What makes you believe that? Other animals teach and other animals have the ability to learn it is not unique to humans. If you want to have a religious belief that is fine, but don't think that science backs it up because it doesn't.

We can use tools to "master" other animals. Tell you what you go and try mastering a Nile crocodile.

Actually - the percentage of similarity depends on what you're comparing. An article in National Geographic, in 2002 - Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as Thought? shows that if you include indels (Insertions and Deletions within the genetic code), the percentage is more like 95% - which, to be fair, sounds reasonable to me.

Exactly. The 40 million differences between humans and chimps account for many things (some of it accounts for nothing too) and it entirely possible that could prevent interbreeding, but it is in fact highly likely that you could hybridise and human and chimp.

We have 40 million different genes. We are not like the chimpanzee.

IMO

That is still than many species in the same genus.

So gibbons of the same genus have even more. Are they unrelated too? How about chimps and gorillas, they also have even more? It is a pretty poor measure you are using there and all the evidence is against you.

The number is not what is important. The ratio is what is important.

For instance, if you were to get a grade on a test in college, and it was worth 3,000,000,000 points and you got 2,960,000,000 points, this is 98.6% You missed 40 million possible points.
Or you could have a test that is worth 100 points and got 98.6 points, which is also 98.6%. You missed 1.4 possible points.

If you did another test worth 100 points and got a 50% on it, you missed 50 points.

You did equally well on both tests, even though the first one you missed 40 million points on the first one and the second one you missed 1.4 possible points. You did worse on the third test even though you missed only 50 points, but the ratio was larger. The number of points wasn't important, the ratio was. You wouldn't say you did worse on the first test than you did on the second test. You did equally well. You would say you did worse on the third test than the first or second test. This is the same for comparing DNA percentage.

Hear me, and please write it down for future reference. WE WONT BE SUCCESSFULLY BREEDING with any chimps, apes or monkeys anytime soon! We are unique on this planet.

And so is every other life form that shares a similar relationship of 98% similarity with another species? Matt asked basically the same question in regards to your statement.

WHO would want to breed with an ape or chimp anyway? That is just silly. While they may be an improvement over some of my ex's, I do prefer my own species. That has nothing to do with being closely related genetically. I don't understand why you just chose to ignore the fact we share a very high percent of DNA. Does it just bother you on some level that I don't understand? I am not bothered or offended at all to know that I am closely related to many other living things on this planet. It makes me MORE a part of this world, not less.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...himpanzees.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee

Common aspects within species show a common Creator. THis isn't anything that supports evolution. Even if apes have 98% of the same DNA as humans, they are still unique and obviously different from humans. A problem evolutionists need to explain is why all humans can interbreed with each other (male/female), yet we are somehow related to apes; yet they can't breed with humans? I can tell you. It's because we were created separate.

Actually it has more to do with genetics and the genes involved with those processes.

I believe the word you're looking for is Speciation, WWF.

So you say. No evidence of this.

Unless you have tried WWF, how do you know?
And yes it does support evolution as it shows a blatant and clear genetic relationship between humans and chimps.
Btw all species can interbreed with themselves, not all closely related species can breed with each other and those that can usually can not produce a fertile offspring due to chromosomal differences.

Not at all, because humans are clearly different from apes/chimps.

There are many genetic similarities between humans and chickens as well, but it doesn't mean we are related, and we certainly cannot breed with them.

Also, evolution would need to explain why there was a change in the sexual reproductive system due to evolution. Why would this have occurred? What purpose would this have served?

A 2% difference in DNA is a HUGE difference. People need to keep this in mind.

How are we clearly different?
Becoming bipedal would explain differences in the reproductive system (basically a change in pelvic orientation).
And a 2% difference is tiny relatively speaking and many species that we you would consider very closely related have bigger genetic differences including species that look virtually identical and species that can interbreed.

You can't tell the differences between humans and apes?

-Curved appendages
-Body hair
-Skeletal structure
-Muscle tissue
-Brain case/Brain
-Speech

Just to name a few. I'm sure there's a lot more.

Also, a difference in the pelvis wouldn't necessarily have changed the reproductive organs because you're talking about bone structure vs reproductive organs. These are different genes, so what you're saying wouldn't hold up. How would a change in bone structure (different genes) affect sexual reproduction?

2% certainly isn't a tiny difference when speaking of DNA. Not sure who told you that.

Humans have body, we just have less and this along with the brain case/brain and skeletal structure all stem from bipedalism.
Speech is not a great one since the noises made can vary with in other closely related animals and dialects have been identified in orca.
Actually a change in pelvic orientation would alter the position of the sexual organs because of the position of the bones would mean that changes would have to occur other wise there would be issues.
Really you 2% is a massive difference and evidence of not being related?
Gibbon species (same genus) 2.2% difference. willow warblers and chiffchaffs (same genus) have a difference of 2.9%.

Just to add for you WWF you can have a 0.7% genetic difference within a species.

Speech is a significant difference. Why didn't there other apes "evolve" the ability to speak? Why were they robbed of developing that additional portion within that 2 percent?

Pelvic orientation has to do with bone structure, not sexual reproduction, in terms of genetic make-up. Of course width would be important in the female. However, just because a genetic change occurred in bone structure does not mean a change would've changed simutaneously in the reproductive system. Do you have evidence of this simutaneous change? Bone structure and reproductive system are obviously two different things controlled by different genes. Hopefully you understand thing.

Speech is just the sounds we make, we can make some that other animals can not and vice versa, so no it is not.
Just because something is controlled by different genes does not mean that the are not related to each other amd due to the pelvic change, the vagina would have to be reorientated.

I see this kind of post and stop to wonder why would make it. I have to stop my logical thought process momentarily to consider if you actually believe that bit up there in bold? No really, I am curious as to your educational level regarding evolution and religion that lead you these conclusions. You have undoubtedly slept through the game-theory based group/kin/gene-population selection of your evolution classes. I might wonder in which "creation" you read to believe in only those things as well, as that sounds rather draconian.


It is interesting that we live in a society in which no one would take their children to first century dentists yet see no qualms in preaching to them and everyone else first century theology. Whether God or evolution gave you your brain, they both damn well intended you use it.

That sounds dirty!

Animals don't have fluid speech like humans, including apes.

The sexual reproductive system is far more complex than just the vagina. I hope you understand this. Also, more would have to occur than just a repositioning. The body would also have to create sperm and eggs differently.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, time out here. Firstly, who is saying we used to be monkeys? Not evolution nor creation, now why would one need to insult another such a blatant falsity of their stance?

Secondly, What does humans and chimps reproducing have to do with anything at all Yeti? I'll tell you what is has to do, NOTHING!

Nothing is proven or disproven in terms of "evolution or lack of evolution" concerning whether humans and chimps could procreate. We are two distinct biological species.

In this day and age we could practically hybridize anything we wish. Though it could be daunting, inserting all the genes of E. coli into a monkey gamete then bringing the gamete to fertilization and implanting it into a surrogate is not beyond our technological capabilities.

Interestingly enough, Bonobos can read pictographical information. They also have some very interesting and advanced culture and can be taught to take advantage of many human technologies. I would recommend this TEDtalk for anyone not familiar with bonobos (or TEDtalks for that matter).

Here



You know its a rather interesting aside that one could make the argument that humans cannot do those things are actually dependent upon the brains of few to carry the whole. For instance if you were to go out into nature to get your share of "dominion" you may take a gun, Can you build a gun? Or would you simply steal (and by steal I mean purchase) one of someone else's design. Want to use matches? Do you understand the chemistry put into making a match? Or even something simple, like water purification tablets, without which many a microscopic organisms would have dominion over you, Anyway, do you make your own?

Its silly to think that a book gives you dominion over anything, especially when your dominion is dependent upon the hard work of others.

Why didn't other apes "evolve" to grow purple ants they could use to harness magical pixie dust from to power their spaceships to the moon? Why didn't we evolve 8 arms and ink squirters? Why were we robbed of magical pixie ants or extra arms? Are you asking these question to be obtuse or do you have misunderstanding you wish to educate yourself on?




Similarly one would hope you are not honestly rehashing arguments like "Eyes must evolve instantaneously"! Is some knowledge to your arguments or do you simple entertain any thought that passes through your head?

WWF you pose the most interesting questions but unfortunately some are incapable of serious discussion regarding them and will always mention purple unicorns, pixie dust, and teapots as their only defense.

I'm not sure what your background is in the sciences, but some of us have an understanding of what's realistic and what isn't. For an evolutionary change to take place, it would have to occur in the reproductive system, because it would have to be reproduced in the DNA and passed down.

Your comments/questions seem to be misplaced. Nobody is talking about eyes evolving instanteously.

Seemingly my background is unimportant and has no bearing on your misunderstandings. Here allow me to educate you. Evolution happens at the population level, meaning a species or lineage does not evolve in an individual, rather the commonality of allele frequencies shared within many individuals. Like Mr. Sons question of "what are the chances a male and female of a species evolve at the same time" yours is moot by way of your untrue postulate: For an evolutionary change to take place, it would have to occur in the reproductive system, because it would have to be reproduced in the DNA and passed down. Now I am going to make an assumption that you understand why we cannot simply make up our own definitions as we go along, if you do not understand this feel free to stop me so that I may explain.

As to your question or rather postulate if you are still unsure why it is incorrect, feel free to ask for more clarification, maybe I could come up with a little analogy to help you get it.


For evolutionary change to take place at or above the species level one needs reproductive isolation, do not confuse the idea of reproductive isolation with "changes to the reproductive system". If you are not familiar with how reproductive isolation occurs in nature, I would be more than happy to go over those with you.

Furthermore, You seem confused about the reproductive system and how exactly heritable change occurs. The ins and outs of genetic inheritance can be confusing to 4th year mol gen students, let alone a passer by. Again, I would more than willing to help you increase your understanding in these subjects, were you to ask.

I agree. When all else fails, they'll mention purple unicorns and spaghettis monsters.

Yes I was being silly, as I had the distinctive feeling that the asker of the question was doing so with dishonesty (meaning he knew that evolution works on populations and not individuals) in mind. I apologize for making that assumption if this is not the case, as I have answered the question in my post above we will see his intentions, either harmless misunderstanding or harmful promotion of misinformation. I, being a sucker for the good in people, would love to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a harmless misunderstanding (yourself included) and I made an ass of my self for assuming more malignant motives.

If your question was a valid question then it is answered above and as I posted, I would be happy to aid you in further understanding why your statement was incorrect. However, if you were merely seeking to deceive people like Covis or others then I have no interest in further conversing with you. For the record; I am not sure what religion you were brought up in, but my religion and my God do not reward liars or deceivers.

Ummm, thanks but I'll stick with actual science. For a change to take place it has to take place in the reproductive system in order to be passed down. For example, if a human male was to be born with an extra arm it would be unlikely that his children would have a third arm since this defect did not effect his reproductive system. If you haven't noticed, children generally resemble their parents or at least one of them. THis is because of the genetic information that is passed down from the parents.

Clovis - do you think the difference between a spider and an elephant is less than the difference between a chimpanzee and human?



See I think that is the key word: wants. It is not a matter of wanting anything. It is what the evidence shows. Whereas I would contend that you guys don't want to believe in evolution, therefore you don't. Hey don't want to believe your related to other animals - then don't. That sometimes seems to be what you are saying.



Just like other animals? See the bit about spider and elephant. Animals are diverse.

Maybe you just didn't understand my question or its significance? Clovis seems to have understood it just fine.

Anyway, I see you are fairly new here. Welcome to the boards.

Did you actually read that post you quoted or we just gonna dance around with your hand my ass all night?

I think the problem with a person saying they believe in evolution is the definition being used. There are some definitions I accept and some I don't. I don't believe apes evolved into humans, so I don't accept this definition of evolution. However, if someone wants to call a rare positive mutation evolution then I could find myself to accept that. I don't accept evolution when it is all lumped together.

I read your post, but it didn't exactly present anything new or groundbreaking in the creationism vs evolution debate.

If you feel reproductive isolation is key in human reproduction then please present your case.

LMAO really hard, on the ground!

PS. Clovis said he believes in God and evolution.

I never thought for a second you made yourself look like an ass (donkey burr) just that it seems to be the modus operandi of some on the forum to dismiss some of the deeper explorations of this issue with such talk of fairy tales and ridiculous monsters. I just find the many special things humans have make us quite unique and it seems all a waste of this was not the intended plan.



The bonobos are interesting but can they in turn teach this behavior to other bonobos in the end and making it part of their culture? If what they learned dies with them and they are unable to pass it on it just appears as teaching a monkey tricks which is another part of man being able to train animals for their benefit or even their enjoyment. In this case it was for science but until bonobos can teach other bonobos or even have them teach and train us I think our mastery over them is well secured.



Well I am not going to claim that every contribution to human civilization can be all done by one person. Of course we build on other people's work but that does not take away from the superiority of our species nor does it degenerate any individual who has never invented something that contributed to mankind as simply being at the level of an animal.

As far as the Book I only mention it to state that the authors knew way back then that we were masters of the planet. This observation though does not require any Book nor does it require us using our dominion to destroy what we can master. My only premise is we are at the top of the food chain and to say any less takes away from our humanity. Further I will add that even if this was by evolution I feel it was planned. I can understand though the view of others who say we are just animals and not superior in anyway but I definitely disagree.

That is true, but I more thinking a regular sperm and egg job.

Actually they do, look at orca, they even have well founded dialects and differing lifestyles, not due to availability of food either. Saying fluid speech is just very vague and meaningless. You must also remember sound is not the primary form of communication for many animals, sight and smell are also very important (they are in humans too, but in different ways).

Yes but we create sperm and eggs in the same manner as other apes. Our difference is a positional one from re-orientation to the pelvis.
You think a mildly different oestrus cycle is a huge change for 5 million years of separation? The fact that they menstruate like humans is in fact a feature that unites the two species.
Swelling buttocks instead of swelling breasts (to with orientation of the pelvis again)?
The mating rituals, not hugely different for 5 million years of separation and a different social system.
In general the differences are not that great.

So why would the body create sperm and eggs differently? Large testes to body size and more sperm does not mean it is produced differently. Eggs produced in the ovary in the same way they are in humans. That is how it is.

Other animals do teach each other. As I said orca do, does that mean they are not related to say Pacific white sided dolphin which don't then? Course not.
Chimps/bonobos do not actively teach, but they learn from watching each other and they can figure things out for themselves (they can also lie and cheat). It is clear that there are huge cultural differences between Pan troglodytes populations, just look at bonobos and chimps, they are the same species with a hugely different culture.
Further to the point of whether we are separate to other animals, the fact the we are part of the ecosystem and our effects can be felt in both positive and negative ways and the fact that our survival is dependent on other species (not just externally, but the are mutalistic parasites in us which we can not live with out) then I believe we are clearly just another animal.
If you ever want to not feel superior to animal Clovis, try walking for an hour in the Sundarbans in India and see what if you any match for the tigers or the salt water crocodiles or try and have a fight with a Nile crocodile or a polar bear or a leopard(all natural predators of humans).

matt this is so interesting thankyou for taking the time to share this....I so love learning about this subject....I have never been able to understand how anyone can feel they are superior to anything.. i can't understnad how so many miss how much we have learned from our four legged and fearthered freinds and ocean freinds.....I am so fortunate to live in southern California for the ocean life ( seals dolphins etc.) and such a huge part of My Matt's life is nature. and its wonder......

The questions were not intended to compare religion or creation with fairy tales, they were intended to raise awareness of how such questions sound to someone who has intamitely studied evolution. Again, if I jumped the gun and assumed Walkingwithfire was asking such questions for the wrong reasons my apologies.




Actually, Chimps, Bonobos, Macaques, Dolphins, Orcas and many other animals are capable of teaching one another. Chimps for instance teach each other how to hunt and use tools. Its interesting to note that in chimp society younger males will protege under the most learned hunters in the group. Different males have different hunting styles that they excel at and these learned styles are passed on to their 'students'. Bonobos who have been taught to use lighters to make fire and to use pictures as expressions have been put with Bonobos who lack these skills and successfully taught them.





I guess my qualm is with the claim that we are indeed masters of the planet. Collectively we maybe the most dominant form of life on the planet, but as an individual we are just as susceptible to the forces of nature as a fly. Thousands of people are reminded of this when they go off into nature with no regard for the rules. One not even need to venture into nature to be reminded of our own mortality. A visit to a pathology ward in any modern hospital will relieve one of that delusion. Being at the top of the food chain does not give one or all dominion over others. Again, if you have ever known someone who died of pneumonia you should know that apex predators are just as susceptible to nature.

I disagree, I think many primatologists would as well. Chimps imitate, which is an active form of teacher-student interaction, not only that but mother chimps actively teach skills such as nut cracking (as well as hunting which I mentioned earlier).

For one interesting paper catch it HERE

Um, Yeti, did you read any of my posts? I CLEARLY said that humans and apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR.



Humans are NOT apes. 98% similarity between DNA may seem like a close match, but it's not. 40 million differences in humans and ape genes to be exact. That's a lot of differences. Science has already proven that apes are NOT the ancestor of humans.