Humans just retarded apes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that its true that some traits are genetic, but some are also learned. I believe that our ability to luagh, cry, and sneeze are inherited, or they are new manifestations cuased by genetic shufferling. But i do not think that all these manifestations are ultimatly a result of physical reality. A problem arises when we assume that all things are the result of prior “physical” cuases. If we assume this, then nobody is at fualt for there behavior, since humans are mearly acting acording to their nature, what ever that happens to be. If you are good, then its only because you have those genes, and not becuase you made a free choice to do the right thing.

There is a problem with this. If it is true, then human dignity is destroyed, since everybody, including their actions, are just manifestations of the shifting tide of energy and atoms. You do not love your child; its just the chemicals in your brain forcing you to love your child. In fact its not your “child”, its just a gennetic pattern in nature, a collection of atoms which naturally cuases you to love “it”. And those who choose not to love their children cannot be blamed, since they do not share the same gennetic heritage as you. It completly undermines Moral Law and free will.

The fault is in naturalism, and i welcome its silly attempts to come up with a purply naturalsitic theory of everything, because it will only go to show how ridculous naturalism truly is; which will work in favor of Theism; and those who are trully looking for truth will see the wolf in sheeps cloths.

Biological-predestination flows neccesarilly from naturalism, but not from personal experience. Each person knows that they have freewill. However freewill is a problem that can only be solved by positing a different kind of reality other then physical reality; which does not in itself do well in support of materialistic propaganda.

This type of philosophy is a mixture of truth and lies. Its a materialistic perversion of legitmate theories such as Evolution and Genetic-Heritage. And its exactly the kind of philosophy one would expect to find in a growing culture of people who make it their lifes purpose to rebel against God. A Culture that wishes to remove all personal responsibility in regards to sin.
 
I think that its true that some traits are genetic, but some are also learned.
Click to expand...
Yes. In humans, our prolonged childhood and developmental retardation makes it possible for most of our behavior to be learned. This, of course, does not mean biological detemination or that we are not responsible for what we do.
 
Perhaps a tad more information from the American Psychological Association may be helpful. 🙂

**What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. **
Boesch, Christophe
Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2007 Aug Vol 121(3) 227-240

Abstract: Two major theoretical approaches have dominated the quest for uniquely human cognitive abilities: a developmentalist approach stressing the importance of environmental and social conditions, and a predominant approach in experimental and comparative psychology, the deterministic approach suggesting the effect of environmental and social conditions to be minimal. As a consequence, most claims of human cognitive uniqueness are based on comparisons of White middle class Westerner humans (Homo sapiens) with captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). However, humans are much more than only White middle class Westerners, and chimpanzees are much more than only captives. A review of some data available on different populations of humans and chimpanzees reveals that only the predictions of the developmentalist approach are supported. In addition, systematic biases are too often introduced in experiment protocols when comparing humans with apes that further cast doubts on cross-species comparisons. The author argues that only with consideration of within-species population differences in the cognitive domains and the use of well-matched cross-species experimental procedures will an objective understanding of the different cognitive abilities between species emerge. This will require a shift in the theoretical approach adopted by many in experimental and comparative psychology.
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2007-11961-001
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2007-11961-001
 
The_Barbarian said:
It’s true that our physical maturation is greatly retarded, relative to other apes, particularly chimpanzees. As apes grow, the sutures in their cranium fuse early, and it stops growing. But their faces and jaws continue to grow. Human crania don’t fuse until very late, giving us a bulbous skull with a large brain. Our faces and jaws remain tiny as in infant apes.

This is why we look more like baby chimps than adult chimps.

Our proportions are more infantile than adult, compared to chimps, whose arms become longer tan their legs. And in adult chimps,the foramen magnum moves back to the rear of the skull, making their posture more quadrupedal than in infant chimps.

One result of this retardation is the repositioning of the larynx in humans. It means we can choke to death on our food easily, but it also gives us the facility of speech.

http://www.virtual-anthropology.com/virtual-anthropology/images/compare_thompson.jpg

virtual-anthropology.com/virtual-anthropology/geometric-morphometrics/thin-plate-splines
Click to expand...
Very informative and well explained. Thank you for posting that. 🙂
 
The problem that I have with evolution is primarily is that it is a theory based on “some evidence”. The “evidence” that we have/found are relatively finite in comparasion to the actual total of all the species of the world. For example: Scientists acknowledge about 10 percent of the worlds species in existence today know. Given that the species now are alive we know they existed because we are finding them daily. Here is my point: The percentage of ancient life/species we have problem only uncovered 1 percent and I think that maybe that is giving them the benefit of the doubt. To say that we evolved out of a apes or primates in respect to the total amount of fossils that we have found and will ever find is fantastically insignificant. It is like saying the pyramids were not built by humans but by aliens!!!
In retrospect the very act of finding bones from even dinosaurs is such a freak act of nature that those creatures were just really in the right place at the right time when they died and then preserved. It just troubles me so when these scientists draw their conclusions based on a very few amounts of evidence. I know they all say it is a theory but seriously most of the time they try to make it fact. Like for example: Humans didn’t leave Africa no earlier than 100 thousand years ago. Well they just found a human skull in an Israel cave that far exceeds this 100 thousand time frame. I believe that scientists have it wrong and when their puzzle doesn’t seem to fit they frantically try to figure it out by more theories. Well maybe this well maybe that.
In contrast you can even take my argument to nations or cities in the bible. the city of david or other cities that held great importance to the ancients. these cities are hard to find and some have speculated and even have come to the conclusion that these cities may not have even existed. Well they found troy, they found the lost city of Avaris in Egypt. The list continues and still they say well that city wasn’t even their.
How about a 12 thousand year old structure that is 3 to 4 thousand years earlier that man could have constructed such a huge structure. These buildings are being found this one stated above is off the coast of Japan underwater. Scientists claim that we were not civil back then and still living in caves. I just think how ignorant we really are when it comes about the past.
We find and think, we think and draw our conclusions based on a small fraction of what was, is and will be out there. I am not implying that their is no molecular change or genetic drift where a species can adapt is ridiculous. That happens all the time. Even in humans if we go up and live in higher altitudes we will get sick and eventually our heart and lungs will grow bigger to compensate for the difference in oxygen intake. Plants same thing again, they can change and adapt to the climate and conditions of the planet. My ideology comes from the notion that I believe we as humans are ignorant and we are trying so hard to frantically take out God and what he has to say.
Rhetorical question is this: Why would nature even if it is in a lot of chances could create such a huge difference that even the apes can’t even compare with the human cognitive thinking. in less than and I am giving these scientists the benefit of the doubt here in 150 thousand years?
 
Seraphim25 said:
The problem that I have with evolution is primarily is that it is a theory based on “some evidence”. The “evidence” that we have/found are relatively finite
Click to expand...
But if there is some evidence, however finite, it is still evidence. As far as people can scientifically understand, the earth is millions of years old, and species have slowly become more complex in their evolution over vast periods times. From the very simple creatures of millions of years past, to the very complex of the here and now, people can see a pattern, and that pattern points to evolution. Genetics provides a mechanism by which these events can occur with out interference from a designer. This does not mean that God did not design the “process of evolution”; I believe he did. In any case, Evolution is a far more simpler hypothesis, then positing a God who has chosen to create things by fiat, or over vasts periods of time. If your going to do something over vast periods of time, you might as well employ the laws of physics and genetics, especailly if you know that it will achieve the desired result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top