It gets more and more absurd for Creationists to deny the evolutionary relationship between Humans and Chimpanzees.
Let's ignore for the moment evidences from the fossil record or genetic evidence and focus on behaviour. Chimpanzees use vocalization to communicate but many more gestures and get this: over 95% of the gestures they use are the same gestures used instinctively by babies and toddlers up to age two.
Evolution (as always) explains this readily and logically by the conclusion that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor wherein these instinctive gestures were present. But how does the evolution-denying creationist account for this shared language?
In total, researchers found the human toddlers used 52 discrete gestures to communicate, including clapping, hugging, stomping, raising their arms and shaking their heads, often stringing the moves together to convey complex ideas. It turns out that the chimps also used 46 of the same gestures, meaning there’s a 90 percent overlap.
creationists claim that the world and living things were created by a supreme being. this does not negate evolution, if we imagine that the act of creation is the projection of the principle of life onto the nurturing environment in which life receives embodiment. the act of creation is still ongoing, like the mutation of species, which can be called evolution.
the common patterns of motor activity that are used for communication in social animals are due to the similarity of the physiological structure of the body.
Well i thought it went without saying that i am referring to evolution-denying creationists, typically young earth creationists but yes, there is no inherent problem with believing in god and accepting evolution.
the common patterns of motor activity that are used for communication in social animals are due to the similarity of the physiological structure of the body.
I don't this actually goes very far to explaining it. That's akin to saying that the shared ability to speak should mean most humans somehow develop a nearly identical language. Additionally, while that explanation could possibly address why the same sorts of gestures are made, it has no explanatory power for why the gestures mean the same thing across radically disparate species.
