For Mark Kennedy. Why is a finch a bird? Why is a human not an ape?

[Edx]

Mark wanted me to start a new thread for this for some reason. So, okay.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27941295&postcount=62

You think that bird pictures are going to destroy my arguement that Time and Nature lied about the actual difference between chimps and humans?

I was responding to the part where you talked about how we are so different to apes that we cant be called apes.

And I dont see where they lied, thats something you would have to demonstrate and you havent. They were inaccurate, thats all. Not as inaccurate as you make them out to be but still inaccurate none the less. It wasnt a scientific publication.

Time should have cared when they said that there were no big differences in the anatomy of chimps and humans.

They were inaccurate for sure, there is more difference between us and other apes than just "exaggerated proportions and body hair". However you could pick another ape species and compare him to other apes, and declare him a non-ape for essentially the same reasons as you do for humans.

For a brain to evolve that fast would require something that would violate both the laws of inheritance but strain human reason to the breaking point.

Yea yea yea, whatever. Im not talking about that. Others are doing perfectly well arguing that with you I dont need to do a crappier job doing the same thing. Im saying, even if that were true, that wouldnt stop humans being apes.

Nice diversionary tactic but the topic is the Time article so if you want to talk about birds I suggest you start a thread on the subject.

Fine. Here it is then. And it wasnt diversionary. You cant say we arent ape, or this fossil is fully human or fully ape if you cant define what that is. How is it meaningfull to say such and such a fossil is fully human, and not an ape, if you have absolutely no definition of what an ape or human is?

Not single definition for ape is given and the scientific definitons for Homo and Pan species have not entered the discussion.

So you are saying there is not a single definition of ape in science? Or that they dont give one in the Time article?

The brain of apes does not evolve on this level, there are two species of chimpanzees who evolved in the same time frame and yet there is only one species of humans. The brain is one of the costliest tissues in the body to evolve and to call the genes involved in neural functions conserved is an understatement. For the brain size to triple in less then 2 million years would be the greatest giant leap since the Cambrain explosion.

Except once again, even if that were true, why does this stop humans being apes?

I don't care about those stupid birds and I don't believe for a second that you have an arguement based on those silly pictures.

Of course I have an argument. What makes a finch a bird? What makes an ostridge a bird? And if they can be considred birds, why arent humans apes?

If you want to pick on these tiny differences between humans and other apes like you did at the start of your review of the Time article, implying them too numerous and gigantic that we cant be considered apes, then you have to apply the same logic to other creatures like birds, fish or dogs. What makes a dog a dog, what makes a fish a fish, what makes a bird a bird and what makes an ape an ape and why humans cant possibily be called apes. Do you even accept humans are biologically animals? Becuase if not you'll have an even harder time arguing that than what I just asked of you.

EDIT: And heres a reminder of those bird posts with the pictures:
Part 1.:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27829095&postcount=44
Part :
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27829109&postcount=45

 

[Edx]

bump.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark wanted me to start a new thread for this for some reason. So, okay.

I said that if you wanted to discuss birds to start a topic on that subject.

I was responding to the part where you talked about how we are so different to apes that we cant be called apes.

Primates generally are catagoized as Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys, Asian Great Apes, African Great Apes and of course us humans. I don't think we belong in their family since we are neither apes nor monkeys.

And I dont see where they lied, thats something you would have to demonstrate and you havent. They were inaccurate, thats all. Not as inaccurate as you make them out to be but still inaccurate none the less. It wasnt a scientific publication.

Your personal incredulity is not without remedy. Both Nature and Time said that the DNA of Chimpanzees and Humans was 98% the same. Time mentions that side by side comparison of the two genomes and it clearly states in the article that the indels account for 3-4% of the divergance. I don't know what other factors you think or involved, there is no way that Nature magazine editors don't read the publications they announce.

Type 'Chimpanzee Genome' into your search engine and you will probably have the announcement from Nature at the top. It says 98% and the divergance is 95% and they have known that for some time now. Nature is a scientific publication and they said the exact same thing Time did about the DNA being 98% the same. It's simply not true.

They were inaccurate for sure, there is more difference between us and other apes than just "exaggerated proportions and body hair". However you could pick another ape species and compare him to other apes, and declare him a non-ape for essentially the same reasons as you do for humans.

Edx, the chimpanzee brain is one third the size of a human brain. Surely this did not go unnoticed by people working in this field. This isn't an exaggerated proportion it involves a huge adaptation that involves the brian, the liver and a host of external traits like, literally, from head to toe.

Yea yea yea, whatever. Im not talking about that. Others are doing perfectly well arguing that with you I dont need to do a crappier job doing the same thing. Im saying, even if that were true, that wouldnt stop humans being apes.

I don't care if you catagorize us as cats if that makes the taxonomic system more user friendly. This is about what can and cannot happen, brain evolution on the scale required simply does not happen.

Fine. Here it is then. And it wasnt diversionary. You cant say we arent ape, or this fossil is fully human or fully ape if you cant define what that is. How is it meaningfull to say such and such a fossil is fully human, and not an ape, if you have absolutely no definition of what an ape or human is?

Right now I am looking at some of our supposed ancestors, some of them are ancient chimpanzees and some are gorrilas. You have to discern the differences because every ape uncovered in Africa is immediatly called one of our ancestors. Ever notice that there are no gorrila or chimpanzee ancestors in these natural museums? I have and I know why, they are trying to make every one of them into one of our ancestors.

So you are saying there is not a single definition of ape in science? Or that they dont give one in the Time article?

It doesn't work that way, they are classified as austropithecenes, habilines and homo groups among others. There is no such thing as a scientific defintion of ape, you are talking in circles.

Except once again, even if that were true, why does this stop humans being apes?

Yes it does, no matter what you think our ancestors were we have evolved from head to toe. There are anatomical features that are uniquely human and if you stopped talking in these pedantic generalities we could look at them.

Of course I have an argument. What makes a finch a bird? What makes an ostridge a bird? And if they can be considred birds, why arent humans apes?

You could start by deciding what makes a finch a finch. Then you can make comparisons between the different finches and ask questions about how a bird like the finch relates to other nonfinches starting with the ones most like them.

If you want to pick on these tiny differences between humans and other apes like you did at the start of your review of the Time article, implying them too numerous and gigantic that we cant be considered apes, then you have to apply the same logic to other creatures like birds, fish or dogs. What makes a dog a dog, what makes a fish a fish, what makes a bird a bird and what makes an ape an ape and why humans cant possibily be called apes. Do you even accept humans are biologically animals? Becuase if so you'll have an even harder time arguing that than what I just asked of you.

There is no question that compareing the genomes is a major factor in deciding lineage. The more closely related the more alike the DNA will be. Dogs for instance have very simular (almost identical) DNA but the genes cross over a lot, that is why there are so many different kinds of dog. The prediction for TOE was that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans would be extremely close and seemed to be for decades. Now the truth is coming out, it's not that simple and they have some explaining to do. All that is coming from them is an unwillingness to explain the indels.

If all you want to do is compare finches and ostretichs then good luck with that because I'm not interested, thank you very much.

 

[platzapS]

Primates generally are catagoized as Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys, Asian Great Apes, African Great Apes and of course us humans. I don't think we belong in their family since we are neither apes nor monkeys.

Can you name any quantifiable characteristic shared by the (non-human) great apes, but not humans? What excludes humans from the great apes?

 

[Edx]

I said that if you wanted to discuss birds to start a topic on that subject.

What is it that makes you incapable of understanding my point here? Its not very difficult, Mark. Its not about birds, its about why you seemingly treat all the animal kingdom differently than you do humans and apparently for no more reason at all than your personal beliefs force you to. So are you playing dumb here on purpose or is it actually a subconscious desire to dodge the issue?

Primates generally are catagoized as Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys, Asian Great Apes, African Great Apes and of course us humans. I don't think we belong in their family since we are neither apes nor monkeys.

Right, YOU dont think we do. In science thats not enough, sorry.

So, whats your definition of an ape, and whats your definition of a human?

The reason for asking about birds, is to see why you will allow all kinds of variation, all kinds of shapes and sizes of animals to be called birds, yet humans you say are altogether head to toe different to be called apes.

Now you either answer the question or every time you use these words apes and humans know you havent once defined what it is you are talking about. And in science you better have a definition or you are just talking meaningless nonsence. And this is especially pertinent since you regually talk about fossils being fully ape or fully human. You cant use these words in any meaningfull way if you have literally no scientific definition for them.

You say above you dont think we belong in the same family as apes and monkeys, well until you give your definiton thats just your own totally unsuppported opinion. And before you start about the size of humans brains, may I once again remind you this is not a characteristic that would stop humans being apes. So, are you going to answer the question or not?

What is an ape?
What is a human?

And if you actually bother to do it this time, you can then answer this, which would be my next question. (Which is why I posted all those bird pictures)

What is a bird?

You can go on with your silly brain arguments if you must, but unless you define these terms you'll have to find other words for what you are talking about.

Your personal incredulity is not without remedy. Both Nature and Time said that the DNA of Chimpanzees and Humans was 98% the same. .

<snip>

Sorry Mark Im not going to get offtopic here, others have already remarked on this "98% the same" buisness. I have no interest in this your brain argument because even if correct, even if God specially created us in particular, we would still be apes by every practical definition. Just as we would still be primates, mammals, vertebrates and yes, also still animals. All you can do is refer to our big brain, like that would somehow make a difference. Big freakin whoop.

An ostridge might scoff at those little finchs, "I am no stinkin bird!", it might say, "Im freakin huge! And look at these enormous thighs I have! I kick ass! What can that little finich do to me? Peck me to death? No, I am no bird!". A duck could look at the other sparrows, the the ostridges and the vulture and declare itself seperate from them and a non-bird, becuase it has a bill. It can see one of its friends and say its "fully-duck". And our ostridge friend can say that all the other animals in his field are fully-ostridge, definitely not birds at all.

This isn't an exaggerated proportion it involves a huge adaptation that involves the brian, the liver and a host of external traits like, literally, from head to toe.

As different as those birds are in those pictures? Im fairly certain the ostridge is quite different to a finch, head to toe different, in an even more dramatic manor than what you are picking on here.

I don't care if you catagorize us as cats if that makes the taxonomic system more user friendly.

The taxonomic system isnt about being "user friendly", its about being accurate verifiable and quantifiable. But you dont care about any of this. Aron Nelson once tried explaining how cladistics works and why we place animals in certian catagories, but you didnt care about any of that because you think you have some ball busting scientific take down of evolution with your human-brain-too-big, O-M-G!! You dont care that your terms are totolly meaningless, because just like a good creationist for some reason you apparently think its scientific and honest to just use terms you havent defined which already have definitions but you want to use your own. The term species is probably the most abused word by Creationists, for example. Bottom line, if you cannot define your terms you cannot use them.

Right now I am looking at some of our supposed ancestors, some of them are ancient chimpanzees and some are gorrilas. You have to discern the differences because every ape uncovered in Africa is immediatly called one of our ancestors.

Define an ape and define a human, then your arguments may make more scientific sence since you use these terms all the time. Otherwise what you are saying is just meaningless nonsence.

It doesn't work that way, they are classified as austropithecenes, habilines and homo groups among others. There is no such thing as a scientific defintion of ape, you are talking in circles.

So something like this isnt good enough is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

We have a scientific definiton of an ape already. You have given absolutely nothing. Until you come up with practical scientific definition of ape that could exclude us, that word is literally meaningless in your arguments. And once you have defined it, you must also apply the same logic to other creatures. I know you said you dont care about other animals, but you need to care if you want to use words like this, sorry. When you look at fossils, what are you judging apeness on? What are you judgeing humanness on? At the moment it really is this totally subjective criteria, ever shifting, based on your own person belief,s bias and opinions. That isnt scientific Mark, and Im amazed you seem to think it is.

Yes it does, no matter what you think our ancestors were we have evolved from head to toe.
There are anatomical features that are uniquely human and if you stopped talking in these pedantic generalities we could look at them.

And you could pick pretty much any animal and say the same thing based on whatever criteria you happen to choose. It would make an ostridge not a bird becasue its gigantic compared to a finch, or because it cant fly, or because it has enormous thighs.How how about a Penguin for the same reason, and becuase of its adaptation for life in the water. Does having two feet and ten toes make us human? Because if so then every baby born without feet or with a mutation like the family below would have to be classified as a non-human.

Imagine if these guys, isolated in some remote part of the world had more babies, evebtually accumulating even more mutations. Hypothetically speaking and assuming they didnt die out, at what time in the future, and after how many mutations, would these guys stop being modified humans? This here is probably THE critical question to ask becuase its the very reason why the way you classify humans and apes is completely unworkable.

Thats how unscientific and ridiculous your system is. Now you either apply your ridiculous system to ALL ANIMALS, or you dont apply it at all. You have no reason whatsoever other than your own religious beliefs, to treat humans differently and no amount of "I dont care about other animals!" will make you get out of this one. Not only do you need to come up with a classificaton system that takes account for humans not being apes, but also one that takes account for ALL OF THIS as well.

You could start by deciding what makes a finch a finch. Then you can make comparisons between the different finches and ask questions about how a bird like the finch relates to other nonfinches starting with the ones most like them.

Okay, then do it. What makes an ape an ape. What is apeness? Then do it for birds. You have to do this if you want to use terms meaningfully. But I suspect you just cant be bothered and just want to be able to be as vague and as meaningless as you want becuase you get to say things like "this fossil is fully human!" or "this fossil is clearly fully ape!" while not ever defining what that is. It will be hard becuase it will mean rewriting taxonomy in a scientific way, but hey thats what happens when you have to try and make humans non apes, non primates and totally seperate from every other creature like Creationists do.

If all you want to do is compare finches and ostretichs then good luck with that because I'm not interested, thank you very much.

You arent interested beucase to actually address my argument would mean you'd have to actually define your terms, and that would mean a lot of work for you. If you dont want to just say so. Say this; Ed, I dont want to define my terms becasuse I want to be able to say whatever I like and pretend Im being scientific. ...not happy with that? Then Im afraid you have some homework to do before you use these words next.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would also like to mention that gorillas outweigh chimps by a factor of 5. If a 3 times larger brain is a problem for including humans in the Hominidae clade, then why is it not a problem for gorillas be 5 times larger than chimps in almost every other feature?

 

[Edx]

I would also like to mention that gorillas outweigh chimps by a factor of 5. If a 3 times larger brain is a problem for including humans in the Hominidae clade, then why is it not a problem for gorillas be 5 times larger than chimps in almost every other feature?

Exactly my point. Mark, dont ignore this when you reply or Ill only have to repeat it again next time.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes it does, no matter what you think our ancestors were we have evolved from head to toe. There are anatomical features that are uniquely human and if you stopped talking in these pedantic generalities we could look at them.

OK. Mark. List those "uniquely human" features, and we can discuss them. There is certainly no unique feature of our brain that separates us from other apes.

 

[Ondoher]

OK. Mark. List those "uniquely human" features, and we can discuss them. There is certainly no unique feature of our brain that separates us from other apes.

Not to mention that iterating character traits that make humans unique does not erase the traits we share with other apes. Which are the basis for grouping us in the same family in the first place.

 

[Biologist]

Why can't you silly Atheists just accept that the baseless assertion that humans are not Apes and that bats are birds?

I have an old book that says so and many people agree that this book is the bestest book ever. So I am right.

 

[shernren]

Can you name any quantifiable characteristic shared by the (non-human) great apes, but not humans? What excludes humans from the great apes?

The Gospel according to Mark (Kennedy).

 

[Edx]

bump. off the first page already.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Gospel according to Mark (Kennedy).

This is a piece of text, not a biological characteristic.

 

[shernren]

The post I was responding to asked for a quantifiable characteristic, not a biological one. It's clear that there is simply little to no biological reason to say that humans are not apes, but there are other obvious reasons.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The post I was responding to asked for a quantifiable characteristic, not a biological one. It's clear that there is simply little to no biological reason to say that humans are not apes, but there are other obvious reasons.

Really? What are they?

Remember, something can't be obvious if its not even apparent.

 

[shernren]

Really? What are they?

Remember, something can't be obvious if its not even apparent.

I told you, the Gospel according to Mark (Kennedy). Of course, just because something is obvious to him doesn't mean it has to be obvious or even logical to any of us. I don't suppose I made this explicit.

 

[SLP]

It seems Marky ran off a week ago in an attempt to get help.

Sadly, it does not appear to have panned out for him....

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems Marky ran off a week ago in an attempt to get help.

Sadly, it does not appear to have panned out for him....

In all fairness, I have been helping AnEmpiricalAgnostic in the formal debate. I really don't see anything wrong with helpers, just as long as the help is acknowledged. AEA even went overboard and quoted me verbatim, but all that is necessary is an acknolwedgement along the lines of "thanks so-and-so for digging up such-and-such information".

 

[Edx]

Looks like Mark is still using the terms "apes" and "humans".

When will he define them? I wonder.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

In all fairness, I have been helping AnEmpiricalAgnostic in the formal debate. I really don't see anything wrong with helpers, just as long as the help is acknowledged. AEA even went overboard and quoted me verbatim, but all that is necessary is an acknolwedgement along the lines of "thanks so-and-so for digging up such-and-such information".

I didn&#8217;t mean to go overboard. The reason I&#8217;m providing direct quotes is because that&#8217;s what we agreed upon before the debate in the invitation section.

&#8230;as a non scientist I don&#8217;t have adequate knowledge in the areas you often make assertions about. If you would like to have a team based debate so I can get some participants more knowledgeable about genetics to refute your assertions in that area I&#8217;d be interested.

I have no problem with third parties as long as they are identified (quote brackets are fine).

I thought Mark was asking for me to quote the third party that I get help from.

You are right though. I don&#8217;t care if he gets help. It&#8217;s more important to get a good debate going that people may learn something from rather then just trying to get something by your opponent. If I&#8217;m wrong about something I'd want to know.