Can Humans Be Considered Apes?

[shinbits]

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.

 

[sfs]

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.

 

[Ectezus]

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

 

[shinbits]

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.

 

[shinbits]

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.

 

[Ectezus]

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

 

[Darkness27]

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.

 

[sfs]

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".

 

[shinbits]

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.

 

[shinbits]

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.

 

[shinbits]

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?

I simply misunderstood what you said. I re-read your statement, and what you said makes 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".

thank you for this post. you helped a lot.

 

[Ectezus]

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

And apparrently those differences are not numerous and significant enough.

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

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?

Because to me it sounds like you have no idea how the classification system works yet you want to change it.

- Ectezus

 

[Aron-Ra]

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

No there isn't.

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

Yes it is. Humans are perfectly capable of brachiation. In fact it is required in some of our gymnastics.

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

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.

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

Nor is it true of all other apes.

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

Nor is it true of Australopiths.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

 

[sfs]

thank you for this post. you helped a lot.

Glad to be of service.

 

[shinbits]

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 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.

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.

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

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.

good point here.

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?

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.

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.

I don't think that's true. birds are in a different classification from reptiles, even though they share ancestry with them.

 

[shinbits]

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?

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.

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?

what religious agenda could someone that defends evolution have?

 

[Ectezus]

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.

If you think it should be changed then you do need to have strong arguments. All the examples you name are not huge differences compared to apes nor are they numerous compared to the similarities.

The differences that we do have (like walking up right and pretty much everything you mentioned) DOES give us our own separate GENUS. The genus of which we are now the only species left. Why you want to redefine a line where we are the only ones on it is beyond me... It makes no sense.

Also: the classification is not just a label you can slap onto something without further impact. It implies ancestry.
To change our family to something other than Homininae or even Hominidae would also mean our closest ancestor isn't the common ancestry that we and chimpanzees share.

Would your rather have taxonomy say that you are a different family and your closest ancestor is a baboon? We simply know this isn't true. Chimpanzees (their ancestors, not the ones you see in zoo's) are the closest to us and this won't change.

The only thing you can do is advance further down the taxonomy line and create more sub-trees. Lets say, the new species: "superhumans" who's ancestors are Homo-sapiens (us right now). Maybe if humans actually divide into more groups (that can't breed with each other anymore) or something that's possible.
Right now however there is no reason to give us a new status. We can change the way we label ourselves but we can not change our ancestors.

- Ectezus

 

[Bombila]

Brachiation is routinely practiced by human children at play. Adults, not so much. This is the same as several of the Great Apes: the young ones spend a lot of time in the trees while adults are comparatively grounded.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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.

Well let me it another way then. I had no difficulty with brachiation, and I don't know anyone who does -unless the problem is related to their age and weight.

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

If it doesn't apply to all apes, then it's not an ape trait.

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.

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

Birds are a subset of Maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs, which are a subset of archosaurian diapsid reptiles. Birds are in the classification of diapsid reptiles.

 

[shinbits]

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.

okay. thank you for this post. just like last time I posted this, you've helped a lot.