It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where do you draw the line between human and ape?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thanks for replying,

You're actually the second person to point out my mistake. You are the first, however, to be an ass about it.

Well done,

Peace




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
You're actually the second person to point out my mistake. You are the first, however, to be an ass about it.

I couldn’t care less about your mistake. I do care about the arrogance and discourtesy you displayed towards one of my ATS friends while making it.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
There is no line between humans and apes. Humans are apes.
It's like asking where do you draw the line between chihuahuas and dogs. The question doesn't even make any sense.
edit on 18-5-2011 by Firepac because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I believe that evolution played a part in the rise of man, but I do find some aspects of the theory to be quite troublesome. If our DNA has not been manipulated by some form of intelligence, then how can the mindless DNA call for changes in an species? Sure, if blue butterflies find a different food supply, the chemicals in the new source could change the color to red or yellow or whatever. But, this can't explain why a species would lose a tail or why the change in the pelvic area, allowing a creature to stand upright.

The sperm and egg of monkeys will contain the information to create another monkey, and this will occur forever and ever. No matter how much an environment would call for change, how can the DNA read that environment and then 'decide' to grow a voice box, lose a tail, alter the brain so that it can think deep thoughts...? The only way I can see a change in a species (even over millions of years) is if the information is already IN the DNA. And, that would imply that the DNA has been programmed by an advanced race of...?...aliens.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I believe that evolution played a part in the rise of man, but I do find some aspects of the theory to be quite troublesome. If our DNA has not been manipulated by some form of intelligence, then how can the mindless DNA call for changes in an species?


Mutation + natural selection



Sure, if blue butterflies find a different food supply, the chemicals in the new source could change the color to red or yellow or whatever. But, this can't explain why a species would lose a tail or why the change in the pelvic area, allowing a creature to stand upright.


Well, that's not how that change is explained.



The sperm and egg of monkeys will contain the information to create another monkey, and this will occur forever and ever.


You, yes you, were born with 100-200 mutations. That's 100-200 differences in your DNA from your parents.



No matter how much an environment would call for change, how can the DNA read that environment and then 'decide' to grow a voice box, lose a tail, alter the brain so that it can think deep thoughts...?


It doesn't. The DNA merely mutates, then some of those mutations end up being beneficial while others end up being detrimental. The beneficial mutations help organisms survive, therefore they pass on their mutations.



The only way I can see a change in a species (even over millions of years) is if the information is already IN the DNA. And, that would imply that the DNA has been programmed by an advanced race of...?...aliens.


No, that's a false conclusion. Try and look in to some of the basics of evolutionary theory, you'll find that it's interesting stuff.

reply to post by Firepac
 


Congratulations, that's the point of this thread.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


[b[MUTATION: In molecular biology and genetics, mutations are changes in a genomic sequence: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. They can be defined as sudden and spontaneous changes in the cell. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication

YES! If the information for changes in a species is not already present in the DNA, then evolution is actually one mistake after another. I have already mentioned that a monkey egg and sperm will always create another monkey, but not if the egg and/or sperm has been violated in some way (radiation or disease). This makes more sense to me, and the rise of man can be considered just dumb luck.

This, however, brings into question the belief that intelligent life is prevalent throughout the universe. There may be living organisms all over the place, but without that dumb luck we could very well be alone in our ability to think deep thoughts.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   


Where do you draw the line between human and ape?

If you are reading and replying to this thread then you are not an ape.

But to be more fair I'll give you the answer you wanted. Of course apes look like humans in many ways but then there are other animals that share traits with humans. Nearly all vertebrae animals with forelimbs have 5 fingers, they have a skull, 2 eyes, and whales even have a femur. Quite obviously there is a pattern and what you ascribe to pure randomness has an apparent purpose and design. I think we differ only in reason and causation for the change from bacteria to humans. You see them as being 100% random and I see them as being partly random, mostly designed/crafted/guided. Someone is monkeying around with the DNA.

Take the Cambrian Explosion for instance. The earth had only simple bacteria and then was in a snowball frozen state for 1.2 billion years. Right after this thaw there are fossil records that detial species with eyes, legs, gills that have no apparent predecessor. The gap between the bacteria and mass diversification of complex animals was difficult for even Darwin to explain. There was a cause for this sudden bloom of complex life but we don't have any record of it. It would not be too much of a stretch to imply that an outside force guided this change and not pure randomness.

Are apes like humans? Yes in many ways, but they are still not human. What is the bridge, the direct link? This is the holy grail of evolution but despite the efforts to include or exclude fossils from the equation based on their similarity to humans this bridge is yet to be crossed. Something outside of our grasp crossed this bridge and monkeyed with the DNA making the leap between human and ape. This difference between man and ape is far more than DNA. Are the apes intelligent? Sure but they lack that special something that humans have and I doubt that piecing all the bones in the world together can re-create this bridge. The non-physical difference is too great. Spending all the time focused on the similarities is a farce when the differences are even greater.

We are to apes what a Bugatti is to the Model-T Ford. The former required careful thought and consideration to craft even though it is based on the latter.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 



Originally posted by dbates


Where do you draw the line between human and ape?

If you are reading and replying to this thread then you are not an ape.


Then I must not be a human either


Family: Homindae

Can't argue with genetics.


But to be more fair I'll give you the answer you wanted. Of course apes look like humans in many ways but then there are other animals that share traits with humans.





Nearly all vertebrae animals with forelimbs have 5 fingers, they have a skull, 2 eyes, and whales even have a femur.


Yes, all evidence of common descent. Hell, we can even trace the divergences and genetics even demonstrates when they happened. We can map it on the phylogenetic 'tree'



Quite obviously there is a pattern and what you ascribe to pure randomness has an apparent purpose and design.


Straw man. Old one. If evolution is pure randomness then so is choosing only square pegs to fit square holes. Evolution selects for survival, which is far from random. It is guided by environmental and sexual pressures working on random genetic variations within a population.

And I've seen clouds with apparent design, doesn't mean I think someone made the cloud look like a motorcycle. We have brains that are wired to see patterns. Why? Because it aids survival. If you're more likely to think the rustling in the bushes is a predator than just a gust of wind, you're going to be a bit more jittery but you'll also be more likely to survive.

It's why we ascribe purpose and design so readily.



I think we differ only in reason and causation for the change from bacteria to humans.


Bacteria to humans? Who said that I necessarily believed that our last universal common ancestor was a bacteria?



You see them as being 100% random and I see them as being partly random, mostly designed/crafted/guided. Someone is monkeying around with the DNA.


That straw man again. It's not 100% random and there is no percentage that can be ascribed because there is so much life on Earth and each species has different rates of mutation and different environmental pressures.

And there's a difference, the modern evolutionary consensus has evidence. Your conclusion has none to support it.



Take the Cambrian Explosion for instance. The earth had only simple bacteria and then was in a snowball frozen state for 1.2 billion years. Right after this thaw there are fossil records that detial species with eyes, legs, gills that have no apparent predecessor.


Yeah, gross oversimplification. And it's an old hat argument. I mean, you can go to Nygdan's old "Index to Creationist Claims" thread and get an answer by following the talk origins link.



The gap between the bacteria and mass diversification of complex animals was difficult for even Darwin to explain.


What do you mean by "even Darwin"? Darwin wasn't the end-all or even the greatest evolutionary biologist. He was merely the pioneer. Darwin couldn't even explain how traits were passed on from one generation to another, of course he couldn't explain the Cambrian 'explosion'.



There was a cause for this sudden bloom of complex life but we don't have any record of it. It would not be too much of a stretch to imply that an outside force guided this change and not pure randomness.


It would be too much of a stretch because there would be clear evidence instead of the evidence that we have that clearly contradicts everything you just said.



Are apes like humans? Yes in many ways, but they are still not human.


All humans are apes. Some apes are humans. Not all apes are human. It's not that hard of a concept to wrap your head around. "Ape" is a distinction.

Oh, and if you note, all of the species in the image are extinct except for the first and last skulls, which are Chimps and Humans respectively.



What is the bridge, the direct link?


Well, we have lots of links. There isn't one.



This is the holy grail of evolution but despite the efforts to include or exclude fossils from the equation based on their similarity to humans this bridge is yet to be crossed.


Except that it has. And that we have so many damn links in this 'bridge' and yet you still pretend its not there, primarily due to you not knowing much about human evolution.



Something outside of our grasp crossed this bridge and monkeyed with the DNA making the leap between human and ape. This difference between man and ape is far more than DNA.


Really? There exists something about biological differences not encoded in DNA? Can you please submit this finding for publication, because that would be Nobel material.



Are the apes intelligent? Sure but they lack that special something that humans have and I doubt that piecing all the bones in the world together can re-create this bridge.


Well, what is it that Homo Erectus lacked? They made tools. Hell, even that 'hobbit' species made tools. Incredibly distinct tools, ones that are formed differently from those made by other species.



The non-physical difference is too great. Spending all the time focused on the similarities is a farce when the differences are even greater.


Please, demonstrate that non-physical difference. What is the non-physical difference between Homo heidelbergensis and modern humans? What is the non-physical difference between Homo antecessor and modern humans? What is the non-physical difference between Homo erectus and modern humans? What is the non-physical difference between Homo habilis and modern humans?



We are to apes what a Bugatti is to the Model-T Ford. The former required careful thought and consideration to craft even though it is based on the latter.


Yeah, even though we only have a few percentage points of difference in DNA.

I thought this was a forum that denied ignorance instead of reveling in it.

This might be a good place for you to start actually learning about this stuff you're talking about.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


[b[MUTATION: In molecular biology and genetics, mutations are changes in a genomic sequence: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. They can be defined as sudden and spontaneous changes in the cell. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication


Yeah, that's pretty accurate. Though it doesn't cover the four different types of mutations (insertions, deletions, substitutions, and duplications...pretty easy to figure out what those mean)



YES! If the information for changes in a species is not already present in the DNA, then evolution is actually one mistake after another.


Well, it's the natural or sexual selection of 'mistakes'.



I have already mentioned that a monkey egg and sperm will always create another monkey,


Evolution isn't speciation within a generation. I'm talking about what happens in 1000 generations. Will the product of reproduction after 1000 generations necessarily be the same species as the ancestral group? No.



but not if the egg and/or sperm has been violated in some way (radiation or disease). This makes more sense to me, and the rise of man can be considered just dumb luck.


Not dumb luck. Selection. The more intelligent pre-humans survived.



This, however, brings into question the belief that intelligent life is prevalent throughout the universe. There may be living organisms all over the place, but without that dumb luck we could very well be alone in our ability to think deep thoughts.


More if there are environments where intelligence isn't as useful for survival, but think more about the vastness of the universe when you consider it. Not much luck needed to get another result when you're running the experiment so many times.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I've definitely met some people that are closer to chimpanzees than humans.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I dunno where I'd draw the line. I've seen all sorts of evolutionary pathways, and they all seem to make sense. With other species, like whales and horses for example, I can see an obvious pattern in their evolution.

When we get to human evolution, though, it's always looked like somebody just threw a bunch of skulls in a bucket, dumped them out, and then decided that was the order of human descent.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Westboro Baptist Church Thug: Ape
Everyone Else: Human



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


You're being entirely unfair to apes comparing them to WBC.
I think especially sensitive gorillas would take great offense.


After completing my first phylogenetic tree I can safely say... what line?


For those who automatically jump to the argument that "well gorillas are still around, shouldn't they have evolved into something else by now?" you just need to Google "Bonobos" and you'll find that we have an example of recent chimpanzee evolution.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well...Humans walk upright...that's all I can gather. We're still primates though.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Why is there a need to "draw a line?" Is there some huge logical implication I am missing if I fail to "draw a line?"

Your post showed a series of skulls. These have been classified by our scientists into different categories based on their characteristics. These characteristics are determined by the active genes in the live body's cells. And so the creation of different body types is done by changing the genetics of the sex cells of the bodies you are making the new body from, or through cloning. You are going to tell me that there was no intelligence involved in figuring out how to do all that? You can believe that if you want to.

You are very insistent that "we are primates."

NO: We are using primate bodies here on earth. They are somewhat well-adapted to this environment, so they were chosen to be the bodies of choice for "intelligent beings" on earth. In a very different environment you'd use a different type of body.

I'm giving you the real rundown. You don't have to believe it. I don't have to believe it. But we all have to live with the choices we make. Good luck to you!



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I do not think there can be a line draw between human and ape based on number of bones, perhaps DNA and of course free will to shave or not. I was thinking somewhere between the homos (D) and the rest.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Well there is a definite line so I draw it, correctly, in between. We are two seperate species who share a common ancestor. Is there anything more that can be said about this thread?

Done


Err basically, he's asking... not what is the difference between humans and monkeys of any kind, he's asking how you don't believe in evolution given the evidence.

He then posted a picture to posit his point.

And it went over everyones head....

*Sigh*

The fact is, how can you look at that and not say we share a commen ancestor..... Also, for the missing link argument... I thought that was dead in 1998.....

The missing link WAS supposed to be the transitionary form... meaning a common ancestor. Once they proved that, they changed the missing link argument to...

You don't get it, we meant transitionary form.... if you say fish grew legs, find me a fish with a leg.

Except that's not how evolution works... That would be an adaptation of a very, very, very, large and uncapable nature.

Evolution didn't happen in any ONE animals life. The traits slowly evolve through the generations, not ever... in one life of a creature.

It's this logical fallacy that causes people to believe there is a missing link, when there infact -- is not.

We have a chart of common ancestry now. It shows what species split off of what and so on... with fossil evidence to back it up.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Why is there a need to "draw a line?" Is there some huge logical implication I am missing if I fail to "draw a line?"

Your post showed a series of skulls. These have been classified by our scientists into different categories based on their characteristics. These characteristics are determined by the active genes in the live body's cells. And so the creation of different body types is done by changing the genetics of the sex cells of the bodies you are making the new body from, or through cloning. You are going to tell me that there was no intelligence involved in figuring out how to do all that? You can believe that if you want to.

You are very insistent that "we are primates."

NO: We are using primate bodies here on earth. They are somewhat well-adapted to this environment, so they were chosen to be the bodies of choice for "intelligent beings" on earth. In a very different environment you'd use a different type of body.

I'm giving you the real rundown. You don't have to believe it. I don't have to believe it. But we all have to live with the choices we make. Good luck to you!




Very interesting theory, however, this could only be true if we are infact planted here by extra terrestrial life. This doesn't jive with the God Story... It does jive with the evolution story.... but it's modified to "Forced Evolution" although, I subscribe to that chain of thinking.... natural evolution still exists outside of what we consider "Domesticated" animals.

The only species on the planet that made the DNA and geneology triggers that humans did, are all plants and animals that are considered "Domesticated." A domesticated animal or plant is one that has the DNA splice akin to humans.

Fact not fiction. So what ever evolved us, also evolved our dogs, cats, impatients(flowers) etc... which is why Domestic animals are not "Wild" beasts... they are societalized... which would imply that they too, are sentient.

Puts a new definition on mans best friend doesn't it? Ever question where a dogs love comes from? From the same place ours does...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ah, but every time a new fossil is found, that creates two NEW gaps! You can't win.

In all seriousness, it was the hominid fossils that really sold me on on evolutionary explanation of human origins about 30 years ago. There are a growing number of fossils that were clearly more human than ape, but weren't quite human. What is more, they get more human like with time. I could only see two creationist explanations of this:


  1. All the fossils are a massive conspiratorial hoax
  2. Almighty God made a number of prototypes, found them wanting, and reworked them many times.


Or, humans evolved over millions of years.

Since then, the DNA evidence has become even more compelling than the fossils - for example, the endogenous retroviruses we share with chimps. Now Jehovah is just plain messingwith us (or, we evolved from a common ancestor).
edit on 31-5-2011 by disownedsky because: misspelling



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by disownedsky
 


Or the devil is messing with us...which I find even more hilarious because what happens when the person who thinks that the devil is trying to tempt us meets the person who thinks god is testing our faith? I've yet to actually encounter that situation, but I hope to have a video camera ready if I ever see it in person.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join