Differences between human and ape

[Glee]

Hey all. So what exactly are the differences between a human and an ape? By reducing each difference down to their component level, why is it considered by some that it is just not possible for humans to have evolved from them? What individual change cannot be the product of 'microevolution', and when does it change to 'macroevolution'?


I shall use the dog as an example for microevolution in some cases, as they all developed from the same 'kind' via 'micro'...

For example:

Skeletal structure? - The number of bones is almost identical at certain stages of development. The lengthening of certain bones and fusing of others really isn't that much of a jump to make in terms of microevolution. If a jack russel and a great dane evolved from the same animal via microevolution, how is this change any different? Same goes for size.

Skull shape? (tied in with skeletal structures)- The difference between a greyhound and a bulldog?

Hair? Really, there are a lot of really hairy people out there, and some that have no hair at all. Is it that far a strectch to image a minor genetic change that reduced the amount, or that once some ansector was that hairy?

Intelligence? See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=31235 - most of the difference in intellignece are because of different levels of hormones in the body. The hormones are all there, just different quanitites regulate the size of growth and brain development. We have many genetic conditions today which create different levels of hormones which influence intelligence, growth and development within humans already today. Is there really that much of a difference?


Is there any single change which is not possible between the two? Where is the line drawn for microevolution?

[jcrawford]

I'm baffled how reporting the facts and nothing but the facts causes creationists to lose their intelligence. The fact that we descended from ape-like forbearers is as undeniable as the Earth going around the sun. It is confirmed by every new find in paleoanthropology. There is no doubt about these facts among real scientists, the "controversy" is made up out of whole cloth by creationist pseudo-scientists, most of whom are in it for a buck. No valid scientific evidence has ever been produced or submitted for peer review(as all evolution evidence has been) which supports their positions. Their only answer is "God did it". That may be good enough for a religion, it doesn't cut it for a science.

Grumpy

Looks like you're a dedicated, devout and angry believer in a religious form of natural science, Grumpy. Your extensive and authoritative knowledge about earthly reality and the facts that constitute it are almost god-like.

[Grumpy]

jcrawford

Looks like you're a dedicated, devout and angry believer in a religious form of natural science, Grumpy. Your extensive and authoritative knowledge about earthly reality and the facts that constitute it are almost god-like.

I could never suspend my intellect long enough to accept anything on just faith. In fact I consider anyone who can as weak minded, needing an emotional crutch in order to face the reality of the world. I don't even accept what scientists say without supporting evidence and logical argument. That's just me and always has been. Nothing supernatural about it.

The fact that you can twist these facts in your mind to equate religion and science shows that you know nothing about either, which given your posts so far, suprises me not one bit.

Grumpy

[Jose]

Looks like you're a dedicated, devout and angry believer in a religious form of natural science, Grumpy. Your extensive and authoritative knowledge about earthly reality and the facts that constitute it are almost god-like.

No, I'm afraid Ol' Grumps has it right. God's Creation Itself is the real thing. All those books that different people follow on Faith all claim to be The One Truth, but they aren't the same, so how can they be Truth? The only way to choose among them is by blind faith, in the total absence of evidence from the very world that Your Favorite Religion says its god or gods created. I think Ol' Grumps is just doing it the logical way: look at the world first, see what it tells us, and then decide what to "believe."

What's astonishing--and here I agree with Grumpy--is that there are those who not only refuse to acknowledge the data, but even invent fanciful stories about why the data must be wrong. But, you know, getting angry doesn't help. We're up against the Rusty Hand Grenade principle*, for which mere presentation of the facts is insufficient. It is necessary to discover an alternative that can be justified on religious grounds, that the evolution-deniers can hang onto while they examine the data. So far, we have not discovered such a religious alternative.

*The Rusty Hand Grenade essay is no longer available on the web, but can be found in The Creation Controversy & the Science Classroom (Originally published in RNCSE 23 (1): 20-22.( by James W Skehan and Craig E Nelson, Arlington (VA): NSTA Press, 2000. 56 pages. It goes like this: you have found a rusty hand grenade. It probably won't blow up if you pull the pin. Are you going to pull the pin? Not pulling the pin has little consequence. Pulling the pin could be disastrous. By analogy: choosing to deny the science has little consequence. However, accepting the science may mean that there might not be eternal salvation (IF you subscribe to the particular fundamentalist logic that artificially pits evolution against religion). Furthermore, even thinking about accepting the science puts you at risk for eternal damnation. The perceived risks of denying vs accepting the science are very different.

[jcrawford]

Looks like you're a dedicated, devout and angry believer in a religious form of natural science, Grumpy. Your extensive and authoritative knowledge about earthly reality and the facts that constitute it are almost god-like.

No, I'm afraid Ol' Grumps has it right. God's Creation Itself is the real thing. All those books that different people follow on Faith all claim to be The One Truth, but they aren't the same, so how can they be Truth?

I presume you are including all those books by neo-Darwinist writers who seem to exhibit great religious faith in the 'facts' generated by neo-Darwinist theory and 'evidence.' Since none of them are the same, none can be the truth, either.

The only way to choose among them is by blind faith, in the total absence of evidence from the very world that Your Favorite Religion says its god or gods created. I think Ol' Grumps is just doing it the logical way: look at the world first, see what it tells us, and then decide what to "believe."

Not being an expert on presuppositional logic systems, I can only assume that you and Grumpy are into a more modern and scientific form of religious belief than some of those other presuppositional religious sytems which have been around since the beginning of time.

Each to his or her own religion is my motto, and let history run its course, since such categorical imperatives as science, religion, logic and nature are all metaphysical concepts and ideas to begin with in the first place, and without which, we wouldn't be able to classify anything we observe or think we do, let alone sort out our own thoughts and feelings.

Meanwhile, back to the evolution of the human race and species.

[QED]

Each to his or her own religion is my motto, and let history run its course, since such categorical imperatives as science, religion, logic and nature are all metaphysical concepts and ideas to begin with in the first place, and without which, we wouldn't be able to classify anything we observe or think we do, let alone sort out our own thoughts and feelings.

Meanwhile, back to the evolution of the human race and species.

This is a favourite old chestnut. If it's permissible for you to dismiss science as 'just another religion' then there's absolutely no point in getting back to the original topic, or any other topic for that matter. Debates over divine revelations can be no more productive than counting the number of fairies on a pinhead.

If we are looking for some measure of coherence then we would do well to direct our attentions to the contents of different types of textbooks sampled from all over the world. If we picked up a maths book in Bombay or Baltimore I think we'd all expect to see exactly the same 'story'. If we picked up a Physics book in Algiers or Alabama we'd also see the same 'story'. Would you want to put your money on any of the books in the R.E. classes though?

The reason behind this difference should be instructive. It underlines the fallacy of your statement.

[Cathar1950]

So what happened? Is a difference between man and ape. I thought we were one of the great apes. Let us try dogs and man?

divine revelations can be no more productive than counting the number of fairies on a pinhead.

Which divine revelations? Actually "counting the angels on the head of a pin" is interesting if you want to look at the medieval world view.

[Jose]

God's Creation Itself is the real thing. All those books that different people follow on Faith all claim to be The One Truth, but they aren't the same, so how can they be Truth?

I presume you are including all those books by neo-Darwinist writers who seem to exhibit great religious faith in the 'facts' generated by neo-Darwinist theory and 'evidence.' Since none of them are the same, none can be the truth, either.

You fail to distinguish between facts and inferences from those facts. Everyone should have infinite confidence in the facts themselves. When it rains, things get wet. Rocks are hard, but can be eroded over time. Sediment settles to the bottoms of lakes and oceans. There is nothing religious about these facts or others. Anyone, creationists included, can make the same observations, and verify the same facts. No religious faith is required to recognize the facts. What you are concerned about here is the interpretation of the facts.

Now, if we are seeking The True Answer to the question, "how did the current world come about?" we would do well to recognize that we don't know the answer at the outset. Therefore, we collect facts, and try to explain them in the most coherent and consistent way. The bible itself is one such explanation, but based on the facts that were known 2000 years ago. 200 years ago we knew of more facts, and could offer more detailed explanations, but the facts we did not know prevented us from a fully accurate description. Now, we know of more facts still, and can offer even more detailed explanations--but with the caveat that there remain facts of which we are unaware.

So, while religion claims to provide Absolute Truth, science does not. It claims only to have the current explanations of the facts we currently think we know. Will scientific explanations change from time to time? Will different scientists argue about the details of their various proposed explanations? Of course! The only way to avoid this would be for the answers all to be known at the outset. Science knows we do not know the answers beforehand. Religion asserts that it does.

But then, science is able to investigate only the physical, natural portion of the universe. The spiritual world, which is the purview of religion, is inaccessible to the methods of science. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should be viewed as being in conflict.

The only way to choose among them is by blind faith, in the total absence of evidence from the very world that Your Favorite Religion says its god or gods created. I think Ol' Grumps is just doing it the logical way: look at the world first, see what it tells us, and then decide what to "believe."

Not being an expert on presuppositional logic systems, I can only assume that you and Grumpy are into a more modern and scientific form of religious belief than some of those other presuppositional religious sytems which have been around since the beginning of time.

See above. The only "presuppositional belief" that science holds is that it is possible to understand things. Given enough facts, and enough people kicking around ideas about how to interpret them, it should be possible to figure out a great many things.

Each to his or her own religion is my motto,

And a good motto it is. If only the Fundamentalist political activists held such a view, and wouldn't keep trying to force their particular religion onto everyone else. But alas, they do not hold to this motto of yours.