Would any atheists change their views on creation if humans were the only hominids?

Question

This is just a hypothetical question. What if there were no apes, gorillas, orangutans, or chimps? What if the closest relative to humans was the pig? Would any atheists change their views on evolution and creationism? Why or why not?

OK, let me clarify some. I do understand evolution, and I know that several creationists also accept evolution (and some in various degrees). The point of me asking this question is simply to find out if many atheists have come to the conclusions they have based primarily on the fact that other animals look similar to us, or if other factors are more important. I myself am agnostic, and personally, I would probably be more inclined to believe in God if humans were the only hominids. I am not trying to preach to atheists, as some of you seem to believe. I am just trying to find out how some atheists think. That is all.

Answer 1

I assume you mean there are also no fossils to indicate the steps between our porquine relative?

Yeah, probably.

-------------

It is possible to be a fundamentalist atheist, as some of my fellow atheists are showing -- even if the burden of evidence was against our species having evolved, they would rather believe in aliens or some other solution than even entertain the possibility of a deity.

Fundamentalist atheism is just as dangerous as fundamentalist anything-else.

Follow the evidence and the facts where they lead, no matter how absurd the conclusion may seem.

Answer 2

Well, it's an interesting point. So you're saying there's nothing that resembles humans closer than, say, a baboon?

Certainly, if all humans were shown to have a 'unique' genome which bore little or no relation to any other extant species it would be interesting. If further, human genetics suggested a common ancestor at some point in time (say 5000 years ago), this would suggest a peculiar origin for mankind, apart from other animals.

So yes, I (and I presume pretty much everyone else) would change my views on evolution if there was an apparent separation between human origins and those of other animals.

And to be persuaded about creationism I would just need to know there was credible evidence that backs up the Genesis story. Because it all boils down to evidence in the end.

I accept the best fit explanation for the evidence we have at present. If the evidence and explanation were different, so too would be my viewpoint. I am after all, a reasonable man!
.

Answer 3

The point is that there are transitional fossils leading all the way to modern humans. Why deny the evidence? If humans had descended from pigs there would be a sequence of fossils showing that. If there was immutable creation then your question about "closest relative" makes no sense. If species are created as they are then no animal is related to any other. The problem for creationists is that all animals are related and the relationships can be demonstrated.

Answer 4

The evidence for common descent is not primarily morphological. In other words, how similar something looks to us is not the most important factor in determining how closely it is related to us, or whether it is related at all. Rather, genetic and molecular evidence is of primary importance; if pigs were the most closely-related species to humans*, there would still be just as much overwhelming evidence for common descent, because arbitrary similarities in our genetic material would still be immense. Even fruit flies have many of the same genes as humans, despite the fact that many other possible genetic sequences could lead to the same (or even better) results.

Besides, it is not really that unlikely for a species to be the only surviving member of its family (like the family Hominidae, or the hominids); the platypus, for example, is the only species in the family Ornithorhynchidae; the laotian rock rat is the only species in the family Diatomyidae; and so on.

Answer 5

I understand where you're coming from, but no.

Scientists (completely different from atheists as it turns out) don't base their proof on modern hominids. Instead, the vast majority of the evidence for evolution has to do with genetics and paleontology. But what is amazing about evolution? It's the genetics. Genetics perfectly describes how traits are passed down, and it also describes special evolution. Actually, evolution is the cornerstone of all biology. There is so much overwhelming evidence that is accepted like gravity to scientists. So unless all that vast evidence disappeared, they wouldn't change their views. Unless a better theory withstood the scientific process (which creationism certainly doesn't).

Hope that cleared up the psychology of the scientist:)


WE DID NOT FORM FROM CHIMPS. THAT IS A HUGE MISCONCEPTION. We share a common ancestor with chimps, as we probably (if you go back a few billion years) do with all animals. pigs inluded.:)

Answer 6

If creationists would be willing to change there views because there are hominids then I suppose I would be willing to change my views if their weren't.

The fact of the matter is that there are hominids (at least in the fossil record - apes are not normally considered hominids) so the question is moot. Sort of like asking Christians if Leviticus was the only book in the bible would they still believe.

Your clarification makes it clear that your understanding of evolution is limited. It is not a question of looks. Looks is why the bible says that bats are a kind of bird. Evolution is about deeper connections.

Answer 7

This scenario is based entirely on a huge lack of evidence. If there was no evidence of human descent from ancestral primates then the theories wouldn't exist.

Similarly, if no fossil record existed there would be no evidence and therefor no basis for evolution theory.

So basically your answer is this:

if there was no evidence to form a theory to begin with there would be no "believers" of it in the first place. However, if there was a fossil record that showed descent from ancestral species among life other than humans, it would beg the question of whether we descended the same way. Of course there wouldn't be any evidence to support it.

Fortunately we have evidence in the real world so we're okay :)

Answer 8

You have got it all wrong, its not a case of believing evolution, as opposed to creationism. Evolution show us some very interesting facts and similarities, it dosen't totally prove anything about how man came about, but it certainly gives us food for thought, creationism on the other hand, is nothing more than a fableistic simple story with no basis of fact. now come on as an educated person which I am sure you are, you telling me that of the two theories you lean toward creationism??????

Answer 9

It depends on too many variables that are not defined. What if we could link through archaeological finds that we were related to pigs? Evolution still works.

If we were absolutely singular, then I'd have to consider more than just creationism. Though it would be a lot harder to answer the question of where we came form with anything that even resembles tangible evidence.

Answer 10

"Atheists (maximum, besides) see people as basically a organic results of the universe, not extra particular than underarm micro organism, spruce wood, lava flows, or weight-help plan Pepsi." would you ***** if the triumphing rules dealt with you on a similar point as underarm micro organism... ? hmmmm... that could make using a deodorant a capital offense, no ? on a similar time as people are surely no longer what fundamentalists and dominionists declare i'd hesitate to type them with micro organism. it fairly is argued fairly effectively the evolution of intelligence and self understanding in people is basically an evolutional mistake, in spite of the undeniable fact that it fairly is a mistake which makes people fairly diverse from micro organism. once you should make a shovel (because it replaced into perhaps the objective of evolution) and finally end up creating an area commute, it fairly is unquestionably nonetheless a mistake, yet fairly a diverse in fee type the technique which created underarm micro organism. I additionally disagree including your consumer-friendly premise (the atheist view of people). I additionally do no longer agree the view of people held via atheists is the source of acrimony and branch.