Humans Aren't Apes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Many evolutionary biologists state as if it were an unquestionable fact that humans are apes. I disagree.

Chimpanzees are apes. Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. We routinely differentiate the "great apes" from the "lesser apes", where the latter are gibbons and siamangs. Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren't monkeys.

What's the difference?

"Ape" is an English word. It is not a taxonomic term. English words do not need to be monophyletic. French, German, Russian, and other languages do not have to accord with English ways of splitting up animals. Taxonomy is international -- everywhere, we recognize that humans are hominoids.

In French, apes are singes. So are monkeys. In English we differentiate these terms. In both languages humans are different from other primates. Does that mean French is right and English wrong? Does it mean both languages are wrong?

No, it means that colloquial languages have no problem describing paraphyletic groups. It is useful to have languages that can make these distinctions.

If we must accept that humans are apes, then we must equally accept that chimpanzees are monkeys, and those awful parents at the zoo are right. I don't. I see value in precision about phylogeny, and for that purpose I have taxonomic terms. Humans are hominoids, and anthropoids, and haplorhines, and primates. And mammals.
--------------------------------

So human's aren't apes in the same sense that chimps aren't monkeys. :p

I felt like posting this because, even though some of them obviously have a pretty loose grasp of biology, when a creationist says "Those fossils aren't human ancestors, they're just apes", I don't think it helps when we say "Humans ARE apes."

This is like saying "They're both canines" to someone trying to discuss the differences between wolves and dogs.
 

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
So human's aren't apes in the same sense that chimps aren't monkeys. :p

I felt like posting this because, even though some of them obviously have a pretty loose grasp of biology, when a creationist says "Those fossils aren't human ancestors, they're just apes", I don't think it helps when we say "Humans ARE apes."

This is like saying "They're both canines" to someone trying to discuss the differences between wolves and dogs.

Your creationist quote tries to twist the meaning of words to cause confusion concerning basic concepts, where no such confusion actually exists in the real world.

To address what you wrote, it's the creationist who has made the error by saying "those fossils aren't human ancestors, they're just apes" by assuming that humans aren't apes. To say "humans ARE apes" helps because it refutes the error. To go on trying to talk around the error without exposing it just leads to confusion and lack of progress.

Formally, apes are the superfamily Hominoidea, which is split into two families: the Hylobatidae (gibbons) and the Hominidae (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and humans).

Hence not only are we apes, but we're also in a family group within apes, along with chimps.

To suggest that if we're apes, then a chimp is a monkey simply makes no sense at all. And it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion based on that illogical statement. The only hope for logical discussion is to explicitly correct the error. And even that requires that the creationist we're discussing with this understands their error and accepts the true relationships between humans, chimps, and their superfamily apes.
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟9,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So we are ok to be monkeys but not apes?
I seriously hope you're gonna explain this without a quote-mine
If you have got a reason, then let's hear it.
Anatomically we are apes with certain brain differences - the skeletal changes are, on the whole, quite minor.
Sure, we have bigger brains, wider hips and a more upright gait to name a few, but apart from Our inability to synthesise our own vit c we are almost chimps!
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
AnotherAtheist said:
Formally, apes are the superfamily Hominoidea, which is split into two families: the Hylobatidae (gibbons) and the Hominidae (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and humans).
AnotherAtheist said:
Hence not only are we apes, but we're also in a family group within apes, along with chimps.

To suggest that if we're apes, then a chimp is a monkey simply makes no sense at all. And it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion based on that illogical statement. The only hope for logical discussion is to explicitly correct the error. And even that requires that the creationist we're discussing with this understands their error and accepts the true relationships between humans, chimps, and their superfamily apes.
NailsII said:
So we are ok to be monkeys but not apes?
NailsII said:
I seriously hope you're gonna explain this without a quote-mine
If you have got a reason, then let's hear it.
If you'd like to read the entire post, the link to his blog is in my OP - but here's a longer excerpt which might clear things up:
Phylogeny is the relationship among different species. Phylogenetic systematics argues (among other things) that our taxonomy should reflect phylogeny. The result in anthropology is that we have rejected some taxonomic ideas. In the past, many anthropologists categorized chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans together as "pongids". Today, we recognize that these are not a natural group. Phylogenetically, humans are part of the group that includes orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Many anthropologists call this group "Hominidae", although others would put this at a different taxonomic level than the family level (the level implied by the "idae" ending).

None of this is especially controversial. We disagree about the taxonomic level -- some would retain "hominid" to refer to the human branch, and assign the great apes and humans to a higher-level taxonomic level. But the phylogeny is perfectly clear. Humans are hominoids, and hominids, and anthropoids, and primates.

Are we apes?

...

Humans are hominoids. Hominoidea is a taxonomic group. Phylogenetic systematics holds that taxonomic groups should be monophyletic -- meaning that they include all the descendants of one ancestor, and don't leave any descendants out. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, more distantly to gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons. All these living creatures are crown hominoids. The Hominoidea includes all these, together with extinct animals like Australopithecus, Proconsul, Dryopithecus, and many others.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
So to paraphrase using my canine analogy: Wolves are canines. Dogs are canines. Dogs are descended from wolves, but this does not mean that dogs are wolves.

Your second quote from the blog seemed to make a lot of sense, while the first seemed bizarre. So, I went off and read the blog.

I can see where the blog writer is coming from. Fundamentally the word "ape" has different meanings in different contexts. In a scientific context, the "apes" are Hominoidea, to which we belong. Clearly that makes us apes in a scientific context. But, if you ask Johnny and Sally at the zoo to point to the closest ape to them, it won't be Daddy and Mommy. That's a colloquial use, and has no bearing on whether or not, scientifically, we are apes.

The same thing applies to the word "animal" if you look up dictionary definitions. Scientifically we are part of kingdom animalia, and most definitely animals. But common, colloquial, usage of the word "animal" often excludes humans. Hence in that we "we aren't animals". But while people might use that meaning in everyday speech "Do you have any animals in your house? No.", you can't use this colloquial meaning to then claim that scientifically we aren't animals.

The blog writer, e.g. in the first quote you give above, tries to use the colloquial meaning of the word "ape" as the only meaning, and then claiming that we shouldn't use it in a scientific context. We should use Hominoidea instead. Even though the Hominoidea are .... scientifically .... apes.

Personally I find linguistic arguments such as these to be unproductive. We learn about things by considering what we find in the real world. We don't try to pretend that the real world is controlled by what we find in our dictionaries. It's like the argument as to whether tomatoes are fruits (berries) or vegetables. Scientifically they are fruits (I believe berries), but where do you look for them in the supermarket?

Looking at your paraphrasing again, I think you've got things mixed up. You say:

So to paraphrase using my canine analogy: Wolves are canines. Dogs are canines. Dogs are descended from wolves, but this does not mean that dogs are wolves.

I can't quite make sense of your paraphrase. I think you are matching dogs=humans and wolves=apes. But that doesn't work because dogs and wolves are single species or perhaps very small groups of very closely related species. (Are wolves all one species). But, "ape" is a superfamily, and hence it doesn't make a good paraphrase to equate ape with either dogs or wolves. So, I'm not sure what your paraphrase means, but in any case, I can't see how it would work.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Dover Soul said:
You are of course free to believe what ever you like providing being right is not a priority for you.
Otherwise it's better to believe what is true, and the truth is we are all apes.
You realise I'm quoting the associate professor of anthropology from the University of Wisconsin? (link) :p

AnotherAtheist said:
I can't quite make sense of your paraphrase.
I don't blame you. It wasn't a very good example at all, so I deleted it.

AnotherAtheist said:
I can see where the blog writer is coming from. Fundamentally the word "ape" has different meanings in different contexts. In a scientific context, the "apes" are Hominoidea, to which we belong. Clearly that makes us apes in a scientific context. But, if you ask Johnny and Sally at the zoo to point to the closest ape to them, it won't be Daddy and Mommy. That's a colloquial use, and has no bearing on whether or not, scientifically, we are apes.

The same thing applies to the word "animal" if you look up dictionary definitions. Scientifically we are part of kingdom animalia, and most definitely animals. But common, colloquial, usage of the word "animal" often excludes humans. Hence in that we "we aren't animals". But while people might use that meaning in everyday speech "Do you have any animals in your house? No.", you can't use this colloquial meaning to then claim that scientifically we aren't animals.

The blog writer, e.g. in the first quote you give above, tries to use the colloquial meaning of the word "ape" as the only meaning, and then claiming that we shouldn't use it in a scientific context. We should use Hominoidea instead. Even though the Hominoidea are .... scientifically .... apes.

True, his post seems based on linguistics, but that's probably because linguistics can blur what taxonomical terms really mean. No doubt that's why he used French as an example. Singes means both "monkey" and "ape", but of course this does not mean monkeys and apes are the same creatures.

Or to put it another way, if apes evolved from monkeys, then why is it wrong to call a chimp (or a gorilla, or an orangutan, or even a human) a monkey?
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Or to put it another way, if apes evolved from monkeys, then why is it wrong to call a chimp (or a gorilla, or an orangutan, or even a human) a monkey?

Surely monkeys and apes are different divisions of primates. And hence apes didn't evolve from monkeys, both monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

But even then, just because X evolved from Y doesn't mean that you can call Y, X. Mammals evolved from reptiles, but mammals are not reptiles.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
AnotherAtheist said:
Surely monkeys and apes are different divisions of primates. And hence apes didn't evolve from monkeys, both monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

But even then, just because X evolved from Y doesn't mean that you can call Y, X. Mammals evolved from reptiles, but mammals are not reptiles.
The fossil record for primates is quite sparse certain places, but from what I know, yes, apes did evolve from monkeys (Proconsul is considered the link between the two). With this in mind, we can't say it's wrong to call a chimpanzee a monkey because they're two different branches of primate. One was the ancestor of the other.

Which goes back to my original point - a human is not an ape in the same way a chimpanzee is not a monkey. Though of course, they are all primates.

But like you said, creationists try to claim that humans aren't apes to prove that humans did not evolve. Perhaps looking at the traits which make humans unique - and perhaps finding these traits in ape-like ancestors - would be better than acting as though we are "basically chimps", as NailsII put it.
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Which goes back to my original point - a human is not an ape in the same way a chimpanzee is not a monkey. Though of course, they are all primates.

But here you're assuming that "humans evolved from apes" in the same way that "birds evolved from dinosaurs".

In the case of "birds" and "dinosaurs", these are different groups. Hence it makes sense to make that claim.

But, you can't have "humans evolved from apes" because "apes" are a group that include humans. By scientific definition. With that definition not just having been made up "just because", but because of extensive study and argument as to how these organisms should be organised into groups.

So, your point above could be analogised to: "parrots evolved from birds, and therefore parrots are not birds". Parrots will have evolved from another type of bird, but because "bird" refers to a large grouping, that doesn't mean that parrots are not part of it. We can't really say that golden lorikeets, one species I think, evolved from birds, because it's a bird itself. To say "golden lorikeets evolved from birds", the way I interpret it, includes an implicit error which is that it says that golden lorikeets are not birds.

431321865_5e0d26622c_z.jpg


(I think this will cause much less argument than the Archaeopteryx images :) )

Our nearest ancestors, Homo heidelbergensis, earlier Homo species, Australopithicines, etc. all were apes. We most likely evolved from them, but we can't say that "humans evolved from apes" without meaning that humans are not apes. So the correct way to state the relationship is that "humans evolved from other apes".

The choice of "humans evolved from apes" versus "humans evolved from other apes" depends on whether or not the speaker considers humans to be apes. So, to take the linguistic statement alone as evidence that humans are (or are not) apes is circular reasoning. The evidence that we want to use to support our conclusion was generated under the assumption that our conclusion is true.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
AnotherAtheist: I suppose it depends on what we mean by "ape". That probably sounds a bit silly so I'll elaborate:

What distinguishes an ape from a monkey? Apes have no tails and also have a specialized region in the elbow. So they lost a trait which their ancestors had, and developed a trait their ancestors did not have.*

Applying the same idea to hominins - losing a trait their ancestors had and developing one they did not - is harder because of gaps in the fossil records. But at a pinch, I'd say the trait we lost was large canines and the trait we developed was bipedalism.

So, in theory, the same criteria we use to distinguish monkeys from apes could be used to distinguish hominins from apes. This would mean that apes are an ancestral to humans, rather than a group we currently belong to - in the same way that monkeys are ancestral to apes, but apes are not part of the monkey family.

* Distinguishing between different taxonomical groups is obviously much more difficult than this but I want to keep my argument fairly simple.

----------------------------------------

Another (hypothetical) reason humans should not be considered apes is looking at the way humans evolved. Humans and chimps split around 7-5 MYA, but the first true human - a member of the Homo genus - did not appear until 2 MYA.

So for between 5-3 million years we have hominins, human ancestors and their relatives, but not actual humans.

As John Hawks put it, "Phylogenetic systematics holds that taxonomic groups should be monophyletic -- meaning that they include all the descendants of one ancestor, and don't leave any descendants out." If we look at the human family tree, our own taxonomic group should start at the LCA of apes and humans (possibly Ardipithecus or Sahelanthropus, depending on who you believe) but not include other apes such as chimps, gorillas or organutans, since they are not our descendants.

------------------------------------------

A third and final reason we could consider humans "hominins" rather than "apes" is based on the taxonomy chart:

Primates: Prosimians, monkeys, lesser apes, great apes, human ancestors, humans and their extinct relatives.
Anthropoids: Monkeys, lesser apes, great apes, human ancestors, humans and their extinct relatives.
Hominoids: Lesser apes, great apes, human ancestors, humans and their extinct relatives.
Hominids: Great apes, human ancestors, humans and their extinct relatives.
Hominins: Human ancestors (i.e. the Australopithecines), humans and their extinct relatives.
Homo: Humans and their extinct relatives.

Notice that monkeys, despite being the ancestors of apes, are left out after "Anthropoids". Perhaps part of the reason it's wrong to call a chimpanzee a monkey is that monkeys belong to a much earlier order which chimps have passed. Perhaps the same could be applied to humans and apes.

Sorry about the huge post. :sorry:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Notedstrangeperson:
I have a few problems with your logic. First, your use of the term ‘monkey’ partly defeats your own logic that all terms should be monophyletic, but ‘monkey’ is not.

Here's how it goes:


All monkeys are Simiiformes. Some monkeys are New World monkeys, and they split off inside Simiiformes into Platyrhinni.


Some other Simiiformes split into Catarhinni, and Catarhinni split into Old World monkeys, Cercopithecoidea, and Hominoidea, the apes.


So, bringing monkey is and comparing all apes to monkeys probably isn’t the best idea.


Also, humans are part of the taxonomic family Homindae. Everything in that family is a great ape, thus, humans are part of the great apes. So, even if you bring up that humans should be something else, every species is what its genera is, what its family is, what its order is, what its class is, what its kingdom is. Humans are still animals, we are still vertebrates, we are still mammals, we are still primates, and we are still great apes.


So, to address your question at the end of post #7,

Or to put it another way, if apes evolved from monkeys, then why is it wrong to call a chimp (or a gorilla, or an orangutan, or even a human) a monkey?
It is wrong to do so because there is an existing polyphyletic term ‘monkey’ that refers to two specific, extant areas on the tree of life, and the chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and humans are no longer in it.

So, as you said in post 9,

Which goes back to my original point - a human is not an ape in the same way a chimpanzee is not a monkey. Though of course, they are all primates.
This is not quite correct, because the ‘ape’ term refers to a specific lineage, and the family that humans are in, the ‘great apes’, is part of the apes, and unless humans somehow are changed all the way up past the family level, human beings are still great apes because we are still part of the family Homindae. On the other hand, chimps are not monkeys because neither the Old World monkeys nor the New World monkeys encapsulate the family Homindae.

In your post #11, your asterisk statement

* Distinguishing between different taxonomical groups is obviously much more difficult than this but I want to keep my argument fairly simple.
Pretty much undercuts the rest of your argument, along with the fact that monkey is a polypyletic term. What if I told you there was a tailless monkey? What if I then backed up my statement and said the name of it was the Barbary Macaque?
Some monkeys have differing teeth arrangements than apes, some do not. There are differeing sizes and gestation times. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


nother (hypothetical) reason humans should not be considered apes is looking at the way humans evolved. Humans and chimps split around 7-5 MYA, but the first true human - a member of the Homo genus - did not appear until 2 MYA.

So for between 5-3 million years we have hominins, human ancestors and their relatives, but not actual humans.

As John Hawks put it, "Phylogenetic systematics holds that taxonomic groups should be monophyletic -- meaning that they include all the descendants of one ancestor, and don't leave any descendants out." If we look at the human family tree, our own taxonomic group should start at the LCA of apes and humans (possibly Ardipithecus or Sahelanthropus, depending on who you believe) but not include other apes such as chimps, gorillas or organutans, since they are not our descendants.
This is entirely correct. But, our own taxonomic group is part of another taxonomic group called… the great apes. So everything in it, humans and human ancestors included, is a great ape.

Sorry if my post is a huge post too L

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

MostlyLurking

Member
May 18, 2012
145
3
✟290.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Notedstrangeperson said:
Many evolutionary biologists state as if it were an unquestionable fact that humans are apes. I disagree. ---- John Hawks​
--------------------------------

So human's aren't apes in the same sense that chimps aren't monkeys. :p

I felt like posting this because, even though some of them obviously have a pretty loose grasp of biology, when a creationist says "Those fossils aren't human ancestors, they're just apes", I don't think it helps when we say "Humans ARE apes."

I appreciate your starting this thread because John Hawk's essay merits discussion. And the linguistics of semantic domains and semantic fields is something I often broach when explaining Bible translation complexities. And those same issues arise when anti-evolution creationists say silly things like "But the nylon-digesting bacteria remains a bacteria" or "But the rabbit remained a rabbit", as if the fact that a particular language calls both animals a bacteria or a rabbit somehow placed boundaries or fences around the organism, as if linguistics determines taxonomy. And the John Hawks does make that point well. So good for him.

But while I appreciate the fact that he is willing to tackle the linguistics of it all, he still "blows it" in a major way. Here's another excerpt:
"We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to make a political argument. That's what "humans are apes" ultimately is -- it's an argument that we aren't as great as we think we are. Whether humans are special or not should be derived from biology; I don't think we need to make the argument by applying Orwellian coercion to the meanings of English words. Biologists control taxonomic terminology, and that's where science should aim. I don't think I'm being old-fashioned, nor am I promoting the idea that humans aren't part of the primate phylogeny. I'm only promoting the idea that we use taxonomy for its intended purpose, and not insist that English do the job instead.
We aren't apes."
But what Hawks misses is this: When a creationist takes up this debate, it is NOT just about "a political argument" or even "everyday language." By definition the term "creationist" has come to mean adamantly anti-evolution, and evolution is a biology topic!So the context is *not* merely politics or "every day language". The creationist has chosen to take on scientists on the topics of origins so science is the linguistic context. And a basic rule of linguistics is that definitions are determined by context!

So it doesn't matter what "everyday language" or politics may say about origins and words like "ape". When creationists argue origins, they've entered the scientist's turf so, like it or not, they too need to use scientific language. Otherwise, confusion and talking past one another is the result.

Hawks is bothered by the fact that some scientists no doubt take special delight in the "Human aren't as great as we think we are" implications of the "Humans are apes!" taxonomic fact. But by calling it "Orwellian coercion", Hawks virtually apologizes for the fact that facts are facts! Taxonomically-speaking, humans are NOT superior (whatever taxonomic superior would mean!)

it's an argument that we aren't as great as we think we are. Whether humans are special or not should be derived from biology; I don't think we need to make the argument by applying Orwellian coercion to the meanings of English words.

Should biologists apologize for the fact that "Humans are apes!" rubs some people the wrong way? And *should* it bother people to be reminded of that taxonomic fact? Does saying that "Humans are mammals!" or "Humans are chordates" somehow deflate the obvious fact that humans excel over other animals in all sorts of other ways? Hawks little "contest" over words is much ado about nothing.

Hawks will no doubt win some favor from creationists. And I have no doubts that his blog will get quote-mined to death by lots of Ken Ham successor wannabes. But Hawks has simply managed to come up with yet another way to confuse the fallacies of equivocation with taxonomic realities and terminology.

So, if John Hawks is running for Mr. Congeniality, there's no doubt that he's won over the creationist judges at the pageant. But as long as "ape" has a special taxonomic meaning in zoology, the creationists and society in general will just have to live with it.

Now as to what parents should tell their kids at the zoo depends upon whether the parents want them to learn to think and sound like a scientist or like a creationist.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So, if John Hawks is running for Mr. Congeniality, there's no doubt that he's won over the creationist judges at the pageant. But as long as "ape" has a special taxonomic meaning in zoology, the creationists and society in general will just have to live with it.
Your last sentence is exactly correct -- except that the premise is wrong. "Ape" has no formal taxonomic meaning in zoology. That's precisely Hawks's point, in fact: "ape" is not a scientific term. I have seen pro-evolution people arguing that we should change the meaning of the word, to include humans, for the purpose of changing public perception, but there's no question that right now "ape" does not normally include humans.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
No doubt John Hawks could defend his argument better than I can. :p Apologies for repeating myself so much, but there are still a few things which I'd like to go over.

Metherion said:
All monkeys are Simiiformes. Some monkeys are New World monkeys, and they split off inside Simiiformes into Platyrhinni.
Metherion said:

Some other Simiiformes split into Catarhinni, and Catarhinni split into Old World monkeys, Cercopithecoidea, and Hominoidea, the apes.

So, bringing monkey is and comparing all apes to monkeys probably isn’t the best idea.

Also, humans are part of the taxonomic family Homindae. Everything in that family is a great ape, thus, humans are part of the great apes. So, even if you bring up that humans should be something else, every species is what its genera is, what its family is, what its order is, what its class is, what its kingdom is. Humans are still animals, we are still vertebrates, we are still mammals, we are still primates, and we are still great apes.

So it's incorrect to refer to a chimp as a monkey because great apes and modern monkeys belong to different branches of primate - that's understandable.

Metherion said:
Notestrangeperson said:
Which goes back to my original point - a human is not an ape in the same way a chimpanzee is not a monkey.
Metherion said:
This is not quite correct, because the ‘ape’ term refers to a specific lineage, and the family that humans are in, the ‘great apes’, is part of the apes, and unless humans somehow are changed all the way up past the family level, human beings are still great apes because we are still part of the family Homindae. On the other hand, chimps are not monkeys because neither the Old World monkeys nor the New World monkeys encapsulate the family Homindae.

True, but obviously apes did not evolve from modern monkeys - they evolved from monkey-like ancestors 18 MYA. This is what I mentioned to AnotherAtheist earlier: we cannot say it's wrong to refer to a chimpanzee as a monkey because they belong to different different branch of primate. Monkeys and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor - monkeys are the ancestors of apes.

So to put it another way: even though monkeys are the ancestors of apes, it is still wrong to call a chimp / gorilla / orangutan a monkey because, today, they belong to different branches of primate.

In theory, couldn't we say the same about humans? Although humans evolved from an ape ancestor, today modern humans and chimpanzees belong to different branches of primate. Hence a human is a "hominin" rather than an ape.

MostlyLurking said:
Hawks will no doubt win some favor from creationists. And I have no doubts that his blog will get quote-mined to death by lots of Ken Ham successor wannabes. But Hawks has simply managed to come up with yet another way to confuse the fallacies of equivocation with taxonomic realities and terminology.
Perhaps, but that would be the fault of the quote-mining creationist. Besides, part of the reason I read his blog is because he keeps political and religious discussions to a minimum. It would be rather dull if he kept his ideas to himself just to avoid unwanted attention from creationists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.