• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Question about mankind.

Show me all of the"evolutionary" parts that have been added in the last hundred years. All you will find is subtraction for the most part. This goes against the "pond scum to ape" religion that you believe. Genetiscists tell us now that according to latest research we only have 69% similar dna to an ape, humorously the same as a banana.
My daddy wasnt a banana mate.
Do you have a source for this 69%? That is roughly 30 percentage points different from every number I've heard quoted.
 
Just for the record (for people with a genuine interest in biology), humans are more genetically similar to African species of apes than those apes are to Asian apes. We share a more recent common ancestor. For example, we are more closely related to both gorillas and chimpanzees than those apes are to orangutans. Given four individuals, one from each of those species, the orangutan would be the odd one out.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Do you have a source for this 69%? That is roughly 30 percentage points different from every number I've heard quoted.


As with anything in the internet age, it depends where you look.

In the last five minutes, I've found 2 sites that quote figures around the 60-70% similar mark. It was no surprise to find these figures on
creation/Christian Science sites.

In another 5 minutes, I found figures around the more familiar 98.5% similarity on sites like the Natural History Museum (US and UK).

I know where I'll put my stock :|
 
Just for the record (for people with a genuine interest in biology), humans are more genetically similar to African species of apes than those apes are to Asian apes. We share a more recent common ancestor. For example, we are more closely related to both gorillas and chimpanzees than tose apes are to orangutans. Given four individuals. one from each of those species, the orangutan would be the odd one out.



Invalid Link Removed


And the sex-mad bonobos are now in the club ;)
 
If it could already explain everything - I'd be out of a job!

Science is used to answer the questions to which we don't have answers.

So what is science's answer for the origin of the universe prior to its Big Bangy?


And?

And there are plenty of scientists who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu

Of course. I mentioned agnostic scientists as being honest in contrast to atheist scientists. That's the "and."
 
As far as humans coming from monkeys goes, I don't know whether the common primate ancestor of humans and monkeys would actually be called a monkey. But just like the situation above, we're very much more closely related to some species of present day monkeys that some monkeys are to each other. Humans and African monkeys both belong in the group catarrhini (which also includes all the other apes), while South Ameircan monkeys are in the separate group platyrrhini.
 
In other words, you're a much closer relative of this little fella...

800px-South_African_Monkey.jpg


... than this chap is.

534px-BrownSpiderMonkey_%28edit2%29.jpg
 
So what is science's answer for the origin of the universe prior to its Big Bangy?

I've already said that science can't explain everything, at least not yet. Selective reading much?


Of course. I mentioned agnostic scientists as being honest in contrast to atheist scientists. That's the "and."

Agnostic, as in, Agnostic Atheists and not Gnostic Atheists?

A scientist's honesty has nothing to do with any religious beliefs they may or may not hold.
 
As with anything in the internet age, it depends where you look.

In the last five minutes, I've found 2 sites that quote figures around the 60-70% similar mark. It was no surprise to find these figures on
creation/Christian Science sites.

In another 5 minutes, I found figures around the more familiar 98.5% similarity on sites like the Natural History Museum (US and UK).

I know where I'll put my stock :|

That was my hunch, but I didn't want to taint my google search history with things that would place me in their idiot ad demographic. Thanks for taking that bullet for me.:|
 
I've thought about this quite a bit. I teach religious education classes on Sunday mornings at my local church, 9th grade. And the kids will often have these same, deep questions about existence, purpose, and whether or not all of "this" is pure accident or design.

In my mind, looking at how large the universe is (or how large we, as humans, perceive it to be based on our limited ability to fully understand it), it simply amazes me that this solar system contains this planet. The perfect mixture of water, temperature, minerals, etc. No other planets that we know of have this precise and delicate balance to sustain life as we understand it. And on this planet, at some point life began. And developed, becoming more and more complex as time went on. And eventually, after billions of years, along comes the human race. An unlikely species to survive and flourish because at it's beginnings it did not have advanced technology. It lived in a world where it had to compete with other animals, and the only advantage it had was the ability to reason and think on a higher level (Why? Seems to go against how other animals evolve). Humans should have been wiped out very early on; not a favorable species to exist in the environment they existed in. But they were not. And then humans grew and developed, eventually becoming what we are today. Out of all the galaxies, all the stars, all the solar systems, all of the planets, here you and I are, living on this one, enjoying that precise mix of temperature, oxygen, water, atmosphere, and everything else that, as far as we know, does not exist anywhere else. At any point in time, something, anything could have been thrown off, completely derailing the evolution of this planet, it's species, and importantly you and I. Even the smallest change. But it didn't happen. And here we all are, not only living, but thinking and considering what our purpose is, or if we have one, searching for answers that go beyond science and trying to discover if there is any reason for spirituality, if there is an afterlife, if there is a supreme being (or entity, or governing force), and what it all means, if anything.

To me, the equation for which we, and our world, are the result is far too complicated and precise to have been left up to chance or some random occurrence. But that is my belief, I try not to push it on anyone or think poorly of them if they feel differently.
 
That's an interesting post, BayStateBass. Of course, I'm sure you understand that any life on Earth has adapted to the prevailing conditions here - otherwise it couldn't exist.

You might find this develops your ideas further.

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

Also, try reading up on the Drake equation and considering what values some of the variales in it could have.
 
I've thought about this quite a bit. I teach religious education classes on Sunday mornings at my local church, 9th grade. And the kids will often have these same, deep questions about existence, purpose, and whether or not all of "this" is pure accident or design.

In my mind, looking at how large the universe is (or how large we, as humans, perceive it to be based on our limited ability to fully understand it), it simply amazes me that this solar system contains this planet. The perfect mixture of water, temperature, minerals, etc. No other planets that we know of have this precise and delicate balance to sustain life as we understand it. And on this planet, at some point life began. And developed, becoming more and more complex as time went on. And eventually, after billions of years, along comes the human race. An unlikely species to survive and flourish because at it's beginnings it did not have advanced technology. It lived in a world where it had to compete with other animals, and the only advantage it had was the ability to reason and think on a higher level (Why? Seems to go against how other animals evolve). Humans should have been wiped out very early on; not a favorable species to exist in the environment they existed in. But they were not. And then humans grew and developed, eventually becoming what we are today. Out of all the galaxies, all the stars, all the solar systems, all of the planets, here you and I are, living on this one, enjoying that precise mix of temperature, oxygen, water, atmosphere, and everything else that, as far as we know, does not exist anywhere else. At any point in time, something, anything could have been thrown off, completely derailing the evolution of this planet, it's species, and importantly you and I. Even the smallest change. But it didn't happen. And here we all are, not only living, but thinking and considering what our purpose is, or if we have one, searching for answers that go beyond science and trying to discover if there is any reason for spirituality, if there is an afterlife, if there is a supreme being (or entity, or governing force), and what it all means, if anything.

To me, the equation for which we, and our world, are the result is far too complicated and precise to have been left up to chance or some random occurrence. But that is my belief, I try not to push it on anyone or think poorly of them if they feel differently.
This would be a fairly compelling argument if:

A) Our existence had significance (we like to think we're important, admittedly but I haven't heard too many non-humans saying that humans aren't very important)
B) It didn't fall into the same traps as other examples of the "anthropic principle."

Think of the joke about the cat and the dog: "They feed me, they love me, they clean up after me, they must be God." Thought the dog about its owner. "They feed me, they love, me, they clean up after me, I must be God." Thought the cat about its owner.

Either the world was built entirely around us, seemingly perfect in ever way to support us, or through a billion years on earth we've kinda gotten used to the layout and accommodated ourselves accordingly.
 
Discussion of the anthropic principle always remind me of this quote.

Douglas Adams said:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
 
This would be a fairly compelling argument if:A) Our existence had significance (we like to think we're important, admittedly but I haven't heard too many non-humans saying that humans aren't very important)
B) It didn't fall into the same traps as other examples of the "anthropic principle."

Think of the joke about the cat and the dog: "They feed me, they love me, they clean up after me, they must be God." Thought the dog about its owner. "They feed me, they love, me, they clean up after me, I must be God." Thought the cat about its owner.

Either the world was built entirely around us, seemingly perfect in ever way to support us, or through a billion years on earth we've kinda gotten used to the layout and accommodated ourselves accordingly.

I don't see it as an arguement. Bay State Bass is saying what he believes and how he talks to the children on Sunday. It seems to me like he has given this a lot of thought and is doing his best to deal with a complex issue.
 
That's an interesting post, BayStateBass. Of course, I'm sure you understand that any life on Earth has adapted to the prevailing conditions here - otherwise it couldn't exist.

You might find this develops your ideas further.

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

Also, try reading up on the Drake equation and considering what values some of the variales in it could have.

Wow, cool article. I just started reading it, pretty interesting. Thanks.
 
I don't see it as an arguement. Bay State Bass is saying what he believes and how he talks to the children on Sunday. It seems to me like he has given this a lot of thought and is doing his best to deal with a complex issue.

Yeah, it really wasn't an argument. Just some insight into what I've thought about, and generally how I explain those thoughts when asked, although modified due to what this forum does/doesn't allow. Let's face it, we are not the first people to discuss this and we're probably not the brightest minds that have ever done so. At least I know I'm not.

I have enjoyed this thread immensely, though. It's great to see what people are thinking, and it's been pretty tame so far.