Definition of Ape

[Chalnoth]

There are similarities is all of creation. Language and the ability to speak are God like qualities which separate us from the rest of creation and purposefully done. It is written in our DNA and is not a random occurance but an intelligent design.

It's a purposeful adaptation. Language came about because complex language helps large social groups to work well together. Large social groups working well together helped our ancestors to survive. That's all there is to it.

But this still doesn't make us not apes. Remember, you have to find something which all apes have, but we lack, not something we have but they lack. Every species on Earth, after all, has its own unique characteristics.

 

[corvus_corax]

....still waiting for a definition of "highest form of animals" regarding the human species......



(I probably shouldn't hold my breath, should I?)


....also waiting for how "different, but in a good way" makes us any different than beetles......


(yeah, definitely not going to hold my breath)

 

[Inan3]

....still waiting for a definition of "highest form of animals" regarding the human species......



(I probably shouldn't hold my breath, should I?)


....also waiting for how "different, but in a good way" makes us any different than beetles......


(yeah, definitely not going to hold my breath)

yeah I've pretty much answered all I'm going to on that, so don't hold your breath.

 

[corvus_corax]

yeah I've pretty much answered all I'm going to on that, so don't hold your breath.

You didnt really give an answer (or at least a working definition).
But thanks for letting me know in advance that you arent going to (no that's not sarcasm, I actually appreciate that type of honesty)

 

[metherion]

I hate to be the Devil's Advocate here, but how about:

A 24th Chromosome? (even though humans actually do have it fused to something else. But it's at least in the 'what they have that we don't' category.)

Or perhaps, a separate 24th chromosome? Though how the fusing of one of our chromosomes changed the amount of 'information' still eludes me.

Metherion

 

[Split Rock]

​

There are similarities is all of creation. Language and the ability to speak are God like qualities which separate us from the rest of creation and purposefully done. It is written in our DNA and is not a random occurance but an intelligent design.

Why do you continually refer to random occurances? Neither chemistry nor evolution is random.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why do you continually refer to random occurances? Neither chemistry nor evolution is random.

Weeeell... it is. It's all to do with quantum, y'see

 

[metherion]

Just thought of something else. Aren't humans the only primates sans baculums? Baculi? whatever the plural of "penile bone" is.

But then again, we aren't the only animals without it.

Metherion

 

[Chalnoth]

Just thought of something else. Aren't humans the only primates sans baculums? Baculi? whatever the plural of "penile bone" is.

But then again, we aren't the only animals without it.

Metherion

Yup. But then it'd be interesting to see if we still carry the genes to grow the baculum. One would expect from the theory of evolution that we would still retain some or all of the genes that are turned on to grow the baculum in our closely-related cousins.

Additionally, since we still retain all of the other characteristics of apes that are separate from those of primates, the smart money is on this merely being something that atrophied in our own evolutionary line, due to selective pressure against its existence (likely for sexual selection).

 

[metherion]

It would be neat to find out if it is there but deactivated. It would also be interesting to find out if primate baculum genes are similar to non-primate ones, and whether thee reason walruses and rats don't have them is similar.

I'd also be willing to bet it's multiple things that have changed in the genes, as opposed to just one. After all, we do see hens' teeth, unfused coccyxes, and so on, but not baculummed humans. Unless you have a link for one, which would be REALLY awesome to see but probably banned from being posted as being porn. After all, it would be a link to a picture of a penis.

Metherion

 

[Gracchus]

Anyone who thinks humans aren't apes has never been to a sports bar.

 

[TheOutsider]

It would be neat to find out if it is there but deactivated. It would also be interesting to find out if primate baculum genes are similar to non-primate ones, and whether thee reason walruses and rats don't have them is similar.
Metherion

Walruses do have baculums (baculi?). Wikipedia has a pic of one that is almost 2 feet long. The animals that don't have baculumseses are humans, equines, marsupials (which really surprises me), rabbits, and hyenas. Wikipedia also says that there have been cases of humans being born with a baculum, but it doesn't cite any sources.

 

[Blayz]

Yup. But then it'd be interesting to see if we still carry the genes to grow the baculum.

The baculum is controlled by the expression patterns of various HoxD genes during development, rather than the presence/absence or mutation of a particular "baculum" gene. I daresay someone at some time will nail down the exact differences.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=28368

Size of Baculum. As in many rodent and in some other mammalian species, male mice have a bone in their penis. This baculum (os priapi) originates from cells strongly expressing posterior HoxD genes during development, which led to the proposal that limb and genital buds had similar developmental strategies in which posterior Hox genes were essential components (24). Furthermore, this small bone was slightly altered, because of a cellular deficit, in mice lacking Hoxd-13 function (3). We therefore looked for further baculum size reduction in these various compound genotypes.
The functional cooperation of the same four genes was clearly observed (Fig. 3). Whereas the inactivation of Hoxd-13 led to a minor localized alteration of the baculum, the simultaneous inactivation of Hoxd-11, Hoxd-12, and Hoxd-13 (HoxDDel/Del) resulted in an overall size reduction of the bone and indeed of the entire organ. The functional input from Hoxa-13 was best evidenced in HoxDDel/+;Hoxa-13+/− males, and an almost complete agenesis of the baculum was seen in HoxDDel/Del;Hoxa-13+/− (Fig. 3A). The remarkably similar functional cooperation of the same four genes during both digit and genital eminence development reflects the coexpression of Hoxd-11, Hoxd-12, Hoxd-13, and Hoxa-13 in overlapping domains of both developing autopods and external genitalia. It suggests that these apparently different structures share important developmental mechanisms, perhaps as a consequence of a common phylogenetic history (18).

 

[TheOutsider]

The baculum is controlled by the expression patterns of various HoxD genes during development, rather than the presence/absence or mutation of a particular "baculum" gene. I daresay someone at some time will nail down the exact differences.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=28368

Your Google-Fu is much better than mine. I wasn't able to find much on it. I did however find a few people claiming that Eve wasn't created from Adam's rib, but from his baculum. Very very odd.

 

[Blayz]

Your Google-Fu is much better than mine.

My NCBI-Fu, thanks very much. I don't go to google for science.

 

[metherion]

Whoops. I mistook the list of one that had for the ones that hadn't. I do that from time to time.

Thanks for the correction!

I feel dumb now.

And anyways, the pic on the iki page is a whale one.

And Blayz, thanks for the link! sometime at not 3 in the morning I'll look at it.

Metherion

 

[TheOutsider]

My NCBI-Fu, thanks very much. I don't go to google for science.

Ah, I see. I had never heard of that site before (I'm a chemist, not a biologist). I will bookmark it for future reference.

 

[BigDug]

Originally Posted by TheOutsider
Two things I would like Creationists to define:
1) Animal
2) Ape

I would also like you to explain why humans do not fall in either category. Something other than "The Bible says so," please.

I think any 5 year old could tell you the vast differences between apes and humans. I think your mental acrobatics with strict taxonomic guidleines is going to prevent you from seeing the obvious. While I always appreciate the scientific mind, just obscuring simplicity with an appeal to science is anti-intelligent in my opinion. IN this sense, generally speaking, the more educated one becomes, the more of a fool they can become.

Yes the differences between apes and humans are clear, anyone can see them, and Im afraid of someone cannot see them then I won't personally be able to help them at all. It constitutes a logical mindset which I cant relate to.

The issue of humans being 'higher life forms' is interesting and true, we are clearly the most complex, dominating life-form on earth. I really wouldn't have time to debate such an obvious point except to say that once again we reach an impasse as I absolutely cannot understand what is going through the mind of the evolutionist on this point.

The creationist/evolutionist have such a striking polarity of philosophies that it is difficult to think of anything outside the most absolute terms in these types of discussions.

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. But if you look to your origins as the ideal the the creationist/evolutionist split rather dramatically.

The creationist see humans as coming directly from the image of God

The evolutionist sees humans coming from slime on a rock.

So its easy to see why an evolutionist would have no real concept of 'higher life form'

 

[Blayz]

The creationist see humans as coming directly from the image of God

The evolutionist sees humans coming from slime on a rock.

Definition of "higher" aside, I have to say I find the fact we came from slime on a rock a far more awe inspiring and amazing event than being placed down like some card board cut out in a diorama by some god. The Christian view is so...petty, small and ho-hum. It's like the difference between working your way up from the mail room versus your dad owning the company.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think any 5 year old could tell you the vast differences between apes and humans. I think your mental acrobatics with strict taxonomic guidleines is going to prevent you from seeing the obvious. While I always appreciate the scientific mind, just obscuring simplicity with an appeal to science is anti-intelligent in my opinion. IN this sense, generally speaking, the more educated one becomes, the more of a fool they can become.

Did you have a point, or are you just letting off some steam?

Yes the differences between apes and humans are clear, anyone can see them, and Im afraid of someone cannot see them then I won't personally be able to help them at all. It constitutes a logical mindset which I cant relate to.

I see no differences beyond the superficial (density of hair, for example) that sets humans aside from the Great Apes. The traits that group Chimps with Gorillas, for example, can be found within humans.

The issue of humans being 'higher life forms' is interesting and true, we are clearly the most complex, dominating life-form on earth.

Please define 'complex'.
It is also not true that we are the most dominating: bacteria are far more intrusive and all-encompassing that we humans. They live in the most extreme conditions found on Earth, whereas humans are restricted to a small range of environments.

I really wouldn't have time to debate such an obvious point except to say that once again we reach an impasse as I absolutely cannot understand what is going through the mind of the evolutionist on this point.

This argument is fallacious: "If you can't understand what I understand, then you are too dumb to understand". That's not an argument, that's just an ad hominem.

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.

If you want to do that, fine, but first define: 'complex', 'smartness', 'dominance' (in a way that excludes bacteria), 'fittest', etc.

The creationist see humans as coming directly from the image of God

The evolutionist sees humans coming from slime on a rock.

So its easy to see why an evolutionist would have no real concept of 'higher life form'

On this we agree: evolution shows us how insignificant we are, whereas Creationists have bizarre delusions of grandeur.