Does the fact that Humans stand out like a sore thumb from the animal kingdom require Gen 1:27 to explain?
81943
I beg to differ with andyman_69. Other animals use tools. Other animals have languages. What is interesting is that so far, humans have not had much luck at deciphering their languages and have had more success at teaching them ours, either sign language or recently, to even use typewritten words displayed on a computer screen to communicate. \n\nOn top of this, there are many other behaviors that we share in common with our closest animal relatives. More than we would care to admit, I suspect. Then there is the remarkable genetic evidence that is slowly becoming more and more impressive. \n\nIt is all extremely interesting. What interests me more, is, what is consciousness? Do only humans have it? Or only a small number of other species?\n\nAnd if that is so, why? \n\nIf God did it, how? \n\nAnd I am not just referring to biblical references, but hard data and evidence that we can test in the laboratory.
856772
Hasn't anyone told them that plants have feelings too?And the savagry of animals attacking those plants..,dogs defacating on grass and peeing on trees..,I hear my grass screaming everytime fufu does a poo poo in my yard.\n\nHas anyone told Peta that the leather sandals they wear or the leather belt or the leather wallet are made from cowhides?They killed a cow just to wear a belt?Lmao
698792
No. It is not a provable theory. \nHowever, there are lots and lots of folks out there who will, perforce, look and act a lot like you. And this might actually be an increasing trend, due to globalization.\nWhat happens when you breed a Schnauzer to a Schnauzer? You get a Schnauzer? What happens when you breed a Doberman to a Schnauzer? You get a "what is that"? The same is true for people.\nSee, back in the day (say 200 years ago), populations were generally more stable, and so the gene pools were rather, ahem, shallow. People could trace their lineage back ten generations (if they had the records available) and find that every one of their ancestors lived within ten miles of where they themselves lived.\nThis led to a lot of "dopplegangers" - people who were not "related" in any meaningful way, but shared so many genetic traits that they closely resembled you. It is why, even today, there are "national looks" so people can say, "Oh, he's German" or "Ah, she's English." In some rural areas of America, this is very much true still today. \nBut as we became more mobile, we lost that insularity that had bred up a bunch of dopplegangers. More and more, humanity was breeding up "mutts" - a bunch of "what is that breed?" people. And the tendency towards dopplegangers decreased, except in isolated rural areas of the world, and places where breeding mores (marriage rites) required mate selection from a very limited pool.\nBut there is a tendency for this sort of thing to level out; for the mutts to develop common traits. In Cairo, Egypt, all the street dogs have a certain common look - sharp nose and ears, medium sized, brushy tail, rough (but not curly) coat, black and tan coloration - that obtains in the vast majority of the strays (or did when I was there 20 years ago). That is because they have found that "real" look, and interbred so indescriminately that they have created a new "breed" - one that survives pretty well in pretty harsh conditions.\nNow humans are approaching, slowly, that new breed. Oh, prejudice and cultural concepts and such will continue to keep "races" isolated. Many Asians ("Mongoloid peoples") consider Negroids and Caucasoids to be inferior, and vice versa. But more and more, we are seeing intermarriage, and the development of a new genetic norm. Sure, there will probably always be "breeds" of humans, but eventually the mutts will be the major new breed.\nAnd when that happens, expect to see a recurrence of the "dopplegangers".\nPersonally, I think I look like Harry Nilsson.
1154759
Post an addendum to your question - you don't need a whole new question.\n\nLeoin is obviously blissfully unaware (or more likely doesn't want to hear) that man and ape SHARED a common ancestor and evolution is based on branches not strength lines.\n\nOne more bit of amateur science to try to bolster an obviously wavering faith.
1153270
As much as we do not like to admit it, we are animals. I mean it literally. Human is part of the animal kingdom on this planet. If the apes are doing it, we are doing it. \n\nMen are instinctively driven to ensure that their genes are propogated to have a higher chance of surviving, just like any animal. The more decendants, the higher the chance.\n\nNude girl is a stimulant. Propogating is prime reason.
949699
I reference apes when I see hairy White guys on the beach here in Florida, but that has nothing to do with this, does it..lol.\n\nI think we need to make fun of ourselves.  We are so damn sensitive about stereotypes that unintelligent people put on us to make themselves feel better that it is crippling us as a race.  And making fun of ourselves might make us work toward doing something about the stereotypes that ARE true.
985894
We are too similiar to each other to be considered different subspecies.  Things like skin color are literally skin deep (as genetics have proven so in the last decade).  As for intellect, we don't know if it is genetic or environmental.\n\nTo answer your question, evolution is a very slow process.  Like you yourself said, it will take a few millenia.  In order for humans to evolve into two differene subspecies we have to stay seperate, for example, two different groups and they should not intermate.  If it is a matter of migration, they should NOT migrate and stay in one place.  But the problem is that humans are very dynamic AND very impatient.  We cannot stay in one place for long and evolution based on third world or the developed world would not be possible unless all the developed world countries close their doors and allow NO ONE to immigrate or emigrate for a few thousand years.
1045356
That's why evolution is so bull. Chinese history has been 6000-4000 years and NOTHING HAS CHANGED! We didn't grow a tail or an extra finger, nor lose any body parts. It's all Western propaganda trying to brainwash the rest of the world.
336401
Yes, I wonder that...they say we come from gorillas, maybe that's the reason so many people are mean and have a fighting instinct....God bless
1175089
I think the author is trying to get across the idea that there was no big leap from our non-human ancestors to modern humans.  You can look at modern humans, and recognize them as modern humans, but if you look at our ancestors, say, 2 million years ago, you would not call them modern humans.  In between are a bunch of different hominid species, which, as you move closer and closer to us, look more and more human.  But there is no bright line, no point at which you can say "Ah, that population is defiantely the first population of humans".
1157187
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
976792
then we created Him to explain us and the critters...  In our own image no less.\n\nImagine that, a contradiction in the bible.\n\n(I can just feel the thumbs down from the fundies already)
639822
I read once where thy think that nails on chalkboard and stuff like that are similar to our warning screeches when we were more primitive primates.  They make our hair stand up on end and bug us.  Just like a warning sound should do.  Makes sense to me until I hear a better explanation.
518678
No, they are not saying that.  All living organism including the ape and man die.  I think what they are saying is that the nearly perfect man came from the simpler imperfect protozoans and apes, and that the general direction is toward excellence and superiority.\n\nOn the othe hand, I don't believe we came from the apes. I believe otherwise.  We came from perfection to our present near-ape nature.  I don't see man moving in the general direction of excellence.  Generally, I see the weakening human specie.  However, the direction toward perfection is always possible by virtue of the Law of Polarity.  I just hope that there will be more of us who would rather "close their eyes and think" (Einstien) than "open their eyes and see" (Aristotle).
804746
First of all, there are animals/insects that eat their young.  Secondly, yes I am horrified and wonder what had become of the human race.  It appears we (humans) have all lost our common sense, our compassion, our hearts.  Something is very wrong with people today and I'm not sure how it happened.  \n\nPeople like to blame video games and rap music (neither of which I am fond of), but I'm not sure they are the problem.  I do know that people want everything instantly (instant coffee, microwaves, internet, emails) and have no patience.  Maybe because no one is patient?  People have become more rude and obnoxious.  Is this because we lack patience and are free to say whatever we want?\n\nNo, you're not weak, you just still have a lot of human left in you.
963750
Some poeple (me for example) are just born with the characteristic of more pain tolerance, while others may be born with another physical characteristic.but most of the time it is genitic.   \n\npeace out.
310750
In contrast to most mammals, humans do not have an all-embracing intense hair on their body. Several theories have been advanced to explain the bareness of human body hair. One suggests that nature selected humans for shorter and thinner body hair as part of a set of adaptations including bipedal locomotion and an upright posture. There are several problems with this savanna theory, not least of which is that cursorial hunting is used by (other) animals that do not show any thinning of hair, and that hair similar to chimpanzees and gorillas also shades the skin from radiant heat and protects it from hot winds, and thus another mechanism for heat loss is not required. Another problem is that bipedal locomotion apparently now predates hominids moving from a forest environment to a savanna environment. A more recent theory for human hair loss has to do with a possible period of bipedal wading in a salt marsh in the Danakil region of Ethiopia, possibly occurring in the hominid lineage between 5 and 7 million years ago. As a wading animal, it was more efficient to develop short body hair and a layer of subcutaneous fat for streamlining and insulation in the aquatic environment; the eccrine sweat glands developed later after the hominids left the water; see Aquatic ape hypothesis. One problem with this theory is that both chimpanzees and gorillas have the same density and distribution of the eccrine glands, but that they have not been developed for sweat production.\n\nA third theory for the thin body hair on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway sexual selection played a role here (as well as in the selection of long head hair). Possibly this occurred in conjunction with neoteny, with the more juvenile appearing females being selected by males as more desirable; see types of hair and vellus hair. The human female body hair typically has more vellus hair (making the skin appear bare), while the male body typically has more terminal hair (especially on the chest, abdomen and back). Thus sexual selection can explain the sexual dimorphism in human body hair, with the results of selection being more evident (more extreme) in the female than in the male, a point which the other two theories cannot address without proposing substantially different behavior between males and females. Also, we see that artificially bare (shaved, etc.) legs, arms, etc. on women are seen as "sexy" even today, while body shaving is not nearly as common for men.