Humans are monkeys...

These concepts are socially constructed and have been given much weight. What are your thoughts?
Post Reply
Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Humans are monkeys...

Unread post by Sentenza » May 17th, 2007, 2:46 pm

Kind of funny i think.


$outhPhillypuppet
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2277
Joined: April 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Oregon
What city do you live in now?: over there
Location: home or something

Unread post by $outhPhillypuppet » May 17th, 2007, 2:52 pm

"the monkeys draw alot of imaginary lines in the dirt"

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » May 17th, 2007, 10:28 pm

so true

punamusta
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1387
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:55 pm
Country: Finland
If in the United States: Alabama
What city do you live in now?: see above
Location: Hellsinki, Finno-Ugria

Unread post by punamusta » May 18th, 2007, 6:37 am

Like my friend once said:

"humans are nothing but neurotic monkeys"


And when you really think about that, and watch how people live and act, you know it's true.

Noog
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1353
Joined: December 12th, 2003, 9:21 am
Location: East London Uk

Unread post by Noog » May 18th, 2007, 8:55 am

:lol: I am a monkey, definately. Always have been. I like it.

And of all monkeys, my favourite must be the Bonobo Chimp (well its an ape). When those lil' dudes get stressed, they have a shag, boom, immediately without delay - boy Bonobo jumps on girl and slams her right there and then they cool down and get on with thier monkey business. Nice little society that one.

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » May 27th, 2007, 4:29 pm

I'm a human being not a monkey. Here is a better video than that one. Not as funny but more interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNocC85MU6w [/video]

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » May 27th, 2007, 7:53 pm

Humans are the only creatures that belive in a God, because our brain capacity gives us abstract thought

$outhPhillypuppet
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2277
Joined: April 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Oregon
What city do you live in now?: over there
Location: home or something

Unread post by $outhPhillypuppet » May 27th, 2007, 9:08 pm

Old Shatterhand wrote:I'm a human being not a monkey. Here is a better video than that one. Not as funny but more interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNocC85MU6w [/video]


fixed it for you my dude

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » May 27th, 2007, 9:10 pm

The video said that god exists because we know math.... :roll:


Thats like saying God exists because light is bright

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » May 28th, 2007, 9:19 am

Image

W H O O S H

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » May 28th, 2007, 4:41 pm

Old Shatterhand wrote:Image

W H O O S H
Are you ok?

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » May 28th, 2007, 6:32 pm

Old Shatterhand wrote:I'm a human being not a monkey. Here is a better video than that one. Not as funny but more interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNocC85MU6w [/video]
that's an interesting video Shatterhand, but to be honest it was inaccurate on some points.

Inference is not proof. This is easier to explain by example. For thousands of years, Europeans only saw white adult swans. Therefore, by inferrence, "all swans are white." Until they went to australia and saw black swans for the first time. Then they realized they couldn't be sure from inference on any number of "facts."

Just as I'm very sure you're aware that many particles and theories in physics were merely hypothesized and inferred before discovered. This does not, as you know, discredit their theories, but at the same time it also does prove their existence. Remember the "luminiferous aether" that light supposedly traveled on? If we had followed the inference without experimentation there, and if Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had faked their results, then we would have been set back hundreds of years in terms of physics and other fields (you probably know more about this than me.)

Basically, God accounts for these issues brought up in the video, but what accounts for God? Yes, I realize that is a very, VERY troubling question. I know what accounts for my belief in God is personal experiences and direct intervention, but to people who do not share a similar background, life, or faith, we cannot use these inferences as proof to those who have never seen. It's like proving the existence of black swans to those who never saw them.

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » May 28th, 2007, 7:56 pm

Great post MiChuhSuh. You are correct that inference alone is not enough to prove something and your example was well chosen. It's good that you understand many of life's most important realities cannot be seen both in the physical and the metaphysical realms. As you probably already know by the look of it, metaphysics (e.g. beyond physics) is the study of being as being reality as opposed to the study of being as physical (physics) or being as mathematical (mathematics) and is used interchangeably with ontology which is the study of being or existence and forms the basic subject matter of metaphysics. Now watch the video again. The speaker does not rely solely on inference alone.

The question you ask is not troubling but interesting. I suspect someone with his worldview might begin a response by pointing out that time itself is a dimension just as space dimensions are and a part of this universe. Since God is not bound to these dimensions and exists outside of them and the universe (despite interacting with the universe) and free to move in other dimensions (or possibly even no dimensions at all): there is no origination requirement for His existence as there is for ours.

Of course this goes against our naturalist way of thinking which is rooted in our material existence and must follow the rules of physics in this universe but it makes sense logically speaking for a immensely powerful spirit being that doesn't have to.
MiChuhSuh wrote:
Old Shatterhand wrote:I'm a human being not a monkey. Here is a better video than that one. Not as funny but more interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNocC85MU6w [/video]
that's an interesting video Shatterhand, but to be honest it was inaccurate on some points.

Inference is not proof. This is easier to explain by example. For thousands of years, Europeans only saw white adult swans. Therefore, by inferrence, "all swans are white." Until they went to australia and saw black swans for the first time. Then they realized they couldn't be sure from inference on any number of "facts."

Just as I'm very sure you're aware that many particles and theories in physics were merely hypothesized and inferred before discovered. This does not, as you know, discredit their theories, but at the same time it also does prove their existence. Remember the "luminiferous aether" that light supposedly traveled on? If we had followed the inference without experimentation there, and if Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had faked their results, then we would have been set back hundreds of years in terms of physics and other fields (you probably know more about this than me.)

Basically, God accounts for these issues brought up in the video, but what accounts for God? Yes, I realize that is a very, VERY troubling question. I know what accounts for my belief in God is personal experiences and direct intervention, but to people who do not share a similar background, life, or faith, we cannot use these inferences as proof to those who have never seen. It's like proving the existence of black swans to those who never saw them.

Noog
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1353
Joined: December 12th, 2003, 9:21 am
Location: East London Uk

Unread post by Noog » May 30th, 2007, 9:52 am

Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » May 30th, 2007, 6:58 pm

Noog wrote:Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.
Shut yo monkey ass up :lol: :wink:

$outhPhillypuppet
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2277
Joined: April 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Oregon
What city do you live in now?: over there
Location: home or something

Unread post by $outhPhillypuppet » May 30th, 2007, 7:40 pm

A Ghost wrote:
Noog wrote:Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.
Shut yo monkey ass up :lol: :wink:
he tellin the truth tho ghost
we were once monkeys but we evolved into a new species called humans.
like everything was once a single celled life form.
but thats the scientific way we got here.
theres also the god way that says we are all made of clay or mud.
Im not that familiar with the bible so im sorry if i got that wrong everybody.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » May 31st, 2007, 12:16 pm

$outhPhillypuppet wrote:
A Ghost wrote:
Noog wrote:Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.
Shut yo monkey ass up :lol: :wink:
he tellin the truth tho ghost
we were once monkeys but we evolved into a new species called humans.
like everything was once a single celled life form.
but thats the scientific way we got here.
theres also the god way that says we are all made of clay or mud.
Im not that familiar with the bible so im sorry if i got that wrong everybody.
On top of that, even if you believed in the "common descent" version of evolution, we are descended from "apes" not "monkeys"

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » May 31st, 2007, 12:39 pm

$outhPhillypuppet wrote:
A Ghost wrote:
Noog wrote:Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.
Shut yo monkey ass up :lol: :wink:
he tellin the truth tho ghost
we were once monkeys but we evolved into a new species called humans.
like everything was once a single celled life form.
but thats the scientific way we got here.
theres also the god way that says we are all made of clay or mud.
Im not that familiar with the bible so im sorry if i got that wrong everybody.
I know we arent monkies, but we evolved from all that.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » May 31st, 2007, 1:02 pm

I dont believe in the Adam and Eve story either.....

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » May 31st, 2007, 3:46 pm

To be sure, evolutionary biologists do not think humanity originated from one man and one woman (though progressive creationists and other young earth creationists do). Most of the evolutionary biologists maintain that large populations of either the hominid predecessors to modem humans or the first modem humans suffered a catastrophic collapse. When this occurred, scientists claim, genetic diversity was lost and the first humans went through a genetic bottleneck. After suffering the population collapse, the humans who supposedly endured the bottleneck are thought to have experienced rapid population growth and expansion to fill the planet. Some evolutionary biologists disagree with this (including many geneticists) believing that the evidence does not indicate a large population suffering a catastrophic collapse but rather a small original population. Those progressive creationists engaged in serious scientific inquiry believe this small original population can be explained back to an original pair.

However, I don't see any credible modern scientists these days defending the aging multi-regional hypothesis (most are opting out for the Out-of-Africa hypothesis with a splinter group of progressive creationists involved in serious research moving the location North) or any origin for modern humans studies suggesting a date greater than 200,000 years (the outward range of mitochondrial DNA testing [e.g. Mitochondrial Eve]) with most asserting approximately 170,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago.

Currently most evolutionary biologists theorize the reason for the large discrepancy between the dates for mitochondrial Eve (150,000 to 200,000 years ago) and "Y-chromosomal Adam" (40,000 to 60,000 years ago) can be explained because males living prior to-chromosomal Adam failed to pass along their genes and hence their genetic fingerprint.This lack of inheritance could occur if all their descendants had died out. As a lone survivor, Y-chromosomal Adam, born around 50,000 years ago, thus happened to have his genetic fingerprint take over the entire human population.

However, many prominent scientists disagree entirely with that theorization. For example, a recent study, reported in 2004 by molecular anthropologists from the University of Arizona, noted that the mitochondrial-DNA dates were consistently twice those measured using Y chromosomes for three population groups (Khoisan, Mongolians, and Papua New Guineans.) This constant difference goes beyond mere coincidence and reveals a pattern in the data.They also failed to detect any evidence in theychromosomal data for the so-called selective sweep that would have occurred if Y-chromosomal Adam were a lone survivor among many different males.

The researchers suggested that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived at the same time and that the disparity in the mitochondrial and Y-chromosomai dates is not real. Rather this difference reflects a larger effective Population size for females than for males. This explanation makes sense for progressive creationists who hold to either a local Flood account (not a world-wide deluge), because a single Y-chromosome sequence would be represented by Noah and his sons. The wives of Noah and his sons would have had up to four different mitochondrial-DNA sequences, making it appear as if the effective population size of the female lineage was larger than the male lineage.

I'm just pointing out the science and the various hypothesis held by modern scientists involved in serious inquiry on the origins of humanity here to show that 200,000 years ago is the outward boundary of modern science for the origins of humanity for all groups of evolutionists and progressive creationists (the only groups involved in serious science right now concerning the origins of humanity imo
Noog wrote:sts pseudo-science I dismiss).

As for us coming from apes, I don't believe the evidence shows that to be true. But I respect many fine scientists that do assert that and hold to theistic evolution (such as Francis Collins the Director of the Human Genome Project) believing it is the best fit of the evidence.
Noog wrote:Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » May 31st, 2007, 3:47 pm

I don't believe the Adam and Steve story.. lol.
Sentenza wrote:I dont believe in the Adam and Eve story either.....

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » May 31st, 2007, 3:50 pm

My post got chopped off somehow Noog so here it is in its entirety:

To be sure, evolutionary biologists do not think humanity originated from one man and one woman (though progressive creationists and other young earth creationists do). Most of the evolutionary biologists maintain that large populations of either the hominid predecessors to modem humans or the first modem humans suffered a catastrophic collapse. When this occurred, scientists claim, genetic diversity was lost and the first humans went through a genetic bottleneck. After suffering the population collapse, the humans who supposedly endured the bottleneck are thought to have experienced rapid population growth and expansion to fill the planet. Some evolutionary biologists disagree with this (including many geneticists) believing that the evidence does not indicate a large population suffering a catastrophic collapse but rather a small original population. Those progressive creationists engaged in serious scientific inquiry believe this small original population can be explained back to an original pair.

However, I don't see any credible modern scientists these days defending the aging multi-regional hypothesis (most are opting out for the Out-of-Africa hypothesis with a splinter group of progressive creationists involved in serious research moving the location North) or any origin for modern humans studies suggesting a date greater than 200,000 years (the outward range of mitochondrial DNA testing [e.g. Mitochondrial Eve]) with most asserting approximately 170,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago.

Currently most evolutionary biologists theorize the reason for the large discrepancy between the dates for mitochondrial Eve (150,000 to 200,000 years ago) and "Y-chromosomal Adam" (40,000 to 60,000 years ago) can be explained because males living prior to-chromosomal Adam failed to pass along their genes and hence their genetic fingerprint.This lack of inheritance could occur if all their descendants had died out. As a lone survivor, Y-chromosomal Adam, born around 50,000 years ago, thus happened to have his genetic fingerprint take over the entire human population.

However, many prominent scientists disagree entirely with that theorization. For example, a recent study, reported in 2004 by molecular anthropologists from the University of Arizona, noted that the mitochondrial-DNA dates were consistently twice those measured using Y chromosomes for three population groups (Khoisan, Mongolians, and Papua New Guineans.) This constant difference goes beyond mere coincidence and reveals a pattern in the data.They also failed to detect any evidence in theychromosomal data for the so-called selective sweep that would have occurred if Y-chromosomal Adam were a lone survivor among many different males.

The researchers suggested that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived at the same time and that the disparity in the mitochondrial and Y-chromosomai dates is not real. Rather this difference reflects a larger effective Population size for females than for males. This explanation makes sense for progressive creationists who hold to either a local Flood account (not a world-wide deluge), because a single Y-chromosome sequence would be represented by Noah and his sons. The wives of Noah and his sons would have had up to four different mitochondrial-DNA sequences, making it appear as if the effective population size of the female lineage was larger than the male lineage.

I'm just pointing out the science and the various hypothesis held by modern scientists involved in serious inquiry on the origins of humanity here to show that 200,000 years ago is the outward boundary of modern science for the origins of humanity for all groups of evolutionists and progressive creationists (the only groups involved in serious science right now concerning the origins of humanity imo (young earth creationist pseudo-science I dismiss).

As for us coming from apes, I don't believe the evidence shows that to be true. But I respect many fine scientists that do assert that and hold to theistic evolution (such as Francis Collins the Director of the Human Genome Project) believing it is the best fit of the evidence.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » May 31st, 2007, 7:35 pm

A Ghost wrote:
$outhPhillypuppet wrote:
A Ghost wrote:
Noog wrote:Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.
Shut yo monkey ass up :lol: :wink:
he tellin the truth tho ghost
we were once monkeys but we evolved into a new species called humans.
like everything was once a single celled life form.
but thats the scientific way we got here.
theres also the god way that says we are all made of clay or mud.
Im not that familiar with the bible so im sorry if i got that wrong everybody.
I know we arent monkies, but we evolved from all that.
MiChuhSuh wrote:
$outhPhillypuppet wrote:
A Ghost wrote:
Noog wrote:Being serious, we are not monkeys, we are human beings. And we came from a lieage of human species which no longer exist for hundreds of thousands of years...and those species evolved, most likely, from apes.
Shut yo monkey ass up :lol: :wink:
he tellin the truth tho ghost
we were once monkeys but we evolved into a new species called humans.
like everything was once a single celled life form.
but thats the scientific way we got here.
theres also the god way that says we are all made of clay or mud.
Im not that familiar with the bible so im sorry if i got that wrong everybody.
On top of that, even if you believed in the "common descent" version of evolution, we are descended from "apes" not "monkeys"

$outhPhillypuppet
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2277
Joined: April 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Oregon
What city do you live in now?: over there
Location: home or something

Unread post by $outhPhillypuppet » June 4th, 2008, 12:43 am

i was googling the interswebs and i just had to post this vid somewhere.


Peanut butter proves that evolution is a fairy tale.

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » June 4th, 2008, 4:27 pm

Lol... I'll have a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich then.

Image
$outhPhillypuppet wrote:i was googling the interswebs and i just had to post this vid somewhere.


Peanut butter proves that evolution is a fairy tale.

whiskeyjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1018
Joined: September 6th, 2007, 8:17 pm
Location: Everywhere in Canada

Unread post by whiskeyjack » June 4th, 2008, 6:20 pm

believing were evolved from monkeys is fine and dandy, but no one population is more advanced from a monkey then the other

jmaups2005
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 123
Joined: May 16th, 2008, 5:04 pm
Location: Cincinnati
Contact:

Re: Humans are monkeys...

Unread post by jmaups2005 » June 5th, 2008, 3:21 am

98% of the human genome and dna strand is shared with monkeys the other 2% is genetic evolution or other worldy input?

vutterfly
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: July 28th, 2008, 9:51 pm
What city do you live in now?: lakewood

Re: Humans are monkeys...

Unread post by vutterfly » July 29th, 2008, 12:40 am

tl;dr
but, saying we did evolve from monkeys or apes or what have you, it doesn't mean we're any better than them. if anything, they're probably better than us. their ways have been going strong for way longer than our human ways have, and from the looks of things these days it doesn't look like human ways they are today are going to be able to last.

User avatar
razbojnik
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3154
Joined: June 13th, 2008, 3:13 am
What city do you live in now?: Belize Nicaragua
Location: Everywhere

Re: Humans are monkeys...

Unread post by razbojnik » July 30th, 2008, 10:54 am

Nothing else looks more similar to the human being than a monkey out of all the animals in the kindom of animalia:

Image

Different species of monkey such as chimp, orangutan, ape and gorilla are just like different species of human being different races.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Humans are monkeys...

Unread post by Sentenza » July 30th, 2008, 11:24 am

I agree, lol

Image

And no, the difference between the species of monkey is muuuuch bigger then the one between humans. As far as i know different mnokeys can not procreate.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: Humans are monkeys...

Unread post by Azure9920 » July 30th, 2008, 11:24 am

Chimps are Apes...

Post Reply

Return to “Race and Ethnicity, Racial Relations & Racism”