I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[YoursTrue]

It isn't really what you choose to accept or believe, but that you understand the reason for classification and the reasons why man and other organisms are classified as they are within science. It isn't based on beliefs about that status of man and animals in some greater spiritual pantheon but based on the evidence that is available to be examined.

You can choose not to believe it based on reasons other than evidence, but that does not alter the value of evidence-based classification or the reasoning for that approach.

Certainly there are traits that have value in classifying organisms at different levels of taxonomy. That you have four limbs and ducks have four limbs means that we are related in a much larger group above the level of genus or species. Ducks have feathers and we have hair. We are mammals based on that and not birds.

I understand. And now I may reply that this is so according to taxonomists. I however no longer agree with the theory of evolution as set by the schema of the theory natural selection so might take issue with the categories, depending on circumstances. Thanks again though. It has been a pleasant discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand. And now I may reply that this is so according to taxonomists. I however no longer agree with the theory of evolution as set by the schema of the theory natural selection so might take issue with the categories, depending on circumstances. Thanks again though. It has been a pleasant discussion.

Take care.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People say different things about it. So do religions which is why someone like intellectual scientists may be atheists.

Not all of them are atheist and their belief should not enter into the quality of their scholarship based on evidence and reasoned argument. Certainly, I know it can and one should be careful and aware in their reading.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, it's just a matter of degrees. And this in no way means that we're exactly the same or that God looks at us in exactly the same way. Frankly, maybe He thinks that the other apes are much smarter as at least they are not hell-bend to destroy life on Earth through war or polluting their own "nest".

It isn't really what you choose to accept or believe, but that you understand the reason for classification and the reasons why man and other organisms are classified as they are within science. It isn't based on beliefs about that status of man and animals in some greater spiritual pantheon but based on the evidence that is available to be examined.

You can choose not to believe it based on reasons other than evidence, but that does not alter the value of evidence-based classification or the reasoning for that approach.

Certainly there are traits that have value in classifying organisms at different levels of taxonomy. That you have four limbs and ducks have four limbs means that we are related in a much larger group above the level of genus or species. Ducks have feathers and we have hair. We are mammals based on that and not birds.

I understand the reasons. It doesn't mean I agree with them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand the reasons. It doesn't mean I agree with them.

I know. I just want to make sure you understand what you are rejecting. I was taught by my parents and some other people that you should understand something even if you reject it. Seems like a good policy to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not all of them are atheist and their belief should not enter into the quality of their scholarship based on evidence and reasoned argument. Certainly, I know it can and one should be careful and aware in their reading.

Thank you. From my viewpoint, I can see how a scientist, looking at things objectively as well as reading reasons why something in religion may or may not true, plus seeing the dismal record of religion involved with humanity, war, cruelty, and other such things, can say there is no God he can find, or trust, or logically believe in. I believe and think that Moses heard or read about things in reference to what came before him and so penned what he understood. I believe more than that, however. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you. From my viewpoint, I can see how a scientist, looking at things objectively as well as reading reasons why something in religion may or may not true, plus seeing the dismal record of religion involved with humanity, war, cruelty, and other such things, can say there is no God he can find, or trust, or logically believe in. I believe and think that Moses heard or read about things in reference to what came before him and so penned what he understood. I believe more than that, however. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16)

Just because a person is a scientist does not automatically mean they do not believe God. I have literally worked with a large number of scientists at different institutions and many of them believe in God. My old advisor was a deacon at church. My late mentor at my first real science job was a devout Christian and we often had discussions about God, religion, the Bible and values.

Scholars that study literature including the Bible are not technically scientists in the sense that we have been discussing science. They do, however, employ many of the same basic techniques and logic to their work as scientists do. They can be and often are, historians, experts in languages and cultures, well versed in the type of research associated with those fields, but don't usually run experiments.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because a person is a scientist does not automatically mean they do not believe God. I have literally worked with a large number of scientists at different institutions and many of them believe in God. My old advisor was a deacon at church. My late mentor at my first real science job was a devout Christian and we often had discussions about God, religion, the Bible and values.

Scholars that study literature including the Bible are not technically scientists in the sense that we have been discussing science. They do, however, employ many of the same basic techniques and logic to their work as scientists do. They can be and often are, historians, experts in languages and cultures, well versed in the type of research associated with those fields, but don't usually run experiments.

From what I have also read, there are some scientists who don't believe in God, but do not agree with the theory of evolution. At this point I am beginning to understand that concept. Understanding does not mean I agree.
Anyway, it's getting late, thanks for your contribution, our bodies are meant to sleep. Sometimes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because a person is a scientist does not automatically mean they do not believe God. I have literally worked with a large number of scientists at different institutions and many of them believe in God. My old advisor was a deacon at church. My late mentor at my first real science job was a devout Christian and we often had discussions about God, religion, the Bible and values.

Scholars that study literature including the Bible are not technically scientists in the sense that we have been discussing science. They do, however, employ many of the same basic techniques and logic to their work as scientists do. They can be and often are, historians, experts in languages and cultures, well versed in the type of research associated with those fields, but don't usually run experiments.

A person may have a bent (inclination) towards God or may simply feel comfortable in a particular religious atmosphere, but again -- there are various sects and divisions as well as religious beliefs. And that is an interesting point you make about research. I know there are many religions in this world. The early disciples and apostles went preaching about Jesus.
Acts 19: "About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. It began with a silversmith named Demetrius who made silver shrines of Artemis, bringing much business to the craftsmen. 25 Demetrius assembled the craftsmen, along with the workmen in related trades. “Men,” he said, “you know that this business is our source of prosperity. 26 And you can see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in nearly the whole province of Asia, Paul has persuaded a great number of people to turn away. He says that man-made gods are no gods at all."

 

[Subduction Zone]

A person may have a bent (inclination) towards God or may simply feel comfortable in a particular religious atmosphere, but again -- there are various sects and divisions as well as religious beliefs. And that is an interesting point you make about research. I know there are many religions in this world. The early disciples and apostles went preaching about Jesus.
Acts 19: "About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. It began with a silversmith named Demetrius who made silver shrines of Artemis, bringing much business to the craftsmen. 25 Demetrius assembled the craftsmen, along with the workmen in related trades. “Men,” he said, “you know that this business is our source of prosperity. 26 And you can see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in nearly the whole province of Asia, Paul has persuaded a great number of people to turn away. He says that man-made gods are no gods at all."

So the Christian God is not a God at all. I might agree with Paul on that one.

 

[joelr]

OK, I have currently given up on classifying man (humans) in the rules of taxonomy. Henceforth, and you have helped me change my mind among other commenters, I will simply mention that man is not an animal as far as "I" am concerned. Animals may be classified by scientists, but that is their terminology. And here is where, I believe (and hope) the conversation or "debate"(?) stops about this. I have feet. Ducks have feet. I am not a duck. And a duck is not a human. Unless, of course, a human walks and talks like a duck? Or the reverse.
By the way, do believers in evolution say ducks are in the same branch leading to humans? Maybe you know offhand. I can always look it up for interest when I have a chance. Thanks.

Well learning about the world is a personal choice. Christian scientists consider it all Gods creation and delight in learning the specifics of how different creatures were made and how they fit into groups. Including humans. They don't assume fundamentalist nonsense that we are not part of the natural world. Duck and human feet are a poor analogy of how groups are discovered, DNA plays a large role
Taxonomic characters[edit]
Taxonomic characters are the taxonomic attributes that can be used to provide the evidence from which relationships (the phylogeny) between taxa are inferred.[16] Kinds of taxonomic characters include:[17]

• Morphological characters
  • General external morphology
  • Special structures (e.g. genitalia)
  • Internal morphology (anatomy)
  • Embryology
  • Karyology and other cytological factors
• Physiological characters
  • Metabolic factors
  • Body secretions
  • Genic sterility factors
• Molecular characters
  • Immunological distance
  • Electrophoretic differences
  • Amino acid sequences of proteins
  • DNA hybridization
  • DNA and RNA sequences
  • Restriction endonuclease analyses
  • Other molecular differences

• Behavioral characters
  • Courtship and other ethological isolating mechanisms
  • Other behavior patterns
• Ecological characters
  • Habit and habitats
  • Food
  • Seasonal variations
  • Parasites and hosts
• Geographic characters
  • General biogeographic distribution patterns
  • Sympatric-allopatric relationship of populations
• Taxonomy (biology) - Wikipedia very complex subject

By the way, do believers in evolution say ducks are in the same branch leading to humans? Maybe you know offhand. I can always look it up for interest when I have a chance. Thanks.

That's like saying "do believers in gravity......." It doesn't matter if someone reads a story that tells them gravity isn't true. They will still fall off a cliff. Evolution is a theory, like gravity, it answers questions and shows some ways the world works. Just like the taxonomy list there are many many biological systems that demonstrate evolution.
Ducks, Anseriformes, go way back to before the last asteroid impact:

Anseriformes are one of only two types of modern bird to be confirmed present during the Mesozoic alongside the other dinosaurs, and in fact were among the very few birds to survive their extinction, along with their cousins the galliformes. These two groups only occupied two ecological niches during the Mesozoic, living in water and on the ground, while the toothed enantiornithes were the dominant birds that ruled the trees and air. The asteroid that ended the Mesozoic destroyed all trees as well as animals in the open, a condition that took centuries to recover from. The anseriformes and galliformes are thought to have survived in the cover of burrows and water, and not to have needed trees for food and reproduction.

 

[joelr]

If after all this time I have to explain, at this point I suggest you try to think how humans are NOT gorillas, chimpanzees, or monkeys, etc. Yesss, scientists can classify humans in the same category as gorillas, etc. I no longer do. I used to believe the theory of evolution as well as the classifications thereby

Great, you have discovered a quick way to de-evolve your mind to think like a person from the Middle Ages. Let's just use our eyes and go by the obvious. We don't look like apes so we must not be apes. In fact you can't see germs and viruses. How could they hurt you?
Great, enjoy. Learned folks can see that the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) slowly approaches human as we go through the timeline of the great apes (The Hominidae). When you get to H. heidelbergensis it's almost identical far beyond 99%. Or Homo rhodesiensis a new possible sub-species between the 2.

Family Hominidae

• Subfamily Ponginae[28]
  • Tribe Lufengpithecini †
    • Lufengpithecus
      • Ank

Hominidae - Wikipedia. long list of Hominidae up to human

. I no longer do. And it's ok. If you believe humans are animals having evolved from whatever the "Unknown Common Ancestor" is, at this point, enjoy whatever. Bye for now.

There is a common ancestor at the start of each group. The further down each group you go the less it "looks" like humans. Once you get down to Animalia the organism is:
are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and go through an ontogenetic stage in which their body consists of a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development.

Belief in evolution or gravity or quantum mechanics is not relevant. Scientists are finding out the way the world and universe work. Unlocking some evolutionary secrets has helped medical science and medicine make huge leaps, in many ways. Understanding pathogens and all types of disease pathology related to evolution, cause and treatment. Because it's true. The recent virus also evolved.
You can believe you were made of magic juice by a spirit and trends in medical science that have used evolution to unlock better cures will still work if you want them.
Or you could keep that energy and just pray.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From what I have also read, there are some scientists who don't believe in God, but do not agree with the theory of evolution. At this point I am beginning to understand that concept. Understanding does not mean I agree.
Anyway, it's getting late, thanks for your contribution, our bodies are meant to sleep. Sometimes.

There are many scientists that are atheist. Since the number of scientists that do not accept the theory of evolution is very small, the number of them being atheist would be even a smaller number. I remain ignorant of the significance of that fact.

 

[metis]

See, that's a difference between you and me. I believe God will intervene before man destroys the earth.

That would be nice but I'm far from certain this would happen.

 

[metis]

The degree of difference is enormous except perhaps as some might imagine, in a side-by-side examination of genes, including those gaps, or missing genes. It doesn't matter if there are few genetic differences, the differences (and I won't explain them now) are tremendous. I have great respect for Richard Feynman. I have his tapes and you can listen to him on youtube. He is dead, but he made some outstanding comments. I sympathize with him and his viewpoints. He is an atheist. I am not. I have respect for him though. There is a reason particularly as to why I appreciate his comments. Anyway -- have a nice day, etc.

As one who studied primatology, the differences are only a matter of degrees. However, with our very large brain as compared to the great apes, we've obviously created a culture much larger and more complicated that any society of apes could produce.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because a person is a scientist does not automatically mean they do not believe God. I have literally worked with a large number of scientists at different institutions and many of them believe in God. My old advisor was a deacon at church. My late mentor at my first real science job was a devout Christian and we often had discussions about God, religion, the Bible and values.

Scholars that study literature including the Bible are not technically scientists in the sense that we have been discussing science. They do, however, employ many of the same basic techniques and logic to their work as scientists do. They can be and often are, historians, experts in languages and cultures, well versed in the type of research associated with those fields, but don't usually run experiments.

There's one more thing I failed to mention. More than faith. And not a third person of a god called a trinity. It's the holy spirit, something that Jesus said also cannot be seen, it's like the wind. I have very much enjoyed talking with you, DFS. So I hope you have a very good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

As one who studied primatology, the differences are only a matter of degrees. However, with our very large brain as compared to the great apes, we've obviously created a culture much larger and more complicated that any society of apes could produce.

Ya know, metis, I like you. My first reaction is: "no kidding.." Anyway, I'm looking forward to the blessings God's word speaks about and which Jesus prayed for which so many also pray. The "Our Father" prayer...I realize I can be abrasive, I guess (?) I need to work on that defect(?). Anyway, have a very nice day, metis.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be nice but I'm far from certain this would happen.

OK, I'm reading a bit today. I was reading how certain intellectuals such as N. Chomsky, a man of literature that I admire, warns that mankind is on the brink of destroying itself.
I have faith and hope that will not happen, but interestingly enough, -- just looking at the horrible treatment people are giving and getting -- it's mind-boggling and I must say that if I didn't know what I do believe about the Bible, I probably wouldn't be here now. Some people might be happy about that though, but I also must say the thought forces me to think about (1) my own imperfections, and (2) God's great glory by sending Jesus Christ AND creating the earth in its grandeur. Which I hope to enjoy one day.
So, I was looking up a scripture in Revelation showing how God will intervene, but came across this one, the translation of which captured my attention:
Revelation 19:2 "because his judgments are honest and fair. That filthy prostitute ruined the earth with shameful deeds. But God has judged her and made her pay the price for murdering his servants."
The term 'filthy prostitute' stood out, not all translations have that in accord that way. Nevertheless, the message is there.

 

[metis]

OK, I'm reading a bit today. I was reading how certain intellectuals such as N. Chomsky, a man of literature that I admire, warns that mankind is on the brink of destroying itself.
I have faith and hope that will not happen, but interestingly enough, -- just looking at the horrible treatment people are giving and getting -- it's mind-boggling and I must say that if I didn't know what I do believe about the Bible, I probably wouldn't be here now. Some people might be happy about that though, but I also must say the thought forces me to think about (1) my own imperfections, and (2) God's great glory by sending Jesus Christ AND creating the earth in its grandeur. Which I hope to enjoy one day.
So, I was looking up a scripture in Revelation showing how God will intervene, but came across this one, the translation of which captured my attention:
Revelation 19:2 "because his judgments are honest and fair. That filthy prostitute ruined the earth with shameful deeds. But God has judged her and made her pay the price for murdering his servants."
The term 'filthy prostitute' stood out, not all translations have that in accord that way. Nevertheless, the message is there.

The Book of Revelation is really about events in the latter half of the 1st century, although there are always going to be some lessons we can learn from that.

There has long been the belief in Christianity about Armageddon, namely the eventual destruction of at least human life on Earth during "end times", but believing in this literally I'm not going that far with. IOW, maybe yes, maybe no, imo. As a scientist, we are trained to be skeptical, and that I am on a great many things both in and outside of basic theology.

Fortunately, believing, accepting, and living out of Jesus' Two Commandments makes these "side bars" unessential.

 

[YoursTrue]

I hope you do.
History of terminology
The English name primates is derived from Old French or French primat, from a noun use of Latin primat-, from primus ('prime, first rank'). The name was given by Carl Linnaeus because he thought this the "highest" order of animals. The relationships among the different groups of primates were not clearly understood until relatively recently, so the commonly used terms are somewhat confused. For example, ape has been used either as an alternative for monkey or for any tailless, relatively human-like primate.

Unless you are an ape. ... which I am sure you are not.

Me too.