I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[YoursTrue]

The Book of Revelation is really about events in the latter half of the 1st century, although there are always going to be some lessons we can learn from that.

There has long been the belief in Christianity about Armageddon, namely the eventual destruction of at least human life on Earth during "end times", but believing in this literally I'm not going that far with. IOW, maybe yes, maybe no, imo. As a scientist, we are trained to be skeptical, and that I am on a great many things both in and outside of basic theology.

Fortunately, believing, accepting, and living out of Jesus' Two Commandments makes these "side bars" unessential.

I don't see that Armageddon biblically means destruction of life on this earth. Later.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well learning about the world is a personal choice. Christian scientists consider it all Gods creation and delight in learning the specifics of how different creatures were made and how they fit into groups. Including humans. They don't assume fundamentalist nonsense that we are not part of the natural world. Duck and human feet are a poor analogy of how groups are discovered, DNA plays a large role
Taxonomic characters[edit]
Taxonomic characters are the taxonomic attributes that can be used to provide the evidence from which relationships (the phylogeny) between taxa are inferred.[16] Kinds of taxonomic characters include:[17]

• Morphological characters
  • General external morphology
  • Special structures (e.g. genitalia)
  • Internal morphology (anatomy)
  • Embryology
  • Karyology and other cytological factors
• Physiological characters
  • Metabolic factors
  • Body secretions
  • Genic sterility factors
• Molecular characters
  • Immunological distance
  • Electrophoretic differences
  • Amino acid sequences of proteins
  • DNA hybridization
  • DNA and RNA sequences
  • Restriction endonuclease analyses
  • Other molecular differences

• Behavioral characters
  • Courtship and other ethological isolating mechanisms
  • Other behavior patterns
• Ecological characters
  • Habit and habitats
  • Food
  • Seasonal variations
  • Parasites and hosts
• Geographic characters
  • General biogeographic distribution patterns
  • Sympatric-allopatric relationship of populations
• Taxonomy (biology) - Wikipedia very complex subject

That's like saying "do believers in gravity......." It doesn't matter if someone reads a story that tells them gravity isn't true. They will still fall off a cliff. Evolution is a theory, like gravity, it answers questions and shows some ways the world works. Just like the taxonomy list there are many many biological systems that demonstrate evolution.
Ducks, Anseriformes, go way back to before the last asteroid impact:

Anseriformes are one of only two types of modern bird to be confirmed present during the Mesozoic alongside the other dinosaurs, and in fact were among the very few birds to survive their extinction, along with their cousins the galliformes. These two groups only occupied two ecological niches during the Mesozoic, living in water and on the ground, while the toothed enantiornithes were the dominant birds that ruled the trees and air. The asteroid that ended the Mesozoic destroyed all trees as well as animals in the open, a condition that took centuries to recover from. The anseriformes and galliformes are thought to have survived in the cover of burrows and water, and not to have needed trees for food and reproduction.

Obviously there are people going to religious institutions out of respect but it doesn't mean they believe what is written. I'm speaking specifically of the fact that God made the animals. And then he made man.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We may be according to theorists in the same category as gorillas

Not according to "theorists".
Rather according to objective facts about both gorilla's and humans in terms of anatomy, psychology, genetics,...

, but naturally there is that still as of yet the "Unknown Common Ancestor" for all these 'types.'

Identification of the common ancestor is not required for the determination of a common ancestor.

Imagine 2 sibling orphans of unknown parents who were thrown into a volcano (it's gruesome, but the point is that they are gone without any trace of finding out who they were).

DNA can still determine that the 2 orphans ARE siblings and thus SHARE ancestors.
The fact that the identity of said ancestor can never be known is irrelevant to the determination that said ancestor existed.

And absolutely nothing concrete to show that humans evolved from -- gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, or --

Humans share ancestors with those species. They didn't evolve from them. As I'm 110% certain that plenty of people have already told you. As usual, you just ignore it when people correct your mistakes.

And the evidence that establishes that we in fact share ancestors with the other great apes is so overwhelming that it would be perverse to call it anything short of fact.

Somewhere missing that branch no matter what a drawing or conjecture outlines.

Again: identification of the ancestor is not required for determining that it existed..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to classification humans are mammals.

According to the definition of "mammal".
It is impossible to come up with a definition of "mammal" that includes all mammals yet excludes humans.
And the same is true for "primate", "ape", "eukaryote", "tetrapod", "vertebrate", etc.

Just like it is impossible to come up with a definition of "finger" that includes all fingers yet excludes any particular finger.

I don't dispute that. I hope that settles it. oh wait I see you didn't post that to me. I answered anyway hope you will take that into consideration.

I think you do dispute it. The mentioning of "...according to classification..." is kind of a giveaway.
You seem to be implying that the classification is just arbitrary and not at all based on actual objective data and evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh I don't reject the classification of primate. Maybe I will, lol, I'll see. But as I said, if I were in school and had to pass a test I wouldn't feel bad by saying According to the theory we humans are apes.

Not according to "the theory". Rather according to the anatomy of humans and other primates.

Carolus Linnaeus, a christian who by today's standards would be called a creationist, classified humans as primates long before Darwin came out with his ideas.

You should really inform yourself a bit.

 

[YoursTrue]

As one who studied primatology, the differences are only a matter of degrees. However, with our very large brain as compared to the great apes, we've obviously created a culture much larger and more complicated that any society of apes could produce.

Thanks for answering. Making sure of myself, I checked the Bible and it said at Genesis 1:26, Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Again quite a difference in the superior creation of man.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theory. When I look in the mirror I don't see a bonobo, gorilla, chimpanzee or any ape, lol. maybe you see yourself and other humans that way?

So why did Carolus Linnaeus classify humans as primates long before "the theory" saw the light of day?

Could it perhaps be, just maybe, that there is something more to it then you are willing to acknowledge?

 

[YoursTrue]

The Book of Revelation is really about events in the latter half of the 1st century, although there are always going to be some lessons we can learn from that.

There has long been the belief in Christianity about Armageddon, namely the eventual destruction of at least human life on Earth during "end times", but believing in this literally I'm not going that far with. IOW, maybe yes, maybe no, imo. As a scientist, we are trained to be skeptical, and that I am on a great many things both in and outside of basic theology.

Fortunately, believing, accepting, and living out of Jesus' Two Commandments makes these "side bars" unessential.

Depending on what one believes is the right application of those Two Commandments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Germans even call gorillas and such "Menschenaffen", where Menschen = people, Affen = Apes, to stress even further our strong physical resemblance.

This is also the case in dutch / flemish.

In english, the collective name of chimps, gorilla's and oerang oetangs is "great ape". In dutch / flemish that name is "mensaap".

Mens = human
aap = ape / monkey (it means both in dutch, there are no separate words for them)

(I had to reverse the last one, because google translates "great ape" as literal separate words into "grote aap" instead of as the taxonomical term )

Now, since this appears obvious, what do Christians really think it differentiates us from the other apes. Just some additional hair?

What I find most hilarious about this, is that it was a christian who classified humans as apes - long before Darwin. So this classification wasn't even inspired by "the theory".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mammal refers to those with mammary glands

And great ape refers to those things with opposable thumbs, forward facing eyes, large skull / brain, curved spine and no tail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is also the case in dutch / flemish.

In english, the collective name of chimps, gorilla's and oerang oetangs is "great ape". In dutch / flemish that name is "mensaap".

Mens = human
aap = ape / monkey (it means both in dutch, there are no separate words for them)

View attachment 62385

View attachment 62386

View attachment 62387

(I had to reverse the last one, because google translates "great ape" as literal separate words into "grote aap" instead of as the taxonomical term )



What I find most hilarious about this, is that it was a christian who classified humans as apes - long before Darwin. So this classification wasn't even inspired by "the theory".

And English speaking biologists know admit that people are "monkeys" too. Biology is switching over to cladistics. Linnaeus's system has quite a few examples of classification that are not monophyletic and that is slowly being corrected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

That would indeed be ludicrous.
So I guess it's a good thing that it's also a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok since I have an issue with humans classified as apes

I have noticed that you repeated this ad naseum.

Yet at no point have you actually articulated those issues.

Other then "because I religiously believe otherwise", can you actually explain why you think humans aren't primates / apes / mammals?

Or is "na-uh!!!!" about as far as you can get?

 

[YoursTrue]

There are many scientists that are atheist. Since the number of scientists that do not accept the theory of evolution is very small, the number of them being atheist would be even a smaller number. I remain ignorant of the significance of that fact.

That some people (like scientists) who have thought it through, believe neither in God or the theory of evolution. I have not spoken in depth to such a person, but I think I'd like to. Best I can figure is that they think life got here and grew(?), not evolved, according to the standard theory but do not believe there are superpowers (gods or a god) with intelligence above humans that we cannot see.

 

[metis]

Thanks for answering. Making sure of myself, I checked the Bible and it said at Genesis 1:26, Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Again quite a difference in the superior creation of man.

Yes, that's what it says.

 

[metis]

Depending on what one believes is the right application of those Two Commandments.

Oh, I think it's very clear. Application is very important even if some more specific items could be argued, and we see this even playing out in the Gospel as the Apostles weren't always on the same page.

 

[joelr]

Obviously there are people going to religious institutions out of respect but it doesn't mean they believe what is written. I'm speaking specifically of the fact that God made the animals. And then he made man.

If you think ancient myths are facts then you don't care about what is actually true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That some people (like scientists) who have thought it through, believe neither in God or the theory of evolution.

I'm not aware of any such people.

Every evolution denier I have ever met, was a theist.
In fact, every single time, their evolution denial was inspired by / based on their incompatible religious beliefs.

I have not spoken in depth to such a person, but I think I'd like to. Best I can figure is that they think life got here and grew(?), not evolved, according to the standard theory but do not believe there are superpowers (gods or a god) with intelligence above humans that we cannot see.

I think you are making this up as you go along.
Give me one example of such a person.

 

[YoursTrue]

Homo sapiens is a different species in a different genus of great apes. Wouldn't make sense to classify them all in the same genus and species, since they are not.

An ape has many different meanings too. I don't see any reason that is a point of contention.

Because of the classification.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you think ancient myths are facts then you don't care about what is actually true.

As I said, and until shown otherwise, I no longer believe the "theory of evolution." Now some will say it's not theory but fact. I used to believe it but as I looked into the theory itself, I no longer accept it as the absolute truth, or fact, as to the how life came about.