Really? Being a primate implies a given set of characteristics. Can you explain why they would not belong?
Primate | Definition, Species, Characteristics, Classification, Distribution, & Facts | Britannica
By the way, monkeys are primates, but not all primates are monkeys, if that helps. It’s sort of like lumping all birds together, etc.
Thanks.
Sure, fair – as long as we agree that one ‘side’ has a wide range of evidence that points to common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, while the other side has no evidence at all that they don’t share a common ancestor and no alternative explanation for much of the data.
Reminds me of this Michael Martin Murphy song:
“Slim, you ain’t changed all that much.”
And of course, while I hate to be that guy:
Actually, humans are primates.
No Established connection between humans and primates
Obviously incorrect, and the shared genetic heritage, most of which is not even used for anything, is a smoking gun in the hand covered with gunpowder residue.
Yes it does. This is our ultimate test of paternity.
non-sequiteur… similarity of anatomy is not genetic similarity.
Incorrect. Most of the genome is unused and has NOTHING to do with the observed organism let alone some imaginary “design framework.” No, that unused part of genome is a record of evolutionary history.
And there are counter-examples like the eye of the octopus which has so many similarities of structure with the human eye but LESS genetic similarity than between humans and other mollusks.
EXACTLY!
Biologically and genetically, we have a common heritage with chimpanzees from 6 million years ago. But since that time we have developed significant differences: a sweat cooling system making us the best long distance running persistence hunters, cooking to greatly increase food efficiency, and language to pass on an inheritance of acquired information (which some people believe to include communication from God). Nothing insignificant about those differences! Mind (which I believe is a living organism in its own right in the medium of language just as our biology is a living organism in the medium of DNA), meaning, and destiny indeed!
“The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that”.
-Francis Collins
Francis Collins, founder of Biologos, is an American physician-scientist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project. He served as director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, from 17 August 2009 to 19 December 2021, serving under three presidents.
Incorrect. That is what MOST Christians believe. Because biology is not what Christianity is about and you are demonstrating serious confusion about what Christianity consists of. The Christian gospel is NOT that human being have no genetic inheritance from primates. It is sad that you don’t understand what Jesus actually taught.
18 posts were split to a new topic: Exchange between Mitch and Remiel
Would you please tell us how you came to your conclusion about our not being primates? Thank you.
Because it’s true. You certainly haven’t presented any evidence that we don’t share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and I’ve never seen a creationist who did offer such evidence. And it’s simply a fact that creationists do not have an explanation for much biological data. (True, you did attempt an explanation of the mutation data above, but your explanation was wrong.)
Primate is a BIOLOGICAL classification! It is not identity.
We are primates just we are animal rather than vegetable.
Objecting to this is like objecting to statements that we are earthlings.
But identity? I quite agree with you because I do not think our biological species is our identity or even what it means to be human. We have a biology but that biology is not who we are – no more than the fact we are composed of atoms means that atoms are who/what we are. To be sure, I believe we are children of God both mind and spirit. Our biology is of little more significance than our nationality.
How so? Why do I need any of those things to explain why there is more sequence conservation in exons than in introns?
Human consciousness enters the world during embryonic development. I see no reason why we can’t determine these things empirically.
Then how does ID explain why there is more sequence conservation in exons than in introns?
The differences between humans and other apes is the genetic differences between our genomes. It’s already bridged.
We aren’t claiming that it does. When you are ready to address the arguments we are actually making we can have a meaningful conversation.
The fossil record shows us species with a mixture of human and ape features, exactly what we would expect to see if humans evolved from other apes. Why aren’t the fossils evidence?
You are ignoring the answers to your questions.
We have the empirical evidence.
I am showing you molecular patterns that evidence common ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms.
It arises naturally during embryonic development. We have this cognition while other species do not because of the differences between our genomes.
Yes, it is. It’s called natural selection.
You are also missing the full argument. You need to explain why there is MORE sequence conservation in exons than in introns.
Genetic differences are the bridge.
Our genomes explain the mind.
Our genomes explain all of it.
I find it fascinating how many creationists would rather abandon the idea of objective truth than deal with uncomfortable evidence.
You can continue your personal tussles on the private thread where I just shuffled those off to. Any more of it you put here, I’ll just delete. This thread is about connections between humans and primates and related evidence about all that.
I think in discussions such as this it is important to establish what does or does not count as a legitimate argument against a scientific theory. Science has rules, and time and time again I find that arguments against evolution demonstrate serious misunderstanding—or even a total lack of understanding altogether—of what the rules actually are.
First of all, setting unrealistic standards of evidence is NOT a legitimate argument against a scientific theory. It’s a classic science denial technique to demand evidence that no scientific theory could possibly be expected to meet, such as a complete fossil record of every generation all the way back to the Cambrian, or continuous observation of the process over millions of years (the “were you there?” argument). But that’s just a case of saying “Heads I win, tails you lose.” It is often coupled with standards of evidence on the alternative that are so low that it would be near-impossible for them to fail to meet them. That is dishonest.
If you want to cite an absence of evidence as an argument against a scientific theory, you need to establish that it is evidence that we should realistically expect to see. You also need to account for the evidence that actually does exist, such as genetic similarities (which are far more complex and detailed than just a simple numerical percentage), or biogeographical distributions, and so on. And you need to apply the same standards of evidence to the scientific theory itself that you apply to the alternatives.
Second, assumptions are not a get-out-of-jail-free card,. The word “assumptions” gets bandied about all too often in arguments against evolution or deep geological time as if it were some sort of magic shibboleth. It isn’t. In science, assumptions have rules and so too do challenges to those assumptions. If you want to challenge a scientific theory on the grounds that there are assumptions involved, you need to do three things.
Anything less is just vacuous hand-waving.
So how do you argue against a scientific theory then? You have basically two options.
On the one hand, you can provide evidence that contradicts it. However you need to make sure that your evidence contradicts its core fundamentals, and not just some incidental details. You don’t knock down a house by clearing out the furniture.
Alternatively, you can provide an alternative explanation that does a better job of explaining the evidence that exists. “Better” means specifically that it does so in greater detail, with fewer assumptions, fewer unknowns and greater mathematical precision.
For a more detailed treatment of these principles, see here:
Aka he shows all the science and I have none of the science but I am still going to say he’s wrong and I’m right….. zero science anywhere in any field points towards creationism. All the science across dozens of fields show evolution.
Even in simple ways such as when you step back further and further in time, you see divergent traits going away as a more and more basal form takes hold. So
So of you go back to the earliest human fossils, we still have earlier primate fossils and if you go to the earliest primate fossil you find earlier mammal fossils. You never find the earliest human fossils before the earliest primate fossils and you never find the earliest primate fossils before the earliest mammal fossils. Then when you look at the genetic tree of life you see some stuff shared between all mammals, then you see some stuff shared between just mammals and primates and then you see some stuff just shared between primates and humans and then some stuff just shared within modern primates and modern humans. Then the distinct human or distinct modern primate genes. So the fossil record and the tree of life works. But zero things work with creationism.
False.
Cranial capacity does not correlate with cognition, unless you can demonstrate that blue whales are the smartest creatures on the planet.
Cranial capacity in relation to body size might correlate with cognition, but it’s difficult to confirm that for the very reason I raised - we can’t determine self-awareness, language complexity and abstract reasoning ability from skeletal remains.
Of course it is.
If you had bothered to think about the post you were replying to you might have realised that I am aware of the variation in cranial capacity in hominid ancestors and was setting a trap for the original poster.[1]
Which he didn’t fall into, but only because he shot himself in the foot before reaching it. ↩︎
That is not a claim that anyone has made.
Your ‘quote’ has never been said by anyone but you. The only instance of that ‘quote’ that Google finds is your post.
‘Refuting’ claims that have never been made is a fallacy, and characterising those claims as direct quotes when they are not is dishonest.
@moderators: can we please have a better emoji for a straw-man?
Complaining about your words being taken out of context is appropriate.
Complaining about your words being taken out of context while posting fake ‘quotes’ that misrepresent what others have said is massively hypocritical.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
