Why do we look so much like apes?

[mathetes123]

Personally I think humans are the only animals able to perceive objective morality - although defining it has always been difficult. The same action which might be normal for an animal would be sinful for a human. Our ability to perceive, and go against, objective morality is what makes man sinful.

But that's just my opinion.

Oddly I often see creationists and atheists use the same arguments. Some argue that if the dark side of man's nature is evolved then it cannot be sinful.


I'm not sure which chemicals they used so I can't give you many more details.

You didn't answer the question. Do you see how evolution undermines the gospel? Why did Jesus have to die for man's sins if mans sins were the product of random chance?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You didn't answer the question. Do you see how evolution undermines the gospel? Why did Jesus have to die for man's sins if mans sins were the product of random chance?

You misunderstand. Sin is not the result of evolution. If they were we would expect animals which are closely to humans to be more moral than other animals, which isn't the case. A chimp cannot commit sin, no more than an earthworm can.

 

[Keachian]

You didn't answer the question. Do you see how evolution undermines the gospel? Why did Jesus have to die for man's sins if mans sins were the product of random chance?

If it had not been for the Law, we would not know what sin is. I don't in anyway see this undermined by the theory of evolution. In the same way we are not to call the Law sin, sin is that which seized an opportunity through the Law and reproduced. For apart from the Law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

And that's the gospel...

 

[Assyrian]

Charles Darwin agreed...

Quote: "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly find gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

(The Origin of the Species, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp 140, 141, 227)

The problem that existed in his time is the same problem evolutionists have today. But they refuse to be embarrassed about it. They prefer to pretend.

Exactly!

Evolution would not necessarily tend toward speciation with distinct groups of animals, but we should see all sorts of transitional beings between different species existing alongside those species.

You need to be careful with out of context quotes like this you hear from Creationists. Darwin was not agreeing the fossil record should be filled with innumerable transitional forms, but was answering a potential criticism that it should be. If kirkwhisper had read the chapters instead of lifting the quote out of a creationist quotemine* he would have seen that Darwin asks the question specifically to address the issue. I am not sure why evolutionists are supposed to be embarrassed by misunderstandings of the fossil record that have been addressed.

*I think it was Harun Yahya in his 'Atlas of Creation' who originally strung those quotes together with the same reference in the same layout, but the quote has spread around the creationist sources since then.

Of course there is one difference between the fossil record we have now and the fossil record they had in Darwin's day. We have since found large numbers of transitional fossils, including transitional hominid fossils from Africa the very place Darwin predicted they would be found. Remember these skulls show a transition from ancient ape to modern human that is so gradual even kirkwhisper cannot tell which is ape and which is human.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't believe those synthetic bacteria were created from non-life.

I'm not sure which chemicals they used so I can't give you many more details.

Craig Ventner replaced the DNA in a cell with synthetic version of the DNA from another cell. Encoded in the DNA were the names of the scientist involved, three quotations:

"TO LIVE, TO ERR, TO FALL, TO TRIUMPH, TO RECREATE LIFE OUT OF LIFE."
"SEE THINGS NOT AS THEY ARE, BUT AS THEY MIGHT BE."
"WHAT I CANNOT BUILD, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND."​

and the cell's web address.
He is working on a completely artificial genome now. After that you need an artificial cell and artificial cytoplasm. I really hope people's faith won't be shaken when they do build the first completely artificial cell. We need to be ready for that.

 

[Assyrian]

If there was not a literal Adam, and we were created by the process of evolution, then sin must have been an evolutionary byproduct. How can God hold us responsible for sin?

Sin is a product of us disobeying God's command. If you read the Genesis account, the snake may have pointed her in the right direction, but Eve was tripped up by her own natural desires Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

 

[mathetes123]

Sin is a product of us disobeying God's command. If you read the Genesis account, the snake may have pointed her in the right direction, but Eve was tripped up by her own natural desires Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Okay, so we are to accept the genesis account of creation as literal where it is convenient and then turn around 180 degrees and interpret it as allegory where convenient. Why not simply accept what it says. After all, words have meaning.

 

[Assyrian]

Okay, so we are to accept the genesis account of creation as literal where it is convenient and then turn around 180 degrees and interpret it as allegory where convenient. Why not simply accept what it says. After all, words have meaning.

Who says I was accepting it as literal? I was looking at what the text said, and what it told us about sin, same as I would the story of the Prodigal Son. As you say words have meaning and this is true even when the story is a parable.

What is really interesting is how Eve was led into sin by her own natural desires the very same way we all do.
James 1:14 but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.
This story, how Eve's desires leading her into sin and death, works whether Eve was one of the first two people God created and her desires were the natural desires God created her with, whether Eve was one of the first two hominids to enter into a covenant with God and her desires were ones that had evolved naturally, or the story is an allegorical picture of how the whole human race sins, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

 

[Gozreht]

It is certainly true that out of all the thousands of animal species, apes are the most like us in practically every way. So similar, in fact, that scientists classify us AS apes. So it's not just that we are "like" apes, but that we literally ARE apes (we are in the "ape" classification).

Physically speaking, yes. I wouldn't (and couldnt) disagree with you on this. But, its not the physical that separates us from the animal. Plants are monochotomous. All they are is physical. They have a body. They are controlled by the environment. Animals are dichotomous. They have a body and soul. They are not only shaped by their environment, they also react to other stimuli. They love, they feel, they think, they reason on their own level. Man is trichotomous. We are shaped by our environment (skin color), we react to other stimuli. But we have been given the spirit as well. This is NOT part of evolutionary process. Animals can not mutate into a spiritually controlled existence. So we are animals scientifically when it comes to physicalness since we all come from the earth. Ooh-ooh, ahh-ahh. But more importantly our spirit comes from God. This is what we were made in the image of. Not apes.

Denying our similarities with other apes only shows how far creationists will go in denying the real world, which is God's creation.[/quote]Well, now, that is only an opinion. And I can respect your opinion. I understand you completely. But if you look at the chart you posted, notice all the gaps between thousands, perhaps millions of years. If evolutuion was the only answer there should be a complete linear process. If you have time, here is a longer explanation of what I mean. Christian Thoughts: LIX. The Antitheory of Evolution

 

[Smidlee]

I noticed on that chart there is no point made for the modern hobbits found severe years ago. Their skull size were around 400cc. This showed skull size doesn't mean less evolved, less human or less intelligent .
P.S I see why the hobbits were found after this chart were drawn so it's out-of-date now.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I noticed on that chart there is no point made for the modern hobbits found severe years ago. Their skull size were around 400cc. This showed skull size doesn't mean less evolved, less human or less intelligent .
P.S I see why the hobbits were found after this chart were drawn so it's out-of-date now.

There's been a lot of debate as to whether the H. Floreseinses was a kind of human dwarf or a miniature Homo Erectus. It had a bizarre mixture of modern and ancient traits.

Even accounting for their small size, most island dwarves have brains smaller than that of their larger relatives. That means if you shrunk a modern human down to their size, our brains would still be about 30% larger than theirs. H. Floreseinses had a brain size of roughly 360-417cc, which is exactly what we would expect a dwarved Homo Erectus to be.

Their EQ (encephalization quotient) on the other hand was between 2.5 to 4.6. By contrast, modern humans have an EQ of around 6 to 8, while Homo Erectus had an EQ 3.3 to 4.

There are problems with this theory, but according to anatomical evidence the Hobbit would be somewhere next to Homo Erectus on the chart.

 

[Assyrian]

I noticed on that chart there is no point made for the modern hobbits found severe years ago. Their skull size were around 400cc. This showed skull size doesn't mean less evolved, less human or less intelligent .
P.S I see why the hobbits were found after this chart were drawn so it's out-of-date now.

Do you think the discovery of homo floresiensis changes the evidence that human cranial capacity is the result of gradual increase in cranial capacity over the last three and a half million years?

 

[Smidlee]

Do you think the discovery of homo floresiensis changes the evidence that human cranial capacity is the result of gradual increase in cranial capacity over the last three and a half million years?

There are extreme few so called human ancestor fossils and even less chimps. What it does show skull size can vary in a short period of time form small to large. I think evolutionist are so desperate to find this mythological creature that suppose to be the ancestor of chimps and man they will grab on to anything.
Evolutionist remind of the Jethro in Beverly Hillbillies when he went to school and had to put the shape pegs in the correct hole. He got out his pocket knife and cut away at the pegs so they would fit into the wrong holes.

 

[Gozreht]

Or it could be that these are all extinct apes. If it wasn't for the internet and better bookkeeping skills I would bet that 300 years from now someone would have found this evidence NASA - Gorillas in the Midst of Extinction and said that these were highly developed homo apemanians and was the missing link but only by using the same flawed data and biased theories that they came up with the other specimens. How do we know for sure that these were not just apes?????? Anyone have comments on what I posted earlier? Why are there so many gaps?

 

[Assyrian]

There are extreme few so called human ancestor fossils and even less chimps. What it does show skull size can vary in a short period of time form small to large. I think evolutionist are so desperate to find this mythological creature that suppose to be the ancestor of chimps and man they will grab on to anything.
Evolutionist remind of the Jethro in Beverly Hillbillies when he went to school and had to put the shape pegs in the correct hole. He got out his pocket knife and cut away at the pegs so they would fit into the wrong holes.

How much paring did it take? The amazing thing about the skulls is they fit so beautifully. OK lets arbitrarily label one lot human and the other lot ape. Who would have thought there would be a line of human skulls would get smaller and smaller the further back in time you go? Who would have though that ape skull would get larger and larger? Sure you do get smaller and larger ape skulls, but the largest gorilla skulls are sitting on the shoulders of a 200kg silverback. Bigger animals have bigger skulls but scale as gorilla back down and its skull is smaller than a chimp's. With the fossil hominids we find, not only is the cranial capacity getting bigger and bigger as we go forward in time, it is getting bigger and bigger in proportion to its body, until somewhere along they line they meet up with fossils you want to label human who brains got smaller and smaller both in terms of actual size and in proportion to the size of their bodies as we look further back in time. Regardless of how you want to label the fossils as ape or human, isn't this the fossils record you would expect if humans had evolved from other earlier apes?

 

[Smidlee]

How much paring did it take? The amazing thing about the skulls is they fit so beautifully. OK lets arbitrarily label one lot human and the other lot ape. Who would have thought there would be a line of human skulls would get smaller and smaller the further back in time you go? Who would have though that ape skull would get larger and larger? Sure you do get smaller and larger ape skulls, but the largest gorilla skulls are sitting on the shoulders of a 200kg silverback. Bigger animals have bigger skulls but scale as gorilla back down and its skull is smaller than a chimp's. With the fossil hominids we find, not only is the cranial capacity getting bigger and bigger as we go forward in time, it is getting bigger and bigger in proportion to its body, until somewhere along they line they meet up with fossils you want to label human who brains got smaller and smaller both in terms of actual size and in proportion to the size of their bodies as we look further back in time. Regardless of how you want to label the fossils as ape or human, isn't this the fossils record you would expect if humans had evolved from other earlier apes?

I going to use the evolution logic here and say just like we eventually found modern humans with small skulls so we will eventually find our big skull ancestors. The reason why we haven't seen them yet is the same reason we haven't found those chimp fossils.
Just because we haven't found them in the fossil record yet doesn't mean they weren't around.

 

[Assyrian]

I going to use the evolution logic here and say just like we eventually found modern humans with small skulls so we will eventually find our big skull ancestors. The reason why we haven't seen them yet is the same reason we haven't found those chimp fossils.
Just because we haven't found them in the fossil record yet doesn't mean they weren't around.

So you are saying the fossil record we have found so far supports evolution, you are just hoping something will eventually turn up to contradict it?

 

[Gozreht]

How much paring did it take? The amazing thing about the skulls is they fit so beautifully. OK lets arbitrarily label one lot human and the other lot ape. Who would have thought there would be a line of human skulls would get smaller and smaller the further back in time you go? Who would have though that ape skull would get larger and larger? Sure you do get smaller and larger ape skulls, but the largest gorilla skulls are sitting on the shoulders of a 200kg silverback. Bigger animals have bigger skulls but scale as gorilla back down and its skull is smaller than a chimp's. With the fossil hominids we find, not only is the cranial capacity getting bigger and bigger as we go forward in time, it is getting bigger and bigger in proportion to its body, until somewhere along they line they meet up with fossils you want to label human who brains got smaller and smaller both in terms of actual size and in proportion to the size of their bodies as we look further back in time. Regardless of how you want to label the fossils as ape or human, isn't this the fossils record you would expect if humans had evolved from other earlier apes?

Could be they were just apes or just men, or a mixture of apes and men. Or martians.

I going to use the evolution logic here and say just like we eventually found modern humans with small skulls so we will eventually find our big skull ancestors.

I have some family members with heads as huge as watermelons. Could be my ancestors.

 

[Assyrian]

Could be they were just apes or just men, or a mixture of apes and men. Or martians.

If humans and apes could interbreed in the pasts wouldn't that make them the same kind?

I have some family members with heads as huge as watermelons. Could be my ancestors.

Aren't they a bit recent to be fossil human ancestry?

 

[Gozreht]

If humans and apes could interbreed in the pasts wouldn't that make them the same kind?

I didn't read the whole post. But my meaning remains the same. Just because we find different skulls in different areas or even in the same area we automatically assume through flawed data and biased opinions that they were some kind of humanoid instead of just a weird shaped skull from a human or ape. Who really knows?

Aren't they a bit recent to be fossil human ancestry?

We have long life genes. And we age really fast. I went bald at 18.