[_ Old Earth _] Why did God make us look SO much like other primates?

[Featherbop]

If god made humans vastly different from other apes, and/or made humans very different from other life forms, then what would that be evidence of?

 

[Heidi]

When I look at most primates, it is obvious that they share a very close resemblance to humans, and I have to wonder why, when there are so many different looking creatures out there, . . . why God would make us look SO similar to "just another animal" when God COULD have given us an image that was starkly different than the other animals. :-?

Because in order to survive in the world God created, both humans and animals all have to have:

1) A heart
20 A brain
3) Lungs
4) A reproductive system
5) A circulatory system
6) A nervous system
7) Skin
8) 2 eyes, some kind os ears, a nose, and a mouth

And many, many more similarities than differences. And that is precisely why human DNA is similar to animals. God also set up a hierchy of predators in the animal kingdom which works perfectly. In the OT he tells us what to eat, what not to eat. That is another reason for the differences in animals.

But since the whole goal of evolution is to reject God, evolutionists have either overlooked those reasons or dismissed them. So they had to find some alternative explanation. And that's why they jump to erroneous conclusion that since we look alike, one must have come from the other. : That's called tunnel vision because it excludes any other explanation other than one species must have come from another.

But that doesn't happen in the real world, only in the imaginations of men who want to deny God. So they look at skulls and bones and imagine what they could be, then call their imaginary scenarios evidence. Sorry, but imagining what skulls and bones could be is no different than a child finding bones in the dirt, and exclaiming; "Mommy, this bone looks like a monster!"

And considering that no animal breeds human beings, then of course, the theory of evolution is not only false, but ludicrous as well. :

So man's explanations are far more irrational and unreal than anything in the bible. ;-)

 

[Quath]

But since the whole goal of evolution is to reject God, evolutionists have either overlooked those reasons or dismissed them.

This is a silly claim. There are many Christians that accept evolution because of the evidence. Are you saying that Christians that accept evolution are looking to reject God?

And considering that no animal breeds human beings, then of course, the theory of evolution is not only false, but ludicrous as well. :

So you think that over 95% of scientists are so loopy that they never thought of this? Have you ever thought to understand how they explain this or is it tunnel vision that keeps you from understanding?

So man's explanations are far more irrational and unreal than anything in the bible. ;-)

Umm. An immovable earth, space held up by a firmament, diseases caused by demons, and a global flood that leaves no evidence is not very rational.

 

[Heidi]

Umm. An immovable earth, space held up by a firmament, diseases caused by demons, and a global flood that leaves no evidence is not very rational.

I could care less whether or not the whole world accepts evolution. The truth can't be determined by a vote. Virtually all doctors in the 19th century believed that bleeding people cured illnesses. :o So the majority doesn't determine what's true or false.

People either believe God in Genesis or Satan who is the ruler of the air and entices the world to disagree with the bible.

No evidence of a global flood? :o Scientists who disagree with the bible have, for years, tried to explain the evidence of a flood in the sedimentary rock layers all over the world. Sediment comes from water and all fossils are found in sediment. These explanations have ranged from ice melting from an ice age to a giant world-wide tsunami as I jsut heard one scientist on the Science Discovery Channel say. :

So yes indeed, there is evidence of a flood. But people whose whole goal is to deny God come up with even more bizarre and irrational claims than a flood! That just shows how deceptive Satan can be. He can deceive people into thinking:

1) Animals can breed human offspring
2) That men came from martians (as I just heard another scientist claim)
3) Humans cam from volcanic debris :

Satan deceives people into thinking that what is a lie is the truth and that the truth is a lie. But his lies aren't even good lies. He just has enough power to deceive people into believing lies that can easily be seen through by those who really seek the truth. So man's explanation for the origin of life and man are not only irrational, impossible and bizarre, tbut they're a riot! : That indeed demonstrates, "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God sight.' ;-)

 

[Quath]

I could care less whether or not the whole world accepts evolution. The truth can't be determined by a vote. Virtually all doctors in the 19th century believed that bleeding people cured illnesses. :o So the majority doesn't determine what's true or false.

I agree that truth is not determined by popularity. Science works off of observations. The bleeding from doctors was not even science. It was horrible guesswork with no concept of seeing if they were right. The medical field was a holdout to to the scientific method for a long time.

1) Animals can breed human offspring

So lets just look at another example of something we have observed. We find a salamander family that is spreading out. They don't travel far, so what we see spread out is the children of each generation. So Salamanader A has a child, B. B has C. C has D. And so forth. Salamander A also has other children that stay in the same area called A1 who have children A2, etc.

Each child is slightly different from its parent. We can see this in humans since no child is a clone of either parent. DNA also undergoes mutations and other small changes. So the children tend to have a tiny new variation in their DNA.

What we find is that Salamander Z can not reproduce with Slamanader A26. (Not sure of the exact number of generations it takes for this, but that is irrelevant.) In other words, these salamanders had the same great-great-great...great grandparents but they are no so different over the generations that they are no longer compatible to be of the same kind.

So we see a new species form. This slamander family has begun splitting into a new species.

Now we can imagine the same type of process occuring in homo erectus or some other homminid to produce a human being.

So what part in all of this do you doubt? Do you think that salamanders will not do as I described? Do you doubt homo-erectus existed?

 

[Heidi]

So lets just look at another example of something we have observed. We find a salamander family that is spreading out. They don't travel far, so what we see spread out is the children of each generation. So Salamanader A has a child, B. B has C. C has D. And so forth. Salamander A also has other children that stay in the same area called A1 who have children A2, etc.

Each child is slightly different from its parent. We can see this in humans since no child is a clone of either parent. DNA also undergoes mutations and other small changes. So the children tend to have a tiny new variation in their DNA.

What we find is that Salamander Z can not reproduce with Slamanader A26. (Not sure of the exact number of generations it takes for this, but that is irrelevant.) In other words, these salamanders had the same great-great-great...great grandparents but they are no so different over the generations that they are no longer compatible to be of the same kind.

So we see a new species form. This slamander family has begun splitting into a new species.

Now we can imagine the same type of process occuring in homo erectus or some other homminid to produce a human being.

So what part in all of this do you doubt? Do you think that salamanders will not do as I described? Do you doubt homo-erectus existed?

Each humans is slightly different from his parents also. But that doesn't mean that humans are turning into another species other than human! :

And that's where evolutionists go astray. They observe something, then make leaps to judgments which lead to faulty conclusions because they live in their imaginations instead of observing reality to see what each animal and human breeds.

Do you know what causes genetic differences in individuals? Genes. Not the notion that humans are changing from one sepcies to another. :

So the theory of evolution is even more horrible than the belief that bleeding cures disease because even children can see what each animal breeds! :roll:

 

[unred typo]

Quath wrote:

So we see a new species form. This slamander family has begun splitting into a new species.

Now we can imagine the same type of process occuring in homo erectus or some other homminid to produce a human being.

So what part in all of this do you doubt? Do you think that salamanders will not do as I described? Do you doubt homo-erectus existed?

We could reasonably imagine such a thing if it were not for the history recorded that explains how man was created and the witness within our hearts that confirms that this narrative is true. The fact that he gave animals the ability to adapt shows that God wanted the original varieties to flourish into even more diversity. He is a God who creates amazing arrays of incredible complexities better than a Swiss watchmaker. You gotta love that. There are creatures even more amazing in other realms that only a few prophets have been privileged to see and found hard to describe.

I believe the progression we see in nature is more like the improvements we might observe in an artist’s or inventor’s work. Stick figures and simplicity followed by more complexity or better adaptations. By the end of the fifth day, he was just showing off! I know you have heard that God never changes, but that refers to his objectives and character and his being unaffected by the passing of time. The Bible record shows that in relation to his creatures to whom he has given volition and a free hand to make decisions apart from his will, he is learning while still in ultimate control.

 

[Quath]

We could reasonably imagine such a thing if it were not for the history recorded that explains how man was created and the witness within our hearts that confirms that this narrative is true.

A common example I use that the part of the Bible which says the Earth does not move. When science was saying the Earth does move, many Christians said they knew this was not true from the Bible. The lesson that should have been learned is that people who use the Bible can get fundamental science wrong based on it.

There are many such evidences for evolution. One of my favorite is the retroviruses example. They try to copy their DNA into their host's DNA. If the cell they attack is a sperm or egg, then the virus's DNA is recorded (in a pretty random place along the DNA). This is very much like a fingerprint. If this happens to two different animals, the DNA is marked in different places.

So when we see the same fingerprint among several species in the same location, it seems that they must share a common ancestor.

So if God created humans and chimps separately tyen he must have forced the retrovirus DNA to appear in the same place on both. Here is an example of the progression from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:

 

[unred typo]

A common example I use that the part of the Bible which says the Earth does not move. When science was saying the Earth does move, many Christians said they knew this was not true from the Bible. The lesson that should have been learned is that people who use the Bible can get fundamental science wrong based on it.

There are many such evidences for evolution. One of my favorite is the retroviruses example. They try to copy their DNA into their host's DNA. If the cell they attack is a sperm or egg, then the virus's DNA is recorded (in a pretty random place along the DNA). This is very much like a fingerprint. If this happens to two different animals, the DNA is marked in different places.

So when we see the same fingerprint among several species in the same location, it seems that they must share a common ancestor.

So if God created humans and chimps separately tyen he must have forced the retrovirus DNA to appear in the same place on both. Here is an example of the progression from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:

There are other possibilities. Perhaps the virus marks are as conclusive as finding an identical series of five words in 10 different books and then assuming there is some connection. Because the science community is looking for connections, they will be predisposed to seeing them and disregarding evidence to the contrary. There may vulnerability reasons that the virus chooses to attack the same areas in similar beings. We just don’t know, do we?

It’s interesting you use the earth/sun example to show how preconceived notions effect our understanding of what we perceive around us as evidence. I don’t think God really cares if we get the details wrong as long as bottom line, we trust Him.

 

[Slevin]

There are other possibilities. Perhaps the virus marks are as conclusive as finding an identical series of five words in 10 different books and then assuming there is some connection.

No, it isn't.

Consider that the virus has to infect the host. The virus' cells then have to take over one of the reproductive cells (a sperm or an egg). Then that organism has to have a child. This will then be inherited by each subsequent offspring. So no, it really isn't like that.

We can use gene sequencing to discover how related each human is to each other, why do you then reject that we can use the same sequencing to discover how related each species are to each other?

It's consistent, it works, and it's falsifiable.

 

[unred typo]

Slevin wrote:

Consider that the virus has to infect the host. The virus' cells then have to take over one of the reproductive cells (a sperm or an egg). Then that organism has to have a child. This will then be inherited by each subsequent offspring. So no, it really isn't like that.

We can use gene sequencing to discover how related each human is to each other, why do you then reject that we can use the same sequencing to discover how related each species are to each other?

It's consistent, it works, and it's falsifiable.

Ok, I’ll play. So exactly what does the chart show? That one primate egg or sperm was attacked by a virus and this imprint continues to show up in the same gene sequencing for the next million years? Does one virus impaired egg/sperm effect the next millions of generations?
Forgive my incredulity, but that’s pretty incredible. What about the other uninfected primate’s egg/sperms? How are those offspring shown to be related to us?

 

[Slevin]

Slevin wrote:

Ok, I’ll play. So exactly what does the chart show? That one primate egg or sperm was attacked by a virus and this imprint continues to show up in the same gene sequencing for the next million years? Does one virus impaired egg/sperm effect the next millions of generations?
Forgive my incredulity, but that’s pretty incredible.

If the impaired genetic code is passed down, then it is inherited along each subsequent generation.

Humans have thousands of endogenous retroviruses in their DNA, and we find 7 of those to be shared with Chimps. The genomes of all those primates listed in that picture share ERV's with shared retroviral sequences. So it's not so incredulous to think that out of thousands from ancestor species, maybe 7 survive all the way down to be shared by chimps and humans.

Incredulity is not a rebuttal, either.

What about the other uninfected primate’s egg/sperms? How are those offspring shown to be related to us?

They don't just take one gorilla's blood sample and see how they're related to joe somebody. They take multiple samples from multiple primates and sequence them.

Subsequently, if we find 50 gorilla's to be related to 50 Humans by 90%, is it not probable that all Gorilla's are related by about 90%?

 

[unred typo]

They don't just take one gorilla's blood sample and see how they're related to joe somebody. They take multiple samples from multiple primates and sequence them.

Subsequently, if we find 50 gorilla's to be related to 50 Humans by 90%, is it not probable that all Gorilla's are related by about 90%?

My incredulity comment was an apology more than an argument. I guess I’m back at my original option. If we find similar sequences it may be just that among millions of primates and millions of humans, the same virus found the same weak spot during the same egg/sperm development in a previous ancestor at some time in the distant past. If we take 100 books, the same 5 word sequence may be found in 50 of them. Does that mean they have the same title, author, publisher, or readers? Amusing coincidence but if there is a connection at all, there are other explanations. The fact that we share similar anatomy should show up in the DNA. There won’t be a sequence for opposing thumbs in fish or birds, for instance.

 

[Slevin]

I guess I’m back at my original option. If we find similar sequences it may be just that among millions of primates and millions of humans, the same virus found the same weak spot during the same egg/sperm development in a previous ancestor at some time in the distant past.

Um...no. Ad hoc. They aren't similar sequences, they are the exact same sequence.

We could take your logic and state that humans aren't even really related, they are just "commonly designed". Each human.

The fact that each human looks like the other is like finding 100 books that look like each other. That doesn't prove that the people who say they are my parents are my parents. Gene sequencing can't prove it because that'd be like taking 100 books and finding similar word sequences in there.

If we take 100 books, the same 5 word sequence may be found in 50 of them. Does that mean they have the same title, author, publisher, or readers? Amusing coincidence but if there is a connection at all, there are other explanations. The fact that we share similar anatomy should show up in the DNA. There won’t be a sequence for opposing thumbs in fish or birds, for instance.

Except that we predicted this similarity based on the fossil record, and genetic sequencing corroborated the findings. ERV's are just one piece of information, and you're rebuttal is turning ad hoc.

 

[unred typo]

Um...no. Ad hoc. They aren't similar sequences, they are the exact same sequence.

We could take your logic and state that humans aren't even really related, they are just "commonly designed". Each human.

The fact that each human looks like the other is like finding 100 books that look like each other. That doesn't prove that the people who say they are my parents are my parents. Gene sequencing can't prove it because that'd be like taking 100 books and finding similar word sequences in there.
…………Except that we predicted this similarity based on the fossil record, and genetic sequencing corroborated the findings. ERV's are just one piece of information, and you're rebuttal is turning ad hoc.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at since, yes, each human is an individually designed being, made up of bits of each parent’s DNA. We are all related to each other and to Adam, and then to Noah. Places in our DNA match other primates because we have similar body shape and we are attacked by many of the same viruses.

I predict that I can go to my cupboard and find the exact same 28 letter/space sequence on half of the products in them. “Nutrition Facts serving sizeâ€Â. Are all these manufactured by the same company or made of the same ingredients or purchased by only a certain type of person? There are more reasons why identical genetic sequencing is found than the ad hoc rationale that these are genetically related.

 

[Barbarian]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at since, yes, each human is an individually designed being, made up of bits of each parent’s DNA.

No. Our chomosomes are sorted at random at meiosis, with no design involved.

We are all related to each other and to Adam, and then to Noah. Places in our DNA match other primates because we have similar body shape and we are attacked by many of the same viruses.

No. Hippopotomi, for example, have DNA that most closely matches that of whales. Try again.

I predict that I can go to my cupboard and find the exact same 28 letter/space sequence on half of the products in them. “Nutrition Facts serving sizeâ€Â. Are all these manufactured by the same company or made of the same ingredients or purchased by only a certain type of person?

All complying with the same government rules. Hence, they read the same. You can even, (if you find really old products) follow the evolution of the rules.

There are more reasons why identical genetic sequencing is found than the ad hoc rationale that these are genetically related.

Problem is, none of yours seems to work. And since we can test the idea by checking organisms of known descent, we know that it does indeed involve common descent. And even the errors show us this. Primates and Guinea pigs both have a broken vitamin C gene. But the primates have it broken one way, and the Guinea pig, another.

Further, if your idea were correct, whales would have DNA like sharks, not like hippopotomi.

As you see, there's no way to justify it as anything but evidenc eof common descent.

 

[Slevin]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at since, yes, each human is an individually designed being, made up of bits of each parent’s DNA. We are all related to each other and to Adam, and then to Noah. Places in our DNA match other primates because we have similar body shape and we are attacked by many of the same viruses.

It's entirely clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Each human is not individually designed. We're produced as offspring by our descendents, and as Barbarian pointed out, through the random process of meiosis.

According to your belief, Adam was the only actually designed human, since he was not the offspring of anyone. Everyone else would be copies of that design.

My point is that since we use gene sequencing and can conclude with a high level of certainty how related to separate humans are, why then do you reject the same sequencing that determines relation between a human and a chimp?

As to the ERV, yes humans and chimps can be attacked by many of the same viruses (because we are related biologically), but how does that refute Endogenous Retroviral Insertions as evidence for common descent? These ERV's are ancient infections, and can be traced through human lineage, through Chimp lineage and through other primate lineages. It's a rare event when a virus infects a germline cell and even rarer when it gets passed on as a hereditary event. Having the same virus attack a germline cell in each primate species at the exact same spot through the exact same means is pretty unlikely and it would be incumbent upon you to provide evidence that this occurred.

Anyways, here's a blog by Dr. Zachary Moore, a molecular biologist. He writes directly about ERV's and explains why they are evidence for evolution.

I predict that I can go to my cupboard and find the exact same 28 letter/space sequence on half of the products in them. “Nutrition Facts serving sizeâ€Â. Are all these manufactured by the same company or made of the same ingredients or purchased by only a certain type of person? There are more reasons why identical genetic sequencing is found than the ad hoc rationale that these are genetically related.

Except that we know that letters and space sequences are not the product of biological processes and are specifically designed that way. Poor argument.

 

[unred typo]

Problem is, none of yours seems to work. And since we can test the idea by checking organisms of known descent, we know that it does indeed involve common descent. And even the errors show us this. Primates and Guinea pigs both have a broken vitamin C gene. But the primates have it broken one way, and the Guinea pig, another.

Further, if your idea were correct, whales would have DNA like sharks, not like hippopotomi.

As you see, there's no way to justify it as anything but evidenc eof common descent.

Whales and Hippos have similar DNA? Then I would say that comparing DNA is not a very good way to tell if an animal is descended from another or you may be misreading what the DNA code means. Or the question, “Why God made us look SO much like other primates?†really is quite irrelevant. Before DNA, scientists were just using body shape and physical characteristics to imply descent. Maybe what they should be looking for is the virus that attacks the same prenatal, embryonic or egg/sperm cells in humans and primates and guinea pigs and bull frogs or whatever instead of trying to prove common descent and put the information to some more important use.

When you think of the thousands of man hours spent trying to prove evolution, it rather makes one wonder what the importance of knowing such a thing would be. If all the world were suddenly to agree that we were descended from a common primate ancestor, how would it change our lives, other than to make monkies of us all? I suppose it would get rid of the inerrancy of scripture and that would please some people no end. Except it wouldn’t. When God ‘clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins’ after the fall, he may have given them the physical bodies of a hairless primate to inhabit. Paul says we will one day be clothed with new spiritual bodies and shed these corrupt flesh skins. There’s a concept you can explore, Barb. ;-)

 

[unred typo]

It's entirely clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which is why I come here from time to time to worship at your feet and gain insight into the scientific mind. Sometimes the forest is not seen because of the trees.

As to the ERV, yes humans and chimps can be attacked by many of the same viruses (because we are related biologically), but how does that refute Endogenous Retroviral Insertions as evidence for common descent? These ERV's are ancient infections, and can be traced through human lineage, through Chimp lineage and through other primate lineages. It's a rare event when a virus infects a germline cell and even rarer when it gets passed on as a hereditary event. Having the same virus attack a germline cell in each primate species at the exact same spot through the exact same means is pretty unlikely and it would be incumbent upon you to provide evidence that this occurred.

OK. I’m confused. How exactly did this rare event effect all human and primate DNA? Please explain if the virus event occurred in a single primate and it just happened that all primates living from this time on were descended from this particular primate or did the virus effect all primates living at the time and how did this rare event occur?

 

[Barbarian]

Whales and Hippos have similar DNA? Then I would say that comparing DNA is not a very good way to tell if an animal is descended from another or you may be misreading what the DNA code means.

Nope. It's a very good way, as we know from checking that on organisms of known descent. It turns out that common descent is easily confirmed by DNA analysis. And it explains a number of skeletal features that were previously somewhat misunderstood, as well as the presence of an ungulate digestive system whales also share with hippopotomi. They don't really need it, but apparently, it never needed to change much, either.

Keep in mind that neither a whale nor a hippopotomus looks much like their common ancestor.

Or the question, “Why God made us look SO much like other primates?†really is quite irrelevant.

It's a good clue as to the way He did it.

Before DNA, scientists were just using body shape and physical characteristics to imply descent.

It's what they had then. Remarkably, DNA, conserved molecules like cytochome c, and a host of other things produced the same phylogenies to a high degree of precision. Such confirmation of a theory by such diverse sources of evidence is considered compelling.

Maybe what they should be looking for is the virus that attacks the same prenatal, embryonic or egg/sperm cells in humans and primates and guinea pigs and bull frogs or whatever instead of trying to prove common descent and put the information to some more important use.

It's one of the benefits of such study. But the fact is, scientists do it because it's fun to learn new things, not because they hope it's useful.

When you think of the thousands of man hours spent trying to prove evolution, it rather makes one wonder what the importance of knowing such a thing would be.

Knowledge is a worth goal in itself. But of course, things like antibiotic protocols, agronomy, and other important things depend on evolutionary theory.

If all the world were suddenly to agree that we were descended from a common primate ancestor, how would it change our lives, other than to make monkies of us all?

The majority of the world does agree. Ironically, the one thing it didn't do is make monkeys of us all. Evolutionary theory shows that we did not evolve from monkeys.

I suppose it would get rid of the inerrancy of scripture

There never was inerrant scripture. That was just man's attempt to make a God of the Bible.

When God ‘clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins’ after the fall, he may have given them the physical bodies of a hairless primate to inhabit.

They were primates before the fall. Nothing changed but the knowledge of good and evil, and consciousness of themselves and of others. That is what separated them from God, and also made them potentially capable of fellowship with Him.

Paul says we will one day be clothed with new spiritual bodies and shed these corrupt flesh skins.

Well, at least you have that right.