Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Notedstrangeperson" data-source="post: 62647695" data-attributes="member: 227984"><p>Sorry, just one more last thing I'd like to add -</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>The problem with this kind of classification system is that it is very human-centered. During the 1970s for example, all apes were placed in the <em>Pongoid </em>category, distinct from humans.</p><p> </p><p>However when genetics proved just how closely related to apes we really are the category names were changed: <em>hominin</em>, <em>hominid</em>, and <em>hominoidea</em> are all variations of the phrase "human-like" (the root for all of these words being <em>Homo</em>, the category humans belong to).</p><p> </p><p>Indeed <em>Hominid</em> was originally defined as "family of mammals represented by man". It came from the word <em>Homunculus</em>, which meant "little person" (<a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hominid&allowed_in_frame" target="_blank">Online Etymology Dictionary</a>).</p><p> </p><p>If we were being really technical, human phylogeny doesn't reflect how ape-like humans are, it reflects how human-like apes are. But then, why should apes which have been around longer than we have be "represented" by us?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Notedstrangeperson, post: 62647695, member: 227984"] Sorry, just one more last thing I'd like to add - The problem with this kind of classification system is that it is very human-centered. During the 1970s for example, all apes were placed in the [I]Pongoid [/I]category, distinct from humans. However when genetics proved just how closely related to apes we really are the category names were changed: [I]hominin[/I], [I]hominid[/I], and [I]hominoidea[/I] are all variations of the phrase "human-like" (the root for all of these words being [I]Homo[/I], the category humans belong to). Indeed [I]Hominid[/I] was originally defined as "family of mammals represented by man". It came from the word [I]Homunculus[/I], which meant "little person" ([URL="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hominid&allowed_in_frame"]Online Etymology Dictionary[/URL]). If we were being really technical, human phylogeny doesn't reflect how ape-like humans are, it reflects how human-like apes are. But then, why should apes which have been around longer than we have be "represented" by us? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?
Top
Bottom