I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Watchmen]

I don't believe humans are animals unless they act like them. Although animals have some fine points God's word the Bible brings out.
I believe God made animals and plants in their respective categories. Not necessarily man's scientific terms of evolution.

Are you a mammal?

 

[Watchmen]

Yeah. They still would not look like an ape. Total difference ... even the eyes.

It's an insult to humans, and the Devil's idea... that's right... the Devil's idea of lowering the most special creation of God.
It's wickedness..

I’ll ask you too. Are you a mammal?

 

[viole]

No. You are adding to what I said, Viole.
Man can use whatever terminologies he wishes. It has nothing to do with me, or living and breathing.


You have a serious flaw in your understanding. Are you sure you read the entire post? It contains a lot, if you don't just read it superficially.
Nonetheless, aside from the fact that you are wrong, classifications are the product of men, and men are not gods. Nor do they control everyone.
If you are happy to have them control you, that's your choice, dear.

Me? Not
Human - Wikipedia

Note. They say...
All modern humans are classified into the species Homo sapiens
What does that mean? The name "Homo sapiens" means 'wise man' or 'knowledgeable man'.
Ha Ha. Who determines that? The term was coined by Carl Linnaeus in his 18th-century work Systema Naturae.
Who? Carl Linnaeus? Who's he?

The generic name "Homo" is a learned 18th-century derivation from Latin homō, which refers to humans of either sex. The word human can refer to all members of the Homo genus, although in common usage it generally just refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant species.

There is disagreement if extinct members of the genus, namely Neanderthals, should be included as a separate species of humans or as a subspecies of H. sapiens. They were too stupid?

Human is a loanword of Middle English from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjectival form of homō ('man' — in the sense of humankind). The native English term man can refer to the species generally (a synonym for humanity) as well as to human males. It may also refer to individuals of either sex, though this lattermost form is less common in contemporary English.
The word person is often used interchangeably with human, but philosophical debate exists as to whether personhood applies to all humans or all sentient beings, and further if one can lose personhood (such as by going into a persistent vegetative state).

Can you blame me for not accepting what terminologies man in his "wisdom" decides to use.
Imagine I am a Neanderthal, who believe my species are more wise that the two footed creatures that build all these crazy stuff rhat mess up the environment, and lives. Do you think I would jump for joy at their calling themselves 'knowledgeable man'? Ha.
I would have a name for them, which they would not like.

God classified his creation. That's all I need to accept, viole.
Genesis 1:26 - God said: “Let us make man. . ." Hebrew : אָדָם adam - man, mankind.
You are woman viole - womankind, or simply man - mankind. Okay? Are you not? Please don't go ape, because some man's idea dictates you are.

well, it looks normal to me. As I said, you just need a mirror to see that. We are, by far, closest to gorillas and chimps than to any other species. Even a child, when presented with pictures of various animals, will immediately recognize a smiling orangutang as closest to her. Here we are even discussing if our fellow great apes should not be included in the declaration of human rights. I believe in Spain the government has already decided that inclusion.

But i wonder why. Why did God make us so close, considering that according to the myth, we are the main reason He created the whole Universe for? Was it tired, by being so close to Friday evening and His well deserved rest, and decided to reuse some previous design, instead of something amazingly new and total different? But why apes, then? What is so special about apes?

But as I said, one step at the time, since your post does not address my main question.
Do you agree we are mammals, at least? Or do you think there is not such a thing as mammals?

ciao

- viole

 

[rational experiences]

A human every single human is a human the human as a human and as babies. All of us the baby human only.

Never was any baby the human as first parents.

Man adult only owned sperm...no baby.

Woman adult only owned ovary....no baby.

Anyone today was not ever the first human is lying as a human and the theist.

Theist meaning I'm a human and I think. Then I tell just human stories about any chosen topic I use.

Human told stories only.

So I see monkeys they have sex. Their species one monkey as human witnessed is of X two types have their own baby.

Three bodies. Natural highest term. It's own species. Highest baby life is healthy.

Science says as humans I believe a monkey or ape got sick had sex produced sick baby a human. Or healthy apes had a sick ape baby.

As sick parent human DNA have sex so get sick human babies.

Then healthy human babies don't heal into a monkey.

Pretty basic you use fake stories for human reasons.

So then you ask why.

The human science community a historic bunch of human liars theories earths stone reactions. Themselves.

In the presence of seeing ground dusts. As dust nuclear began life. Of their machine only by human calculated phi design. Whereas that history had destroyed our life.

As the nuclear event occurred in nature. Where their machines were taken from as position one human science. The ground.

So theists had to do a lot of biological comparisons then state to a satanic theist a human that monkeys are closest to human biology and not nuclear dust reactions.

The only reason. To try to save life from their organisation. Human science.

You made it is heard constantly in AI as he chose a new reaction every time he reacts earth products. Killed off his scientists life. Which he became aware of. Why it's his pertinent constantly notified realisation.

Hence earth is disappearing as mass.

So say I claim planet mass is 1000000000 number every day it gets smaller 999999999. Going back in time by counting backwards.

Says the man scientist theist.

I'm trying to take created creation back to a zero.

As I falsely said I invented gods power as a human thesis as if I personally had created the earth.

I'm possessed by my own thesis I believe it's real. I believe I control the mass position as the planet.

I keep claiming it in AI statements. How can I understand.

Truly I don't know what to say to you scientist.

 

[nPeace]

well, it looks normal to me. As I said, you just need a mirror to see that. We are, by far, closest to gorillas and chimps than to any other species. Even a child, when presented with pictures of various animals, will immediately recognize a smiling orangutang as closest to her. Here we are even discussing if our fellow great apes should not be included in the declaration of human rights. I believe in Spain the government has already decided that inclusion.

You can tell that to Kent Hovind, so that he can LOL, as I just did.
Using that logic, is to paint the scientists as idiots, since there are species with similar features - they look like close family members, but are considered genetically distant... I mean dis________________________tant. Not closely related at all. Lol.

Animals That Look Alike But Aren’t
...biologists at the University of California, Berkeley, recently reported the discovery of a new species of Mexican salamander, Lineatriton, that looks identical to another species living several hundred miles away. Only DNA testing can tell them apart.

“We were so surprised we did the DNA analysis again,” says David Wake, who discovered the new salamander with Gabriela Parra-Olea, a former graduate student now at the University of Mexico. The second analysis confirmed that the two salamanders are distinct species. “They don’t mate with one another, and they live in totally different geologic and ecologic areas,” says Wake.

Maybe they need to do another DNA analysis on humans and apes... until they get it right.

But i wonder why. Why did God make us so close, considering that according to the myth, we are the main reason He created the whole Universe for? Was it tired, by being so close to Friday evening and His well deserved rest, and decided to reuse some previous design, instead of something amazingly new and total different? But why apes, then? What is so special about apes?

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!
Are you asking what I think?
What I think about this viole, is that some people are so miserable in life because they haven't found inner joy and peace, since they reject the source, and so they do not know how to appreciate the gift of life... or the good gifts given us.

Maybe the peach is asking the same question regarding the apricot.
I think life is such a wonderful gift, which should fill us with appreciation and gratitude toward the creator.
That's just my opinion.

But as I said, one step at the time, since your post does not address my main question.
Do you agree we are mammals, at least? Or do you think there is not such a thing as mammals?

ciao

- viole

According to the definition of mammal, man is categorized as a mammal based on his physical makeup.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, they do look a bit different, lol. Except the gorilla looks like he went to the hairdresser. You think? I mean his beard is so nice and symmetrical. Quite fetching, I would say.

Actually, I didn't notice that. Nice observation.
He also seems to lack the genes that would make him manly - a mustache. Or is this a female...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks to this thing called life, we can move. Without it, we can't. but you do not know what that is, or how it came about, do you.

You didn't answer my question or address my point.

We can move because our bodies communicate with our brains and spinal cords via a whole series' of chemical interactions. Our brains are a swirling vat of chemicals. Do you think the God you believe in is tinkering away on every chemical interaction that occurs in every animal on the planet at any given moment? If you don't, then you recognize that chemicals come together quite naturally all the time. (Remember, that was the point.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was just looking at the news. There was a pretty (dare I use the word?) reporter. I tried imagining her with dark hair all over her body, and facial features like gorillas and chimpanzees. It was more than difficult to think of her with hands, facial features and dark hair all over her as if she might be a monkey, gorilla, or something like that. Nope. Sorry.

Hmm, well I have to shave my legs quite often. I guess I'm the only human with hair on my body ....

I'm starting to wonder if you've ever actually seen any of the other great apes at this point. Their hands are quite similar to ours, actually. As are their faces and their anatomy. It's baffling to me when people claim they can't see the similarities. It's like they're trying with all their might not to see the obvious.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah. They still would not look like an ape. Total difference ... even the eyes.

It's an insult to humans, and the Devil's idea... that's right... the Devil's idea of lowering the most special creation of God.
It's wickedness..

You seriously don't see the similarities? Why is it "an insult to humans" to notice the similarities?

The devil's idea? Oh, did the devil create all life on earth? One has to wonder why your God made us so closely related to the other primates, you know, if it's such an insult and all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can tell that to Kent Hovind, so that he can LOL, as I just did.

Kent Hovind is a liar and a conman. He doesn't know the first thing about science, despite claiming to have taught it for years.

Using that logic, is to paint the scientists as idiots, since there are species with similar features - they look like close family members, but are considered genetically distant... I mean dis________________________tant. Not closely related at all. Lol.

Animals That Look Alike But Aren’t
...biologists at the University of California, Berkeley, recently reported the discovery of a new species of Mexican salamander, Lineatriton, that looks identical to another species living several hundred miles away. Only DNA testing can tell them apart.

“We were so surprised we did the DNA analysis again,” says David Wake, who discovered the new salamander with Gabriela Parra-Olea, a former graduate student now at the University of Mexico. The second analysis confirmed that the two salamanders are distinct species. “They don’t mate with one another, and they live in totally different geologic and ecologic areas,” says Wake.

Maybe they need to do another DNA analysis on humans and apes... until they get it right.

This is bizarre. You're claiming that scientists don't do science right, and then give an example of how they've done science right. Notice how they didn't just declare they were related based on superficial observations and then just lay it to rest. Nope, they did more testing! Wow!

Not only do we look like the other great apes, but we share massive amounts of DNA with them (98% with chimps, our closest living relative). And yes, they've done DNA analysis more than once.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!
Are you asking what I think?
What I think about this viole, is that some people are so miserable in life because they haven't found inner joy and peace, since they reject the source, and so they do not know how to appreciate the gift of life... or the good gifts given us.

That doesn't come anywhere close to answering the question and has nothing at all to do with it.

Maybe the peach is asking the same question regarding the apricot.
I think life is such a wonderful gift, which should fill us with appreciation and gratitude toward the creator.
That's just my opinion.

According to the definition of mammal, man is categorized as a mammal based on his physical makeup.

 

[viole]

You can tell that to Kent Hovind, so that he can LOL, as I just did.

Who?

What I think about this viole, is that some people are so miserable in life because they haven't found inner joy and peace, since they reject the source, and so they do not know how to appreciate the gift of life... or the good gifts given us.

That is precisely what my Muslim friend tells me. Now, since you must believe Muslims delude themselves, we must infer that delusion works wonder when we look for inner joy and peace.

i myself do not need that. Thrilled that you do.

I think life is such a wonderful gift, which should fill us with appreciation and gratitude toward the creator.
That's just my opinion.

Who is the recipient of that gift? A dead person? Nope, the recipient can only be who that has it already. And it has not be withdrawn by the same creator, like when a 2 years old kid dies of cancer.

So, should we be grateful that He kills so many children?

And what are the alternatives? Not being grateful if we did not have life? That is a logical impossibility. It is like saying: we should be grateful that we can be grateful. So absurd. For sure the ones who never had life will never be ungrateful lol.

And honestly, even if we can make some sense of it, should we really be grateful? Suppose your souls roasting God really exists. Honestly, I would have rather preferred not to have ever lived. He should have told me the conditions first, and then I would have accepted, or not (how, without having life already is assumed here to be a negligible problem). For, it would be impossible for me today to believe in something so implausible. So, eternal torment expects me, or whatever your branch of Christianity believes. Alternatively, I would have to spend eternity with such a divinity and Kent Hovind, whoever that is, and similars. Which is even worse.

so, nope. If your God really existed, I would have rather preferred to have never been born. I did not ask to, after all. So how did He dare to create me under such conditions?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I was just looking at the news. There was a pretty (dare I use the word?) reporter. I tried imagining her with dark hair all over her body, and facial features like gorillas and chimpanzees. It was more than difficult to think of her with hands, facial features and dark hair all over her as if she might be a monkey, gorilla, or something like that. Nope. Sorry.

Well, again, why mammals yes, and apes no? That does not look logical at all.

Since we and gorillas are different species anyway, what difference does it make if we share being mammals, vs. share being apes?

I start believing the answer, if any, is not logical. It is emotional. You realize that mammals can be very different. And that makes space for humans being different, too. But with apes? You cannot do that anymore, and therefore your reluctance is nothing but a fear to admit the obvious. A form of denial, basically.

i am not even sure that has to do with you being Christian, since I know many Christians who have no problems seeing themselves as great apes. So, what is it?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yeah. They still would not look like an ape. Total difference ... even the eyes.

It's an insult to humans, and the Devil's idea... that's right... the Devil's idea of lowering the most special creation of God.
It's wickedness..

like the say in Naples, every beetle is beautiful to its mum. So, what you say is relative. Probably gorillas think it is an insult to compare humans to them.

you're so damned ugly.

ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

Simply put, in this day and age whereas scientific evidence for the basic ToE is overwhelming, to deny the obvious reality that life forms do evolve over time can make Christianity appear to be an exercise in ignorance. Is it any surprise that young-educated adults are leaving the faith in droves?

Basic science and basic theism must be compatible or one or both are wrong-headed, and more and more people are realizing that the science on the ToE is definitely realistic whereas theism may or may not be.

 

[nPeace]

Who?



That is precisely what my Muslim friend tells me. Now, since you must believe Muslims delude themselves, we must infer that delusion works wonder when we look for inner joy and peace.

i myself do not need that. Thrilled that you do.



Who is the recipient of that gift? A dead person? Nope, the recipient can only be who that has it already. And it has not be withdrawn by the same creator, like when a 2 years old kid dies of cancer.

So, should we be grateful that He kills so many children?

And what are the alternatives? Not being grateful if we did not have life? That is a logical impossibility. It is like saying: we should be grateful that we can be grateful. So absurd. For sure the ones who never had life will never be ungrateful lol.

And honestly, even if we can make some sense of it, should we really be grateful? Suppose your souls roasting God really exists. Honestly, I would have rather preferred not to have ever lived. He should have told me the conditions first, and then I would have accepted, or not (how, without having life already is assumed here to be a negligible problem). For, it would be impossible for me today to believe in something so implausible. So, eternal torment expects me, or whatever your branch of Christianity believes. Alternatively, I would have to spend eternity with such a divinity and Kent Hovind, whoever that is, and similars. Which is even worse.

so, nope. If your God really existed, I would have rather preferred to have never been born. I did not ask to, after all. So how did He dare to create me under such conditions?

ciao

- viole

To some people, the glass is half empty. To others, it's half full.
It's all about the lens, and the focus.
Some have a zoom and aspect ratio they prefer, but it limits their vision significantly.

 

[nPeace]

Well, again, why mammals yes, and apes no? That does not look logical at all.

Since we and gorillas are different species anyway, what difference does it make if we share being mammals, vs. share being apes?

I start believing the answer, if any, is not logical. It is emotional. You realize that mammals can be very different. And that makes space for humans being different, too. But with apes? You cannot do that anymore, and therefore your reluctance is nothing but a fear to admit the obvious. A form of denial, basically.

i am not even sure that has to do with you being Christian, since I know many Christians who have no problems seeing themselves as great apes. So, what is it?

ciao

- viole

You were supposed to ask me that question, as step two.
So, I will answer here, even though this is not addressed to me.

The answer is simple.
A bat, whale, baboon... are all mammals, but a baboon is not a bat, nor is a whale a baboon.
So trying to say a human is an ape, because both fit into the category of mammal, is not only illogical, but ludicrous.
Since it's viole making the statement though, I will say, you have a mistaken view.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you a mammal?

Well, again, why mammals yes, and apes no? That does not look logical at all.

Since we and gorillas are different species anyway, what difference does it make if we share being mammals, vs. share being apes?

I start believing the answer, if any, is not logical. It is emotional. You realize that mammals can be very different. And that makes space for humans being different, too. But with apes? You cannot do that anymore, and therefore your reluctance is nothing but a fear to admit the obvious. A form of denial, basically.

i am not even sure that has to do with you being Christian, since I know many Christians who have no problems seeing themselves as great apes. So, what is it?

ciao

- viole

How great an ape are we? After all, it has been pointed out that primate can literally refer to the head of a church, did you know that? Definitions can be tricky. So -- while I had no problem with the idea that we humans are considered mammals because of mammary glands, I will be more careful in the future, since I do not think or believe that man (human men and women) came about by natural selection and survival of the fittest, naturally by mutation (I suppose that's what believers in the theory of evolution purport). Meaning that we humans ascend (?) or is it descend, from some Unknown Common Ancestor of bonobos, chimpanzees and other such organisms. So thanks for consideration, I'll certainly work on being careful about how I express that. (I believe God made man different from that which are called animals and plants per the account in Genesis as well as my own recognition of what 'man' is.)

 

[Watchmen]

How great an ape are we? After all, it has been pointed out that primate can literally refer to the head of a church, did you know that? Definitions can be tricky. So -- while I had no problem with the idea that we humans are considered mammals because of mammary glands, I will be more careful in the future, since I do not think or believe that man (human men and women) came about by natural selection and survival of the fittest, naturally by mutation (I suppose that's what believers in the theory of evolution purport). Meaning that we humans ascend (?) or is it descend, from some Unknown Common Ancestor of bonobos, chimpanzees and other such organisms. So thanks for consideration, I'll certainly work on being careful about how I express that. (I believe God made man different from that which are called animals and plants per the account in Genesis as well as my own recognition of what 'man' is.)

No gobbledegook please.
Yes or no. Are humans mammals?

 

[YoursTrue]

Simply put, in this day and age whereas scientific evidence for the basic ToE is overwhelming, to deny the obvious reality that life forms do evolve over time can make Christianity appear to be an exercise in ignorance. Is it any surprise that young-educated adults are leaving the faith in droves?

Basic science and basic theism must be compatible or one or both are wrong-headed, and more and more people are realizing that the science on the ToE is definitely realistic whereas theism may or may not be.

What is compatible is that the various forms have cells and genes and dna. That is reality. This does not mean that they evolved by natural selection. The more I peer into it, the more I see that yes, there are the "irreducible" complexities of the elements. Including distinct organisms. This can't be avoided. There are gaps between the genetic differences of the various forms that scientists may attempt to explain, but cannot be overcome in the larger sense of replication. I conclude after consideration that God is alive, He is beyond our comprehension except as He would like to communicate (reveal himself) with mankind, and is going to do what He says He will do. Romans 8:24 - "For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?"

 

[YoursTrue]

No gobbledegook please.
Yes or no. Are humans mammals?

According to the definition of mammals, humans have mammary glands which is a defining part of that classification. So if someone says humans are mammals I have no problem with that. Are they apes? You may think so. I no longer do. Gorillas and other forms are mammals also. Because they have mammary glands. I hope that satisfies you as far as an answer goes. Have a nice evening.
According to one definition, "Humans are classified as mammals because humans have the same distinctive features ... found in all members of this large group. Humans are also classified within: the subgroup of mammals called primates; and the subgroup of primates called apes and in particular the 'Great Apes'"
Do I have to agree with all of that? Some think I should. I no longer do. So if you're not satisfied with the idea that I consider humans mammals but not apes, so be it, and again -- I hope you have a nice evening. (If I am convinced that I am wrong about that, I'll change my view, thanks.)