View Poll Results: Homo Sapiens are apes?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    64 73.56%
  • No

    23 26.44%
Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 137

Thread: Homo Sapiens are Apes!925 days old

  1. #61
    Established Member
    Race Scientist Fedex's Avatar
    Last Online
    2014-08-19 @ 02:19
    Join Date
    2009-10-24
    Posts
    1,790
    Gender
    Age
    28
    Ethnicity
    Chilean
    Phenotype
    Mediterranic
    Chile

    Default

    This "debate" is only between extreme religious people and stupid atheists.

    For intelligent people (religious or not) this is an undebatable fact.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads




     
     

  3. #62
    Established Member
    Junior Member Pulaar's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-09-09 @ 13:09
    Join Date
    2012-02-08
    Posts
    916
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Negrid
    Metaethnos
    Fulani/Mbundu
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican/Antiguan
    United States Jamaica Antigua & Barbuda Guinea-Bissau Angola

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    I think you should apply this notion to the writers of religious texts as well.
    Touche...but creationism is not religious

  4. #63
    Established Member
    The Proletariat JaM's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-30
    Posts
    3,704
    Location
    Ultima Thule
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Nordbo
    Ethnicity
    Danish
    Politics
    Relativism
    Religion
    None
    Denmark Viking Finland Spain Castile

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pulaar View Post
    Touche...but creationism is not religious
    What is it then, if not a matter of belief? I suppose you could say that the idea of creation doesn't have to have any kind of ties to any specific religion. That's true. However, the sources you've posted and the terminology you use is based on sources of fundamentalist Christian origin. The whole discussion is basically a "science vs. fundamentalist Christian religion" discussion, and it's certainly understood within the creators of creationists sources that all purpose of what they do is to promote US fundamentalist Christianity, and nothing else. Their whole agenda is a religious one, whether it's your agenda or not.

    You may think that that's not the case - but it just is. It has changed a bit because of the various discussions, especially the legal discussions in the USA regarding this subject (the alternative "theory" to evolution*). But make no mistake, regardless of what it's called, "creationism" is a movement made because the bible states that humans are special and created in the image of God and therefore the idea of a common ancestry just doesn't fit very well with a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of the bible.

    The only reason why this issue exist is because some religious leaders were uncomfortable with the idea that people would be taught ideas in school which conflicted with their fundamentalist views - because it made it possible for students to realize - if this part of my religious teachings are false - then what else is false? And you know what the consequence of this kind of thinking is, I presume.

    *the idea of evolution is not a single theory as such, but if we consider it a theory, then it can be falsified - but that does not require any alternative theory, and the problem in the US is that creationism is considered an "alternative theory" when in fact it's not a scientific theory, it's based on the falsification of the theory of evolution, and the evidence for this creation is the bible.

    Even if the whole concept of evolution is totally wrong, that doesn't mean that the idea of a direct creation by a higher power is true. There is no alternative scientific theory available - or maybe there is, but it's not related to creationism.
    Last edited by JaM; 2012-04-13 at 18:18.
    "A bloke walks into a pub, and asks for a pint of Adenosinetriphosphate.
    The barman says "That'll be ATP please!"

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JaM For This Useful Post:

    Hevneren (2012-04-28), Ozrage (2012-04-21), ZephyrousMandaru (2012-04-21)

  6. #64
    Established Member
    Junior Member Pulaar's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-09-09 @ 13:09
    Join Date
    2012-02-08
    Posts
    916
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Negrid
    Metaethnos
    Fulani/Mbundu
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican/Antiguan
    United States Jamaica Antigua & Barbuda Guinea-Bissau Angola

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    What is it then, if not a matter of belief? I suppose you could say that the idea of creation doesn't have to have any kind of ties to any specific religion. That's true. However, the sources you've posted and the terminology you use is based on sources of fundamentalist Christian origin. The whole discussion is basically a "science vs. fundamentalist Christian religion" discussion, and it's certainly understood within the creators of creationists sources that all purpose of what they do is to promote US fundamentalist Christianity, and nothing else. Their whole agenda is a religious one, whether it's your agenda or not.

    You may think that that's not the case - but it just is. It has changed a bit because of the various discussions, especially the legal discussions in the USA regarding this subject (the alternative "theory" to evolution*). But make no mistake, regardless of what it's called, "creationism" is a movement made because the bible states that humans are special and created in the image of God and therefore the idea of a common ancestry just doesn't fit very well with a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of the bible.

    The only reason why this issue exist is because some religious leaders were uncomfortable with the idea that people would be taught ideas in school which conflicted with their fundamentalist views - because it made it possible for students to realize - if this part of my religious teachings are false - then what else is false? And you know what the consequence of this kind of thinking is, I presume.

    *the idea of evolution is not a single theory as such, but if we consider it a theory, then it can be falsified - but that does not require any alternative theory, and the problem in the US is that creationism is considered an "alternative theory" when in fact it's not a scientific theory, it's based on the falsification of the theory of evolution, and the evidence for this creation is the bible.

    Even if the whole concept of evolution is totally wrong, that doesn't mean that the idea of a direct creation by a higher power is true. There is no alternative scientific theory available - or maybe there is, but it's not related to creationism.

    I would slightly agree with u but from a different angle...Creationism without a doubt advances Christianity...but becuase Creation theory has diversity amongst its group I dont think we can fully label it. Young Earth Creationist follow the biblical story word for word but most other Creationist dont. There main defense is as follows: "It's not religious to say your computer was intelligently designed with a purpose, Its religious to say who designed it".

  7. #65
    Established Member
    The Proletariat JaM's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-30
    Posts
    3,704
    Location
    Ultima Thule
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Nordbo
    Ethnicity
    Danish
    Politics
    Relativism
    Religion
    None
    Denmark Viking Finland Spain Castile

    Default

    So, what other evidence than a religious one is there that the other apes and humans are unrelated? All scientific evidence seems to suggest that apes and humans are related, based on the general understanding of biology as we know it now. Obviously some specifics may change, but unless the whole idea of genetics turn out to be wrong, then the overall assumption of a relation is the direct conclusion based on the available evidence as of now. Of course, the evidence suggests that all "higher" animals have a sort of relation, and the label "apes" is just a label. The categorizing of animals is not a completely solid science, because it's often based on morphology rather than a true determined relation. In the case of apes it's based on all kinds of evidence, including morphology and genetics etc.
    Last edited by JaM; 2012-04-20 at 09:33.
    "A bloke walks into a pub, and asks for a pint of Adenosinetriphosphate.
    The barman says "That'll be ATP please!"

  8. #66
    Established Member
    Hokey Pokey Kwestos's Avatar
    Last Online
    2014-10-19 @ 20:07
    Join Date
    2011-01-04
    Posts
    8,687
    Gender
    Race
    Quadracial
    Phenotype
    Orientalid
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    Silvio Berlusconi
    Religion
    Voodoo
    Poland United Kingdom

    Default

    I voted No but I dont mean that I dont believe in evolution or deny the common ancestors of humans ad other apes, but I believe homo sapiens evolved much diffferently than the other apes to lump it together.
    Maybe humans are more genetically similar to chimps than gorilas ae to chimps, but the look, behaviour, abilities (at least in our cotext) divide humans much more.
    Am I right or am I wrong?

  9. #67
    Established Member
    Junior Member Pulaar's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-09-09 @ 13:09
    Join Date
    2012-02-08
    Posts
    916
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Negrid
    Metaethnos
    Fulani/Mbundu
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican/Antiguan
    United States Jamaica Antigua & Barbuda Guinea-Bissau Angola

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    So, what other evidence than a religious one is there that the other apes and humans are unrelated? All scientific evidence seems to suggest that apes and humans are related, based on the general understanding of biology as we know it now. Obviously some specifics may change, but unless the whole idea of genetics turn out to be wrong, then the overall assumption of a relation is the direct conclusion based on the available evidence as of now. Of course, the evidence suggests that all "higher" animals have a sort of relation, and the label "apes" is just a label. The categorizing of animals is not a completely solid science, because it's often based on morphology rather than a true determined relation. In the case of apes it's based on all kinds of evidence, including morphology and genetics etc.
    I wouldnt know of any other possible evidence. Maybe there is none. No idea. In a way i think you kinda answered your own question. I think all creatures on this planet are related some closer than others. Thats my best answer. Im just saying neither theory holds much weight. Too many holes in both.

    I guess I have a question...Would you say based on your knowledge that humans are a higher form of ape or apes evolving from humans is a fact of life? Or is it that the evidence suggest that and therefore we can safely assume it to be true?

  10. #68
    Established Member
    The Proletariat JaM's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-30
    Posts
    3,704
    Location
    Ultima Thule
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Nordbo
    Ethnicity
    Danish
    Politics
    Relativism
    Religion
    None
    Denmark Viking Finland Spain Castile

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pulaar View Post
    I wouldnt know of any other possible evidence. Maybe there is none. No idea. In a way i think you kinda answered your own question. I think all creatures on this planet are related some closer than others. Thats my best answer. Im just saying neither theory holds much weight. Too many holes in both.

    I guess I have a question...Would you say based on your knowledge that humans are a higher form of ape or apes evolving from humans is a fact of life? Or is it that the evidence suggest that and therefore we can safely assume it to be true?
    The evidence available as of now suggests that this is the case, but that doesn't mean that it's an absolute truth. However, we can only relate to the available evidence and not to the evidence which we don't have. It's always possible that there is some other explanation which we haven't thought of yet, because of a lack of evidence. Whether humans are a "higher" form than the other apes depends on how you look at it, and I'd say it's a debatable presumption.

    If we take the rather lacking fossil evidence, then we can't actually say for sure that humans evolved from any of the species that we have found. It could just as well be that we didn't evolve from any known species, and that we may never find the ancestral hominids ever. Even if we actually find (or have found) our ancestral species, we still can't be 100% sure that those are our actual ancestors.
    "A bloke walks into a pub, and asks for a pint of Adenosinetriphosphate.
    The barman says "That'll be ATP please!"

  11. #69
    Established Member
    Member / DNA Hobbyist thetick's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 06:43
    Join Date
    2011-12-27
    Posts
    1,227
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    SRY 2627
    mtDNA
    H5a1f
    Phenotype
    Archaic Nomenclature
    Politics
    Not a Fan
    Dodecad
    DOD487
    Eurogenes
    DEPL2
    MDLP
    v171
    United States Germany Poland Poland Volhynia Switzerland Scotland
    Software Freedom Conservancy Open Source Initiative Plan 9 from Bell Labs Tux

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    Even if we actually find (or have found) our ancestral species, we still can't be 100% sure that those are our actual ancestors.
    I disagree. With full gnome testing on neanderthal we know what percentage of our gnome we share, so science could certainly confirm 100% sure if various hominids are are direct ancestors or just share a common ancestor. I do agree with everything else you stated.

  12. #70
    Established Member
    Junior Member Qu84's Avatar
    Last Online
    2014-09-25 @ 00:27
    Join Date
    2012-01-06
    Posts
    395
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Politics
    No thanks!
    Religion
    Yes/No/Maybe
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    I voted No but I dont mean that I dont believe in evolution or deny the common ancestors of humans ad other apes, but I believe homo sapiens evolved much diffferently than the other apes to lump it together.
    Maybe humans are more genetically similar to chimps than gorilas ae to chimps, but the look, behaviour, abilities (at least in our cotext) divide humans much more.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cKg9D4QKCM

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Qu84 For This Useful Post:

    Kwestos (2012-04-21)

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Race Biology in Sweden (Homo Sapiens 1900)
    By EliasAlucard in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2014-01-26, 23:37
  2. Why do apes still “knuckle-walk”?
    By Otzi in forum Evolution
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2011-09-18, 02:07
  3. Homo Sapiens Sapiens migration & nutrition.
    By jibanes in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-05-04, 13:31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<