poll: are you an ape?

[1213]

Because we fit the biological definition of "ape." Because our anatomy, physiology and genetics indicates a common and recent ancestor amongst us apes.

Now I wonder how you define a woman.

Allegedly humans have same ancestor as for example herring. By your logic, I think humans should be called that.

https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/images/content/trace-fish-common-ancestor_4098.png

I don't believe there is common ancestor, I think it is ridiculous belief, sorry.

 

[exchemist]

Now I wonder how you define a woman.

Allegedly humans have same ancestor as for example herring. By your logic, I think humans should be called that.

https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/images/content/trace-fish-common-ancestor_4098.png

I don't believe there is common ancestor, I think it is ridiculous belief, sorry.

This is a misunderstanding (whether genuine or deliberate) on your part. We are apes because we share the essential attributes of apes with the other apes. We also have very similar DNA indeed (98%). It is a biological classification, not a matter of "belief" at all.

Both we and fish are vertebrates (or chordates), since like them we have a spine and bilateral symmetry. However we are not fish, as we do not share nearly so many attributes with them as we do with other apes. We share ~70% of DNA with fish. The spine and symmetry we have in common with fish is a pointer to our common ancestry with them, way back in the Devonian, about 350-400 million years ago. Whereas our common ancestry with the other great apes is estimated to be as recent as 6-7 million years ago.

(We also share over 50% of our DNA with bananas, which is evidence of common ancestry with them too, even further back in the Precambrian, over a billion years ago. Like bananas, but unlike bacteria, we are eukaryotes, that is to say our cells have nuclei and other components in common with them which bacteria do not have. A lot can change in a billion years.)

None of this is rocket science.

 

[Valjean]

Now I wonder how you define a woman.

Allegedly humans have same ancestor as for example herring. By your logic, I think humans should be called that.

Yes, if you follow any vertebrate lineage far enough back you'll find fish. But calling an ape a fish isn't a useful description. Terms specifying one's individual species make sense.

https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/images/content/trace-fish-common-ancestor_4098.png

I don't believe there is common ancestor, I think it is ridiculous belief, sorry.

Why don't you believe this, when all the actual, empirical evidence, from multiple fields, supports it? Is it a tribal thing?
What empirical evidence supports magic poofing?

 

[Sargonski]

Now I wonder how you define a woman.

Allegedly humans have same ancestor as for example herring. By your logic, I think humans should be called that.

https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/images/content/trace-fish-common-ancestor_4098.png

I don't believe there is common ancestor, I think it is ridiculous belief, sorry.

Yes, if you follow any vertebrate lineage far enough back you'll find fish. But calling an ape a fish isn't a useful description. Terms specifying one's individual species make sense.

Why don't you believe this, when all the actual, empirical evidence, from multiple fields, supports it? Is it a tribal thing?
What empirical evidence supports magic poofing?

Look friends .. we need only look at History to find the evidence that we need .. and in fact Biblical History supports the Historical Narrative.

If you were living in Mesopotamia from 3000 BC to ~ 500 BC you knew from whence Man (Adamu) came. Whats wrong friends ? -- has no one ever told you what their story was ? We have known this for at least 100 years now ... and in greater detail since we have diciphered part of the Library of Tablets found at Rash Shamra - Ugarit .. 90% still untranslated --- can barely tell the difference between this and Ancient Hebrew .. Ancient Hebrew a Canaanite Dialect.

Surely you have heard by now .. about the "Annunaki" these beings who came from the Sky - down to earth .. and were laboring to mine Gold for their atmosphere -- the work was difficult .. and it was decided to create the Adamu .. a being to do the work. This being was created by splicing Annunaki DNA with a primative human ancestor that was around at the time.

The story is far more detailed going into how 7 annunaki women were impregnated and so on.. these Adamu come to multiply like rabbits and become troublesome for some of the Annunaki -- Enlil in Particular .. who sends a great flood to destroy these unfortunate souls .. fortunately one fellow is helped by another God to build an ark and humanity survives... but I digress.

So .. this is the story that not only the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phonicians, Canaanites, Ammonites, Midianites, Elamites and everyone else believes .. it is the story the Israelites believe. and in fact the God of Abraham turns out to be Enlil (EL, Ellil Ill )

In the Bible story we are told that it is not one God who creates humans but a Group Effort .. created in the image of the Gods = hybrids .. and later we are told that some of these sky people - referred to as "Sons of God" come down to earth and mate with the Adamu women whome they find attractive. have further offspring .. of which we are told were the Great men of Renoun.

Genesis 6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

These beings from the sky would marry these Adamu women .. any of them they chose. Notice the name Adamu in case it was not blatantly obvious ... That was the name of these hybrid beings created by the Annunaki.

"And now you know - The rest of the story"

 

[1213]

This is a misunderstanding (whether genuine or deliberate) on your part. We are apes because we share the essential attributes of apes with the other apes. We also have very similar DNA indeed (98%). It is a biological classification, not a matter of "belief" at all.

Both we and fish are vertebrates (or chordates), since like them we have a spine and bilateral symmetry. However we are not fish, as we do not share nearly so many attributes with them as we do with other apes. ...

Ok, and I think humans don't share enough attributes with apes, to be called apes.

 

[1213]

Yes, if you follow any vertebrate lineage far enough back you'll find fish. But calling an ape a fish isn't a useful description.

Ok, the same way I think calling a human an ape, is not useful, nor reasonable.

Why don't you believe this, when all the actual, empirical evidence, from multiple fields, supports it?

I don't think there is any actual empirical evidence for it. Humans have found different animals and decided that they are related, because there are similar attributes. The reason for similarities can as well be that they were created by same person. If the theory of evolution would be true, it should be possible to demonstrate by replicating the process, for example by breeding mouse into a whale.

 

[1213]

Look friends .. we need only look at History to find the evidence that we need .. and in fact Biblical History supports the Historical Narrative.

If you were living in Mesopotamia from 3000 BC to ~ 500 BC you knew from whence Man (Adamu) came. Whats wrong friends ? -- has no one ever told you what their story was ? We have known this for at least 100 years now ... and in greater detail since we have diciphered part of the Library of Tablets found at Rash Shamra - Ugarit .. 90% still untranslated --- can barely tell the difference between this and Ancient Hebrew .. Ancient Hebrew a Canaanite Dialect.

Surely you have heard by now .. about the "Annunaki" ...

Nice story, more believable than the evolution theory. I still rather believe what is said in the Bible.

 

[Heyo]

Ok, and I think

humans don't share enough attributes with apes, to be called apes.

Just look up what the attributes are to be called an ape in a biology textbook.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just look up what the attributes are to be called an ape in a biology textbook.

Humans are more than their biology.
Just look up what the attributes of a human are according to scripture.
Humans were made in the image of God, apes weren't.

 

[Valjean]

Ok, and I think humans don't share enough attributes with apes, to be called apes.

Do we share the attributes that define apes? Not all attributes are definitive.

Ok, the same way I think calling a human an ape, is not useful, nor reasonable.

No, you don't think that. You feel that.
So you think all of taxonomy is useless and unreasonable?

I don't think there is any actual empirical evidence for it. Humans have found different animals and decided that they are related, because there are similar attributes. The reason for similarities can as well be that they were created by same person. If the theory of evolution would be true, it should be possible to demonstrate by replicating the process, for example by breeding mouse into a whale.

But we selectively breed all the time, replicating the process. Humans have been doing that for thousands of years. We've also observed the process in nature. We've seen new species emerge.

Do you seriously believe magically poofing things into existence fully formed is a reasonable or evidenced claim?

 

[Valjean]

Nice story, more believable than the evolution theory. I still rather believe what is said in the Bible.

Even when it contradicts itself or makes claims that are demonstrably false?

Do you believe what's in the Quran, the Guru Granth Sahib or the Chronicles of Narnia? If not, why not? Aren't they more concise and unified than the chaotic biblical anthology?

 

[exchemist]

Ok, and I think humans don't share enough attributes with apes, to be called apes.

But the people that know more biology than you think we do. And they are the ones who get to define the classifications, obviously.

 

[Valjean]

Humans are more than their biology.
Just look up what the attributes of a human are according to scripture.
Humans were made in the image of God, apes weren't.

That's not a scientific or evidenced claim. It's a poetic, religious sentiment.
...And what does "image of God" mean, anyway? Does God have arms and legs, genitals, a navel?

There is hard evidence of biological claims. Not so much for scripture.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not a scientific or evidenced claim. It's a poetic, religious sentiment.

That's true, but so what?

...And what does "image of God" mean, anyway? Does God have arms and legs, genitals, a navel?

This does not refer to anything physical, since God is not a physical being.
It means humans have the potential to reflect the attributes of God.

Some of God's attributes are Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient. Humans also have the 'potential' to reflect these attributes of God, and we reflect them to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual we are.

There is hard evidence of biological claims. Not so much for scripture.

That's true, but so what? Evidence is not what makes anything true.

 

[exchemist]

That's true, but so what?

This does not refer to anything physical, since God is not a physical being.
It means humans have the potential to reflect the attributes of God.

Some of God's attributes are Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient. Humans also have the 'potential' to reflect these attributes of God, and we reflect them to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual we are.

That's true, but so what? Evidence is not what makes anything true.

I hope you are never called for jury service.

 

[Heyo]

Humans are more than their biology.
Just look up what the attributes of a human are according to scripture.
Humans were made in the image of God, apes weren't.

Changing the subject?
The debate started about the biological definitions of human and ape.
@1213 doesn't understand biology and we are working hard that his misunderstanding doesn't spread.
I think you are better than that. You should be able to concede that, biologically speaking, homo sapience is a hominid (great ape).

After that concession you can start a debate (or new thread) about how homo sapience is not an ape in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Baha'i religious sense.

 

[Trailblazer]

I hope you are never called for jury service.

I have been called.
Evidence is what is needed to convict in a court of law.

Religious beliefs are not subject to the kind of evidence that is required in a court of law, but that does not mean they are not true, because evidence is not what makes anything true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Changing the subject?
The debate started about the biological definitions of human and ape.

Here is how the thread started:
poll: are you an ape?

The thread did not start out that way, although it mostly turned out to be about the biological definitions of human and ape, and that happened because the people who posted on this thread were mostly atheists.

@1213 doesn't understand biology and we are working hard that his misunderstanding doesn't spread.
I think you are better than that. You should be able to concede that, biologically speaking, homo sapience is a hominid (great ape).

Yes, biologically speaking.

After that concession you can start a debate (or new thread) about how homo sapience is not an ape in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Baha'i religious sense.

I could do that, but the last thing I want is to continue discussing this.

 

[Valjean]

That's true, but so what?

So it doesn't apply to the OP's question.

This does not refer to anything physical, since God is not a physical being.
It means humans have the potential to reflect the attributes of God.

So nothing to do with whether human biology classes them as apes.

Some of God's attributes are Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient. Humans also have the 'potential' to reflect these attributes of God, and we reflect them to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual we are.

Those are not the attributes I see in the biblical narratives, particularly in the war god of the Old Testament.
Nor do they have anything to do with whether humans are biologically apes.

That's true, but so what? Evidence is not what makes anything true.

It's what's assessed in the determination of truth.

 

[Valjean]

I have been called.
Evidence is what is needed to convict in a court of law.

Religious beliefs are not subject to the kind of evidence that is required in a court of law, but that does not mean they are not true, because evidence is not what makes anything true.

OK, so what makes religious claims -- or anything else -- true? How is truth assessed?