Slashdot Mirror
Ape-Human Split Moved Back By Millions Of Years
E++99 writes in to let us know about a development in paleo-anthropology. It seems that up until now, scientific consensus has placed the divergence of man from the ape line five to six million years ago (based on "genetic distances"). But newly discovered fossils in Ethiopia place the divergence at least twice as far back, and perhaps as long ago as 20 million years. They also largely put to rest any doubts that man and modern apes both emerged from Africa. From the article: "The trail in the hunt for physical evidence of our human ancestors goes cold some six or seven million years ago... Beyond that... fossils of early humans from the Miocene period, 23 to five million years ago, disappear. Fossils of early apes especially during the critical period of 14 to eight million years ago were virtually non-existent — until now... [T]he new fossils, dubbed 'Chororapithecus abyssinicus' by the team of Japanese and Ethiopian paleo-anthropologists who found them, place the early ancestors of the modern day gorilla 10 to 10.5 million years in the past, suggesting that the human-ape split occurred before that."
You cite about 5 cases, but there were a lot more findings.
Apparently the 98% genetic similarity with chimpanzee doesn't convince you.
Or you just patologically deny the facts, like your predecessors denied the round earth (aww, man, we would all fall down if earth isn't flat).
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
- Man was incapable of sin until eating the fruit.
- Man became capable of sin after eating the fruit.
- Man at the fruit while incapable of sin.
- Eating the fruit was a sin.
There's a ??? step I'm missing somewhere...I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why copy the wrong answers too? Seems a little bit odd to move the pseudogene for the creation of vitamin C into all the great apes, and yet give all the other mammals the ability to create their own. With the exception of the guinea pig which oddly rather than having an identical flaw has a completely different one. Copied not only every answer, but the little doodle you did of what the teacher would look like getting mauled by a raptor.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Apparently the 98% genetic similarity with chimpanzee doesn't convince you.
Careful of naked statistics.. For example 99% uptime is HORRIBLE. You have to provide a frame of reference.. What would the genetic different be between a worm and cat. How about cat to an ape.. great-ape to a chimp. Etc.
-Michael
I think you've come very close to the real reason a number of Christians have a problem with evolution.
:)
With a lead in like that, it's hard to disagree. There are a couple of billion Christians world-wide by some measures. We could probably find "a number of Christians" who have a problem with evolution because they were attacked by monkeys as children, and they associate evolution with monkeys because of that famous graphic depicting an ape slowly turning into a man.
The bible tells us that man was created in God's image, but evolution tells us that we are just the latest in a long line of incremental improvements.
This enters into it, but not in the way that you and the parent seem to think. The parent asked, "If we're created in the image of your god, does he have a tail bone and an appendix?" It's hard to tell whether he's being sarcastic. If not, why stop there? Men and women have some obvious physiological differences. So, which is it? Are men created in the image of God, or are women? Apparently (and amazingly) the parent believes that being created in the image of God means that we bear some physical resemblance to him. Just drawing attention to this premise in his argument should reveal how ridiculous it is, but just in case, I'll spell it out. No group of Christians I'm aware of has ever believed that the Imago Dei has anything to do with our physical bodies.
Having your religion tell you that you aren't special is hard for a lot of people to take; especially people attracted to a religion like Christianity that tells you that you are so special Jesus chose to die for you.
Again, this is a little hard to refute. All over the world, there are undoubtedly sermons being preached about how inherently special we are. But you should take note of a fine but significant distinction. Historically, most Christians have not believed that Jesus died for people because they were special. The song is called Amazing Grace because Newton believed the favor shown to him by God was completely undeserved. He calls himself a wretch, which some modern, mainline denominations have edited out in the belief that traditional Christianity has too negative a view of mankind. If you're shopping around for a worldview that caters to ego, there are much better options than Christianity.
I'd like to suggest to you that the real psychological problem (that is, putting aside the theology and science) that a lot of people have with evolution isn't, as you say, as simple as stubborn, childish insistence that we are better and more important than the apes. The problem is with naturalism. (Many educated Christians believe in "theistic" evolution.) Absent something like the image of God, it's hard for many people to believe that their lives have meaning, that they are capable of apprehending truth, that morality boils down to anything more than personal preferences (which in turn boil down to chemical reactions), etc. In other words, what they are really afraid of is radical nihilism. This is more than just a blow to the ego. It's a question of whether it can be meaningfully said that such a thing as the ego exists.
I wish I could find a reference. Humans also have a lot in common with pigs, genetically speaking. The percentage is almost as high, but I don't recall the exact number. Heck, they even say humans tastes like pork. There is a reason why pig parts and cells are now used for both human organ replacement and medical research. Odd we're not using chimp parts.
Also, lots and lots of living organisms have some 40%-60% in common with humans, if not more. So that really means we only differ some 60%-40% from some drastically different organisms. That really means 98% genetically alike really means something like 4%-6+% genetically different where it matters. Add in the fact that a tiny percent of one percent in genetic material can have huge impact what it it means to be "human". This really suggests we have far more not in common then we have in common with the likes of chimps and great apes. Especially once you consider not all genetic material is created equal. Seriously, where it matters, ignoring the material that is largely common between humans and other varying life, we are probably some 10%-20% different...where it really matters.