Isn't this just sidestepping the spirit of the issue on a technicality? Sure, this particular image may be an add selling something, but the marketers didn't invent this concept. This "one creature to another based on shape progression" imagery is a commonly used visual aid to suggest the legitimacy of atheistic evolution.
Evolution is not atheistic in itself. The theory says nothing on whether or not god(s) exists. The reason why the chart is wrong, is because it shows a chimp turning into a human, when that is wrong. Chimps evolved alongside humans and are a sister species. Humans and chimps have a shared ancestor, but we never evolved from chimps. Humans didn't even evolve from Neanderthal. Chimps, Neanderthal, and Us shared an ancestor known as
Homo heidelbergensis. The chart shows Chimp at the beginning, Neanderthal in the Middle, and Us at the end. That would be similar to showing your cousin as your grandfather, your brother and your dad, and then you as the son. It confuses a lot of information.
Well, that's not really "all it means". Much like the idiomatic expression "all kinds of" doesn't really mean every single kind in existence, so to this "humans are apes" expression has a meaning apart from the strictly literal definition of the words.
I'm not interested in semantics.
It may be that "humans are apes" is correct in a strictly literal definition in the context of "scientific terminology", but then we'd need to question who made the definition to begin with.
In other words, all this stuff about classifications and correct terminology becomes a technicality. The real question being asked is, did God create us as fully formed human beings, quite separate and distinct from other animals (despite some similarities), or did God create some kind of other animal and over millions of years human beings changed from this other animal into what we are now.
I already asked myself that question and I side with those the hold the concept that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. However, this didn't change my belief in a god, I accepted evolution long before I left Christianity due to the my studies of biology. I left Christianity for other reasons.
You make a distinction here between "looks" and genetics but "looks" ARE a result of genetics. Eyes, ears, nose, mouth, legs, arms; those are all genetically acquired features. So in essence you've still not refuted Kiwidan's argument.
Both your and Kiwi's argument is still wrong based on the current theory of evolution and the evidence that supports phylogeny. There is a concept of natural selection called converging evolution, where genetically dissimilar organism can resemble each other due to them filling similar niches in different environments. Wings are a good example, birds, bugs, and Bats all have wings, but they are different in function and morphology. That is because these wings can be traced back genetically to show their origins in there respective lines. Phylogeny has done a great job of tracing back where certain features came from. Its a very solid model, because it helped to make predictions on what extinct species we would find. For example, tictalic.
Having similar genetics does not prove that humans evolved from other animals anymore than having a progression of dozens of silhouette shapes from square to oval to circle proves that the final circle only exists because the rectangle existed first.
Your statement igonres a large reason why genetic similarity is supported. We know that almost all organism in the Animal kingdom reproduce by sexual means. We know that this process transfers genetic information from one generation to the next. We know the genetic codes for most of the major groups, we know that when the concepts of natural selection are implemented on organism, we can change the organism through mutation and genetic isolation, we know that when organisms are arranged by both structure and genetics that they form clades and show similarities. We have seen and reproduced this in labs. Due to our knowledge of geology, we can date rocks and consistently notice that certain organisms predate each other and that certain organisms appeared where the theoretical ancestor once lived, and sister species can be found close by.
The theory of Evolution is accepted by the majority of biologists and geneticists because consistently it works and is very predictable. Chemistry and Geology aslo back up biological evoltuion by giving the basic whys of how organims can become isolated and how their genetics change. The theory very well supported.
I'm not understanding the logic here. Aren't there other diseases which start in animals like monkeys, pigs, and birds which can then be passed on to humans? According to your logic, for these diseases are only able to "do anything to us" because we evolved from monkeys, pigs, birds.
There are diseases that effect wide areas of organisms, but they usually only effect the parts of genetics that we share. The reason why SIV was able to jump to humans in the form of HIV was because of the similarities of Human and Chimp DNA. The studies on SIV have so far shown that humans could have carried the virus for a long time due to it not being 100% compatible until it adapted and evolved to attack our immune side of the DNA. Strains that jump from Pigs and birds transfer similarly, but rarely are as devastating due to them have less impact on our genetics. Humans are more closely related to pigs than birds, so its extremely rare for viruses from birds to adapt to human genetics. It also depends on the virus itself and what exactly it attack genetically. All organisms share a part of their DNA with each other. Viruses attack our DNA structures, so the more common strain of DNA a virus attacks, the easier it is for it to transfer between species.
Aren't there are few different kinds of evolution?
In Biology their is just one type.
One is atheistic evolution where there is no God involved at all and every single atom in existence is a complete and random act of chance. One is theistic evolution where God things happen over billions of years but only because God caused it to happen, though in this definition I thought it was understood that at least with humans God created them distinctly from all other animals.
These are classifications that are put on after and effect areas that the theory of evolution doesn't cover. Evolution isn't about the origin of life itself, nor is it about whether or not their is a God. The 2 concepts you brought up are part of larger positions and ethical systems that aren't part of the theory of Evolution in Biology.
However, now I'm learning there is another kind of theistic evolution where even humans themselves are merely another another like all other animals. In the end I'm not sure how much it really matters in spiritual terms if that were to be an accurate description of how humans came into existence, but I think the fact that there is plenty of evidence to suggest humans really are distinct and specially set aside from all other animals does lend a significant amount of credibility to the idea that we did not evolve from lesser animals like has been suggested with all other animals.
I would then ask you to provide this evidence that shows we don't hold common ancestors and for you to explain why there is a long line of Human like ancestors that show the steps that eventually led to the human diversity we see today.
Cheers.
