Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Thundercrack85]

Those numbers aren't even accurate. They're approximations. And pretty damn rough ones at that.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

We don't 'come from monkeys'. Monkeys are distant relatives. We are apes. Our closest relatives are chimps.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

It's not just fossil evidence that shows this.

DNA confirms it. Protein functional redundancy confirms it.

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. This confirms common descent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy

DNA and similar fossils don't "confirm" it. It confirms we're similar. The link between us and Australopithacus or even Ardipithecus has been proved - us being apes is a matter of belief.

We've shown even more similarity to pigs in terms of our organs, but you don't make that jump. Our DNA makeup is like that of the DNA of many frogs - over 90% the same, but you don't make that jump.

Read my second post first next time before you assume I'm posting my opinion without having done any research on the matter.

Humans are apes. Deal with it.

Like I said, it boils down to a matter of belief - I believe we are different than apes on the reason that we have a soul. This cannot be proved or disproved - if I didn't believe in the human soul, then I too would consider us apes.

 

[Thundercrack85]

DNA and similar fossils don't "confirm" it. It confirms we're similar. The link between us and Australopithacus or even Ardipithecus has been proved - us being apes is a matter of belief.

We've shown even more similarity to pigs in terms of our organs, but you don't make that jump. Our DNA makeup is like that of the DNA of many frogs - over 90% the same, but you don't make that jump.

Read my second post first next time before you assume I'm posting my opinion without having done any research on the matter.


Like I said, it boils down to a matter of belief - I believe we are different than apes on the reason that we have a soul. This cannot be proved or disproved - if I didn't believe in the human soul, then I too would consider us apes.

Not, it doesn't. We are apes. You can't argue with genetics. Whether or not we have souls is irrelevant. Or immaterial, if you want a pun.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Our Material and Immaterial understanding of reality is ever changing - or evolving if you want a pun. To claim an undeniable fact is foolish. You can merely believe one thing or another based on your own understanding of reality.

I gave you my reasons and they are pretty damn valid. If I just said "we aren't apes because we're human", then go ahead and execute me, but I gave my reason and my reason makes the existence of a soul 100% relevant. I'm saying the thing that distinguishes us from Apes is that we have souls - if you want me to disregard that belief, then yes humans are apes. But again, the existence of a soul makes me believe differently. Stop being so close minded. To argue absolute science is just as foolish as dogma.

 

[Thundercrack85]

What makes you so convinced chimpanzess don't have souls? They dream, they love their children, they mourn their dead.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Dreams and emotion are signs of the spirit. They don't make a conscious effort to better themselves. They don't make a conscious effort to investigate their origins and place in the universe or how our reality came to be. Now this is becoming a whole other discussion haha.

 

[DBryan]

DNA and similar fossils don't "confirm" it. It confirms we're similar. The link between us and Australopithacus or even Ardipithecus has been proved - us being apes is a matter of belief.

Only if you ignore the evidence.

We've shown even more similarity to pigs in terms of our organs, but you don't make that jump. Our DNA makeup is like that of the DNA of many frogs - over 90% the same, but you don't make that jump.

The reason we use pig organs for transplants is because pig organs are bigger than chimp organs, and cheaper. Not because the DNA is more similar.

This site has been used to compare genomes.

http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi

The Human vs Chimp albumen genes are 99% identical (Identities = 2119/2136, Gaps = 0/2136 (0%)).
The Chimp vs Pig albumen genes are 82% identical (Identities = 1668/2017, Gaps = 84/2017 (4%)).

What source are you using that says humans and frogs are over 90% similar? All DNA has similarities but not all of those similarities are significant.

Read my second post first next time before you assume I'm posting my opinion without having done any research on the matter.

You haven't. Unless you can actually post a source which shows what you've stated is correct. It appears you haven't actually done the research. You may have heard, somewhere, that human and pig DNA is closer, or that frog DNA is as significant in similarity as chimp DNA, but that information is mistaken.

Keep in mind that I am NOT saying there are not similarities. There are. But it is accepted that chimps are the closest to humans and trying to pretend that the evidence that proves this is somehow lessened by DNA similarity with other creatures is dishonest.

Here is a video from the University of California that further explains the significance of human and chimp DNA similarity.

http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/

Like I said, it boils down to a matter of belief

No it doesn't. It boils down to the evidence. In my previous post, you neglected my link to talkorigins, which describes in detail the significance of humans and chimps having the same cytochrome c protein sequence. It's mathematically improbable that they'd be the EXACT same without common descent. Take the time to look through it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy

- I believe we are different than apes on the reason that we have a soul. This cannot be proved or disproved - if I didn't believe in the human soul, then I too would consider us apes.

Your claim that we have a soul is unfalsifiable. The proof that we are apes is falsifiable. The claims are not equal.

 

[childeroland]

Animals do dream and experience emotions. There was recently a story of a bear that killer her cub and committed suicide to save herself and the cub from a torturous life in captivity. I'm not sure we should apply human standards to judge animal consciousness.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Only if you ignore the evidence.



The reason we use pig organs for transplants is because pig organs are bigger than chimp organs, and cheaper. Not because the DNA is more similar.

This site has been used to compare genomes.

http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi

The Human vs Chimp albumen genes are 99% identical (Identities = 2119/2136, Gaps = 0/2136 (0%)).
The Chimp vs Pig albumen genes are 82% identical (Identities = 1668/2017, Gaps = 84/2017 (4%)).

What source are you using that says humans and frogs are over 90% similar? All DNA has similarities but not all of those similarities are significant.



You haven't. Unless you can actually post a source which shows what you've stated is correct. It appears you haven't actually done the research. You may have heard, somewhere, that human and pig DNA is closer, or that frog DNA is as significant in similarity as chimp DNA, but that information is mistaken.

Here is a video from the University of California that further explains the significance of human and chimp DNA similarity.

http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/



No it doesn't. It boils down to the evidence. In my previous post, you neglected my link to talkorigins, which describes in detail the significance of humans and chimps having the same cytochrome c protein sequence. It's mathematically improbable that they'd be the EXACT same without common descent. Take the time to look through it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy



Your claim that we have a soul is unfalsifiable. The proof that we are apes is falsifiable. The claims are not equal.

My mistake on the pig thing - the frog one was in a textbook. And I'm done talking to you about this - if you refuse to acknowledge spirituality in a discussion of the nature of man, you'll never be able to admit anything outside of numbers and data. I've agreed with all the findings - I'm not denying them in the least bit - I'm merely saying that IN MY OPINION apes do not have souls, and humans having souls means that they are not apes. So my OPINION of the matter is 100% relevant to the argument.

Animals do dream and experience emotions. There was recently a story of a bear that killer her cub and committed suicide to save herself and the cub from a torturous life in captivity. I'm not sure we should apply human standards to judge animal consciousness.

...ok? No one said otherwise.

 

[childeroland]

...ok? No one said otherwise.

You said that what distinguishes us from apes is that we have souls, then said that "Dreams and emotion are signs of the spirit. They don't make a conscious effort to better themselves. They don't make a conscious effort to investigate their origins and place in the universe or how our reality came to be." That seems to suggest the idea that these are signs of soul and that animals don't have souls because they don't exhibit these signs. (Sorry if I've mistaken what you said.) I would only suggest that these may be signs of only one kind of consciousness--or "soul" or "spirit"--and that not showing these signs may not mean an animal lacks "spirit" or "soul."

 

[Thundercrack85]

There's probably something unhealthy about denying your own apehood.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Dreams and emotion are signs of the spirit. They don't make a conscious effort to better themselves. They don't make a conscious effort to investigate their origins and place in the universe or how our reality came to be. Now this is becoming a whole other discussion haha.

The same could be said of people with certain conditions, like some mentally ******ed people. Do they lack souls?

 

[Anita18]

The same could be said of people with certain conditions, like some mentally ******ed people. Do they lack souls?

I love devil's advocates.

I do think that generally, it is true though. We are human because we are curious and want to find out how things work and why things are. Animals have been shown to overcome basic instinct and show empathy, etc, but unless I've missed something major in the past few years, no animals have been ever shown to have the cognitive ability to do experiments and come to conclusions based on evidence collected. And said mentally ******ed people are human by virtue to being of the same species as us scientists. I'd argue that many people in general don't have the cognitive ability to understand science to begin with. Heck, I'm pretty sure many scientists would bite my head off if I tried to come up with proper controls for various experiments. But even on a rudimentary level, all of us are capable of some experimentation and making conclusions from the "evidence" we've collected. Even if such evidence is oftentimes insufficient, like people make knee-jerk judgements. It's still a rudimentary understanding of science.

We are human because we do science. In that vein, religion also became a way fo humans to explain why and how things are. So to me, science and religion are almost two sides of the same coin.

But who knows, we could just not be paying attention to animals enough and merely be unable to communicate with them on such a complex level anyway.

Again, as a scientist who's more in tune with how things work even in science, it's absolutely all right for people to disagree with the theory of evolution to explain why all living animals are earth are so similar. I think we need to respect each other despite our disagreements. TBH, things get pretty heated in scientific discussions too!

Ignoring the evidence altogether is something else entirely, and I WILL judge you for purposely putting your head in the sand about that.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, we did kill most intelligent animals, if you'll recall.

 

[Anita18]

Well, we did kill most intelligent animals, if you'll recall.

If you're referring to the Neanderthals, I think we were so similar to them that we just felt threatened because we occupied the same niche.

I'm not going to contemplate the "what if we hadn't killed off the Neanderthals" scenario. That is LONG past!

 

[childeroland]

Certainly humans are distinguished from non-humans because of our curiosity and cognitive ability. But considering that scientists are finding animals to be more and more capable of apparently advanced behavior than was thought--newborn chicks with innate math skills, marine mammals that seem to understand numerosity--I wonder if animal consciousness might not be more than overcoming basic instinct, showing empathy. Can we really be sure that animals are not capable of metacognition, when a variety of animals (chimps, for example) have demonstrated problem-solving abilities related (possibly) to abstract reasoning and some birds species have shown the ability to reason causally?

 

[Schlosser85]

I believe we are, at least by its most basic and biologically technical definition, animals, and apes in particular, or are at least evolved from apes.

Our DNA is very nearly the same as that of chimps and gorillas.

It used to be believed that humans were descended from Neanderthals, but more recent studies suggest we were separate branches of evolution stemming from a common monkey-like ancestor.

Also, all humans are not equal. And I'm not talking about the primitive tribal hokum of racial superiority or the Nazis' bunkum genetic theories, I'm talking about intellectual superiority.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There were quite a few hominids, some more interesting than others. Like this little guy.

H. floresiensis. Nicknamed hobbit. Used fire, and may have hunted stegodon, which would suggest decent intelligence. Or possibly superpowers.

Hard to find a picture that's detailed, but work safe.

 

[Schlosser85]

I would imagine there were various branches stemming from a common ancestor until one "got it right" and surpassed the others, and the others either died off from lacking the intelligence to adapt equally to what became humans, or were killed off by humans.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would imagine there were various branches stemming from a common ancestor until one "got it right" and surpassed the others, and the others either died off from lacking the intelligence to adapt equally to what became humans, or were killed off by humans.

Let's hope an offshoot of the chimpanzee species doesn't say that a few hundred thousand years from now about us.

 

[Schlosser85]

I think we're far too technologically advanced at this point for another species to evolve to the point where it could overthrow us without us preventing it before it got to that point.

An invasion from an outside source (aliens) could be another matter entirely.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not necessarily. We could nuke ourselves into extinction (we've nearly done it 28 times), and the chimps living in the dense jungles would survive, and in time, take over the world (killing any stragglers). Think they did that in a movie about that once.

But it wouldn't be the same with aliens, since they wouldn't be related to us. At all. They wouldn't even have a very distant common ancestor, like us and the frogs. That's part of what makes aliens so remarkable. Though they'd certainly be able to wipe us out, but it wouldn't be as meaningful.

 

[Schlosser85]

True, I suppose.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Not necessarily. We could nuke ourselves into extinction (we've nearly done it 28 times), and the chimps living in the dense jungles would survive, and in time, take over the world (killing any stragglers). Think they did that in a movie about that once.

But it wouldn't be the same with aliens, since they wouldn't be related to us. At all. They wouldn't even have a very distant common ancestor, like us and the frogs. That's part of what makes aliens so remarkable. Though they'd certainly be able to wipe us out, but it wouldn't be as meaningful.

Tell us more...

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't need to prove my opinion to you, because no matter what I say, your opinion is already made up. If you'd ever like to have a discussion - an actual one on one discussion about the nature of the human spirit, you let me know and we can talk; otherwise posting condescending remarks on an internet forum to try and gain appeal is not going to do anything for you.

I find it funny how some atheists (and I say this as one) can't see that they act exactly like the Bible-thumpers they hate so much.

Both are dogmatic and almost unbelievably arrogant and see it as their self-appointed mission to "save" everyone around them from themselves, and if you don't believe what they believe, you're an idiot and they talk down to you like a small child.

They're both equally ignorant and obnoxious.