Why do we look so much like apes?

[SkyWriting]

I'm not sure I understand any of what you are trying to say, unfortunately, save for the first sentence.

We have two eyes, two ears, one mouth, limbs, a brain, a stomach....
perhaps millions more aspects in common with most other life forms
in this gravity, oxygen mix, water...the environment.
God has designed the most versatile body types to keep life going
till He returns to clean up the mess we made.

Science fiction is ripe with the possibility of life forms that might
develop in a different enviornent.

Science salivates over the tiny posibilitty that this fiction is true.
We have likely spent Billions on space programs intended just
to tickle this one little fancy.
Don't be fooled by any cover stories. The only thing we are looking
for is life off-the-earth to scratch this itch. Finding amazing resources
to exploit would be nice too.....so we could send out more starships
to try to find life of course.

 

[mathetes123]

The best answer yet.

Same reason that this:

hyena

...looked so similar to this:

thylacine

One is of the family Hyaenidae & the other is a marsupial.

But they both have a common Creator.

Many cars from a single manufacturer share the same parts, but we never assume they evolved. We recognize they had a common designer. Human beings are so much more complex than automobiles. Why doesn't the same reasoning process apply?

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no evolution. Period.
But since you differ with that: give the genetic formula for the transformation and branching of each organism that resulted in (a) hyenas, and (b) thylacines.
Good luck.

There is a LOT of changes going on in various groups. And very fast.. by design.
Pick your own evidence.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS445&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=super+fast+evolution

 

[juvenissun]

Not sure where to put this but I'll try posting it here. This is something I've been wondering about forever. If God created the animals and us seperately and there's no evolution, why do we look so much like apes?

God makes thousands and thousands life forms. And there is only 3 dimensions in which He creates all the geometric forms. Suppose you are taking this task, how do you make all of them different from each other? Remind you a small circle or a small cube is the same as a large circle or a large cube. So similarity in size does not count.

Now, we are a little similar to apes. Is that a surprise? Not at all. We are glad that God did not make us more similar to apes.

May be you should ask: Why are human races so similar or so different from one another? Are we all human?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Many cars from a single manufacturer share the same parts, but we never assume they evolved. We recognize they had a common designer. Human beings are so much more complex than automobiles. Why doesn't the same reasoning process apply?

For one: Cars aren't living things, have you ever seen two automobiles reproduce? If you have, that'd be amazing and you may have a point of some sort here.

Secondly: Evolution does not reject an Intelligent Designer. That's a categorical mistake. Evolution simply says nothing one way or the other. Much like every other field of science.

The reality of Germ Theory does not negate God's existence or activity in the world, neither does Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

As Christians we simply accept that all the natural processes in the universe are part of God's grand design for making the whole thing work.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

Many cars from a single manufacturer share the same parts, but we never assume they evolved. We recognize they had a common designer. Human beings are so much more complex than automobiles. Why doesn't the same reasoning process apply?

It is because they share the same parts that design looks so different to evolution. If the manufacturer comes up with a new design for a part they will plug it into cars across their range. If it is a really good design it will even be licensed to other manufacturers too. Evolution cannot use a part that hasn't evolved in that lineage. If a thylacine has a superficial similarity to a hyena and dog, or a dolphin to a shark, it is because they share a similar niche in a similar environment. There are adaptive advantages to those shapes which is why they evolve, but look under the cover and the dolphin had to build it shark like shape from a mammal bone structure, the thylacine from marsupial bone structures and the hyena from its feliformia ancestors. Which is why in spite of superficial similaties in shape thylacines, hyenas, dolphins, sharks, platypuses and ducks all fit beautifully into the twin nested hierarchy of the phylogenetic tree. It is also why, although creationist often bring up car design they can never construct a phylogentic tree for cars.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is no evolution. Period.

Herro, my name is Canis lupus familiaris:

But since you differ with that: give the genetic formula for the transformation and branching of each organism that resulted in (a) hyenas, and (b) thylacines.

Good luck.

So you want an example and the entire genomic structure of every distinct organism tracing the lineage of the hyena and thylacine in order to offer sufficient evidence of convergent evolution?

Well done, no I can't offer that and nobody can.

I also can't offer you the genomic structure of every individual in my family tree going back two hundred years leading up to me or one of my cousins.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

So you want an example and the entire genomic structure of every distinct organism tracing the lineage of the hyena and thylacine in order to offer sufficient evidence of convergent evolution?

Well done, no I can't offer that and nobody can.

I also can't offer you the genomic structure of every individual in my family tree going back two hundred years leading up to me or one of my cousins.

-CryptoLutheran

Clearly, you mustn't exist.

 

[mathetes123]

Herro, my name is Canis lupus familiaris:

So you want an example and the entire genomic structure of every distinct organism tracing the lineage of the hyena and thylacine in order to offer sufficient evidence of convergent evolution?

Well done, no I can't offer that and nobody can.

I also can't offer you the genomic structure of every individual in my family tree going back two hundred years leading up to me or one of my cousins.

-CryptoLutheran

Note, they are all dogs. No cats, no cat-dogs.

Noone has expressed any objection to micro-evolution, or variations within created kinds. It is macro-evolution that is being debated.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are we all human?

Perhaps God fashioned us to look like other "planets":

[/IMG]

or from trees

http://ebandit.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/weirdtree05.jpg

 

[mathetes123]

Perhaps God fashioned us to look like other "planets":

[/IMG]

or from trees

http://ebandit.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/weirdtree05.jpg

The Bible says that God created us in his likeness. If evolution is true, would you suggest God is evolving also?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Note, they are all dogs. No cats, no cat-dogs.

Noone has expressed any objection to micro-evolution, or variations within created kinds. It is macro-evolution that is being debated.

You'll notice that my response was to the statement that no evolution happens at all.

Evolution doesn't say dogs become cats or cats become dogs. However evolution does demonstrate that if we go far back enough dogs and cats as being carnivora ultimately share a common ancestor and that the lineages diverged to produce what we refer to as feliaforma and caniforma respectively.

No a dog won't become a bear, neither will a bear become a dog. But dogs and bears are both caniforms and share a common ancestor.

I'm never going to become my brother, my brother isn't going to become me. But my brother and I both come from our father. My immediate family is different from that of the family of my grandfather's brother's children and grandchildren; but both families can trace themselves back to a common great grandfather/great grandmother.

My family and a family in Uganda can, going back far enough trace ourselves to a common ancestor which scientists have identified as Y-Chromosomal Adam; and thus common descent.

Humans aren't the same as chimpanzees, and chimps won't become humans and humans won't become chimps, but go back far enough and we find that we both share a common ancestor.

The problem with making a distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is that there does not exist any boundary which science could identify to make a distinction between the two.

Evolution just happens, whether on a smaller timescale ("Micro-evolution") or on a larger timescale ("Macro-evolution") is an artificial boundary that simply doesn't exist in nature.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Bible says that God created us in his likeness. If evolution is true, would you suggest God is evolving also?

Reductio ad absurdum. You could just as easily say:

"The Bible says that God created us in His likeness. If we have toenails, would you suggest God has toenails also?"

That's not what the Imago Dei refers to.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mathetes123]

Reductio ad absurdum. You could just as easily say:

"The Bible says that God created us in His likeness. If we have toenails, would you suggest God has toenails also?"

That's not what the Imago Dei refers to.

-CryptoLutheran

So in what way are we made in God's image?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Note, they are all dogs. No cats, no cat-dogs.

Noone has expressed any objection to micro-evolution, or variations within created kinds. It is macro-evolution that is being debated.

Excellent point.

 

[mathetes123]

You'll notice that my response was to the statement that no evolution happens at all.

Evolution doesn't say dogs become cats or cats become dogs. However evolution does demonstrate that if we go far back enough dogs and cats as being carnivora ultimately share a common ancestor and that the lineages diverged to produce what we refer to as feliaforma and caniforma respectively.

No a dog won't become a bear, neither will a bear become a dog. But dogs and bears are both caniforms and share a common ancestor.

I'm never going to become my brother, my brother isn't going to become me. But my brother and I both come from our father. My immediate family is different from that of the family of my grandfather's brother's children and grandchildren; but both families can trace themselves back to a common great grandfather/great grandmother.

My family and a family in Uganda can, going back far enough trace ourselves to a common ancestor which scientists have identified as Y-Chromosomal Adam; and thus common descent.

Humans aren't the same as chimpanzees, and chimps won't become humans and humans won't become chimps, but go back far enough and we find that we both share a common ancestor.

The problem with making a distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is that there does not exist any boundary which science could identify to make a distinction between the two.

Evolution just happens, whether on a smaller timescale ("Micro-evolution") or on a larger timescale ("Macro-evolution") is an artificial boundary that simply doesn't exist in nature.

-CryptoLutheran

My point was that while God allowed for variation with created kinds, a dogs ancestors were dogs and it's offspring will be dogs no matter how far in the past or future you go.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My point was that while God allowed for variation with created kinds, a dogs ancestors were dogs and it's offspring will be dogs no matter how far in the past or future you go.

And if a population of dogs becomes isolated and adapts further enough that it becomes a burrowing animal, blind and it's legs have adapted to paddling through dirt much like a mole and it is no longer able to reproduce with any member of Canis lupus we could still call it a "dog" though it has adapted to its environment in such a way as to be very different from it's more familiar canine ancestors.

What has happened here? Micro-evolution or Macro-evolution? Or does that distinction lose any meaning?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So in what way are we made in God's image?

It has nothing to do with biology unless you believe that God has skin, bones, eyelids, and a reproductive system and began as an embryo from a biological parent.

The Imago Dei is a theological statement, not a biological or anatomical one.

Three ways of understanding the Imago Dei.

I would also add that the theological meaning in Genesis indicates a temple activity. The heavens and the earth are fashioned as a temple, a place for God to dwell and, like any temple project, the finishing act is to place the image of the deity into that temple. Mankind is that image, there to represent God's glory in His creation. Simultaneously we could also say that man is placed there also as priests there to take care of God's Temple--heaven and earth. That same project is continued throughout the biblical narrative and marvelously finds fruition in Christ and ultimately in the restoration of heaven and earth at the Eschaton as brilliantly described by St. John the Divine in the closing chapters of the Apocalypse.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SkyWriting]

The Bible says that God created us in his likeness. If evolution is true, would you suggest God is evolving also?

Many designers fashion their creations after their likes,
dislikes, and aspects of their personality and what they
believe to be important.

What we see as "change" or "evolution" is simply
a telling of the complete plan. Changes we see
are a gradual revealing of what God has already finished.

 

[mathetes123]

Many designers fashion their creations after their likes,
dislikes, and aspects of their personality and what they
believe to be important.

What we see as "change" or "evolution" is simply
a telling of the complete plan. Changes we see
are a gradual revealing of what God has already finished.

So evolution, which is essentially, "kill or be killed, survival of the fittest" fits with God's nature?