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.
Well they actually are quite near human intellect. They're about as developed as a 5 year old human which is quite good really. But what does the intelligence of the Chimp relative to Humans have to do with the evidence that this shared language presents for common ancestry?
Because they have chimp brains. But what does the intelligence of the Chimp relative to Humans have to do with the evidence that this shared language presents for common ancestry?
@Pikachu It's hardly evidence for that but the point is the argument always goes there is some small "missing link" or tiny mutation or obscure gene sequence which delineates the human from the chimp ancestor which has never been found
lol well a dolphin lacks the anatomy to do most of these gestures but even if it could be taught....the point is that this behaviour is NOT taught. It's something that both humans and Chimps do instinctively.
So you don't have an explanation for this behaviour from Creationism while we DO have a legitimate explanation from evolution. And it's the same answer that it always is: Common ancestry. Consistency is what makes evolution science and creationism just a religious belief.
@Pikachu Sounds like dogma to me but the answer is if we needed to know we would know because the explanation is irrelevant to our salvation while the chimp is not a fallen creature
You can bash evolution all you want it won't change the truth😉 It would be dogma if one weren't allowed to offer an alternate explanation but that is not the situation here.
You're acknowledging that (once again) there is no answer from Creationism with explanatory power while this is yet another example that falls in line with what we can expect to see from evolution and common ancestry.
@scrood "Sounds like dogma to me but the answer is if we needed to know we would know because the explanation is irrelevant to our salvation while the chimp is not a fallen creature"
This puts your argument outside the scope of the causal description of the material world as object of knowledge. So, as that causal description is the nature of Science, your statment may or not be true (being that irelevant to this debate) but can´t validate nor claim to be validated by Science itself.
In other words putting together "the explanation is irrelevant to our salvation" and "if we needed to know we would know" makes a non sequitur.
@scrood You have a very particular understanding of what salvation may mean if you make it to deppend on what someone thinks about nature. Unless you are thinking that @Pikachu 's "fantasies" about chimps involves some kind of weird kink. THAT would be another kind of stuff, right?
You're allowed to fantasize all you want about chimps but it could be dangerous for your salvation
Wrong. Accepting the evidence for evolution over the religious dogma of creationism has no bearing on accepting Jesus as lord. So let's not hide behind the defense of religious salvation.
You deny evolution but you keep showing that the only basis on which you do so is a dogmatic adherence to a a niche religious interpretation.
Then how do you explain why evolution is taught in public schools but class prayer and Bible study are banned permanently?
lol for exactly the same reason that we teach the water cycle in school and not that god "tip the water jars of the heavens". Because the former is science and the latter is religious belief.
Bible study is not for school unless you think study of the Quran or Talmud should be taught in the same way.
Science doesn't serve anything. It's just the most reliable and consistent tool yet devised for learning what is true about the world around us. When we use science to cure disease or purify drinking water, no one is calling it "scientism" or dogma. Funnily enough, the religious folks only start pretending science is anything other than a useful tool when it starts giving answers they don't want to hear...and THAT is dogma and THAT has no place in a school.
For a perfect example of why that is and why it SHOULD be, look no further than our conversation here: I've presented a scientific fact which is supported (consistently as ever) by the theory of evolution and what was your response? " if we needed to know we would know".....you want to teach kids in school that they don't need to know the answer?
lol of COURSE we're not going to teach that in class. Come on.
@scrood As a personal believe? No harm. But there is a difference. In Science, proves and refutations, even if provisory ones, are based in factual evidences. Not in faith, authority, privileged documents, common sense, personal whiness and neither in the bogus counterfactuals of "rationalism". Creationsim can´t provide said consistent factual evidences.
By the way, mine is NOT an atheist cruzade. But about the natural material universe Science is IMO the best we have.
@scrood That seems to be a dogmatic ignorance about the composition of the scientific comunity. Not all but most of researchers have their (different) own faiths. And even so, they reach convergent conclussions on what gets into the scope of Science. Also christian ones. If because they don´t share your branch of religious thought you feel entitled to say they are not christians, thats YOUR human hubris. So Science as an atheist agenda haves no basis. It can only scare the ones that confuse faith with choosed ignorance.
