologizing for your overt hostility toward your fellow believers.

-CryptoLutheran

No.

The rebukes were well deserved because they are inveterate dogmatists that will not be corrected no matter what the scriptures say nor by what the facts of science reveal. I have merely chosen to not communicate with them for that is my civil option.

Now to answer you directly as I said I would: (as quoted and posted above)

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," Gen. 1;26-27

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image..."

Just how hard is it for you to grasp that the Holy Spirit inspired this expressive language on purpose so that there would be no mistaking what he was talking about? You're telling us that you can't make the obvious connection? Or is it that you WON'T make the obvious connection?

So was the Spirit talking about this:

or this...

???

 

[Greg1234]

Everything under "hominoidea" is an ape.

It doesn't matter. You need adaptive classifications (classifications according to the ability of the adaptive mechanism).

 

[Kirkwhisper]

It doesn't matter. You need adaptive classifications (classifications according to the ability of the adaptive mechanism).

Apparently, he thinks that the Linneaus classification system is inspired by God.

It isn't.

 

[Assyrian]

I hear your pain.

Sorry, dropped the keyboard on my toe.

I wasn't mistaken

You were mistaken about the meaning of survival of the fittest, but feel free to refine your argument and try to make it work.

about the weak and starving animals of any species, but I'm happy to accommodate your personal definition, or any other, and show it to be incompatible with Christian teachings as well. Rather than running from my first usage, I'l take on any wacky definition of natural selection you offer and blast it to kingdom come.

If you want to argue against natural selection try scientific definitions and explanations, not the wacky ones you come across on creationist websites.

As for predation we see in nature. If you wanted to argue that was somehow 'bad', you would need a bit more that the sentimentalism that is the usual Creationist basis of the argument, a frankly hypocritical sentimentalism in any creationist that isn't vegetarian. Perhaps if you showed God thinks lions and ravens eating prey is bad, then you could build a case from that. Unfortunately God doesn't share your aversion to other animals eating meat.
Job 38:41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?
Psalm 104:21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.
God not only created the lion and the raven, he says he is the one who provides their prey for them.

Then once you have established God shares your view of lions and their diet, you would have to show it is especially bad for them to target the weaker member of the herd, rather than getting themselves killed going for the strongest. The fact is, herds need their numbers kept down or they will run out of food, and their population crash in mass starvation. Not only that, the healthiest thing for the whole herd is to lose the sick and the weak rather than the strongest. When human hunters remove the natural predators and target the best animals for trophies, the herds deteriorated. It looks like the natural balance God created is far better than anything you seem to be advocating .

The world was created and runs under system that favors the species that are most fit for a particular, extremely hostile environment. Easy to get food, water and shelter are a rare combination. We are a product of "this system" that allows for the weak and the hungry to die off leaving the strongest and best fit for the environment to live on. That's where humans came from. We split off some line of.....what God tells us is food. So we eat our cousins and ancestors and God is OK with that. It's a perfect world without any Sin. Lots of munching on relatives, death to any weak or disabled folk, and lots of killing for food and resources. A perfect system.

Yet oddly our greatest strength as a species is our ability to work together, to care for the weak and sick amongst us, because the tribe member with the broken leg that cannot take care of himself now, may be the one who kills the leopard next year. That old granny who cannot even chew her own food may be the one who remembers where water can be found next time the rains fail. Oddly out of this hostile environment and struggle for survival, comes something strangely looking like something of the character of God.

Then along comes God and explains that those who are meek and humble before Him will inherent the Earth. Not now, but sometime in "the future" all the weak and meek who ever died shall inherent the Earth.

In the future, so nothing to do with how we evolved in the past. God took something good, the natural world with all its struggle for existence and feeding your own young with dead other animals, he moulded it into something he called very good, that reflected his image and likeness, and in the fullness of time, through the power of the cross and resurrection with transform it full into the likeness of his son 1Cor 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
2Cor 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

I've studied cult religions, and this one fits right in.

You are the one taking verses out of context, though that is more wishful thinking than cultic. However if you have studied cults, wouldn't cultic behaviour be more like twisting verses out of context, refusing to discuss it and threatening God's judgement on anyone who doesn't agree?

 

[Assyrian]

Humans are only apes by some persons definition.

Doesn't matter, kirkwhisper was trying to argue against evolution using the very think evolution says happens.

And you'll have a hard time with Scriptural support on that.

True, scripture just says we are animals it doesn't say what kind of animals. Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. Though if the preacher is Solomon he did have pet apes.

Interestingly, if God is testing us to show us we are animals, and creationists keep denying the fact, does that mean they are failing God's test?

There are other authorities that don't agree
with that classification system as well.
For example, people are not legally animals.
I'm cool with letting the legal system decide.

That is fine, evolution is talking biology not law.

A much higher authority than Incarol.

God's creation itself?

 

[Assyrian]

they are inveterate dogmatists that will not be corrected no matter what the scriptures say nor by what the facts of science reveal.

Tell me this is a joke... please

 

[SkyWriting]

You were mistaken about the meaning of survival of the fittest, but feel free to refine your argument and try to make it work.

You would need to show that rather than just giving your opinion yet again.

If you want to argue against natural selection try scientific definitions and explanations, not the wacky ones you come across on creationist websites.

Your imagination again.

As for predation we see in nature. If you wanted to argue that was somehow 'bad', you would need a bit more that the sentimentalism that is the usual Creationist basis of the argument, a frankly hypocritical sentimentalism in any creationist that isn't vegetarian.

I'm thinking more of a sexual predator waiting just outside the house of one of your family members, who is alone....right now. I'd like you to defend your position on the strong and better adapted vs the weak and frail...in Eulogy form please.

Perhaps if you showed God thinks lions and ravens eating prey is bad, then you could build a case from that. Unfortunately God doesn't share your aversion to other animals eating meat.

I disagree 100%.
You seem to think animals reside in Heaven and are acting on God's will.
Not so.
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Under God's will animals don't eat each other.
Genesis 9:10 and with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth.
No mention of "survivors" or carnage after a year.
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
Why would this be? Why would God change your vision of His Plan?
What do shepherds do? Especially God's servants....
1 Samuel 17:34 But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock,

Job 38:41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?
Psalm 104:21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.
God not only created the lion and the raven, he says he is the one who provides their prey for them.

Finally you've found something! Good work.

First I'll have to temper the Psalm a bit. But here I also have to give
you full credit for finding the first actual contradiction I've ever
seen in scripture. In the Psalm it mentions God providing food for the
lions and then in 1 Samuel we have God providing the shepherd to
protect the sheep from the lion. What a potential quandary.
I'm not going to dissect these passages. If you think that they prove
God supports Natural selection and death to the weak and slow, then
I'm going to give you full credit for your searching and let the passages
stand without my comment.

Luke 12:24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!

Job 38:41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?

Psalm 104:21 The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.

Then once you have established God shares your view of lions and their diet, you would have to show it is especially bad for them to target the weaker member of the herd, rather than getting themselves killed going for the strongest. The fact is, herds need their numbers kept down or they will run out of food, and their population crash in mass starvation. Not only that, the healthiest thing for the whole herd is to lose the sick and the weak rather than the strongest. When human hunters remove the natural predators and target the best animals for trophies, the herds deteriorated. It looks like the natural balance God created is far better than anything you seem to be advocating .

The world is not in balance
List of extinction events - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lists of extinct animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and not running as it would if we lived in heaven...which we don't.
Satan, who is the god of this world, has bli

Yet oddly our greatest strength as a species is our ability to work together, to care for the weak and sick amongst us, because the tribe member with the broken leg that cannot take care of himself now, may be the one who kills the leopard next year. That old granny who cannot even chew her own food may be the one who remembers where water can be found next time the rains fail. Oddly out of this hostile environment and struggle for survival, comes something strangely looking like something of the character of God.

You mean completely and fully opposed to the (Holy) process of Natural Selection. Brother!

In the future, so nothing to do with how we evolved in the past. God took something good, the natural world with all its struggle for existence and feeding your own young with dead other animals, he moulded it into something he called very good, that reflected his image and likeness, and in the fullness of time, through the power of the cross and resurrection with transform it full into the likeness of his son 1Cor 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
2Cor 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
You are the one taking verses out of context, though that is more wishful thinking than cultic. However if you have studied cults, wouldn't cultic behaviour be more like twisting verses out of context, refusing to discuss it and threatening God's judgement on anyone who doesn't agree?

Please be specific with accusations. Use the quote features and such.
A rambling diatribe is too difficult to answer.

 

[Assyrian]

You would need to show that rather than just giving your opinion yet again.

I did. Survival of the fittest is about being suited to an environment, the organism that fits the environment best. You followed the common misunderstanding of 'fit' and thought it meant who is the strongest.

Your imagination again.

You find that misunderstanding a lot on creationist websites. But please, carry on you argument using proper definitions.

I'm thinking more of a sexual predator waiting just outside the house of one of your family members, who is alone....right now.

I though you were talking about evolution?

I'd like you to defend your position on the strong and better adapted vs the weak and frail...in Eulogy form please.

Strong does not mean better adapted. It may in some environments, not others. Sometime small means you can find enough food when times are tough.

I disagree 100%.

You need to show this from scripture.

You seem to think animals reside in Heaven and are acting on God's will.

Not sure where you got that from what I said.

Not so.
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

'Right up to the present', or 'until now'... doesn't that mean it has been groaning from the beginning? You seem to thing creation wasn't groaning when it was created, and then it only started groaning at the fall, but that isn't what 'until now' suggests is it? And there is no reference in Romans 8 to God subjecting creation to futility becuse of the fall either.

Under God's will animals don't eat each other.
Genesis 9:10 and with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth.
No mention of "survivors" or carnage after a year.

I though Noah brought food along and built the ark with separate compartments. Of course if he had left them all wander around hungry it would have been carnage.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
Why would this be? Why would God change your vision of His Plan?

When you brought up the 'humble will inherit the earth', I actually reminded of the creationist use of the this verse, both are trying to take a prophecy about the future and read it as if it was talking about the creation. There is an even bigger problem is the Isaiah quote. The passage is highly figurative, Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit... Jesus wasn't a literal branch growing out of a tree stump, righteousness and faithfulness aren't literal belts to wear around you waist v.5, you can't say it is about literal lions and lambs in the future, let alone lions wolves and lambs in the past.

What do shepherds do? Especially God's servants....
1 Samuel 17:34 But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock,

David wasn't being that altruistic, his family wanted milk and wool and mutton for themselves.

Finally you've found something! Good work.

Thank you. They are quoted a lot around here, I think shernren was the first I came across who brought up the Job verses.

First I'll have to temper the Psalm a bit. But here I also have to give
you full credit for finding the first actual contradiction I've ever
seen in scripture. In the Psalm it mentions God providing food for the
lions and then in 1 Samuel we have God providing the shepherd to
protect the sheep from the lion. What a potential quandary.
I'm not going to dissect these passages. If you think that they prove
God supports Natural selection and death to the weak and slow, then
I'm going to give you full credit for your searching and let the passages
stand without my comment.

Luke 12:24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!

Job 38:41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?

Psalm 104:21 The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.

No I don't think the verse support natural selection, they just contradict your attitude that predation is bad. God simply does not share your view there and takes personal responsibility in young lions and ravens getting their prey. It is even more interesting that both these passage are creation accounts. Not only does God say he provides these predators with their prey, he puts it in the context of a description of his creation.

The world is not in balance
List of extinction events - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lists of extinct animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and not running as it would if we lived in heaven...which we don't.
Satan, who is the god of this world, has bli

There have been an number of extinction events in the past and we are responsible for the one going on now, so much for our care of the planet he gave us dominion over. However that has nothing to do with the natural balance we see in ecosystems we aren't currently pillaging. There you need both predators and prey, which is why a lot of national parks want to reintroduce the the natural predators, much to the annoyance or farmers outside the parks.

You mean completely and fully opposed to the (Holy) process of Natural Selection. Brother!

Opposite to your understanding of natural selection, but it fits the science very well.

Please be specific with accusations. Use the quote features and such.
A rambling diatribe is too difficult to answer.

You are the cult expert much better you keep your own eyed open

 

[Keachian]

There are other authorities that don't agree
with that classification system as well.
For example, people are not legally animals.
I'm cool with letting the legal system decide.
A much higher authority than Incarol.

Well, I'll go with the bible on whether we are animals or not.
"the man became a living creature[nephesh]"(Gen 2:7) "God created ... every living creature[nephesh] in the water"(Gen 1:21) "let the earth bring forth every kind of creature[nephesh]"(Gen 1:24) we were even given the ability and authority as a race to name all creatures "whatsoever Adam called every living creature[nephesh], that was the name thereof" (Gen 2:19) surely our authority to classify all animals comes from here as well.

 

[Keachian]

Apparently, he thinks that the Linneaus classification system is inspired by God.

It isn't.

We were given authority to do it by God though cf. Gen 2:19