Anthropologist Jonathan Marks believes “...the argument that "we are apes" is not a valid evolutionary one. After all, the distinguished evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in a 1949 classic, "It is not a fact that man is an ape, extra tricks or no."
He goes on to say “Our ancestors were of course apes. That is what science shows. Our closest zoological relatives are apes, and we fall phylogenetically among them–indeed, we are closer to a chimpanzee than that chimpanzee is to an orangutan.
But that elaborates the identities of our ancestors, not us. They were apes, but that doesn't necessarily tell us what we are. The problem, as Simpson understood decades ago, is that ancestry is not the same as identity.
My ancestors just a few generations ago were peasants. My more remote ancestors were slaves. But I am neither a peasant nor a slave. In fact, if you were to tell me that I am a peasant or a slave because my ancestors were, I'd probably punch you in the nose. Reducing identity to ancestry is a highly political act, which has traditionally provided a casual rationalization for perpetuating a hereditary aristocracy.
We reject the simple equation of ancestry with identity in other contexts. Why should we accept it in science? The short answer is that we shouldn't.
Science no more says that I am an ape because my ancestors were, than it says that I am a slave because my ancestors were. The statement that you are your ancestors articulates a bio-political fact, not a biological fact. And it is ridiculous and offensive in the modern era, in addition to being false.”
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983, clarifies that all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more. They do NOT represent apes on their way to becoming human. The myth that they do is politically necessary not scientifically factual.
The fact they we are all being called hominidae does not mean a thing as far as established tryth is concerned. People who already held the preconceived belief made up the classification. In fact all systems of classification are man-made suppositions based on some common features or purpose. Years ago hominid which always and only referred to humans, had to be expanded so as to include all varieties of apes. But think about Paleo-Anthorpologist John Hawkes argument. Paraphrasing he says if we went to a zoo and our kids seeing a chimp display said “Cool! Look at those monkeys.” We would be correct in clarifying by telling them “No! They are apes, not monkeys” and so it is when we see humans. To call humans apes is not offensive as much as it is categorically incorrect.
Just as chimps are not monkeys, humans are not apes (regardless of how many declare it to make the theory appear supported). They are three different evolutionary lines. Most actually objective scientists know this and default to an ancestor of the gaps position (a last common ancestor that no one can identify, have never demonstrated, and has not been observed even in the fossil record).
All systems of classification are intelligently designed boxes for the convenience of those holding a particular paradigm or requiring a way of organizing with a predetermined intent or purpose. Some are merely subject categories with some intelligently designed easy access code or structure. Others are INTENDED to present factors in some form or another of hierarchal relationship. The practice of pigeonholing is often applied to select items into presumed groupings by likeness (in the eye of the creator or users). Others rate items or subjects according to some system that meets the convenience criteria set by the developers. Essentially however all of them are nothing more than a created structure for the purpose of organizing and nothing more. Business, psychology, media, math, and so on, all create and use such systems and over time they usually change based on new, additional, or better data. Some like astrological signs show us that they are not always TRUE,
A hominid is simply a family that includes humans and their fossil ancestors. Only in recent times have hypothesis driven interpreters insisted that it should include the great apes (and thus the need to invent the umbrella term hominidae)
He goes on to say “Our ancestors were of course apes. That is what science shows. Our closest zoological relatives are apes, and we fall phylogenetically among them–indeed, we are closer to a chimpanzee than that chimpanzee is to an orangutan.
But that elaborates the identities of our ancestors, not us. They were apes, but that doesn't necessarily tell us what we are. The problem, as Simpson understood decades ago, is that ancestry is not the same as identity.
My ancestors just a few generations ago were peasants. My more remote ancestors were slaves. But I am neither a peasant nor a slave. In fact, if you were to tell me that I am a peasant or a slave because my ancestors were, I'd probably punch you in the nose. Reducing identity to ancestry is a highly political act, which has traditionally provided a casual rationalization for perpetuating a hereditary aristocracy.
We reject the simple equation of ancestry with identity in other contexts. Why should we accept it in science? The short answer is that we shouldn't.
Science no more says that I am an ape because my ancestors were, than it says that I am a slave because my ancestors were. The statement that you are your ancestors articulates a bio-political fact, not a biological fact. And it is ridiculous and offensive in the modern era, in addition to being false.”
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983, clarifies that all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more. They do NOT represent apes on their way to becoming human. The myth that they do is politically necessary not scientifically factual.
The fact they we are all being called hominidae does not mean a thing as far as established tryth is concerned. People who already held the preconceived belief made up the classification. In fact all systems of classification are man-made suppositions based on some common features or purpose. Years ago hominid which always and only referred to humans, had to be expanded so as to include all varieties of apes. But think about Paleo-Anthorpologist John Hawkes argument. Paraphrasing he says if we went to a zoo and our kids seeing a chimp display said “Cool! Look at those monkeys.” We would be correct in clarifying by telling them “No! They are apes, not monkeys” and so it is when we see humans. To call humans apes is not offensive as much as it is categorically incorrect.
Just as chimps are not monkeys, humans are not apes (regardless of how many declare it to make the theory appear supported). They are three different evolutionary lines. Most actually objective scientists know this and default to an ancestor of the gaps position (a last common ancestor that no one can identify, have never demonstrated, and has not been observed even in the fossil record).
All systems of classification are intelligently designed boxes for the convenience of those holding a particular paradigm or requiring a way of organizing with a predetermined intent or purpose. Some are merely subject categories with some intelligently designed easy access code or structure. Others are INTENDED to present factors in some form or another of hierarchal relationship. The practice of pigeonholing is often applied to select items into presumed groupings by likeness (in the eye of the creator or users). Others rate items or subjects according to some system that meets the convenience criteria set by the developers. Essentially however all of them are nothing more than a created structure for the purpose of organizing and nothing more. Business, psychology, media, math, and so on, all create and use such systems and over time they usually change based on new, additional, or better data. Some like astrological signs show us that they are not always TRUE,
A hominid is simply a family that includes humans and their fossil ancestors. Only in recent times have hypothesis driven interpreters insisted that it should include the great apes (and thus the need to invent the umbrella term hominidae)
Upvote
0
