migamoo

I've seen the topic brought up in various conversations, but I don't think we've had an actually thread for it's discussion. If you'd like to discuss it, please remember to remain civil and not let yourself get to wrapped up in personal feelings about other posters.

Just for reference, here are the definitions for both terms:

Indian Summer

Hmm, I thought I'd address some of Jacob's questions here.

Paraphrasing:

How is it possible that your descendents can still be alive?
I think the issue here is the confusion between evolution and natural selection. While the two are definitely related, they aren't one in the same.

To oversimplify, it's possible for a person to be alive at the same time as their parents, grandparents, and even great grandparents. I know of a case where a girl had a baby when her great grandmother was still alive, actually.

Obviously, you can be alive at the same time as your descendents.

In the same way, humans can be on the planet at the same time as apes. If apes live in an environment where they're relatively safe and fit (in the productive sense, not athletic prowess), they aren't going to die out. Similarly, humans will migrate to areas more equipped for their survival.

Additionally, when we think of apes we actually aren't thinking of the version of ape that is our ancestor. Modern apes are in all reality, a distant cousin as opposed to a grandparent. We share an ancestor with apes, but we don't descend directly from the apes you'd find in Africa.


Why don't we look like apes then?
This migration explains pigmentation in people. We all started out in Africa, where the sun is more intense. This explains the greater amounts of melatonin (and therefore darker skin) in Africans, as skin tone is a natural protectant from the sun's harmful rays.

The less intense the sun, the lighter skin becomes.

Similarly, this is how humans lost the hair that characterized our earlier ancestors. As everyone knows, having a lot of hair isn't so great in hot weather. As human ancestors began to stand up, only the necessary hair, for the most part, remained. We kept the hair on our head to add protection from the sun, but over time most of the rest of it disappeared, as it made our bodies too hot under the brutal sun.


Any other proof?

A study of genetic material from humans and chimpanzees recognized that only 1.2% of our DNA is different. The other 98.8% is the same.

(Evidence)

migamoo

Thanks for that link, Summer. Very informative.

Indian Summer

You're welcome! We talked about this for quite a while in my last anthropology class, so I'll try to dig up some of my other stuff later.

To put it in perspective, though, that means that humans and chimps have more than 3,952,000,000 base units of DNA in common. There's really no way to explain this away other than saying they're related.

TheAngel

Hey Summer, look up Cladograms as well. It's helpful when looking and discussing the differences between humans and apes. We branched off from a common ancestor, that's our relationship but that's also why we don't look like them.

Take two children, follow their families for fifty generations. I bet the two branches won't look at all the same on the 50th generation.

migamoo

This is so true. I don't think people usually look at things like that though. And, I must say, I love your icon. Dune is an amazing book.

Indian Summer

Haha, I was trying to avoid bringing up cladograms. They get too complicated to explain to people who haven't seen them (or refuse to consider the possibility of evolution so ignore information presented). I can't find a good graphic for it online, so I'll dig out my anthro books in a little bit, lol.

ETA: Alright, I dug out my intro to anthro books from forever ago and found a couple good, relatively simple cladograms. Sorry for the quality on the left of the second one- it was the corner of the page and the scanner didn't do so great, lol.

Primates in general
Human ancestors

The only important thing that's blurry on the side is the top left skull- that's for Homo neanderthalensis. The scale is the same thing as on the other side, and the bar shows that Homo neanderthalensis died out fairly recently. *shrug*

Anyway, I have a feeling a thorough explanation would fall on deaf ears, so feel free to look at the graphics. As you can see, there's many branches and steps between "monkeys" and humans and how and when and where we formed, which explains the physical differences. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to explain.

migamoo

From the first one, it amazes me how much the Proconsul bones look human. There are totally differences, longer limps and pelvic bones for sure, but it's still very similar.

Indian Summer

I definitely agree, Ashley. And you can kind of tell why the bones changed to accomodate standing up and whatnot.

Jacob1983

Hold the phone! I never actually asked those questions or at least not the way they were worded in Indiansummer's post.

Sorry but all you evolution supporters or Darwin lovers really hurt your case against intelligent design. Ya wanna know why? Just look at the definition of the word. There is no mention of religion or the supernatural in the definition.

Well scientists can tell me that I am monkey until they are blue in the face but I will not believe them. Sorry but I'm just not buying it. You can throw all the stats and so-called proof at me.

My God and I believe 2 billion other people's God believe that God created humans in His own image. God ain't no monkey. For people to say that God is a monkey is really stupid and offensive.

I also laugh at all these scientists and archaelogists that name the dinosaurs and tell us how much they weighed, how tall they are, what they ate, how long they lived, and what color they are. I know they have bones of dinosuars but there is no way in my mind that scientists can know as much as they do say about dogs and cats as they toward dinosaurs.
Scientists did not live when dinosaurs did. Can someone please tell me how you can know what color a dinosaur was by looking at its bones and practically guessing?

If Christians and other religious people have to subjected to the teachings of evolution, then atheists and non religious people should be subjected to the teachings of intelligent design.
It has to be equal and fair right?

Indiansummer, how do you know all these things about the Earth's history and what happened bagillions of years ago? Did you live during that time period? Do you have degree or PhD in the field?

You guys always tell me that I have to proof on things so where is your proof? Are you going to tell me you are experts on the subject?

Indian Summer

What? That doesn't even make sense. "Intelligent being" implies just that, while still including other possibilities (ie. I had a teacher in high school who was convinced we were all created from stardust).

Anyway, if God created humans in his own image, then why is there such diversity? How is God black and white and everything in between? What about those born with disfiguring diseases- does God have three arms or a tail?

No scientist has claimed they know as much about dinosaurs as they know about dogs. On a side note, archaeologists have nothing to do with dinosaurs. Archaeologists study humans and human ancestors. You're thinking of paleontologists.

Anyway, there is a lot you can tell from bones. Scientists can determine age, approximate weight and gender from a human's leg bone. It takes them more bones to do the same thing with dinosaurs, and it's just simple science to figure out the details once the bones are placed together.

You can also discover diet through bones, to a certain extent. For example, there'd be more protein traces in/on bones of carnivorous dinosaurs than herbivores.

As for color, they generally know that only if scales are recovered, usually in fossilized manners (often in sap). It happens, but it's rare. Don't believe everything you see in Jurassic Park- just because a movie claims a bronosaurus is green doesn't mean any scientists have claimed they are.

No. It really isn't that simple. Evolution is a theory of science. Therefore, it's something to learn in a science class. Intelligent design, on the other hand, isn't a theory of science. If a student is taking a religion course in school, than yes, they should learn intelligent design. But it has no place in a science class.

I've taken multiple classes in Anthropology, Biology, and Astrobiology at Stanford. I've also scanned pages from my textbooks in the above posts, and linked articles. Most of what I've said, though, is common sense, and knowledge anyone who's completed high school should have.

froggiepopple

I think that line is taking way out of context by most people. Being created in His image does not have to necassarily mean his 'physical' image.

Jacob1983

Indiansummer, do you have a degree or PhD in everything?

Indian Summer

My name's Summer, Jacob; you can call me that.

And no, I don't have a degree in everything. But so far, the difference I see between me and you is I back up my points with evidence. I've linked sources and uploaded images from a textbook (Thames & Hudson: The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies if you want to check it out).

Leigh, I really don't get this. So how are we supposed to know that he did indeed create people in his image? Or that he isn't referencing not just what we consider humans, but humans as well as apes? Both walk right, have more movement in their thumb than other species, similar brain functionality. The only difference is intelligence, hair, and posture, really. Who are we to define what that image is?

froggiepopple

Like I said before it doesn't have to have anything to do with "Physical" image. Actually according to at least 2 religions associating a gender, body, face, etc with G-d is considered idolatry. This why I say it doesn't have to have anything to necassarily to do with physical apperance. I think if G-d actually created all humans in "physical" image He would look rather interesting. Also why only humans? Why not animals,plants, minerals, diseases, bacteria, viruses, one-celled creatures, etc? The difference between animals and humans are that animals are not given free choice. I think the statement is a reference to free choice. I could be wrong though.