No Established connection between humans and primates

[Gary_M]

“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.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Remiel-Wise

but that is not what Christians believe.

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.

[Randy]

Would you please tell us how you came to your conclusion about our not being primates? Thank you.

[Remiel-Wise (Mark)]

Randy, fair question, and here’s my reasoning.

When I say humans are not primates in the evolutionary sense, I’m not denying biology, shared design, or functional similarities. Those things are obvious. What I’m rejecting is the claim of direct lineage from a primate ancestor in a way that removes or dismisses the biblical account of Adam.

Here’s why:

1. Scripture presents human origins as a distinct creative act.

The biblical text repeatedly separates humanity from all other living creatures, not in biology, but in identity, purpose, and origin.

Genesis does not say humans gradually emerged from an existing animal lineage.
It explicitly describes a direct divine impartation of consciousness, moral awareness, and the imago Dei.

If you remove the uniqueness of that moment, Adam collapses into metaphor, and the framework of Scripture collapses with him.

2. Similarity ≠ lineage.

Humans share a large percentage of genes with primates, but also:

• ~90% with mice
• ~80% with cows
• dozens of highly conserved genes with octopus
• massive genomic conservation across the entire mammalian clade

Shared DNA does not tell us how origins happened, only that life uses common biochemical architecture. Christians should not confuse shared structure with shared ancestry.

3. The “primate → human” chain contains the one missing link secular science cannot explain: consciousness.

We don’t see:

• transitional cognition
• transitional symbolic reasoning
• transitional moral architecture
• transitional language
• transitional self-awareness

Those are the features that make humans humans, and they appear suddenly with anatomically modern humans.
Not as a slope.
As a phase change.

This leaves room, intentionally, for the Adamic moment, where consciousness, responsibility, stewardship, and identity were bestowed.

4. Theologically, humans are placed in creation to rule, not to emerge from it blindly.

Biblical anthropology isn’t just about bodies, it’s about purpose and calling.

Adam is not merely the first biological human.
He is the first conscious steward placed into creation with moral capacity and divine vocation.

If humans evolved purely from primates with gradual cognition, independent of divine intervention, then:

• the Fall collapses
• the need for redemption collapses
• the imago Dei collapses
• human uniqueness collapses
• and Christ’s second Adam typology collapses

That’s not compatible with Christian theology in any meaningful sense.

5. So my conclusion is simple:

We may share biological features with primates,
but we do not share identity, origin, or purpose with them.

Adam introduces consciousness, moral reasoning, and divine vocation, not genetics.
That is why I do not accept that we are “primates” in the evolutionary sense, even if we resemble them biologically.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Remiel-Wise

Why would I concede that?

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.)

[Remiel-Wise (Mark)]

It is only true to you and those who think like you!

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Remiel-Wise

We may share biological features with primates,
but we do not share identity, origin, or purpose with them.

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.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Remiel-Wise

You say evolution “explains it really, really well,” but that assumes:

• continuity of cognitive development
• continuity of symbolic reasoning
• continuity of abstract thought
• continuity of moral architecture
• continuity of consciousness

How so? Why do I need any of those things to explain why there is more sequence conservation in exons than in introns?

@Remiel-Wise

But the moment we assemble them into a narrative of how consciousness arose, or how symbolic reasoning emerged, or how the human mind entered the world, we are no longer dealing with empirical bricks, we are dealing with interpretive blueprints**.**

Human consciousness enters the world during embryonic development. I see no reason why we can’t determine these things empirically.

@Remiel-Wise

Evolution gives one possible blueprint.
ID gives another.
The data itself does not settle the blueprint question.

Then how does ID explain why there is more sequence conservation in exons than in introns?

@Remiel-Wise

Until the gaps in cognition, language, symbolic reasoning, and consciousness are empirically bridged, both sides are indeed choosing the explanatory model that best fits their worldview.

The differences between humans and other apes is the genetic differences between our genomes. It’s already bridged.

@Remiel-Wise

Similarity does not prove ancestry.

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.

@Remiel-Wise

No.
It shows variation across hominids, not lineage.

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?

[Remiel-Wise (Mark)]

T, you’re fragmenting my argument into genetic micro-points in order to avoid the actual question. Let me unify it back into the full context, because the pieces only make sense together.

1. You ask: “Why do I need continuity of cognition to explain exon conservation?”

You don’t.

And that’s exactly my point.

Genetic conservation in exons/introns has nothing to do with:

• symbolic reasoning
• moral awareness
• self-reflection
• abstraction
• consciousness
• identity
• language

You are pointing to molecular patterns that tell us how genomes remain functional, not how minds arise.

A genome can show conservation without showing lineage.
A genome can show mutation rates without showing consciousness.

This is why I said the genetic “bricks” do not assemble themselves into an explanation of human uniqueness.
You’re answering a different question than the one I’m raising.

2. “Human consciousness enters the world during embryonic development. We can measure it.”

Yes, we can measure when consciousness emerges, not how it arises, nor why humans have symbolic cognition when no other primate does.

Embryonic development does not show:

• the origin of language
• the origin of moral reasoning
• the origin of symbolic thought
• the origin of abstraction
• the origin of identity

It shows the timeline of development, not the origin of capacities.

You haven’t bridged the gap, you’ve simply skipped it.

3. “Then how does ID explain exon conservation?”

Exon conservation is not “explained by evolution.”
It is required for functional proteins.

Any design-based system with:

• error correction
• coding regions
• non-coding regulatory architecture
• functional constraints

will show exactly the same patterns of conservation.

The question of exon conservation does not settle ancestry.
It settles biochemical necessity.

This is why unrelated systems can show convergent conservation, because functionality constrains sequence.

Evolution does not “own” that explanation.

4. “Differences between humans and apes are already bridged genetically.”

Genetic difference is not the gap in question.

The gap is:

instinct → symbolic consciousness

And DNA does not show transitional cognition, transitional grammar, transitional abstraction, or transitional self-awareness.

Genetics can explain biology.
It cannot explain mind.

That’s the missing bridge.

5. “Why aren’t fossils evidence?”

Fossils are evidence, of morphology.
Not of cognition.

Fossils can show:

• bipedalism
• tool use
• cranial capacity

They cannot show:

• symbolic language
• abstract reasoning
• moral decision-making
• ritual
• cumulative culture
• identity
• self-awareness

These capacities appear fully formed in Homo sapiens.
The fossils show variation, not lineage of mind.

This is why you’re trying to restrict the conversation to anatomy and genetics, because the cognitive dimension cannot be accounted for within that framework.

6. The core issue you still haven’t addressed

Biology alone does not explain:

• Why humans have symbolic cognition
• Why humans have moral reasoning
• Why humans create abstract systems (math, art, metaphysics)
• Why humans have cumulative culture
• Why humans have language architecture no primate possesses
• Why humans possess self-awareness and identity
• Why humans perceive meaning
• Why humans have consciousness at all

These are not “optional features”, they are the defining attributes of humanity.

You are assuming continuity of mind because your model requires it,
not because the evidence demonstrates it.

That’s the point.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Remiel-Wise

T, you’re fragmenting my argument into genetic micro-points in order to avoid the actual question.

You are ignoring the answers to your questions.

1. The differences between cognition between humans and other apes are the genetic differences between our genomes.
2. We have mountains of evidence demonstrating that those differences are due to the very processes that produce mutations in modern populations.
3. We have mountains of evidence demonstrating that humans and other apes share common ancestry.
4. We have many fossils that have a mixture of modern human and ape features which is again evidence that we evolved from ape-like ancestors.

We have the empirical evidence.

@Remiel-Wise

You are pointing to molecular patterns that tell us how genomes remain functional, not how minds arise.

I am showing you molecular patterns that evidence common ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms.

@Remiel-Wise

Yes, we can measure when consciousness emerges, not how it arises, nor why humans have symbolic cognition when no other primate does.

It arises naturally during embryonic development. We have this cognition while other species do not because of the differences between our genomes.

@Remiel-Wise

Exon conservation is not “explained by evolution.”

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.

@Remiel-Wise

Genetic difference is not the gap in question.

The gap is:

instinct → symbolic consciousness

Genetic differences are the bridge.

@Remiel-Wise

Genetics can explain biology.
It cannot explain mind.

Our genomes explain the mind.

@Remiel-Wise

Biology alone does not explain:

• Why humans have symbolic cognition
• Why humans have moral reasoning
• Why humans create abstract systems (math, art, metaphysics)
• Why humans have cumulative culture
• Why humans have language architecture no primate possesses
• Why humans possess self-awareness and identity
• Why humans perceive meaning
• Why humans have consciousness at all

Our genomes explain all of it.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

I find it fascinating how many creationists would rather abandon the idea of objective truth than deal with uncomfortable evidence.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

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.