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

[mark kennedy]

I made one little change to your post above. It doesn't make any difference whether we say among mammals or among apes, because humans and chimps are both both.

I don't mind you editing the article but I think the publishers might have a problem with it. If you put in mammal our brain is 6 x bigger then the average for mammals. If you put in ape we are 3 x bigger then apes. Gee wiz, that sure is an impressive and unique distinction that would seem to go beyond a genus distinction.

And I have already pointed out to you (1) that habilines are often confused with australopithecines with good reason, and (2) australopithecines, habilines, paranthropiths, gorillas, chimpanzees, and you are ALL hominids. How many times must I explain this and substantiate it before you'll get it?

Habilines are in the Homo genus, hominids are in the Homo genus. You are putting everything apelike into the Hominidae (sp?) super family which is arbitrary, subjective and presupposes common ancestry without qualification.

It really doesn't matter how many times you tell me we are classified in this way, this is still the adpatation you need a genetic mechanism for:

"The dramatic evolutionary expansion of the human brain started from an average brain weight of 400–450 g 2–2.5mya million years (MY) ago and ended with a weight of 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY ago (MCHENRY 1994 ; WOOD and COLLARD 1999 &#65532. This process represents one of the most rapid morphological changes in evolution."

Let me guess, it was the same mechanism as the funny footed people in the picture you are so fond of. I really think there has to be a profound difference between genetic mutations affecting feet and those affecting brain tissue.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I don't mind you editing the article but I think the publishers might have a problem with it. If you put in mammal our brain is 6 x bigger then the average for mammals. If you put in ape we are 3 x bigger then apes. Gee wiz, that sure is an impressive and unique distinction that would seem to go beyond a genus distinction.

Mark Kennedy doesn't like the implications, therefore human brain evolution is a Really, Really Big Deal and requires an Extra Special Explanation that meets Mark's expectations exactly.

Don't you get tired of trying to pawn this off as an actual scientific argument?

Habilines are in the Homo genus, hominids are in the Homo genus. You are putting everything apelike into the Hominidae (sp?) super family which is arbitrary, subjective and presupposes common ancestry without qualification.

Everything in the Hominidae superfamily is there because it possesses a certain set of characteristics. Please be more specific about why one or more of the categories mentioned by Aron does not belong.

 

[Ondoher]

I don't mind you editing the article but I think the publishers might have a problem with it. If you put in mammal our brain is 6 x bigger then the average for mammals. If you put in ape we are 3 x bigger then apes. Gee wiz, that sure is an impressive and unique distinction that would seem to go beyond a genus distinction.



Habilines are in the Homo genus, hominids are in the Homo genus. You are putting everything apelike into the Hominidae (sp?) super family which is arbitrary, subjective and presupposes common ancestry without qualification.

It really doesn't matter how many times you tell me we are classified in this way, this is still the adpatation you need a genetic mechanism for:

"The dramatic evolutionary expansion of the human brain started from an average brain weight of 400–450 g 2–2.5mya million years (MY) ago and ended with a weight of 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY ago (MCHENRY 1994 ; WOOD and COLLARD 1999 &#65532. This process represents one of the most rapid morphological changes in evolution."

Let me guess, it was the same mechanism as the funny footed people in the picture you are so fond of. I really think there has to be a profound difference between genetic mutations affecting feet and those affecting brain tissue.

Common ancestry can be tested absent an explanation for it. Even if we had no idea what mechanisms led to descent with modification, we'd still be confident in common ancestry.

Taxonomy, which is the discussion here, doesn't give a whit about either. Life is organized into a nested heirarchy based on shared characters, because that's the organization that seems natural to living things. When organized this way, we end up with humans grouped with the other apes. This becomes especially apparent when we compare genetics. Humans are more similar to chimps than either is to a gorilla. Taxonomically, we are apes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes Mark, it's all an evilutionist conspiracy. You, a layperson who didn't know what a prokaryote was a year or two back, who doesn't understand even the most basic elements of genetics (and I invite readers to read through the previously mentioned thread and decide for themselves just how much mark understands on the subject), have clearly disproven evolution.

It really amuses me that you guys just perform for one another like that. Don't address the challenge, let it smolder there for a couple of years. Then when this dullard finds a fatal error in Darwinian logic just continue to ignore it, maybe it will go away. Guess what? This just keeps getting better and better.

You want to know what turned it around for me? I stopped reading Darwinians.

And the evilutionists you battle, who include working geneticists and other people who know what terribly complex terms like "codons," "proteins" and "nucleotides" actually mean, are trying to suppress your obviously genius argument.

They are some well educated people I'll grant you that. That is why when they make direct contradictions it is either a gross error that should be immediatly corrected or a lie. They never correct the errors no matter how obvious so it must be the latter. This isn't a mental error we are dealing with, it's a moral one.

Mark, when people vastly more educated than you point out that you're making the same glaring errors over and over and over and over and over and over...

Do tell, what errors did I make? I say the pointless misdirections they were so fascinated with, but actual errors were irrelevant.

Maybe it's time to take notice. Instead of blaming atheist conspiracies.

A couple of weeks ago I would have laughed that statement off, now I'm not so sure.

Optionally, have fun continuing to wear the tin hat while exclaiming that evolutionary theory is dead. Being a non-biologist (some of us have degrees in the subject - imagine that Mark, higher learning!), you probably won't fully appreciate how incredibly dumb that sounds.

I never attacked evolutionary theory, for the most part I have no problem with common ancestry within reason. It's when an a priori assumption passes itself off as a proven fact that I get quessy.

So you are well educated, in the life sciences no less. Tell me something my learned friend, how many living systems can withstand a mutation rate of 5 x 10^-9 per year?

I'll give you a hint, that's the upper limit for viruses.

Also, for the record Mark, I don't think you're a DISHONEST person at all. I just think you're too ignorant to understand your own ignorance, as it were. You're trying to piece together an a priori assumed argument with information that takes a far deeper background in genetics than you presently have.

All this time I thought I was just missing something and in time I would pick up on all these genetic mechanisms. I guess I thought in time it would just slowly sink in. Instead I saw statements I knew were not true and I knew the people making them, knew they were not true.

Scientists I mean, that's when I realized this has nothing to do with science. I know just a tad more then you realize.

 

[Ondoher]

Do tell, what errors did I make? I say the pointless misdirections they were so fascinated with, but actual errors were irrelevant.

1. Conflating the number of base pair differences with the number of mutations.
2. Claiming that amino acids code for proteins.
3. Claiming that codons were amino acids.
4. Claiming that only 20 of the 64 possible codons code for a valid amino acid.
5. Calling a person a liar for consistently pointing out your errors.

That's all I can remember off of the top of my head.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark Kennedy doesn't like the implications, therefore human brain evolution is a Really, Really Big Deal and requires an Extra Special Explanation that meets Mark's expectations exactly.

Yea, a really big deal like the HAR1f gene with an 18 nucleotide substitution in a regulatory gene that was highly conserved for 310 million years allowing only two. From you I would not only be impressed but literally shocked by any explanation at all.

You guys just love jumping up on that soap box don't you? Nothing you say is ever corrected around here unless you are a creationist so you can make glaring errors and empty arguments endlessly.

Don't you get tired of trying to pawn this off as an actual scientific argument?

Don't you get tired of chasing the wind with a switch?

Everything in the Hominidae superfamily is there because it possesses a certain set of characteristics. Please be more specific about why one or more of the categories mentioned by Aron does not belong.

You don't belong! Oh, and do me a favor, please don't take up Aron-Ra's arguements. You just don't do them right and it's like someone dragging their fingernails across the backboard.

 

[mark kennedy]

1. Conflating the number of base pair differences with the number of mutations.
2. Claiming that amino acids code for proteins.
3. Claiming that codons were amino acids.
4. Claiming that only 20 of the 64 possible codons code for a valid amino acid.
5. Calling a person a liar for consistently pointing out your errors.

That's all I can remember off of the top of my head.

I didn't say that amino acids code for proteins. I said that protein coding genes diverged at an amino acid sequence level in the vast majority of protein coding genes. Now, amino acids consist of triplet codons and when they realized the mutation rate was coming up they derailed the thread with the gibberish criticisms they were manufacturing.

Now there was a great point made about the 64 codons and the 20 amino acids of life. I would have spent more time on that except they were determined to derail the thread and the rest was just pointless clammor.

The guy I called a liar said this:

"No, like counting all the base pairs in the indels and applying them to the mutation rate as measured in mutation events, which is what you've just done here. The 2x10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs. (It's also just the single-base substitution rate, but that's less important.) It doesn't matter how many times you make that comparison: it will be wrong every time you do."

He told me it does not matter how many times I say bp means base pairs it will be wrong every single time. All these brilliantly educated people on two boards cataloging my errors by the score and can't see an obvious contradition in terms.

They pretended it was a true and accurate statements. When I posted the Time article that said 'chimpanzee and human DNA is 98% the same' everyone said it was a true and accurate statement. No one want to deal with the actual divergance and the rationalizations are running out of gas.

The truth isn't working and so now I'm catching them in lies.

 

[Ondoher]

I didn't say that amino acids code for proteins.

You said:

Then the amino acid seqeunces are translated into proteins, they are talking about amino acid sequences.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=97&m=16#19

Of course, amino acid sequences are not translated into proteins, they are proteins.

Proteins are large organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and joined together between the carboxyl atom of one amino acid and the amine nitrogen of another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein

I said that protein coding genes diverged at an amino acid sequence level in the vast majority of protein coding genes. Now, amino acids consist of triplet codons

No they don't. Codons are translated into amino acids by the cellular machinery.

and when they realized the mutation rate was coming up they derailed the thread with the gibberish criticisms they were manufacturing.

Pointing out fundamental errors with your understanding of molecular biology is not idle gibberish.

Now there was a great point made about the 64 codons and the 20 amino acids of life. I would have spent more time on that except they were determined to derail the thread and the rest was just pointless clammor.

Out of the 64 possible codon values, all but three code for one of 20 amino acids. The other three are stop codons.

The guy I called a liar said this:

"No, like counting all the base pairs in the indels and applying them to the mutation rate as measured in mutation events, which is what you've just done here. The 2x10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs. (It's also just the single-base substitution rate, but that's less important.) It doesn't matter how many times you make that comparison: it will be wrong every time you do."

He told me it does not matter how many times I say bp means base pairs it will be wrong every single time.

No he didn't. He said that no matter how many times you claimed the formula computed base pairs you'd be wrong. The formula computes the number of mutation events. The formula claims that the number of mutation events is equal to 2x10^-8 mutation events per one base pair per one generation.

All these brilliantly educated people on two boards cataloging my errors by the score and can't see an obvious contradition in terms.

When everybody points out that you made the same error perhaps it is time to examine the claim and see if it is true.

They pretended it was a true and accurate statements. When I posted the Time article that said 'chimpanzee and human DNA is 98% the same' everyone said it was a true and accurate statement. No one want to deal with the actual divergance and the rationalizations are running out of gas.

Depending on what you measure, the percentage varies.

The truth isn't working and so now I'm catching them in lies.

Not that I can tell

 

[sfs]

The guy I called a liar said this:

"No, like counting all the base pairs in the indels and applying them to the mutation rate as measured in mutation events, which is what you've just done here. The 2x10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs. (It's also just the single-base substitution rate, but that's less important.) It doesn't matter how many times you make that comparison: it will be wrong every time you do."

He told me it does not matter how many times I say bp means base pairs it will be wrong every single time. All these brilliantly educated people on two boards cataloging my errors by the score and can't see an obvious contradition in terms.

I'm the "liar" in question. My advice to Mark: learn how to read.

You might also want to give some thought to what kind of Christian witness you're presenting here.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm the "liar" in question. My advice to Mark: learn how to read.

You might also want to give some thought to what kind of Christian witness you're presenting here.

"The 2x10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs."

Every post is raked over to coals and I was just having some fun with it to tell you the truth. Virtually all the so called errors were awkwardly worded statements blown out of proportion.

I have been called stupid, uneducated, condesending, a liar a fool and worse. The attitude I encounter on here and elsewhere is not a problem, I expect that when I walk an evolutionist gaunlet.

When I get one scathing rebuke after another fielding them constantly and you pop in and make a statement like that, I say it's time for you to watch your wittness.

I don't blame you for derailing the thread, they were going to do that irregardless. It's just that when you told me that bp was not base pair I thought how many times have I been right and told I'm wrong.

This time I know better, what about next time? Originally I thought I was pretty generous, I gave it 10 million years for the divergence to accumulate. Then it sort of dropped to 7 mya, when I know for a fact the estimates are less then 5 mya.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Yea, a really big deal like the HAR1f gene with an 18 nucleotide substitution in a regulatory gene that was highly conserved for 310 million years allowing only two. From you I would not only be impressed but literally shocked by any explanation at all.

And the beat goes on...

"That looks really unlikely to me, a layman, with access to virtually none of the relevant primary literature. Therefore, it couldn't have happened."

You don't belong! Oh, and do me a favor, please don't take up Aron-Ra's arguements. You just don't do them right and it's like someone dragging their fingernails across the backboard.

Sorry, is there some obvious answer here that I missed? Let me try again: Which of Aron's mentioned categories does not belong in Hominidae?

 

[Ondoher]

It's just that when you told me that bp was not base pair I thought how many times have I been right and told I'm wrong.

He never said that. Why is this hard for you to understand?

 

[Split Rock]

Yea, a really big deal like the HAR1f gene with an 18 nucleotide substitution in a regulatory gene that was highly conserved for 310 million years allowing only two. From you I would not only be impressed but literally shocked by any explanation at all.

Tell us Mark, just what would you expect would happen to a regulatory gene placed under strong selective pressure? That it wouldn't change faster than before??

 

[mark kennedy]

Tell us Mark, just what would you expect would happen to a regulatory gene placed under strong selective pressure? That it wouldn't change faster than before??

It doesn't happen Split Rock, natural selection could not account for the divergance. Unless evolutionists have a magic wand for an accelerated evolution of neural genes you are talking about baseless assumption.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I don't mind you editing the article but I think the publishers might have a problem with it. If you put in mammal our brain is 6 x bigger then the average for mammals.

Wait, let me get this straight. Are you actually trying to claim that humans aren't mammals because we have bigger brains "than mammals"? Answer yes or no, if you can. I want to be certain if I understand you correctly.

If you put in ape we are 3 x bigger then apes. Gee wiz, that sure is an impressive and unique distinction that would seem to go beyond a genus distinction.

What distinction? Humans are apes the same way we are mammals and animals.

Here is how little sense your argument makes.

The Bugatti Veyron isn't a car because most cars don't have only half as many cylinders at the most. Even the really powerful ones usually have half as much horsepower too! So we can ignore all the criteria that would make it a car because I just don't wanna admit that that's what it is.

That's how pathetic your argument is, and that's how little sense it makes.

Habilines are in the Homo genus, hominids are in the Homo genus. You are putting everything apelike into the Hominidae (sp?) super family which is arbitrary, subjective and presupposes common ancestry without qualification.

Wrong again. I gave you many of the specific criteria required for that definition, and you ignored it of course. But as I told you before, I can prove that its not arbitrary. Try it. Define for me what an ape is. Give me any description that we could use to identify a new species, and determine whether that is an ape as opposed to some other kind of mammal. It would probably be a good idea if you could back that definition up with a citation of some source knowledgible in primatology too. After all, that's what I did for you, remember?

It really doesn't matter how many times you tell me we are classified in this way, this is still the adpatation you need a genetic mechanism for:

No I don't, actually. All I have to do is produce the observation of characters, and the documentation of scientific research facilities examining those traits to determine these definitions -to prove that I'm using the correct definition, while you're not using any definition at all. The nice thing about debating someone with your particular learning disability is that I can cut-and-paste the same arguments I presented to you before, and keep doing that until you finally address them.

"Originally the group was restricted to humans and their extinct relatives, with the other great apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. However, that definition makes Pongidae paraphyletic, whereas most taxonomists nowadays encourage monophyletic groups. Thus many biologists consider Hominidae to include the Pongidae as the subfamily Ponginae, or restrict the latter to the orangutan and extinct relatives like Gigantopithecus."​

--Wikipedia​

"Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae."​

--University of Michegan​

"There is controversy regarding the content of the family Hominidae. While common practice, as followed here, is to treat Homo sapiens as the only living species, some authorities have suggested that the great apes (here considered to compose the Pongidae) should be placed within the same family as humans. Groves (1986a), for example, divided the Hominidae into two living subfamilies: Homininae, with the genera Pan, Gorilla, and Homo; and Ponginae, with Pongo."​

--Johns Hopkins University​

"The terms "hominoid", "hominid", and "hominin" are not interchangeable, but their classification criteria are variously in a state of flux. In general, the hominoids are a primate superfamily; the hominid family is currently considered to comprise both the great ape lineages and human lineages within the hominoid superfamily; the "homininae" comprise both the human lineages and the African ape lineages within the hominids, and the "hominini" comprising only the human lineages."​

--Science Week ​

"Family Hominidae, the family that we belong to, is also composed of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. It is closely related to the other genus of apes, the gibbons, which are in the family Hylobatidae."​

--Washington State University​

And finally, "The Tree of Life is a collaborative web project, produced by biologists from around the world. On more than 2600 World Wide Web pages, the Tree of Life provides information about the diversity of organisms on Earth, their history, and characteristics."

"This is a collective effort of the international scientific community is peer-reviewed, and used as a research resource for biology students in numerous universities around the world. And they, (like these universities listed above) define Hominids as "Humans, Great Apes, and their extinct relatives." ​

I don't think you have much choice but to accept my definitions, since we are discussing taxonomy at this point; and like it or not, humans are apes by every taxonomic definition; have been since the very beginning, even according to creationist scientists a full century before Darwin.

Hominoid = Ape.
Hominid = Great Ape.



The word you were using for "bipedal apes within human ancestry" is no longer 'Hominid'. It is now "Hominine"

"The terminology of our immediate biological family is currently in flux; for an overview, see a current hominoid taxonomy. The term "hominin" refers to any genus in the human tribe (Hominini), of which Homo sapiens (modern man) is the only living specimen."​

--UCLA​

Now I know you'll never accept any of this, or anything else. You have your own personal "absolute truth", and you're never going to reconsider that no matter how wrong it is. That's the nature of faith. But if you're going to continue to brag any use of science at all, you're going to have to define your central terms and you're going to have substantiate your arguments. You're also going to have to stop snipping and ignoring all those arguments you'd otherwise have to concede, you know, the way scientists do.

 

[shernren]

"The 2x10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs."
...

I don't blame you for derailing the thread, they were going to do that irregardless. It's just that when you told me that bp was not base pair I thought how many times have I been right and told I'm wrong.

This time I know better, what about next time? Originally I thought I was pretty generous, I gave it 10 million years for the divergence to accumulate. Then it sort of dropped to 7 mya, when I know for a fact the estimates are less then 5 mya.

(emphasis added)

Please verify this statement. Show us where you have ever stated that mutations are measured in events and not in base pairs. Show us where you have ever stated that mutation rates are measured in units of 1/bp/generation instead of 1/generation.

If you have any clue what you are talking about you will know what the italicized part means.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wait, let me get this straight. Are you actually trying to claim that humans aren't mammals because we have bigger brains "than mammals"? Answer yes or no, if you can. I want to be certain if I understand you correctly.

No and I don't think I'm being ambiquise either, our brain is 6 times the size of mammals and 3 times that of apes. That is a uniquely human feature, is there a problem with that?

What distinction? Humans are apes the same way we are mammals and animals.

We are animals because we are composed of animalia cells, we are mammals due to mammary glands that nurse our young. What is your point?

Wrong again. I gave you many of the specific criteria required for that definition, and you ignored it of course. But as I told you before, I can prove that its not arbitrary. Try it. Define for me what an ape is. Give me any description that we could use to identify a new species, and determine whether that is an ape as opposed to some other kind of mammal. It would probably be a good idea if you could back that definition up with a citation of some source knowledgible in primatology too. After all, that's what I did for you, remember?

Yea, I'm so dependant on atheists on here for my scientific sources I couldn't funtion without them. I do remember having this conversation before and it's empty. Here is the origin of one of the terms you like to through around:

"A genus of the Hominaidae with the following characters: the structure of the pelvic girdle and of the hind limb skeleton is adapted to habitual erect posture and bipedal gait; the well develped and fully opposable and the hand is capable not only of a power grip but of at the least asimple and usually well developed precision grip; the cranial capacity is very variable but is on average larger than therange of capacities of members of the gunus Australopithecus, although the llower part of the range in Austrolopithecus; the capacity is (on average) large relative to body size adranges from about 600cc in earlier forms to more then 1600cc" (A New Species of the Genus Homo From Olduvai Gorbge, Nature April, 1964)

No I don't, actually. All I have to do is produce the observation of characters, and the documentation of scientific research facilities examining those traits to determine these definitions -to prove that I'm using the correct definition, while you're not using any definition at all.

Notice the use of two key words here; traits and definitions.

The nice thing about debating someone with your particular learning disability is that I can cut-and-paste the same arguments I presented to you before, and keep doing that until you finally address them.

"Originally the group was restricted to humans and their extinct relatives, with the other great apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. However, that definition makes Pongidae paraphyletic, whereas most taxonomists nowadays encourage monophyletic groups. Thus many biologists consider Hominidae to include the Pongidae as the subfamily Ponginae, or restrict the latter to the orangutan and extinct relatives like Gigantopithecus."​

It's a list, nothing about definitions not a single trait mentioned. You even admit it's just a copy and paste so you don't even bother to type it.

--Wikipedia​

"Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae."​

--University of Michegan​

That was written when everyone thought chimpanzee and human DNA was 99% the same. How does that change when it drops below 95%?

"There is controversy regarding the content of the family Hominidae. While common practice, as followed here, is to treat Homo sapiens as the only living species, some authorities have suggested that the great apes (here considered to compose the Pongidae) should be placed within the same family as humans. Groves (1986a), for example, divided the Hominidae into two living subfamilies: Homininae, with the genera Pan, Gorilla, and Homo; and Ponginae, with Pongo."​

Another list, no features and no definitions.

--Johns Hopkins University​

"The terms "hominoid", "hominid", and "hominin" are not interchangeable, but their classification criteria are variously in a state of flux. In general, the hominoids are a primate superfamily; the hominid family is currently considered to comprise both the great ape lineages and human lineages within the hominoid superfamily; the "homininae" comprise both the human lineages and the African ape lineages within the hominids, and the "hominini" comprising only the human lineages."​

You promise to provide me with features and definitions. You instead provide me with a quote that says it's in a state of flux. I think I will accomplish more if I just let you refute yourself.

--Science Week ​

"Family Hominidae, the family that we belong to, is also composed of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. It is closely related to the other genus of apes, the gibbons, which are in the family Hylobatidae."​

Oh good, another list, I really like those.

--Washington State University​

And finally, "The Tree of Life is a collaborative web project, produced by biologists from around the world. On more than 2600 World Wide Web pages, the Tree of Life provides information about the diversity of organisms on Earth, their history, and characteristics."

"This is a collective effort of the international scientific community is peer-reviewed, and used as a research resource for biology students in numerous universities around the world. And they, (like these universities listed above) define Hominids as "Humans, Great Apes, and their extinct relatives." ​

Let me quess, they have very long lists as opposed to truncated ones.

I don't think you have much choice but to accept my definitions, since we are discussing taxonomy at this point; and like it or not, humans are apes by every taxonomic definition; have been since the very beginning, even according to creationist scientists a full century before Darwin.

Hominoid = Ape.
Hominid = Great Ape.

You didn't define your terms, identify the features or qualify anything. You simply named the catagories.

The word you were using for "bipedal apes within human ancestry" is no longer 'Hominid'. It is now "Hominine"

"The terminology of our immediate biological family is currently in flux; for an overview, see a current hominoid taxonomy. The term "hominin" refers to any genus in the human tribe (Hominini), of which Homo sapiens (modern man) is the only living specimen."​

Of course, the terminology is in flux, that explains everything. Man! I don't know why I didn't see it before, if it's in a state of flux what a perfect condition for a scientific defiintion to come from.

--UCLA​

Now I know you'll never accept any of this, or anything else. You have your own personal "absolute truth", and you're never going to reconsider that no matter how wrong it is. That's the nature of faith. But if you're going to continue to brag any use of science at all, you're going to have to define your central terms and you're going to have substantiate your arguments. You're also going to have to stop snipping and ignoring all those arguments you'd otherwise have to concede, you know, the way scientists do.

I think your lists may have mentioned bipediality once, but I'm not sure. Cranial capacity used to be and by all right should be part of the definition. Human is defined by a normal, healthy brain averaging 1350cc, exclusivly bipedal, precision thumb and the list could be a long one.

The thing is you don't really define anything, you just showed me some lists.

 

[bobhope]

No and I don't think I'm being ambiquise either, our brain is 6 times the size of mammals and 3 times that of apes. That is a uniquely human feature, is there a problem with that?

But we are both mammals and apes, so your argument is by necessity incorrect. Please stick to the as-of-yet-unaddressed OP.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think your lists may have mentioned bipediality once, but I'm not sure. Cranial capacity used to be and by all right should be part of the definition. Human is defined by a normal, healthy brain averaging 1350cc, exclusivly bipedal, precision thumb and the list could be a long one.

And none of these traits exclude us from being an ape. Every single species on the planet has at least one trait that it alone has (even if it's as simple as a set of genetic mutations). If you want to exclude humans from being apes, you need to show us a trait which is shared by orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas that we do not have.

 

[Aron-Ra]

No and I don't think I'm being ambiquise either, our brain is 6 times the size of mammals and 3 times that of apes. That is a uniquely human feature, is there a problem with that?

Well, yes of course. As always, your data is wrong. Did you forget that elephants whales have brains of up to 6 times larger than ours? Does that mean we are mammals again? Or that they aren't mammals anymore?

We are animals because we are composed of animalia cells,

Animalia cells? Oh goody, another topic you know nothing about. What is an "animalia cell"? And what is it that defines an animal?

we are mammals due to mammary glands that nurse our young. What is your point?

So you were wrong before, if we have mammaries, then we're still mammals no matter how big our brains are, right?

Yea, I'm so dependant on atheists on here for my scientific sources I couldn't funtion without them.

Wait a minute. None of this research indicates anything about whether the scientists involved believed in gods or not, and many of these biologists are in fac Christians. Why do you assert that they must be atheists? Or are you changing the subject with an inflammatory statement in an attempt to conceal the fact that you can't substantiate whatever mystery definition you've chosen to use?

I do remember having this conversation before and it's empty. Here is the origin of one of the terms you like to through around:

"A genus of the Hominaidae with the following characters: the structure of the pelvic girdle and of the hind limb skeleton is adapted to habitual erect posture and bipedal gait; the well develped and fully opposable and the hand is capable not only of a power grip but of at the least asimple and usually well developed precision grip; the cranial capacity is very variable but is on average larger than therange of capacities of members of the gunus Australopithecus, although the llower part of the range in Austrolopithecus; the capacity is (on average) large relative to body size adranges from about 600cc in earlier forms to more then 1600cc" (A New Species of the Genus Homo From Olduvai Gorbge, Nature April, 1964)

So are you now admitting that you know what these terms really mean and are using them incorrectly on purpose?

Notice the use of two key words here; traits and definitions.

It's a list, nothing about definitions not a single trait mentioned. You even admit it's just a copy and paste so you don't even bother to type it.

Yeah, I copied it from our debate two years ago, when you challenged me to prove that my definition was the correct one. You wouldn't/couldn't deal with that then or now.

"Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch. Here we follow a classification reflecting those relationships. Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae."​

--University of Michegan​

That was written when everyone thought chimpanzee and human DNA was 99% the same. How does that change when it drops below 95%?

It didn't.

Another list, no features and no definitions.

I had already given you the features and the definitions, but you ignored all of that, and claimed the definition I was using wasn't scientifically accurate. So I produced these sources to prove that it was.

You promise to provide me with features and definitions. You instead provide me with a quote that says it's in a state of flux. I think I will accomplish more if I just let you refute yourself.

Actually, in a strange sort of way, I agree with you. You would accomplish more if you said nothing at all. But that's because you're refuting yourself. I haven't done anything like that.

Oh good, another list, I really like those.

Let me quess, they have very long lists as opposed to truncated ones.
You didn't define your terms, identify the features or qualify anything. You simply named the catagories.

No, I've given you those traits several times already, but here they are again.

Hominoidea, (apes) tailless Catarrhine primates having a tendancy toward a bipedal gait, with oversized brains, and individually-distinctive fingerprints on arms with a shoulder arc capable of brachiation and complete rotation.

One subset of Hominoidea is Hominidae, (Great apes) "large" apes with especially large, unusually intelligent brains capable of comprehending language, or of making and using simple tools; having relatively sparse fur, an inability to synthesize vitamin C, and a unique dentition which includes 32 teeth consisting of incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, canines, and molars, the latter of which have four roots, and come to five points interrupted by a Y-shaped crevasse.

One subset of Hominidae is Hominini, (also known as humanoids) exclusively bi-pedal great apes.

One subset of Homini is Homo, (humans) bi-pedal apes with enormous brains, and an ability to articulate speech, and explore more complex technologies.

You've seen all this before, and ignored it then as I'm sure you will ignore it again now.

Of course, the terminology is in flux, that explains everything. Man! I don't know why I didn't see it before, if it's in a state of flux what a perfect condition for a scientific defiintion to come from.

Bare in mind that was two years ago, when molecular evidence was quite new, and I told you then it would take a couple years to get everyone on the same page. Coincidentally, atomic theory is also in a state of flux at the same time because in the very same class where I last saw chimpanzees classified as pongids they were also teaching the Bohr model of atoms. Now they teach the quantum model, and they tell me that what they taught before was a myth.

I think your lists may have mentioned bipediality once, but I'm not sure. Cranial capacity used to be and by all right should be part of the definition. Human is defined by a normal, healthy brain averaging 1350cc, exclusivly bipedal, precision thumb and the list could be a long one.

So you're now admitting that Homo erectus doesn't really count as human after all. What about that family of Turkish quadrupeds? I guess they're not human either, right?

The thing is you don't really define anything, you just showed me some lists.

The thing is, you were asked many many times to provide your definition for what an ape is, and to provide some scientific resource to support it. Well, its been two years now, and I'm still waiting for you to define your terms.