Jump to content


Photo

Are We Apes?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#1 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:39 PM

I must admit, I am complete noob to this subject. I am curious to find out what you think of Linneous classfication between humans and apes. What features and characteristics does Linneous based this belief on? Now don't you think scientists would be able to breed humans and apes if this were true? But then of course they'll say 'well animals within same family cannot breed as well' as if this proves evolution. What do we say about that?

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:05 PM

No, we are no more apes than there is a tea pot in orbit around the sun.

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:18 PM

I must admit, I am complete noob to this subject. I am curious to find out what you think of Linneous classfication between humans and apes. What features and characteristics does Linneous based this belief on? Now don't you think scientists would be able to breed humans and apes if this were true? But then of course they'll say 'well animals within same family cannot breed as well' as if this proves evolution. What do we say about that?


Humans and apes are in the same order.That would be almost as bad as saying humans are fish because they're both chordates. In fact, there was enough differences between apes to place them all in separate genera ( Chimpanzee genus Pan, Orangutan genus Pongo, Gorilla genus Gorilla).


Enjoy.

#4 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:29 AM

No, we are no more apes than there is a tea pot in orbit around the sun.


Well let's just go with evolutionary assumptions on this matter and see if it's accurate or not.

Humans are classified as great apes is not up for a debate in evolutionary circle I think. Well that's what evols say. They say we have common traits with other great apes that in taxonomic classification which makes us in the same group. That is really as far as I understood, I haven't do any comparison so I cannot say much. How did they determine we belong in the same group...and where do you think we humans should belong?

#5 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:26 PM

How did they determine we belong in the same group...and where do you think we humans should belong?


They determined it due to genetic and skeletal similarities, as well as other factors involved in classification. For example, neanderthals and homo erectus are placed within the same genus as homo sapiens - genus Homo. Chimpanzees and Bonobos are most similar to humans. We are all members of the tribe Hominini. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans are all within subfamily Homininae, due to genetic and anatomic similarities. All of these apes (we technically are spiritual apes, lol) are within family Hominidae, which also happens to include genus Pongo, which are Orangutans. So basically we're more closely related genetically to chimpanzees and gorillas than orangs.
If we go up a level on the classification chart, we reach superfamily Hominoidea, which are ALL apes. It includes gibbons. So yes, we are biologically apes. We belong in superfamily Hominoidea, family Hominidae, subfamily Homininae, tribe Hominini, genus Homo, species Homo sapiens. There you go, according to the currently accepted model.

It's not really bad to classify humans as biological apes. We fit right in the middle of it with genetics and body structure and organs and everything. Chipmanzees are more similar to us than gorillas. Gorillas and Chimps are more similar to us than Orangs, and so on and so forth. I think it's obvious God created us as apes. I honestly think we are the only members of our genus (Homo) to have a spirit. Not a soul - basically all intelligent mammals have that - but a spirit. Something that actually connects us with God, and enables us to recognize sin. The apes are also basically the only group that has the capacity to reason almost intelligently (except for dolphins, which probably are smarter than apes today, although they live in the ocean) so it's logical God would create us within Hominoidea.

It doesn't matter how genetically similar we are to any other animals. It only matters if we are enabled with spiritual capabilities. Other Hominoids obviously are not, so I thank God graciously for giving us the body design we have today.

Does that help?

#6 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:43 PM

No, we are no more apes than there is a tea pot in orbit around the sun.

There are any number of teapots in orbit around the sun. :dono:

:D
  • Calum likes this

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:17 AM

So, in other words... NO... We are not apes...

#8 dannyboy

dannyboy

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wales

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:02 PM

I must admit, I am complete noob to this subject. I am curious to find out what you think of Linneous classfication between humans and apes. What features and characteristics does Linneous based this belief on? Now don't you think scientists would be able to breed humans and apes if this were true? But then of course they'll say 'well animals within same family cannot breed as well' as if this proves evolution. What do we say about that?


I think thats dangerously simplistic to be honest. Linneous based this classification as with every other taxanomic group; shared biological characteristics (e.g. skeletal similarities), since confirmed by genetic analysis. Some have argued that chimps and humans could (and have) produced viable offspring. Personally i think natural breeding between the two species is fanciful because behavioural (not to mention anatomical) differences are probably too great for natural breeding to occur. As far as im aware (and hope!) no geneticist has yet tried to breed a chimp (or any other ape) with a human. Frightening thing is, it might just work under laboratory conditions.

So, in other words... NO... We are not apes...


Again i think thats a really simpistic analysis of the evidence. Both sides agree on the phenotypic similarities between humans and apes, which are supported at a systematic genetic level. According to CALUM, the only real difference is that humans have a "spirit" that separates them from the rest. What are the theological implications of this. What purpose do apes serve? Why did god create humans as apes? Why make humans seem apart of the natural order? Does the fact that we share up to 96% of our DNA with chimps not degrade the human? Are chimps 96% of god's image?

Im honestly not trying to be antagonistic with these questions. Its so hard for me to explain why its not as simple as common design. According to the forum rules, evolutionists cannot in essence equivocate on the subject of macroevolution (between kinds). I'll do my abosolute best not to do so, but basically, without wishing to offend or break rules, evolution doesnt act "between kinds". Its works on a gradient, through huge expanses of time. Any species (including human) is only a manifestation of genetic diversity at that time. Things look fixed to our eyes. The same mechanisms that produce diversity amongst humans are the same that produce new species. But its not a process of

species a -> species b

or

genus a-> genus b

its a process of

species a -> living, reproducing, proliferation, variation ->microevolution and local adaptation between populations->microevolution+reproductive barriers between populations->speciation
..and again...and again...and again...and again..................

one population might have a genetic trait for, on average, slightly longer arms. If this trait is a selective advantage for some reason (perhaps more useful for climbing, which you could measure), over time, the population will evolve to have slightly longer arms. If this selective pressure is maintained (it provides a distinctive benefit to reproductive fitness, with individuals with slightly longer arms producing slightly more offspring), then this would trait would proliferate. Say having longer fingers is beneficial too. This trait would also proliferate. In reality, every single aspect of a species' biology is constantly selected for, constantly tested for, against the background of the environment. Some less, some more. Across millions of years we would see the macroevolution of longer arms, in combination with other traits, such that a modern individual would look and probably act totally differently from an ancestral species - macroevolution.

chimpanzees are not "evolving" any faster than humans, they are not "less evolved" than humans and the same processes in human populations are active in chimpanzee populations too. There is 5 million years of accumulated difference between the two species.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 May 2012 - 02:30 PM


Why did god create humans as apes?



He didn't... Are you attempting to misintrepret scripture here, or promulgate macroevolution?



Why make humans seem apart of the natural order?



Because:

First - God created Man in His image.

Second - God didn't create any other animal in His image.

Third - What job did God give man in Genesis?



Does the fact that we share up to 96% of our DNA with chimps not degrade the human?



No... That's known as common design. ALL living creatures have DNA, its a common building block.



Are chimps 96% of god's image?



False analogy AND misrepresentation of scripture, DNA is not God's image, it’s a building block of life. Therefore your fallacious assumption does not follow.

#10 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 09 May 2012 - 02:51 AM

What is this definition of Ape we are using in this context?

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:27 AM

The one that doesn’t allow you to equivocate on either the forum rules or reality.

#12 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:16 AM

The one that doesn’t allow you to equivocate on either the forum rules or reality.


Ok, what would that be exactly?

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:41 PM



The one that doesn’t allow you to equivocate on either the forum rules or reality.


Ok, what would that be exactly?


If you read the forum rules, you'ed already know the answer to that question... Read them, then come back...

#14 nuttypiglet

nuttypiglet

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • London

Posted 21 May 2012 - 03:02 AM

Even though we are very closely matched (DNA) with chimps, those few genes which are different seem to make a huge difference in anatomy. When I looked at the differences, I was simply amazed.
The way I see it is that if you have a good building block of life (DNA) and you create one creature to look very similar to another, the code is going to be very similar to look at.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2012 - 03:34 AM

Even though we are very closely matched (DNA) with chimps, those few genes which are different seem to make a huge difference in anatomy. When I looked at the differences, I was simply amazed.
The way I see it is that if you have a good building block of life (DNA) and you create one creature to look very similar to another, the code is going to be very similar to look at.


Exactly, the DNA % claims of evolutionists do not take into account how much impact each change causes. For example there can be lots of change but the changes themselves are minor and do not change the gene products' function etc... whereas there could be a very small change at a crucial amino acid which totally changes how the protein product operates.

Hence it the DNA % claim of evolutionist is based on the assumption that the size / scope of each change doesn't matter, however in reality it does.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 May 2012 - 11:12 AM

Again i think thats a really simpistic analysis of the evidence. Both sides agree on the phenotypic similarities between humans and apes, which are supported at a systematic genetic level. According to CALUM, the only real difference is that humans have a "spirit" that separates them from the rest. What are the theological implications of this. What purpose do apes serve? Why did god create humans as apes? Why make humans seem apart of the natural order? Does the fact that we share up to 96% of our DNA with chimps not degrade the human? Are chimps 96% of god's image?


Does God knuckle walk, brachiate, have no chin, have a swollen gut to slow the passage of plant matter, use his toes as thumbs, have a sagittal crest, have a baculum, or any other morphological trait unique to apes? No. So, why try to place humans in a group that they do not belong in?

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:59 AM

Again i think thats a really simpistic analysis of the evidence. Both sides agree on the phenotypic similarities between humans and apes, which are supported at a systematic genetic level. According to CALUM, the only real difference is that humans have a "spirit" that separates them from the rest. What are the theological implications of this. What purpose do apes serve? Why did god create humans as apes? Why make humans seem apart of the natural order? Does the fact that we share up to 96% of our DNA with chimps not degrade the human? Are chimps 96% of god's image?


First - Its simplistic because one doesn't need to convolute the arguement in order to expose the fallacious nature of macroevolution.
Second - We can further agree on the phenotypic similarities between humans and birds, humans and dogs, Humans and cats, humans and fish (etc...), this in no way empirically links humans to any of them (including Ape's) to man via macroevolution. One MUST presuppose to make such connections.
Third - Who cares about the definitions of CALUM? The Spirit is not the ONLY difference between man and the balance of creation! Provide evidnece of ANY other creature who can design, build and operate an automobile (let alone designing the tools used to design,build and operate an automobile); I'm not even go into the Airplane, boat, spacecraft etc.. I couls also go on to use litature, music, philosophy (etc...), but you cannot even assail the first point.
Fourth - The "theological implications" are no different than any honest "Logical", "Rational", or "Scientific" implications... Macroevolution fails...

#18 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 04:31 AM

I must admit, I am complete noob to this subject. I am curious to find out what you think of Linneous classfication between humans and apes. What features and characteristics does Linneous based this belief on? Now don't you think scientists would be able to breed humans and apes if this were true? But then of course they'll say 'well animals within same family cannot breed as well' as if this proves evolution. What do we say about that?


Maybe its better to use the term "hominid" rather than apes. I see no problem with categorising God's creation into groups that are highly similar. It just so happens that those with the more similar DNA patterns normally do have a similar body-plan and share some similar behavior patterns, so from a biological classification point of view I believe it has value to group animals, including humans in this manner. Hominids are basically "large apes".

We have hands and use them, we have larger brains than other animals, we sometimes walk on two legs. Definite closer similarites in DNA structure than other animals. However the DNA patterns do not match enough for interbreeding to occur succesfully.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users