Can Humans Be Considered Apes?

I'm afraid your response doesn't make a lot of sense here. Including whales among mammals makes the mammalian classification include a much wider range of characteristics than it otherwise would. So why is it ok to include whales in mammals? It is inevitable that the most morphologically distinct taxon in any classification is going to expand the boundaries of the classification. And that will continue to be true even if you drop the outlying taxon, because then another taxon will become the outlier. Why do you object only in the case of humans?

It makes perfect sense -- if the classification is based on descent and not on shared characteristics. Snakes are still tetrapods even though they don't have any legs, after all. It only seems nonsensical when part of clade has common traits and a well-known common name. Thus it seems odd to classify humans as apes, or mammals as fish even though phylogenetically we belong to both categories. Since "fish" and "ape" are not scientific terms, however, it is perfectly reasonable not to call humans either apes or fish -- nontechnical vocabulary is a matter of usage and taste, so do what you want. But phylogenetically, humans are part of the group that is (apart from us) called "ape", and also to the group that is (apart from land vertebrates) called "fish".

I didn't say the number doesn't matter. but more important than the individual number of differences, are how significant the differences are.

I think humans are different enough to warrent a separate family.

There are many basics things that apes share, that are not true of humans:

Apes have muscular and skeletal features suited for brachation as a major or important source of locomotion. This is not true of humans.

Apes have pelvises structured to walk on all fours. This is not true of humans.

Apes have arms longer than thier legs. This is not true of humans.

Apes have feet structured for grasping, very much like hands. This is not so with humans.

Male apes have penis bones. This is not so with humans.

Apes also have larger jaws; but the biggest difference is that ape jaws portrude much further away from the face than humans. Another big skeletal difference.

So with all these differences, can humans really be considered apes?

thank you for this post. you helped a lot.

No there isn't.
Yes it is. Humans are perfectly capable of brachiation. In fact it is required in some of our gymnastics.

This is not true of all apes either. Some non-human apes are habitually bipedal, and I'm not just talking about fossil species either.
Nor is it true of all other apes.
Nor is it true of Australopiths.

This is not usually so with humans. But one of the traits of Hominids is a reduction in this "penis bone". In chimpanzees, it is just a sliver. Some chimps may lack it altogether, and it still occurs in very rare human births.

By comparison, dog skulls are vastly different in exactly this area. Yet they're all members of the same species, and such variation in their case means nothing. So why should a relatively slight variance between humans and the few other remaining apes be treated with such exaggurated significance in your opinion?

Absolutely. Obviously one cannot grow out of one's ancestry. So even if we had become profoundly different than all other surviving apes, (which we haven't) we would still be apes and forever will be.

Based on what? Only based on the 6 differences you listed or do you want to share some more? At what point would you like to start the family anyway?

Did you do any study on the subject or do you just want to promote the religious agenda and get apes as far away from humans as possible?

there are more than 6 differences. humans have skeletal structures suited for walking upright, for another example. apes don't, though a few come close. I don't have to select every single difference between apes and humans to make the point that humans are quite different from other apes.

this is like saying "dogs are perfectly capable of walking upright. in fact, it's required in some dog shows". the fact that dogs "can" walk upright doesn't mean that walking upright is a natural trait of dogs. same with humans and brachiation.

I didn't say this applied to all apes. just that these are traits that apes have that humans don't.

larger jaws which are also portruding, are not just a "slight" difference, it's a different feature althogether. furthermore, this is a trait true of most apes, but not of any human. if most dogs have a feature that one specific dog doesn't, it's a case for a different classification.

birds are in a different classification from reptiles, even though they share ancestry with them.

That's rather backwards from a cladistic perspective. You classify according to traits held in common by every member already universally accepted in that set, then see if those traits apply to the subject being considered. The things people use to distinquish us from apes somehow don't count when we're talking about hairless or short-faced dogs.
Birds are a subset of Maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs, which are a subset of archosaurian diapsid reptiles. Birds are in the classification of diapsid reptiles.