Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I've adressed this before, but I thought it was worth bringing up again.
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?
NOTE: I'm NOT disputing whether or not humans and apes have common ancestry. The point being made, is that humans have branched off to far on the evolutionary tree to be considered apes.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
Yes, humans can be considered apes. For comparison, whales differ in morphology from other mammals far more than humans differ from other apes, but are still classified unambiguously as mammals.
How you frame the question depends on how you want to classify organisms. You framed the question assuming that overall similarity is the principal way of classifying (an approach known as "phenetics"). If you use that approach, the answer you get will depend on which traits you choose to include in your comparison, and how you weight them.
Biology, however, has largely shifted to using "cladistic" classification, which groups organisms according to how closely related they are to each other phylogenetically. Humans are one twig on an evolutionary branch known technically as the hominoids, and popularly as the apes, and therefore we are classified in that group. Shared traits are still important in cladistics, since they are used to deduce the evolutionary relationships, but the overall degree of similarity does not matter. Thus, humans share the hominoid trait of lacking a tail, which marks us as part of that group, but subsequent changes in the human lineage, however large, cannot remove us from that group.
So with all these differences, can humans really be considered apes?
If there wouldn't be any differences then we wouldn't be clasified as a different species now would we?
You list only 6 differences in a sea of similarities.
The first four of your examples all have to do with the change from walking upright instead on 4 limbs.
Your 5th example; the penis bone is already significantly reduced in ape species compared to other mammals. There's a gradual change going on instead of a giant leap.
And your 6th example has to do with us cooking food rather than eating it all raw. (And the wisdom teeth trouble is a direct result of that change)
So at least 5 out of your 6 differences can be explained due to human behavior compared to the apes.
- Ectezus
__________________ Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] (Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst) said:
"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
If there wouldn't be any differences then we wouldn't be clasified as a different species now would we?
You list only 6 differences in a sea of similarities.
it's not the number of differences, but how significant these differences are.
'
The first four of your examples all have to do with the change from walking upright instead on 4 limbs.
Your 5th example; the penis bone is already significantly reduced in ape species compared to other mammals. There's a gradual change going on instead of a giant leap.
And your 6th example has to do with us cooking food rather than eating it all raw. (And the wisdom teeth trouble is a direct result of that change)
So at least 5 out of your 6 differences can be explained due to human behavior compared to the apes.
- Ectezus
who cares if the changes can be explained? what I'm asking is, whether or not these changes are significant enough to make humans different enough from apes, to not be classified as apes.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
Yes, humans can be considered apes. For comparison, whales differ in morphology from other mammals far more than humans differ from other apes, but are still classified unambiguously as mammals.
of course whales different from "other mammals" more than humans do from apes. the mammalian classification includes an incredibly wide range of organisms to choose to from. ape classification doesn't.
How you frame the question depends on how you want to classify organisms. You framed the question assuming that overall similarity is the principal way of classifying (an approach known as "phenetics"). If you use that approach, the answer you get will depend on which traits you choose to include in your comparison, and how you weight them.
Biology, however, has largely shifted to using "cladistic" classification, which groups organisms according to how closely related they are to each other phylogenetically. Humans are one twig on an evolutionary branch known technically as the hominoids, and popularly as the apes, and therefore we are classified in that group. Shared traits are still important in cladistics, since they are used to deduce the evolutionary relationships, but the overall degree of similarity does not matter. Thus, humans share the hominoid trait of lacking a tail, which marks us as part of that group, but subsequent changes in the human lineage, however large, cannot remove us from that group.
you make some good points here.
but...no matter how much humans change, we can't ever be in a separate classification from apes? that doesn't make sense.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
Last edited by shinbits; 12th May 2009 at 06:47 AM.
it's not the number of differences, but how significant these differences are.
How can you say that the number of differences doesn't matter in order to judge about species? Do you even have any idea how classification system works?
The differences are small in number compared to the similarities. And yes, this DOES matter. If you're 98% similar you're obviously more related.
Besides the differences are not really significant because they happened over a short time-span.
who cares if the changes can be explained?
Who cares? Everyone besides you apparently. If certain behavioral changes from ape to humans have a direct link with a favorable outcome to suit those new behavioral changes then it DOES matter. In fact, it only proves common decent even more.
what I'm asking is, whether or not these changes are significant enough to make humans different enough from apes, to not be classified as apes.
We humans are already the only non-extinct species in our own genus, ie: Homo. (About ~10 others died out)
What exactly do you want? Acknowledgement that we don't even belong to the same Family? Order? Even Class? How about the animal kingdom? Take a look at how the classification system works.
- Ectezus
__________________ Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] (Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst) said:
"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
So with all these differences, can humans really be considered apes?
The term ape doesn't have a scientific definition that I'm aware of, but I think the most common definition is basically all those hominidae family. Obviously we're different species then the chimpanzee (although new research might prove we are closer than one might think!), but when you go up on the taxonomic scale
it is clear that we share certain features with other apes. So much that the person who came up with the taxonomic system, Linnaeus, who was a creationist before Darwin, essentially classified us as apes. And new research in genetics has only supported that position.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
of course whales different from "other mammals" more than humans do from apes. the mammalian classification includes an incredibly wide range of organisms to choose to from. ape classification doesn't.
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?
but...no matter how much humans change, we can't ever be in a separate classification from apes? that doesn't make sense.
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".
How can you say that the number of differences doesn't matter in order to judge about species? Do you even have any idea how classification system works?
The differences are small in number compared to the similarities. And yes, this DOES matter. If you're 98% similar you're obviously more related.
Besides the differences are not really significant because they happened over a short time-span.
I didn't say the number doesn't matter. but more important than the individual number of differences, are how significant the differences are.
Who cares? Everyone besides you apparently. If certain behavioral changes from ape to humans have a direct link with a favorable outcome to suit those new behavioral changes then it DOES matter. In fact, it only proves common decent even more.
re-read the OP. what you're saying doesn't matter one lick.
We humans are already the only non-extinct species in our own genus, ie: Homo. (About ~10 others died out)
What exactly do you want? Acknowledgement that we don't even belong to the same Family? Order? Even Class? How about the animal kingdom? Take a look at how the classification system works.
- Ectezus
I think humans are different enough to warrent a separate family.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
The term ape doesn't have a scientific definition that I'm aware of, but I think the most common definition is basically all those hominidae family. Obviously we're different species then the chimpanzee (although new research might prove we are closer than one might think!), but when you go up on the taxonomic scale
it is clear that we share certain features with other apes. So much that the person who came up with the taxonomic system, Linnaeus, who was a creationist before Darwin, essentially classified us as apes. And new research in genetics has only supported that position.
you make sense. you really can't argue with genetics.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
Linear Mode
