Ahhh the question that no one has an answer to...were we created by god or an ancestor of the "apes"?

Question

Did you know that studies have proven that the gorilla is actually our closet relative. Monkeys are stupid and chimps just mimic. There's some random anthropology information for you.

Answer 1

No, our closest relatives are bonobos, with whom we share over 98% of our DNA.

I've yet to see a shread of evidence to suggest that God exists, but there's a prepondernce of evidence to support the theory of evolution. I hardly see the origin of species as un unanswerable question at this point. Here's just a little of that evidence:


1. Vestigial structures

One example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.

Another example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.

2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.

Creationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution. This is true. However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.

3. The fossil record.

Although the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species. There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).

I want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).

There are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).

5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.

Creationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument. Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin. It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.

Any developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photographs of actual embryos taken by respectable scientists, NOT on Haeckel's drawings.

I find it rather funny that creationists try to argue that because one scientist was a fraud we should disregard all of developmental biology.

6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.

The main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.

Genetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?

Also, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.

7. Homologous structures.

Homologous structures are structures that typically have similar morphological features and, often, similar functions, and are the result of evolutionary change of a single structure present in the most recent common ancestor of the two species. A homoplastic structure is one that may have a similar function and superficial appearance to another structure but is the result of convergent evolution (i.e. it was not present in the most recent common ancestry).

The most obvious examples of homoplastic structures are things like a human's hand and a gorilla's hand. A more subtle example is the human hand and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve different functions, their bone structures are nearly identical. This is because the bat wing is a modified mammalian forelimb. In other word, the most recent common ancestor of the human and the bat was a mammal that had a forelimb with a bone structure similar to that of the modern human hand and other mammalian forelimbs. In humans this forelimb became the hand. In bats it became the wing.

An interesting example of homoplastic structures is the bird wing and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve similar functions (i.e. flying), they are anatomically quite different. They have quite different bone structures and operate according to different mechanical mechanisms. In fact, the bat wing is structurally more similar to human hand than the bird wing. Incidentally, the bird and bat wings are homoplastic as wings but homologous as forelimbs.

That is just one example. The animal kingdom is littered with examples of structures that serve different functions but have extremely similar morphological traits, and structures that serve similar functions but show clear evidence of distinct evolutionary origin.

8. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.

The point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.

9. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).

These are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.

There are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."


For more information, see the following links:
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml
http://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Or just do a google search for something like “evidence of evolution,” or check your local library.

Answer 2

I use to hate being in CP biology class and have the teacher teach on evolution because I knew I believed in God and still do. Although we are close to them or should I say they are close to us in brain levels God made us totally to be different and that's that.
Picture this scene
Take a chimp out to a regular dine out restaurant on one table, Now take a normal human being out at the same restaurant at another table. No matter what status of that human being is either mentally ill or special you won't see him acting like a chimp and you won't see a chimp acting like a human.That chimp would be all over the table acting a fool or being animal. Why are people more open that we came from apes but didn't come from God. God is real and he's right there all you have to do is call on the name of the lord. I mean you can't call on a chimp for help now can ya. And although yes we can't physically see him his evidence is all around. Who created the stars and made the sun rise. Nope it wasn't billions of chemicals gathering together to form something. I mean who created the billions of chemicals.
Until the world sees that something that is created has to in fact have a creator. So someone had to be in place to have form those apes and those ancestors. And that's what I'm sticking to so I do have the answer. Sorry.
Much Luv

Answer 3

Did you also know that.. in the bible god created the neanderthal before man? The neanderthal is thought to be ancient man which resembled modern day apes. Can we prove this?? No. Can we prove that we are just apes who evolved into man? No. Like you said this question will remain a mystery and quite frankly, I would rather believe that my ancestors are Adam and Eve not an ape. There's some random information for you.

Answer 4

So the apes or baboons share 98% DNA. What about the other 2%? You can not change even one single strand of DNA in any animal and create a new one. The animal could not exist with such a change. Time to go back to drawing board because evolution did not produce man from ape.

Answer 5

GOD created it all, not only what you see but what you do not see! Walk on any sea shore, bend down and pick up just one grain of sand, that is earth. The rest of the sea shore is the heavens. GOD created it all.

You concern yourself with one grain of sand on the sea shore, one body in all the universes. What matter it, from which humans evolved? What ever, you cannot change it one way or the other. One thing is for sure, nature is forever changing.

You have enough to carry in this life just trying to live with one another. How really stupid wars, and piety jealousies are!

Answer 6

2% is a bloody big difference in genetic and evolutionary terms!! I'm a firm believer of the Darwinian theory of evolution and similar scientific theories. I believe it is incredibly naive to discount positive physical evidence because it disputes or contradicts a text which has never been substantiated in fact, only in religious fervour, and belief. Evolution and the miracle of nature and her infinite balances n tricks n techniques is the true religion; the true life work worthy of time n study n reverence and, most of all, PROTECTION.

Answer 7

Maybe Go IS an ancestor of the apes? Eat me, Jerry Flawell.

Answer 8

There are no studies that prove any part of evolution is true. It is all theoretical and hasn't been proven. It is taught as a theory of how life began but many people take it as fact even though scientists are still trying to prove it to be true. Darwin's theory is just that. . . a theory. I can't prove God created us either. But at least I admit it.

Answer 9

Some god made the apes that turned into us. Scientists have an explanation on how we evolved from apes, but how can they explain where the apes came from and where "whatever it is that the apes came from" came from?

Answer 10

our lord god made them in basic terms as they are, who're we to question the whys and wherefores. Fancy! our lord god positioned some human kind mind cells in some whales - wow! it truly is superb what He can do?! our lord god can do all issues.

Answer 11

Who cares anyway, why can't we just live as what we are?
Be the best human you can be>>>>>>
Doesn't really matter who or what created us, be better than the apes>>>> or other animals