why humans are not primates

[: D]

reasons humans are not primates -

bones - thinner lighter than all other primates
skulls/brains - impossible to compare to other primates
head hair - constant growth unlike all other primates
nails- constant growth unlike all other primates
skin - not adapted to sunlight exposure like all other primates
muscles - 5 to 10 times weaker for relative size compared to all other primates
adipose tissue - 10 times more body fat than all other primates
locomotion - human locomotion different than all other primates
speech 1 -throats completely different than all other primates
speech 2 -brain construction different than all other primates
penis bone - missing unlike all other primates
genetic disorders- 4000 not in primates
chromosomes - 46 compared to the primate 48

of course the argument that someone made a wrong classification in the 18th century so we should just continue to run with it will be made,
and the scoffers will insult and arm wave,
some may even believe personal insults are called for,

however this post is not for the scoffers,
it is for the enquiring mind that follows truth wherever it may lead.

: )

 

[Gene2memE]

Citations needed.

Several of these jump out at me immediately as being incorrect:
Chimps and bonobos certainly have comparable bone structures to humans and other primates, modern and archaic, certainly have similar skull anatomies.
The skin point I disagree with as there is such thing as melanin.
The adipose tissue point is out too, as sedentary primates such as those in captivity tend to have similar levels of body fat to humans, and very active humans tend to have similar levels of body fat to other primates.
Chromosome fusion is not a point I'd be willing to bring up if I was debating the classification of humans, as fusion of human Chromosome 2 is entirely consistent with the common ancestry of humans and other apes and one of the better arguments for common descent.
Lack of a baculum has at least three hypothesis, but there have also been several cases of humans being born with one, only to have it removed later. When you compare phylogeny and bacular size data on great apes, its clear that the close you get to humans, the smaller the baculum becomes.

Primates we are. Primates we will remain. The phylogeny shows it, the nested hierarchy shows it, the fossil evidence shows it and the genetic evidence shows it.

 

[Frenzy]

and the scoffers will insult and arm wave,
some may even believe personal insults are called for,

Insults are not required, your post speaks for itself.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm working on a list of why Penguins aren't birds. I'll keep you posted.

 

[AV1611VET]

of course the argument that someone made a wrong classification in the 18th century so we should just continue to run with it will be made,

Linnaeus said it, that settles it.

(Unless his disciples say otherwise.)

 

[sfs]

of course the argument that someone made a wrong classification in the 18th century so we should just continue to run with it will be made,

How can a classification be wrong? Classifications can be more or less useful, but what does it mean for them to be wrong? Suppose I choose to call all round, flattish things "snubbums", and I make a list of snubbums that includes hockey pucks, checkers, tiddlywinks and coins. What does it mean to claim that hockey pucks aren't really snubbums because they're heavy and made of rubber?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can a classification be wrong?

When it has people disregarding a warning in the Bible ...

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

(Can't you see Nadab saying to Abihu, "How can an offering to God be wrong!?")

 

[PsychoSarah]

Linnaeus said it, that settles it.

(Unless his disciples say otherwise.)

Linnaeus wanted to do the kinds thing, and denied that carnivorous plants even existed because he thought such a thing would be "an abomination that defies god's creation".

So, as far as he goes, he mostly placed animals with similar physical traits together. Which led to a lot of mistakes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Linnaeus wanted to do the kinds thing, and denied that carnivorous plants even existed because he thought such a thing would be "an abomination that defies god's creation".

So, as far as he goes, he mostly placed animals with similar physical traits together. Which led to a lot of mistakes.

So?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So?

You would have had no issues with the version he made himself.

 

[AV1611VET]

You would have had no issues with the version he made himself.

Linnaeus -- (or his system)-- says we are animals.

That bugs me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Linnaeus -- (or his system)-- says we are animals.

That bugs me.

He placed humans as their own separate kind though.

 

[AV1611VET]

He placed humans as their own separate kind though.

So?

 

[JackRT]

Whatever else I might or might not be, my body is certainly an animal body. Beyond that, it certainly appears to be a primate body.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So?

AV, a fair interpretation of the bible is that humans are the apex animal to rule over all the others, rather than not being an animal at all. Gosh, what are we if not animals, some weird category all to ourselves for no apparent reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever else I might or might not be, my body is certainly an animal body. Beyond that, it certainly appears to be a primate body.

Who wore the shirt that said NATURAL SELECTION?

Was it Klebold or Harris?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gosh, what are we if not animals,

Gestalts?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Gestalts?

Any whole that is more than the sum of its parts would be in that category. Which would put humans and cars in the same category, amongst other things. That makes for a very weird categorization.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any whole that is more than the sum of its parts would be in that category.

You mean like a person who is body, soul, and spirit?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean like a person who is body, soul, and spirit?

No, I mean like a car, which is engine, steering, etc. or a shoe, which is lace, sole, and whatever the rest is called.