Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Justatruthseeker]

*waiting on you to present your selfie with god since you decided that the only way things can be tire or real is if we can personally see them.

Oh no, that's a cop out, since I specifically have stated from the start that my belief in God is just that, belief. I am not claiming that it is science.

Science backs my faith, because science declares that ALL life propagates after it's own kind. So unless you can show me scientific evidence that this is not true??????

If you can't, then you are relying on faith more than I am, since science backs my claim and not yours. It was "you" that was complaining about "faith". So show me your science without your faith? I can show you my faith backed by science, you have seen it in every mutation experiment ever done. In every fossil ever found that is the same from the oldest one to the newest one.

I can show you every E. coli ever experimented with, is and always has been E. coli. What can you do? Ask me to have faith in opposition to that science, not in accordance with it. Your faith has no substance to it at all, is in opposition to every experiment ever performed and every piece of evidence ever gathered.

My faith tells me that "The earth became desolate and waste, and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Science says a meteor or comet caused that extinction my Bible declares occurred before man and agrees with me since man is never found earlier.

Science has declared that soft tissue exists on dino fossils, not rare, but more and more and more as the years go by. Radiometric dating has shown they are 35,000 to 45,000 years old, agreeing with the finds of soft tissue. You ask that I have faith that they are millions, despite the radiometric tests and despite soft tissue being found.

Your "faith" is fine, if you can back it up, but you can't. You ask that I have faith despite the evidence, not because of it. I ask that you have faith because of the evidence, not despite it. There's a difference.

So if you want to have faith that's fine, as long as we both realize that it's called religion, whether it's faith in God or faith in evolution. Especially when the data does not conform to your belief system, but mine.

So you see my faith in every fossil ever found, in every mutation experiment ever performed, in every aspect of the data it is there, waiting for you to open your eyes and look. But instead you will keep your eyes closed and imagine an outcome that does not even have any science that backs it at all.

And refuse to call it what it is. Religion.

When we discuss evolution we are discussing religion, not science. And my religion has more data backing it than your religion does, plain and simple.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which religion couldn't be more wrong as regards evolution?

You mean why does religion fit the data but evolution does not, do you not???

Show me a T-Rex that isn't a T-Rex from the first to the last????? Any fossil???? And no, we will not play the imaginary gap game. We will not have "faith" that things exist that have never been observed. At least make a religious faith that has data backing it if you want people to believe.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7832934-45/#post66103700

I don't ask you to believe nothing the data doesn't clearly show.

 

[Elendur]

...
Science backs my faith, because science declares that ALL life propagates after it's own kind.
...

Define kind.

 

[lesliedellow]

Be prepared to show me an E. coli after mutation that is not an E. coli, if you want to claim evolution???

Oh please, not that one again.

The only "evidence" creationists have is their complete ignorance of every subject they open their mouths about.

 

[lesliedellow]

Define kind.

You will be in your grave before you get a creationist to do that.

 

[Elendur]

You will be in your grave before you get a creationist to do that.

I've seen a couple of definitions, but they've either:
1. Been so informal that they serve no purpose.
2. Resulted in no contradiction by ToE.
3. Been abandoned for an endless chain of changes.

Never have I seen a creationist admit to nr 2. I expect I won't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Define kind.

You will be in your grave before you get a creationist to do that.

Define family?

"What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist — as is whether a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

Define species?

"In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."


Oh that's right, it's so undefined you can basically list anything as any species or family you want.

How about order?

"What does and does not belong to each order is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular order should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing an order. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

Class?

"The composition of each class is determined by a taxonomist. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing a class, but for well-known animals there is likely to be consensus."

It seems to me you have just as much of a problem defining all your classes as we do in specifically defining "kind". So what are you complaining about when you still have your own classification problems with no set rules????

Don't ask what you can't give, but at least try to be consistent and stop naming two interbreeding animals that produce fertile offspring as separate species. Especially when that is one of the claimed definitions of that classification system.

 

[Elendur]

Define family?

"What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist — as is whether a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

Define species?

"In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."


Oh that's right, it's so undefined you can basically list anything as any species or family you want.

How about order?

"What does and does not belong to each order is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular order should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing an order. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

Class?

"The composition of each class is determined by a taxonomist. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing a class, but for well-known animals there is likely to be consensus."

It seems to me you have just as much of a problem defining all your classes as we do in specifically defining "kind". So what are you complaining about when you still have your own classification problems with no set rules????

Red herring. If you cannot support your own stance you're not going to get away by deflecting.

Define kind.

You've made a claim. No matter how much you show another claim to be wrong does not lend credence to yours.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Red herring. If you cannot support your own stance you're not going to get away by deflecting.

Nor are you if you can't support your own stance.

Define kind.

Define family.

You've made a claim. No matter how much you show another claim to be wrong does not lend credence to yours.

No, you made a claim, that "Kind" was not a valid definition because it was undefined. Every single classification you have is just as undefined.

"There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a (insert classification here)."

But you demand that I provide hard rules for something you yourself can not do.

I've repeatedly defined "kind" in almost every post. Felidae are all one kind, Canidae are all one kind, Enterobacteriaceae are all one kind, Fabaceae are all one kind, Bovidae are all one kind, Equidae are all one kind, Aves are all one kind, Ursidae are all one kind.

I expect when science gets around to making hard rules, we will have a concrete definition of kind. Overall Family is a good start, but some are not even listed with Family designations, but skip it completely.

Bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So attempted distraction on your part will not wash either.

The data lends credence to mine, as no Canidae has ever been shown to be anything but. Showing yours wrong my not lend credence to mine, but it sure doesn't take away from it either, just yours.

 

[Elendur]

Nor are you if you can't support your own stance.

A clear case of tu quoque.

Define family.

No, you made a claim, that "Kind" was not a valid definition because it was undefined. Every single classification you have is just as undefined.

I did not claim anything. I asked of you to define the term you used, tough per definition an undefined term is not a valid definition.
Also tu quoque.

"There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a (insert classification here)."

But you demand that I provide hard rules for something you yourself can not do.

Tu quoque.

I've repeatedly defined "kind" in almost every post. Felidae are all one kind, Canidae are all one kind, Enterobacteriaceae are all one kind, Fabaceae are all one kind, Bovidae are all one kind, Equidae are all one kind, Aves are all one kind, Ursidae are all one kind.

Examples does not make a definition.

I expect when science gets around to making hard rules, we will have a concrete definition of kind. Overall Family is a good start, but some are not even listed with Family designations, but skip it completely.

Bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So attempted distraction on your part will not wash either.

The data lends credence to mine, as no Canidae has ever been shown to be anything but. Showing yours wrong my not lend credence to mine, but it sure doesn't take away from it, just yours.

Since you've agreed that it does not support your claim regarding kinds there is no need to continue that particular venue.

Define kind. Failure to do so will invalidate any conclusion based on it, due to obvious reasons.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Nor are you if you can't support your own stance.



Define family.



No, you made a claim, that "Kind" was not a valid definition because it was undefined. Every single classification you have is just as undefined.

"There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a (insert classification here)."

But you demand that I provide hard rules for something you yourself can not do.

I've repeatedly defined "kind" in almost every post. Felidae are all one kind, Canidae are all one kind, Enterobacteriaceae are all one kind, Fabaceae are all one kind, Bovidae are all one kind, Equidae are all one kind, Aves are all one kind, Ursidae are all one kind.

I expect when science gets around to making hard rules, we will have a concrete definition of kind. Overall Family is a good start, but some are not even listed with Family designations, but skip it completely.

Bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So attempted distraction on your part will not wash either.

The data lends credence to mine, as no Canidae has ever been shown to be anything but. Showing yours wrong my not lend credence to mine, but it sure doesn't take away from it, just yours.

The problem with all your whinging is that for creationists a 'kind' is supposed to be unchangeable, unmalleable and unalterable, yet not one of you, not a single creationist in the whole world, has a clue what a kind is.

Taxonomy using evolution is rather different. Can you guess why? Because all species evolved from some previous organism and diverged all over the place in different branches. By definition the groupings above species level are going to be somewhat for convenience, depending on which branch or branches you choose to make the division. But as evolution doesn't have the problem of claiming that something is essentially unalterable and is always a 'kind', this doesn't matter. It is only the creationists who are lumbered with having to fit their beliefs in with with some hopelessly vague and ill-informed drivelling verses in the bible that have this problem.

So, yeah, define kind please. Good luck with that one.

The ball is where it has always been: in your court. And that is where it will stay because no creationist has an answer.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem with all your whinging is that for creationists a 'kind' is supposed to be unchangeable, unmalleable and unalterable, yet not one of you, not a single creationist in the whole world, has a clue what a kind is.

Just told you what it was, why then claim otherwise?????

"I've repeatedly defined "kind" in almost every post. Felidae are all one kind, Canidae are all one kind, Enterobacteriaceae are all one kind, Fabaceae are all one kind, Bovidae are all one kind, Equidae are all one kind, Aves are all one kind, Ursidae are all one kind."

Taxonomy using evolution is rather different. Can you guess why?

Because you ignore the science????

Because all species evolved from some previous organism and diverged all over the place in different branches.

While you ignore every laboratory mutation experiment ever performed in which you have never observed once anything becoming other than what it was originally????

As I said, you can solve this debate easily. Show me one E. coli that is not still E. coli after 100+ years of mutation experiments with it over billions of generations?

No?

By definition the groupings above species level are going to be somewhat for convenience, depending on which branch or branches you choose to make the division. But as evolution doesn't have the problem of claiming that something is essentially unalterable and is always a 'kind', this doesn't matter.

Sure it matters, unless of course you can show me an E. coli that is not still an E. coli after 100+ years of mutation experiments? Any animal or plant?

No?

Then I guess it does matter, doesn't it.

It is only the creationists who are lumbered with having to fit their beliefs in with with some hopelessly vague and ill-informed drivelling verses in the bible that have this problem.

Unlike evolutionists that are free to ignore every single laboratory and fossil found in their imaginations???? That are free to ignore their own classification system? That are free to define two interbreeding animals that produce fertile offspring as seperate species instead of the subspecies that they are, by your own very scientific definition???

What you mean to say is unlike evolutionists, we have principles and won't deny the facts.

So, yeah, define kind please. Good luck with that one.

Yah, define Family please. Good luck with that one.

The ball is where it has always been: in your court. And that is where it will stay because no creationist has an answer.

Just as you have no set rules or answers for your classifications. So the ball is right back in your court. Prove all Felidae are not one kind? Prove all Canidae are not one kind?????

Pea plants have been mutated for over 200 years. Show me a pea plant that is anything but a pea plant?

Then why do you consistently ignore the experiments and claim otherwise????

 

[Elendur]

Since there was a page break of the standard size I guess you missed my post (as you've done plenty in the past):
http://www.christianforums.com/t7832934-45/#post66103872

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just told you what it was, why then claim otherwise?????

"I've repeatedly defined "kind" in almost every post. Felidae are all one kind, Canidae are all one kind, Enterobacteriaceae are all one kind, Fabaceae are all one kind, Bovidae are all one kind, Equidae are all one kind, Aves are all one kind, Ursidae are all one kind."

That is not a definition, those are examples. You would be going a long way to forming a working definition of kind if you devised a test so that one could tell whether two groups were of the same kind or not.

Because you ignore the science????

While you ignore every laboratory mutation experiment ever performed in which you have never observed once anything becoming other than what it was originally????

What? No, that is what the theory of evolution predicts. In fact the theory of evolution predicts that everything will reproduces "after its kind" but we have a working definition of kind, you do not.

As I said, you can solve this debate easily. Show me one E. coli that is not still E. coli after 100+ years of mutation experiments with it over billions of generations?

Why would we do that? That would go counter to the theory of evolution. Justa, it is very hard to argue against a concept that you do not understand.

Sure it matters, unless of course you can show me an E. coli that is not still an E. coli after 100+ years of mutation experiments? Any animal or plant?

Again, you do not understand evolution.


The rest of his post continues to ramble with Justa's continued misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, perhaps a purposeful one.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Just told you what it was, why then claim otherwise?????

"I've repeatedly defined "kind" in almost every post. Felidae are all one kind, Canidae are all one kind, Enterobacteriaceae are all one kind, Fabaceae are all one kind, Bovidae are all one kind, Equidae are all one kind, Aves are all one kind, Ursidae are all one kind."

Why on earth would you want to use an evolutionary taxonomic classification for a kind. That's just shooting yourself in the foot.

Because you ignore the science????

No, try again.

While you ignore every laboratory mutation experiment ever performed in which you have never observed once anything becoming other than what it was originally????

As I said, you can solve this debate easily. Show me one E. coli that is not still E. coli after 100+ years of mutation experiments with it over billions of generations?

No?

Dragging you away from your current favourite creationist sloganeering, none of this has anything to do with the fact that taxonomy now uses an evolutionary model. It's funny, you have a couple of paragraphs that you trot out seemingly randomly in response to various word prompts that you see in a post. Your resulting reply therefore ends up being mostly completely irrelevant.

Sure it matters, unless of course you can show me an E. coli that is not still an E. coli after 100+ years of mutation experiments? Any animal or plant?

No?

Then I guess it does matter, doesn't it.

There you go again. You've missed the point again. Taxonomy uses a model that relies on change between species so doesn't have the problem of needing to define an unchangeable 'kind". Have you got it yet? Is any of it seeping in?

Unlike evolutionists that are free to ignore every single laboratory and fossil found in their imaginations???? That are free to ignore their own classification system? That are free to define two interbreeding animals that produce fertile offspring as seperate species instead of the subspecies that they are, by your own very scientific definition???


What you mean to say is unlike evolutionists, we have principles and won't deny the facts.

No, you don't seem to have grasped the problem yet.

Yah, define Family please. Good luck with that one.

You realise of course that you are still showing you haven't grasped that the 'kind' problem doesn't exist in taxonomy using an evolutionary model. How long do you think it will take you to grasp this?

Just as you have no set rules or answers for your classifications. So the ball is right back in your court. Prove all Felidae are not one kind? Prove all Canidae are not one kind?????

Oh dear, you really are struggling now. I'll try again:

The 'kind' problem that plagues creationists does not exist in taxonomy using evolution because evolution does not have unchangeable anythings. How was that? Any of that get through to you?

Pea plants have been mutated for over 200 years. Show me a pea plant that is anything but a pea plant?

Then why do you consistently ignore the experiments and claim otherwise????

Sorry, I don't think you realised that the answer you were supposed to provide was a definition of kind. AV1611VET I believe was quite excited when he hit on the ides of using genus as a 'kind' instead of species. This was after (I think) he was shown that speciation was undeniable. He thought it clever to go to the genus level instead. You have now, apparently, gone to the family level. I wonder who will be the first to claim a 'kind' is an order or a class or phylum of even a kingdom? None of them of course realising that taking something that is used in an evolutionary taxonomic system is bit of howler.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is not a definition, those are examples. You would be going a long way to forming a working definition of kind if you devised a test so that one could tell whether two groups were of the same kind or not.

Develop one for Family then and you'll have one.

"What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist — as is whether a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

What? No, that is what the theory of evolution predicts. In fact the theory of evolution predicts that everything will reproduces "after its kind" but we have a working definition of kind, you do not.

No you don't: "There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

After its kind means it stays the same no matter the mutation, not new kinds arising from something never exsiting.


Not one single mutation experiment in the history of mutation experiments has shown anything but genes turning on or off, or the rearrangment of what already existed.

Are you implying evolution is a genetically perfect creature from the start that slowly subdivided into different varieties of the same creature? I don't believe any evolutionist would agree with that view, the only one supported by the data. Mutation can only affect what already exists. Why do you insist otherwise despite 200+ years of laboratory mutation experiments????

Why would we do that? That would go counter to the theory of evolution. Justa, it is very hard to argue against a concept that you do not understand.

Why would you want to argue against evolution, since you claim it is that I do not understand???? I understand perfectly. That you are promoting a false religion, that has no empirical data at all, except in your imagination.

You claim the first life was simple, not complex. Yet every single solitary mutation experiment performed shows only mutation of pre-existing genetic information.

Again, you do not understand evolution.


The rest of his post continues to ramble with Justa's continued misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, perhaps a purposeful one.

No one does, especially not you, since it is from simple to more complex, something never ever observed in any laboratory experiment ever performed. The data agrees with me. That all mutation only turns off or on what previously existed, rearranges what previously existed, or even drops out genetic information, from what previously existed.


Are you know claiming evolution is from complex to more simple forms????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Develop one for Family then and you'll have one.

"What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist — as is whether a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."




No you don't: "There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

After its kind means it stays the same no matter the mutation, not new kinds arising from something never exsiting.


Not one single mutation experiment in the history of mutation experiments has shown anything but genes turning on or off, or the rearrangment of what already existed.

Are you implying evolution is a genetically perfect creature from the start that slowly subdivided into different varieties of the same creature? I don't believe any evolutionist would agree with that view, the only one supported by the data. Mutation can only affect what already exists. Why do you insist otherwise despite 200+ years of laboratory mutation experiments????





Why would you want to argue against evolution, since you claim it is that I do not understand???? I understand perfectly. That you are promoting a false religion, that has no empirical data at all, except in your imagination.

You claim the first life was simple, not complex. Yet every single solitary mutation experiment performed shows only mutation of pre-existing genetic information.




No one does, especially not you, since it is from simple to more complex, something never ever observed in any laboratory experiment ever performed. The data agrees with me. That all mutation only turns off or on what previously existed, rearranges what previously existed, or even drops out genetic information, from what previously existed.


Are you know claiming evolution is from complex to more simple forms????

Justa, please do not bear false witness. You are breaking your own rules.

Also if you grant evolution on a family level then you have admitted defeat. We are in the same family as the other great apes. Are you sure that you want to do that?


Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa, please do not bear false witness. You are breaking your own rules.

Also if you grant evolution on a family level then you have admitted defeat. We are in the same family as the other great apes.

No we are not, you just can't define anything the same from one Family to the next. For every Family but that of humans and apes, you have clear distinctions. While ignoring those same clear distinctions between apes and human that you did with every other Family. Instead you chose Genus for Human and Ape as the dividing criteria, the same exact classification you divided all other species into family.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think evolutionists ignore those same qualifications for Humans and Apes they use to specify the Family in every other life form that exists?

Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Homo is the genus of hominids that includes modern humans and species closely related to them."

Just like with birds you have no Family designation at all, because you are totally lost as to how to classify them. You don't classify them as reptiles, even though you once believed they evolved from reptiles. You don't classify them as dinosaurs, even though you believe they evolved from dinosaurs. So which family of dinosaurs do they belong to???????

If you actually believed they came from dinosaurs, such as the raptor breed, then you would classify them under the family Dromaeosauridae. That you leave it blank is telling. It shows you don't have the faintest idea of where to put them.

And if you really believe your own hype, then why aren't Apes listed as the same family as humans?

Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, they have no Family or species, do they? Wouldn't that also then be the superfamily for humans as well?

The same with monkey, no Family or Superfamily at all.

Monkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When it comes to monkeys, apes, humans and birds, you seem to have lost all ability to apply consistency in any form whatsoever within your classification system. You seem to have several contradictory labels within your own claimed system.

So you can claim whatever you like any time you like without having to worry about being pinned down to anything??????

 

[Subduction Zone]

No we are not, you just can't define anything the same from one Family to the next. For every Family but that of humans and apes, you have clear distinctions. While ignoring those same clear distinctions between apes and human that you did with every other Family. Instead you chose Genus for Human and Ape as the dividing criteria, the same exact classification you divided all other species into family.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think evolutionists ignore those same qualifications for Humans and Apes they use to specify the Family in every other life form that exists?

Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Homo is the genus of hominids that includes modern humans and species closely related to them."

Just like with birds you have no Family designation at all, because you are totally lost as to how to classify them. You don't classify them as reptiles, even though you once believed they evolved from reptiles. You don't classify them as dinosaurs, even though you believe they evolved from dinosaurs. So which family of dinosaurs do they belong to???????

If you actually believed they came from dinosaurs, such as the raptor breed, then you would classify them under the family Dromaeosauridae. That you leave it blank is telling. It shows you don't have the faintest idea of where to put them.

And if you really believe your own hype, then why aren't Apes listed as the same family as humans?

Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, they have no Family or species, do they? Wouldn't that also then be the superfamily for humans as well?

The same with monkey, no Family or Superfamily at all.

Monkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When it comes to monkeys, apes, humans and birds, you seem to have lost all ability to apply consistency in any form whatsoever within your classification system. You seem to have several contradictory labels within your own claimed system.

So you can claim whatever you like any time you like without having to worry about being pinned down to anything??????

Your post is unreadable. The fact is that on a Family level, and you chose that level, we are in the same family as other great apes. What is your complaint? That you shot yourself in the foot again? Don't worry, as long as you are a creationist and try to use real science that will continually happen to you. Why do you think that there are not clear reasons for including humans in with the other great apes? Even creationists have done that. Linnaeus was the first to classify humans as great apes. He did it for all of the reasons that you think were ignored.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And "apes" and "monkeys" are not specific groups. For example there are two different groups of "monkeys". There are both Old World and New World monkeys. Taxonomically they are not even related on the family level. In fact if you include them as one group of "monkeys" then we are monkeys too since we are all primates. Your problem is that you have been looking at the wrong level.