Definition of Ape

[Chalnoth]

Well, I would like to state that there is one way in which humans can be considered the most evolved.

Throughout the history of life, life has evolved so that it can adapt more rapidly. Consider, for example, the geological time scales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Notice that as time moves forward, the steps in geologic time get closer together. For example, the amount of time in which the Earth was populated only by microbial life dwarfs the amount of time that multicellular organisms have been around. Similarly, there have been stages of evolution in the past where the adaptability of species has increased dramatically. The evolution of hox genes would be one example.

Humans are at the top of the ladder here, because no longer are we doomed to only progress through those less well-adapted dying off. We can instead actively promote change within our own species and around us. We don't need to die to change: we can consciously anticipate the impact of our actions, and choose to perform those actions which bring about the desired result. This capability is far and away beyond the adaptability allowed by any other living organism on Earth, and it may one day take us beyond the Earth, potentially allowing life from Earth to survive beyond the planet itself.

Of course, this in no way whatsoever makes us not apes or not animals: we are both of these things by definition and by descent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not even close to humans and you know it!

Please demonstrate how the human ability surpasses that of other animals.
Also, please reply to my entire post (specifically about your epistomological fallacy).

 

[Split Rock]

Now, to define what an ape is, you first have to start with the definition of "animal" and add to that all the definitions applicable to every other clade humans evidently evolved from -right up to the complete definition of what an Old World monkey is. Then you add to that the specifics which identify all apes as a subset of the clade/infraorder, Catarrhini, and then further define subsets within "apes" themselves, like "great apes" for example.

Of course the simplest definition for apes is "any member of the clade/superfamily "Hominoidea". That word literally means "humanoid", and of course includes humans.

But if you really need a more unnecessarily complicated definition, (which means exactly the same thing) then an ape is a subset of Catarrhine primates which have reduced oflactory senses compared to all other primates, but which are all capable of full brachiation, and have a broader chest, and greater tendancy toward bipedalism than all other primate groups. Apes can be further identified by individually distinct fingerprints, and a unique pattern of dentition, being 2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 premolars, and 3 molars in each quarter of the mouth. In most cases, the canine is reduced, almost useless as a cynodont tooth. And the molars are also unique in all the animal kingdom. Every ape has them, and only apes have them. Each molar comes to five points interrupted by a Y-shaped crevasse. If you want to know what that looks like, go to a mirror and open your mouth real wide.

There are myriad other distinctions unique to apes which all apply to humans as well, including a genetic mutation rendering all of us unable to synthesize vitamin D3 or vitamin C. When you look at the total collective of all apes, extant or extinct, and attempt to categorize them, you'll inevitably end up with a string of traits we share in common with them. In short, it is impossible to list all the characters shared by all apes in common without describing humans at the same time. In fact, if you try to list all the traits distinguising Old World monkeys from other monkeys, or indicative of monkeys in general as compared to all other primates, or all other mammals etc., you'll inevitably end up describing humans again. Why is that? Well as usual, evolution explains it. But creationism can't explain anything.

That is an amazingly human-like dental arrangement. Any comments from Creationists on why that is?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is an amazingly human-like dental arrangement. Any comments from Creationists on why that is?

• It's Satan tricking us to test our faith.
• It's God tricking us to test our faith.
• It's a coincidence / God reuses designs*

I predict one of the above will be used.

*Even though such designs are only reused in such a way as to create the illusion of common ancestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I've heard that too. They generally bumble along with something about superior intellect and so on.

I'll "bumble along" with the fact that we're referred to as mankind --- superior to, and told to have dominion over, the "other kinds".

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll "bumble along" with the fact that we're referred to as mankind --- superior to, and told to have dominion over, the "other kinds".

Which reminds me of all those generations where man had dominion over syphillis and other infectious diseases. Boy, we sure kicked the crud out of Yersinia pestis back in the Middle Ages. Surely something even smaller than a bacteria, like HIV for example, is fully under our control and dominion.

 

[FoeHammer]

I am splitting this off from another thread.

If evolution is true why does it matter?

FoeHammer.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

If you ever lock eyes with a chimp you will quickly see a mind that ticks a lot like yours.

This happened to me at the zoo -- it was when I didn't even "really" accept the ToE yet. I was filled with sadness -- it was SO obvious that he didn't want to be there. I haven't really enjoyed the zoo since then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which reminds me of all those generations where man had dominion over syphillis and other infectious diseases. Boy, we sure kicked the crud out of Yersinia pestis back in the Middle Ages. Surely something even smaller than a bacteria, like HIV for example, is fully under our control and dominion.

Better watch who's reminding you, then.

Man turned his dominion over the animals over to Satan.

Don't confuse Genesis 1 with Genesis 3.

 

[Loudmouth]

Better watch who's reminding you, then.

Man turned his dominion over the animals over to Satan.

Don't confuse Genesis 1 with Genesis 3.

Since we no longer have dominion over Creation does this mean that we are no longer human?

 

[FishFace]

I think any 5 year old could tell you the vast differences between apes and humans.

So what features do all apes share that humans don't?

Yes the differences between apes and humans are clear

And, clearly, we are only as different, in fact, less different, than apes are to each other.

The issue of humans being 'higher life forms' is interesting and true, we are clearly the most complex

Complex?

dominating

And that means higher?

I absolutely cannot understand what is going through the mind of the evolutionist on this point.

It's simple: Humans are apes with big brains. What's the fuss, and what's hard to understand?

The idea of a "higher life form" can be defined in many ways such as the most complex the smartest, the most dominant, the fittest, or some combination.

None of those are anything but arbitrary, the first is impossible to measure, and the others depend on the environment. What are the other "many ways?"

The evolutionist sees humans coming from slime on a rock.

And you don't like that, do you? Does it insult your pride? Do you not like feeling humble? I don't think you do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'll "bumble along" with the fact that we're referred to as mankind --- superior to, and told to have dominion over, the "other kinds".

As fascinating as etymology is, it doesn't really prove anything. If the etymology of the title of my book meant 'Absolute and inerrant and literal truth lies within these pages', would you automatically assume that within the pages of my book lies absolute and inerrant and literal truth?
Didn't think so.

 

[Split Rock]

• It's Satan tricking us to test our faith.
• It's God tricking us to test our faith.
• It's a coincidence / God reuses designs*

I predict one of the above will be used.

*Even though such designs are only reused in such a way as to create the illusion of common ancestry.

The correct answer is:
It's God using Satan to trick us to test our faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

As fascinating as etymology is, it doesn't really prove anything. If the etymology of the title of my book meant 'Absolute and inerrant and literal truth lies within these pages', would you automatically assume that within the pages of my book lies absolute and inerrant and literal truth?
Didn't think so.

Depends on the A/author.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Depends on the A/author.

Perhaps, but since we do not know who the author of the Bible is, it's rather a moot point.

 

[FishFace]

Depends on the A/author.

How do you determine the author? You need to know with absolute infallible certainty if you are to treat the book as infallible.

Hint: if the book says, "By God" then that's not absolute certain proof of its authorship.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps, but since we do not know who the author of the Bible is, it's rather a moot point.

Who are "we" in that sentence?

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, I would like to state that there is one way in which humans can be considered the most evolved.

Throughout the history of life, life has evolved so that it can adapt more rapidly. Consider, for example, the geological time scales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Notice that as time moves forward, the steps in geologic time get closer together. For example, the amount of time in which the Earth was populated only by microbial life dwarfs the amount of time that multicellular organisms have been around. Similarly, there have been stages of evolution in the past where the adaptability of species has increased dramatically. The evolution of hox genes would be one example.

Humans are at the top of the ladder here, because no longer are we doomed to only progress through those less well-adapted dying off. We can instead actively promote change within our own species and around us. We don't need to die to change: we can consciously anticipate the impact of our actions, and choose to perform those actions which bring about the desired result. This capability is far and away beyond the adaptability allowed by any other living organism on Earth, and it may one day take us beyond the Earth, potentially allowing life from Earth to survive beyond the planet itself.

Of course, this in no way whatsoever makes us not apes or not animals: we are both of these things by definition and by descent.

What you are seening is the layering caused by the Noah's FLOOD and not rapid evolution. If that were the case, evolution would be noticed from day to day (faster and faster increase) and hour to hour by now..... That is not that case. Men are still men and have not moved beyond themselves. Monkeys are still monkeys after thousands of years and offer no competition to humans... There is no monkey kingdom There is no dolphin kingdom. They just exist We shop WalMart.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you determine the author?

His name is right on the cover.



[bible]Psalm 99:3[/bible][bible]Psalm 111:9[/bible]

You need to know with absolute infallible certainty if you are to treat the book as infallible.

Like you guys do your "science" books?

Hint: if the book says, "By God" then that's not absolute certain proof of its authorship.

Or if yours said, "By Carl Sagan" --- same thing, right?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Who are "we" in that sentence?

The set of people, myself included, who do not know who wrote the Bible.
If you know who wrote the Bible, please, tell us, and give your reasoning.