Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[mindlight]

No, they don't discard junk DNA. The comparisons are between whole genomes.

Having the same base pairs.

Which programme are you talking about/using? Smith-Waterman?

The major point was that there is never a perfect alignment even if one of high statistical value is established.

 

[mindlight]

I see that you wrote a lot of words there... but they don't actually say anything that I can see.

OK apes have more hair and cannot be seen chatting in forums like this as often. Their gait is different and their strength more balanced between hands and feet. Humans mainly have proportionally weaker arms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK apes have more hair and cannot be seen chatting in forums like this as often. Their gait is different and their strength more balanced between hands and feet. Humans mainly have proportionally weaker arms.

And yet humans are still apes.
And apes do hold semi-communal gatherings, where they groom each other and communicate with the other. Not the exact same thing, but still.
And also, humans actually do have strong arms. It's only a myth that chimpanzees are stronger than humans (gorillas on the other hand, oh boy).

 

[mindlight]

Humans as hominids = common ancestry with other apes. If it turns out that we don’t have a common ancestor, the implication of that may be that we are in a different category as yet undefined. Who knows? There may be data that confirms a line of descent that fits in with the idea of us being apes, it may be that this will need to be revisited. Pretending that you ‘know’ that isn’t the case, which is the implication of your post, turns it from a question into a statement of your beliefs, posed disingenuously as a question.

My point was that the evidence that points to a common ancestor can actually be reinterpreted in a creationist understanding by simply asserting that our Common Designer differentiated his ongoing code with each new species. The tree of life is thus verified without verifying evolution. Also that the differences which do exist make all the difference whether observed or on the DNA level. Which is why the apes do not have a developed language ability, have built no pyramids and run around naked without the ability to adapt to extreme cold for instance.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My point was that the evidence that points to a common ancestor can actually be reinterpreted in a creationist understanding by simply asserting that our Common Designer differentiated his ongoing code with each new species. The tree of life is thus verified without verifying evolution. Also that the differences which do exist make all the difference whether observed or on the DNA level. Which is why the apes do not have a developed language ability, have built no pyramids and run around naked without the ability to adapt to extreme cold for instance.

Yeah, nice and all. Still doesn't address the OP. Neither comment does.

 

[mindlight]

And yet humans are still apes.
And apes do hold semi-communal gatherings, where they groom each other and communicate with the other. Not the exact same thing, but still.
And also, humans actually do have strong arms. It's only a myth that chimpanzees are stronger than humans (gorillas on the other hand, oh boy).

There is an overlap but human civilisation has surpassed the apes by every possible criteria. The differences make all the difference. My point which you missed earlier is that the similarities in the design of apes and humans does not undermine the creationist narrative. It merely points to a common Designer who made apes and humans with similar code. But the extra stuff he gave humans makes all the difference.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is an overlap but human civilisation has surpassed the apes by every possible criteria. The differences make all the difference. My point which you missed earlier is that the similarities in the design of apes and humans does not undermine the creationist narrative. It merely points to a common Designer who made apes and humans with similar code. But the extra stuff he gave humans makes all the difference.

But I specifically asked, IN THE OP, about BIOLOGY.

 

[mindlight]

Yeah, nice and all. Still doesn't address the OP. Neither comment does.

Then you have not understood either comment.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then you have not understood either comment.

No, I do understand them. Your comments about the evolutionary tree and his comments about the same are nothing to do with the OP.
Go back and reread the OP, especially the last few lines to specifically know what question I'm asking.

 

[pitabread]

My point was that the evidence that points to a common ancestor can actually be reinterpreted in a creationist understanding by simply asserting that our Common Designer differentiated his ongoing code with each new species. The tree of life is thus verified without verifying evolution.

This only makes sense if one assumes a designer created life to have the appearance of evolution. I know that's probably not what you want to suggest, but that is in effect what you are suggesting.

Regardless this is irrelevant to the classification of humans as great apes.

 

[mindlight]

This only makes sense if one assumes a designer created life to have the appearance of evolution. I know that's probably not what you want to suggest, but that is in effect what you are suggesting.

Regardless this is irrelevant to the classification of humans as great apes.

No it means that the similarities that there are relate to code that was reused and then differentiated for later designs by a Common Designer who solved problems in a modular fashion. People have THEN read evolution into the evidence as they have discovered the patterns in the creaturely types but with the assumption of far greater time spans.

 

[mindlight]

No, I do understand them. Your comments about the evolutionary tree and his comments about the same are nothing to do with the OP.
Go back and reread the OP, especially the last few lines to specifically know what question I'm asking.

So you think DNA has nothing to do with biology?!!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you think DNA has nothing to do with biology?!!

And, as I showed in the OP, humans share over 95% of their DNA with all other great apes, so we are, using basic logic, apes.
It's your job, as per the question in the OP, if you can, to show me how, biologically, humans can't be considered apes.

 

[pitabread]

No it means that the similarities that there are relate to code that was reused and then differentiated for later designs by a Common Designer who solved problems in a modular fashion.

Except that's not what we observe in nature. Biological organisms for the most part appear constrained via hereditary descent.

If life was truly built in a mix 'n match modular fashion, we wouldn't expect it to fall into a convergent nested hierarchy.

In fact I just went through this exercise in another thread where I constructed hierarchies based on vehicles. The results were all over the map.

People have THEN read evolution into the evidence as they have discovered thepatterns in the creaturely types but with theassumption of far greater time spans.

You have this completely backwards. The idea life was specially created preceded the idea of evolution. It's just the observed evidence fits the model of biological evolution better. Unless of course you assume that the designer was operating under the same constraints as evolution.

Again, this is what you are suggesting even if you don't realize it.

 

[mindlight]

And, as I showed in the OP, humans share over 95% of their DNA with all other great apes, so we are, using basic logic, apes.
It's your job, as per the question in the OP, if you can, to show me how, biologically, humans can't be considered apes.

The 1.2 -5% being the difference.

Also an appraisal of the matching mechanisms casts doubt on whether they really are local alignments or just strong matches. Hence my question to sfs to clarify which programme was being used. Some alignment programmes are focused only on one particular strand of DNA. They have lower thresholds defined for non alignment etc

You probably need to rephrase your OP to discuss physical manifestations of the difference. The DNA is the biology as far as most biologists are concerned.

The manifestations of physical difference are as follows:

1) Apes have more hair
2) Apes do not have an Appendix
3) Apes communicate with grunts and growls not words
4) Apes have less developed brains and the ape brain is about 1/3rd the size of a human brain.

So the main difference that makes all the difference is the intelligence factor that comes from having a smaller less developed brain and a limited and less flexible view of language. If you rule out the intelligence/language factor and the spiritual factor of humans being made in Gods image then the differences are not that important.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The 1.2 -5% being the difference.

Also an appraisal of the matching mechanisms casts doubt on whether they really are local alignments or just strong matches. Hence my question to sfs to clarify which programme was being used. Some alignment programmes are focused only on one particular strand of DNA. They have lower thresholds defined for non alignment etc

You probably need to rephrase your OP to discuss physical manifestations of the difference. The DNA is the biology as far as most biologists are concerned.

The manifestations of physical difference are as follows:

1) Apes have more hair
2) Apes do not have an Appendix
3) Apes communicate with grunts and growls not words
4) Apes have less developed brains and the ape brain is about 1/3rd the size of a human brain.

So the main difference that makes all the difference is the intelligence factor that comes from having a smaller less developed brain and a limited and less flexible view of language. If you rule out the intelligence/language factor and the spiritual factor of humans being made in Gods image then the differences are not that important.

Do you know what biology is? Because I have a feeling that you're seriously just dancing around the topic here.

1)Apes have a lot of body hair. But so do I! I'm one hairy person. Started getting body hair when I was 14. There's also something known as Werewolf Syndrome or Hypertrichosis which means a person has a lot more body hair than normal.

2) Apes DO have an appendix actually. Actually, humans and other apes are one of the few creatures have one.

3) Apes may not be able to speak, but apes have been shown and known to communicate via American Sign Language and have been shown to teach that skill to other apes, meaning that they do have an intellect. Never heard of Koko the Gorilla?

4) Okay, I'll give you that one.

But still, three out of your four claims were wrong.

 

[mindlight]

Except that's not what we observe in nature. Biological organisms for the most part appear constrained via hereditary descent.

If life was truly built in a mix 'n match modular fashion, we wouldn't expect it to fall into a convergent nested hierarchy.

In fact I just went through this exercise in another thread where I constructed hierarchies based on vehicles. The results were all over the map.

Modular was probably the wrong word to use. The primary theme is that there is a basic template for life which the Designer would have used first for the simplest organisms. He would have developed more sophisticated templates from that original one as he differentiated between creatures of the land , air and sea and then between the different kinds. the beginning of Gods creation day would have the simplest code and the end the most sophisticated. Indeed humankind has a whole day devoted to their development following the day in which God developed and differentiated all the different kinds of animals. The similarity with apes is thus not accidental, it is evidence of a shared template being developed into the later more sophisticated human form. Modules of code are inherited by hierarchical descent from the creatures which first corresponded with that design. But usually these are also changed to accommodate the new creature.

The only difference with the evolutionist view here then becomes the time scale. I think this happened in 2 days while you say billions of years.

You have this completely backwards. The idea life was specially created preceded the idea of evolution. It's just the observed evidence fits the model of biological evolution better. Unless of course you assume that the designer was operating under the same constraints as evolution.

Again, this is what you are suggesting even if you don't realize it.

We have developed tools of analysis as a result of the growth of science which we can now use to look at creation with more depth. You think that these tools are tied to the evolutionary theory but I do not. I think what you have found just adds more insight into how the Creator did it.

 

[mindlight]

Do you know what biology is? Because I have a feeling that you're seriously just dancing around the topic here.

1)Apes have a lot of body hair. But so do I! I'm one hairy person. Started getting body hair when I was 14. There's also something known as Werewolf Syndrome or Hypertrichosis which means a person has a lot more body hair than normal.

Most humans are less hairy than most apes.

2) Apes DO have an appendix actually. Actually, humans and other apes are one of the few creatures have one.

You are right I spoke off the top of my head on that one.

3) Apes may not be able to speak, but apes have been shown and known to communicate via American Sign Language and have been shown to teach that skill to other apes, meaning that they do have an intellect. Never heard of Koko the Gorilla?

Apes are morons and their language ability never develops beyond a certain point for that reason even when trained.

4) Okay, I'll give you that one.

How gracious of you.

But still, three out of your four claims were wrong.

The Appendix claim was false , you generalised from the exceptional case regarding hair and we disagree on the level of apes language ability / capability.

 

[Halbhh]

Interesting indeed. But it's not answering my question, which addresses a common claim that Creationists/ID proponents make a lot of the time on this forum: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?

Ah, I think that's merely a dislike to be called 'ape' at times, and of course other times is a certain theory (not in the scripture) about small details of creation, that God could not use evolution (which of course the scripture does not specify, but rather it says God created all that is, and also made Adam and Eve, who were in time ejected from the garden, and their son Cain went and took a wife in another land, Nod, where there were evidently already a population of humans, or hominins...(Gen ch 4)).

If you happen to have interest though in the fascinating question of how modern humans out competed the competing hominid Neanderthal, here's a representative article:
One hundred thousand years ago, several humanlike species walked the Earth. There were tribes of stocky Neanderthals eking out an existence in Europe and northwest Asia, and bands of cave-dwelling Denisovans in Asia. A diminutive, hobbitlike people called Homo floresiensis inhabited Indonesia. What were essentially modern humans roamed Africa.

Then, about 60,000 years ago, a few thousand of those humans migrated out of Africa. As they slowly moved into new territories over the course of generations, they encountered the Neanderthals, the Denisovans and the hobbit people — all of whom descended from hominin groups that had left Africa during prior waves of migration. DNA analysis shows the humans interbred with these strangers, but other details of the encounters are lost to history. One thing is clear: only humans remain.

Why did we prevail? ....
Why Did Humans Prevail?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Most humans are less hairy than most apes.

So are dogs and cats and bears and mice and rats. Do you know WHY humans have less hair? Because we evolved to not need as much hair.
Doesn't mean humans aren't apes.

You are right I spoke off the top of my head on that one.

Indeed you did. Doesn't mean humans aren't apes.

Apes are morons and their language ability never develops beyond a certain point for that reason even when trained.

Yet it still shows that apes are smart enough to use language, albeit in the non-vocal sense.
Doesn't mean humans aren't apes.

How gracious of you.
The Appendix claim was false , you generalised from the exceptional case regarding hair and we disagree on the level of apes language ability / capability.

The only thing I'm getting from your posts, especially with the "Apes are morons!" comment is that you don't appreciate being brought down to the same biological level as other apes.
Still doesn't mean that humans aren't apes.