Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a common claim I see, and I'm sure everyone on this forum sees, very often from creationists/ID proponents that goes: "Humans aren't apes".

Even though:
Humans are in the family Hominidae which puts us in with the other great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and Bonobos).
We share 97.3% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 97% with orangutans, 99% with bonobos and 98% with gorillas, our body structures are very nearly the exact same.
We share virtually the exact same body structures, albeit with structurally differences based on arboreal living conditions.
We are all mammals, with warm blood, with females giving live births and breastfeeding from external mammary glands.

I really could go on with the similarities since there are many, but one thing that bugs me when I see creationists/ID proponents make the claim that "Humans aren't apes", I can't help but ask... how?

For this, I would like an answer: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?
Don't try and include things like intelligence or anything like that, since that's not what this is about. The question is about biology.
So... Biologically, how aren't humans apes?

 

[sfs]

Two corrections:
1) We share about 97.3% of our DNA with chimpanzees; where we have homologous DNA, it's 98.8% the same.
2) Intelligence is part of our biology, too.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Two corrections:
1) We share about 97.3% of our DNA with chimpanzees; where we have homologous DNA, it's 98.8% the same.
2) Intelligence is part of our biology, too.

Fair point on both, but I want to exclude intelligence, because a lot of people see that as the only difference but say nothing else.

 

[pitabread]

In order to satisfy this challenge, one would need to come up with characteristics that somehow exclude us from all the other members of Hominidae, regardless of any derived characteristics we might possess. Which in turn means we'd need a biological definition as to why all the other Hominidae members aren't related to us.

I honestly don't see how this challenge would be possible from a biological POV. It would be like similarly trying to claim humans aren't mammals or primates or whatever.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In order to satisfy this challenge, one would need to come up with characteristics that somehow exclude us from all the other members of Hominidae, regardless of any derived characteristics we might possess. Which in turn means we'd need a biological definition as to why all the other Hominidae members aren't related to us.

I honestly don't see how this challenge would be possible from a biological POV. It would be like similarly trying to claim humans aren't mammals or primates or whatever.

Part me of me did realise that it's a bit of bad logic... but so much of creationism is bad logic, and creationist also use bad logic a heaping heck of a lot so... *shrug*

 

[mindlight]

This is a common claim I see, and I'm sure everyone on this forum sees, very often from creationists/ID proponents that goes: "Humans aren't apes".

Even though:
Humans are in the family Hominidae which puts us in with the other great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and Bonobos).
We share 97.3% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 97% with orangutans, 99% with bonobos and 98% with gorillas, our body structures are very nearly the exact same.
We share virtually the exact same body structures, albeit with structurally differences based on arboreal living conditions.
We are all mammals, with warm blood, with females giving live births and breastfeeding from external mammary glands.

I really could go on with the similarities since there are many, but one thing that bugs me when I see creationists/ID proponents make the claim that "Humans aren't apes", I can't help but ask... how?

For this, I would like an answer: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?
Don't try and include things like intelligence or anything like that, since that's not what this is about. The question is about biology.
So... Biologically, how aren't humans apes?

Apparently the difference makes all the difference in distinguishing man and ape. Also when people do these comparisons they discard large chunks of what they call junk DNA which may actually be more significant than we think. Also what is a match? It is rarely ever a 100% match. With code so complex a single line or character may change everything and no one is really in a position as yet to say how.

The bible says God made us from the clay in a single day. It seems to me that the shared DNA across species is testimony to that shared Designer who in a sense followed a template for life which he differentiated at each stage of His creation process until he had the final types. The evidence of a tree of life is consistent with this Design process but on a vastly more accelerated time frame than evolutionists allow. Subsequent to that we have also seen further differentiation by microevolution which is scientifically observable so that for example now we have lots of kinds of sparrow and dog.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Apparently the difference makes all the difference in distinguishing man and ape. Also when people do these comparisons they discard large chunks of what they call junk DNA which may actually be more significant than we think. Also what is a match? It is rarely ever a 100% match. With code so complex a single line or character may change everything and no one is really in a position as yet to say how.

The bible says God made us from the clay in a single day. It seems to me that the shared DNA across species is testimony to that shared Designer who in a sense followed a template for life which he differentiated at each stage of His creation process until he had the final types. The evidence of a tree of life is consistent with this Design process but on a vastly more accelerated time frame than evolutionists allow. Subsequent to that we have also seen further differentiation by microevolution which is scientifically observable so that for example now we have lots of kinds of sparrow and dog.

I see that you wrote a lot of words there... but they don't actually say anything that I can see.

 

[Tom 1]

I see that you wrote a lot of words there... but they don't actually say anything that I can see.

Apparently the difference makes all the difference in distinguishing man and ape.

Why pose a question and then ignore the answers you don’t understand or agree with? Do the differences between Chimpanzees mean that we don’t have a common ancestor? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t significant differences. See this article for example: DNA: Comparing Humans and Chimps

I don’t have any issue with common ancestry or evolution in general, why would I? It appears to be the best explanation of the data as understood so far, as part of an ongoing process of eliminating uncertainties and so on. But do I know it is true? Of course not, and neither do you. Yet you put this idea forward as if you have an omniscient understanding that lesser beings somehow can’t grasp.

The issues with creationism, as in YEC or other more dogmatic views, are, I think, more to do with attempts to interpret the creation narrative without first putting it in the context of the culture it was originally written in and addressed to. The science questions arise out of the confusion that produces.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why pose a question and then ignore the answers you don’t understand or agree with? Do the differences between Chimpanzees mean that we don’t have a common ancestor? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t significant differences. See this article for example: DNA: Comparing Humans and Chimps

I don’t have any issue with common ancestry or evolution in general, why would I? It appears to be the best explanation of the data as understood so far, as part of an ongoing process of eliminating uncertainties and so on. But do I know it is true? Of course not, and neither do you. Yet you put this idea forward as if you have an omniscient understanding that lesser beings somehow can’t grasp.

The issues with creationism, as in YEC or other more dogmatic views, are, I think, more to do with attempts to interpret the creation narrative without first putting it in the context of the culture it was originally written in and addressed to. The science questions arise out of the confusion that produces.

It's nothing to do with common ancestry. It's asking, by what biological criteria are humans not apes as creationists/ID proponents as claim they aren't?

 

[Tom 1]

It's nothing to do with common ancestry. It's asking, by what biological criteria are humans not apes as creationists/ID proponents as claim they aren't?

Humans as hominids = common ancestry with other apes. If it turns out that we don’t have a common ancestor, the implication of that may be that we are in a different category as yet undefined. Who knows? There may be data that confirms a line of descent that fits in with the idea of us being apes, it may be that this will need to be revisited. Pretending that you ‘know’ that isn’t the case, which is the implication of your post, turns it from a question into a statement of your beliefs, posed disingenuously as a question.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Humans as hominids = common ancestry with other apes. If it turns out that we don’t have a common ancestor, the implication of that may be that we are in a different category as yet undefined. Who knows? There may be data that confirms a line of descent that fits in with the idea of us being apes, it may be that this will need to be revisited. Pretending that you ‘know’ that isn’t the case, which is the implication of your post, turns it from a question into a statement of your beliefs, posed disingenuously as a question.

Why are you being so confrontational about this? I simply did not understand what the post above said and suddenly I'm just being attacked by you for no clear reason.

Can you answer the question posed in the OP? If you can't, then please stop wasting my time and yours and just leave.

 

[Tom 1]

Why are you being so confrontational about this? I simply did not understand what the post above said and suddenly I'm just being attacked by you for no clear reason.

Can you answer the question posed in the OP? If you can't, then please stop wasting my time and yours and just leave.

Why? Well, someone offered you a viewpoint on your op and you rather rudely dismissed it out of hand.

 

[pitabread]

Why? Well, someone offered you a viewpoint on your op and you rather rudely dismissed it out of hand.

The post in question didn't answer the question. It was a complete non sequitur.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why? Well, someone offered you a viewpoint on your op and you rather rudely dismissed it out of hand.

Because A) I couldn't understand what they wrote and B) From what little I could understand, I saw that it had nothing to do with the OP.

So do you have anything to say with regards to the question in the OP or are you just here to make a nuisance of yourself by pretending to be a white knight for someone else?

 

[sfs]

Also when people do these comparisons they discard large chunks of what they call junk DNA which may actually be more significant than we think.

No, they don't discard junk DNA. The comparisons are between whole genomes.

Also what is a match?

Having the same base pairs.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, they don't discard junk DNA. The comparisons are between whole genomes.

Having the same base pairs.

I'll be honest: junk DNA kind of confuses me when Creationists use it. Like, I get what it means (it's basically non-coded DNA, so it does nothing), but when they use like it a "Gotcha!" type thing, I just don't get how.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The post in question didn't answer the question. It was a complete non sequitur.

Well I wouldn't call it a complete non sequitur. The poster obviously thought it had some merit, hence why he posted it.

 

[pitabread]

Well I wouldn't call it a complete non sequitur. The poster obviously thought it had some merit, hence why he posted it.

You're being more charitable than I.

 

[Halbhh]

This is a common claim I see, and I'm sure everyone on this forum sees, very often from creationists/ID proponents that goes: "Humans aren't apes".

Even though:
Humans are in the family Hominidae which puts us in with the other great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and Bonobos).
We share 97.3% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 97% with orangutans, 99% with bonobos and 98% with gorillas, our body structures are very nearly the exact same.
We share virtually the exact same body structures, albeit with structurally differences based on arboreal living conditions.
We are all mammals, with warm blood, with females giving live births and breastfeeding from external mammary glands.

I really could go on with the similarities since there are many, but one thing that bugs me when I see creationists/ID proponents make the claim that "Humans aren't apes", I can't help but ask... how?

For this, I would like an answer: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?
Don't try and include things like intelligence or anything like that, since that's not what this is about. The question is about biology.
So... Biologically, how aren't humans apes?

You mean related? Sure. We can see some various common stuff, and also the differences. Speaking of which, one of the really interesting (side topic, but I thought it was quite meaningful) differences between modern humans and Neanderthals is hypothesized to be a difference in cooperative behavior hard wired instrinsically in our brains. Neanderthals are thought to have been wired without our innate ability to be cooperative, therefore even their superior physical strength and likely high intelligence did not allow them to win the battle for territory and survival against modern humans. We out competed them with our organized fighting and such.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean related? Sure. We can see some various common stuff, and also the differences. Speaking of which, one of the really interesting (side topic, but I thought it was quite meaningful) differences between modern humans and Neanderthals is hypothesized to be a difference in cooperative behavior hard wired instrinsically in our brains. Neanderthals are thought to have been wired without our innate ability to be cooperative, therefore even their superior physical strength and likely high intelligence did not allow them to win the battle for territory and survival against modern humans. We out competed them with our organized fighting and such.

Interesting indeed. But it's not answering my question, which addresses a common claim that Creationists/ID proponents make a lot of the time on this forum: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?