Is it rational to deny that humans and apes share a common ancestor?

[Geoff Brody]

I was wondering, you hear many people deny it. For example, someone argued that it just looks like humans and apes share a common ancestor and that we actually don't. What are thoughts on these claims?

[Strange]

I assume they would be made by people who don't know anything about the subject.

 

Why do you ask?

[CharonY]

Usually it is some sort of belief in human exceptionalism, often (but not always) fueled by religion.

[Phi for All]

I think the primate connection is too close for some. To them, it seems somehow demeaning and absurd.

 

I've had better luck reminding these people that everything with a backbone probably shares ancestry with a fish no bigger than your thumbnail. That seems to set a more level playing field, and hopefully encourages more interest in evolution.

[kisai]

I don't hear many people deny it, just a lone nutter once in a while. But then again, there aren't filters on the internet for rationality. People are welcome to offer well-reasoned arguments for how there isn't a connection between humans and primates, but the evidence is so overwhelming, I've never actually come across one.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kisai

[John Cuthber]

(Cough)

"Is it rational to deny that humans and other apes share a common ancestor?"

[CharonY]

(Cough)

"Is it rational to deny that humans and other apes share a common ancestor?"

 

ah yup. missed that one.

Also, depending on survey the objections to evolution range from 30-40% depending on poll and phrasing (in the US). While it appears high, it is not tremendously different to countries such as UK, Canada or Germany. The overall support for evolution is usually 40-60% in most countries, though the precise question seems to be important. E.g. whether the question for common descent includes or excludes the guidance of a higher being. Either way, a far cry from the lone nutter (and also a reminder that people that one surrounds oneself with may not be representative of the whole population).

[Carrock]

ah yup. missed that one.

Also, depending on survey the objections to evolution range from 30-40% depending on poll and phrasing (in the US). While it appears high, it is not tremendously different to countries such as UK, Canada or Germany. The overall support for evolution is usually 40-60% in most countries, though the precise question seems to be important. E.g. whether the question for common descent includes or excludes the guidance of a higher being. Either way, a far cry from the lone nutter (and also a reminder that people that one surrounds oneself with may not be representative of the whole population).

From the first survey I looked at:

http://www.livescience.com/963-lags-world-grasp-genetics-acceptance-evolution.html

 

The study found that over the past 20 years:

 

The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.

The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.

And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

 

Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.

 

The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.

or see a graph at https://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/acceptance-of-evolution-by-country?utm_term=.xazl9Vekw#.mvNX7vJnY

What survey(s) are you looking at?

[CharonY]

There are numerous (though the one you mentioned, I believe is a 2006 study from Miller et al. falls roughly into that area). The issue is often the way the question is framed. E.g. asking whether "humans have evolved over time" or whether "humans existed in present form since beginning" in the US you get 60% agreeing with evolution (Pew 2013). Likewise, you get different responses in e.g. Germany whether you ask "is evolution true or probably true" (65%) or whether you allow a guidance by god. Thus the support for specifically of a non-religious form of evolution is not vastly different.

I would say that the biggest difference (which, on hindsight is probably closest to OP's question) whether people believe in some for creationism, which seems to be more of a US thing. Still, in Germany, according to a fowid survey (2005) 12.5% considered themselves creationists, 25.2 % were proponent of some sort of ID and 60.9% considered evolution to be true (with or without a guiding god).

Edited August 8, 2016 by CharonY

[Joshua Chasseur]

Btw, was there ever, the first two humans according to science?

[StringJunky]

Btw, was there ever, the first two humans according to science?

No.

[zapatos]

It is rational to deny that humans and apes share a common ancestor if that is what the information you have leads you to conclude. It was also rational to conclude the earth was the center of the universe.

[Strange]

It is rational to deny that humans and apes share a common ancestor if that is what the information you have leads you to conclude.

 

In other words, if you have inadequate information.

[StringJunky]

.... It was also rational to conclude the earth was the center of the universe.

Wherever I go, I am the centre of the observable universe.

[zapatos]

In other words, if you have inadequate information.

Yes. Unfortunately a large number of people are given inadequate or 'wrong' information and don't have the mental acuity or resources to arrive at a more accurate view of reality.

[disarray]

I agree that religion has a lot to do with it. Some Christians, for example, identify sin with our "animalistic impulses," which seems like a doctrinal internal contradiction to me if one maintains as a Christian that humans were created completely separate from all other animals. I gather that most Christians don't believe that animals can go to animal heaven, despite what some might tell their kids when Fido dies. For one thing, they note, animals can't accept Jesus as their savior. If humans were just another type of animal, it would seem for many religious people that the idea of achieving immortality would be out of the question (At the rapture, many if not most Christians hold that Jesus/God raises those who have repented and have been saved from their graves in pristine physical condition, and escorts them to heaven....animals and the unrepented/unsaved rot or go to hell.

 

I read somewhere that some guy, I think from England, had convinced Einstein after much debate that humans did not have instincts. Indeed, as little as 50 years ago, the idea that people's personalities were largely the result of their genetic makeup or that people had instincts much as animals did were generally considered to be absurd notions.

 

In a way, denying our animal heritage is a result of centuries of cosmeticization so that we disguise our more basic activities: As one actress put it, I don't sweat, I glow.

Our greatest human rituals are to cosmeticize/spiritualize death and sex via elaborate funeral and marriage ceremonies.

Edited August 11, 2016 by disarray