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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because at this simplest genomic level we are very different (120 to 165 MILLION differences revealed just here). You know what the difference amd/or mutation in a much smaller number of base pairs can do (even just a few).

But taking away 165 million base pairs from 3 billion still leaves 2.835 billion base pairs as being the same between us. An even larger number if we take the smaller 120 million.
So again, how does that mean that humans aren't biologically apes?

 

[pshun2404]

But many people feel that it does and they like to say that it does, which is something I and many others have seen on this forum and also on online Creationist literature.

Post 524 says "Therefore since the Bible and creation show us that we are animals and God's creation shows us that we are the most similar to animals that are apes, then the Bible says that we are apes."

I say it does not say this and what you showed does not say this (literally OR figuratively) but okay...now back to the real discussion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Post 524 says "Therefore since the Bible and creation show us that we are animals and God's creation shows us that we are the most similar to animals that are apes, then the Bible says that we are apes."

I say it does not say this and what you showed does not say this (literally OR figuratively) but okay...now back to the real discussion.

Are you being deliberately ignorant on what I said?
Even though you said that Bible makes no claim for or against humans being/not being apes (#527), I then said that I have seen people make the claim that the Bible does say that humans aren't apes (#528) and then I gave an example of a person and a group who do say that the Bible does that humans aren't apes (#532), why did you feel the need to type that out?

 

[Tanj]

In my opinion, one of the very best and most complete studies, as far as I know, is that of Fujiyama, Watanabe, Toyoda, Taylor, Itoh, Tsai, Park, Yaspo, Lehrach, Chen, Fu, Saitou, Osoegawa, de Jong, Suto, Hattori, and Sakaki (2002), titled, ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map’ found in Science 295:131-134

That paper is very out of date, and far from both best and complete. The chimp genome paper is a far better starting source

(120 to 165 MILLION differences)

Here's a link to dbSNP, the collection of known human mutation present at or above 1%.
dbSNP Summary

A few lines down there's data to show we currently have 900 million known mutations in humans. In other words, the variation within humans is greater than the variation between humans and chimps.

 

[pshun2404]

But taking away 165 million base pairs from 3 billion still leaves 2.835 billion base pairs as being the same between us. An even larger number if we take the smaller 120 million.
So again, how does that mean that humans aren't biologically apes?

All living things share huge sections of the genome. The base pairs are like the plan for that kinbd of creature spelled out in building blocks (codons of ATCG). We are allegedly 99% genomically the same as mice. Why then are we not stuck into the "rodent" box in our intelligently designed system of categorization? Because it would not support the already indoctrinated presupposition. It placed in THAT category then the pre-accepted belief falls apart.

Hypothesis driven interpretation ARE the rose colored glasses of the convinced (and that applies to denominational theologies as well). But that is backward science..the data (165 million differences) should shape the hypothesis not be presented to appear to fit into it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All living things share huge sections of the genome. The base pairs are like the plan for that kinbd of creature spelled out in building blocks (codons of ATCG). We are allegedly 99% genomically the same as mice. Why then are we not stuck into the "rodent" box in our intelligently designed system of categorization? Because it would not support the already indoctrinated presupposition. It placed in THAT category then the pre-accepted belief falls apart.

Hypothesis driven interpretation ARE the rose colored glasses of the convinced (and that applies to denominational theologies as well). But that is backward science..the data (165 million differences) should shape the hypothesis not be presented to appear to fit into it.

... I feel that you're pointedly ignoring the question: how, biologically, aren't humans apes?

 

[pshun2404]

Are you being deliberately ignorant on what I said?
Even though you said that Bible makes no claim for or against humans being/not being apes (#527), I then said that I have seen people make the claim that the Bible does say that humans aren't apes (#528) and then I gave an example of a person and a group who do say that the Bible does that humans aren't apes (#532), why did you feel the need to type that out?

That's fair. My apologies. It says God created man unique among all creatures. So though it never addresses apes specifically it would teach we are not apes.

 

[Speedwell]

That's fair. My apologies. It says God created man unique among all creatures. So though it never addresses apes specifically it would teach we are not apes.

How are we biologically unique?

 

[pshun2404]

... I feel that you're pointedly ignoring the question: how, biologically, aren't humans apes?

And I feel you are pointedly ignoring even the biological evidence so far that we are different from apes (and there is so much more). All fish are fish, but herring are not bass. All mammals are mammals, but apes are not humans.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And I feel you are pointedly ignoring even the biological evidence so far that we are different from apes (and there is so much more). All fish are fish, but herring are not bass. All mammals are mammals, but apes are not humans.

The actual phrasing is: All humans are apes, but all apes are humans.
So, again; how, biologically, aren't humans apes?

 

[pshun2404]

How are we biologically unique?

The Bible does not address "biologically". I will no longer be responding to these off topic posts. It addresses our uniqueness by the phrase made in His image and likeness a quality which no other animal (and our bodies are animal in nature) has. So now re-focus on the OP. Fair?

 

[pshun2404]

The actual phrasing is: All humans are apes, but all apes are humans.
So, again; how, biologically, aren't humans apes?

So all apes are humans? Yes or no!

Humans are simply CATEGORIZED as Apes (to fit the hypothesis). That does not make them Apes. Biologically "what is an ape"? Not "categorically", biologically...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So all apes are humans? Yes or no!

Humans are simply CATEGORIZED as Apes (to fit the hypothesis). That does not make them Apes. Biologically "what is an ape"? Not "categorically", biologically...

Okay, thank you for catching that error. That's... yikes, that was bad of me.
But, still, the phrase "all humans are apes but not all apes are humans" is still correct.

And I like how you call it a hypothesis. How are you qualified to make that claim against thousands of trained biologists around the globe?

 

[pshun2404]

Okay, thank you for catching that error. That's... yikes, that was bad of me.
But, still, the phrase "all humans are apes but not all apes are humans" is still correct.

And I like how you call it a hypothesis. How are you qualified to make that claim against thousands of trained biologists around the globe?

Thank you for correcting that since what you re-stated IS the position you hold.

Now then K. Wong in, “Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome”, Scientific American, Sept. 2014, reminds us that a “…tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function.” And though the recent comparisons are performed on only about 33% of the genome, Wong concludes that “individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways.”

In addition, in the Britten study (Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635) they used only 779,000 base pairs. The study concludes 1.4% of the bases were “substitutions” (meaning completely different, and not actually demonstrating they were once one thing that has been “substituted” later), plus they also added the additional number of indels (what can be “interpreted” as insertions or deletions when comparing one genome to another).

However almost every alleged insertion or alleged deletion has been shown to be these at all. For an insertion to be demonstrated one must show where and when it was not there and now is and for a deletion one must show what was once there that now is not. Calling these DIFFERENCES indels is necessary for one to accept the pre-held belief.

This assumption that they are insertions or deletions is rather another way of explaining away the differences when intelligently designed algorithms create UNNATURAL spaces (which reveal the differences). Many of these in truth are nothing more than the normal regular ever present DIFFERENCES between two unique and different types of creature.

Plus this was what was found using ONLY around 800,000 base pairs (not even 1 million). Some of the alleged indels (I am sure some actually were) were small sections being only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, and others were quite large (even as much as 1000 base pairs long).

Who selected just these sections, their varying lengths, and why? How many of the same sections were compared from different humans and different chimps, or were they from just one of each? When these additional differences have been added into the alleged “percentile” it changes the figure from 1.8 to 5%. Now if we multiply that out to the truly complete genome (all 3 billion base pairs) and the differences will be much, much, greater (but that will only come in time, if we can get more scientists to stand outside the box and view these things objectively).

As for the near 67%, shared by all species categorized “Primate”, as appearing to be nearly identical (most of which translates into our having blood vessels, skin, a heart pump, a brain and so on), this still does not mean one came from the other….but based on the way we have determined to categorize things, this really only means we all fit in that man-designed category…nothing else!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thank you for correcting that since what you re-stated IS the position you hold.

Now then K. Wong in, “Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome”, Scientific American, Sept. 2014, reminds us that a “…tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function.” And though the recent comparisons are performed on only about 33% of the genome, Wong concludes that “individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways.”

In addition, in the Britten study (Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635) they used only 779,000 base pairs. The study concludes 1.4% of the bases were “substitutions” (meaning completely different, and not actually demonstrating they were once one thing that has been “substituted” later), plus they also added the additional number of indels (what can be “interpreted” as insertions or deletions when comparing one genome to another).

However almost every alleged insertion or alleged deletion has been shown to be these at all. For an insertion to be demonstrated one must show where and when it was not there and now is and for a deletion one must show what was once there that now is not. Calling these DIFFERENCES indels is necessary for one to accept the pre-held belief.

This assumption that they are insertions or deletions is rather another way of explaining away the differences when intelligently designed algorithms create UNNATURAL spaces (which reveal the differences). Many of these in truth are nothing more than the normal regular ever present DIFFERENCES between two unique and different types of creature.

Plus this was what was found using ONLY around 800,000 base pairs (not even 1 million). Some of the alleged indels (I am sure some actually were) were small sections being only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, and others were quite large (even as much as 1000 base pairs long).

Who selected just these sections, their varying lengths, and why? How many of the same sections were compared from different humans and different chimps, or were they from just one of each? When these additional differences have been added into the alleged “percentile” it changes the figure from 1.8 to 5%. Now if we multiply that out to the truly complete genome (all 3 billion base pairs) and the differences will be much, much, greater (but that will only come in time, if we can get more scientists to stand outside the box and view these things objectively).

As for the near 67%, shared by all species categorized “Primate”, as appearing to be nearly identical (most of which translates into our having blood vessels, skin, a heart pump, a brain and so on), this still does not mean one came from the other….but based on the way we have determined to categorize things, this really only means we all fit in that man-designed category…nothing else!

You keep saying that scientists need to view the claim that humans aren't apes 'objectively'. Why do you keep using that phrase? Do you just not like being referred to as an ape?

 

[pshun2404]

You keep saying that scientists need to view the claim that humans aren't apes 'objectively'. Why do you keep using that phrase? Do you just not like being referred to as an ape?

No! Not at all. It is because it is a lark. The pongidae classification was dissolved, and no longer used, by DARWINIANS (who at the time were all racists) who were trying to make man into ape or ape into man. This is shown in that time of history in science by their many hodge podge mixtures of human and ape bones and their insistence (these alleged authorities in consensus) on things like the Ota Benga display (an alleged half ape a half century after the Emancipation) and the Scopes trial textbook Civic Biology from which I will give you a quote:

“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (emphasis mine)

I hope you are able to see that unlike the propaganda film there was good reason that reasonable people would protest this. Is tht what you would want your children to believe?

But this could become a diversion and I am not intendending that. I would be glad to discuss the racist fruit of that belief on another thread if you wish but what about the scientific points made so? far

 

[pshun2404]

You keep saying that scientists need to view the claim that humans aren't apes 'objectively'. Why do you keep using that phrase? Do you just not like being referred to as an ape?

I keep "using that phrase" because unlike many young earth creationists (of whom I am not) who often think up ever newer criticisms, I actually apply critical thinking skills and do my homework. What is the data does not always equal the narrative that is given to explain/interpret the data in light of the already held belief. I do this when discussing theologies as well. Hence not the most popular guy in either camp.

It is precisely all the many many differences that constitute our difference from this other group (some of which I have already indicated, though there are many many more). It is the biological reasons that indicate that the original and now alternate explanation/classification is equally plausible.

 

[xianghua]

Right. A car is not evidence of design. A manufactured car is evidence of design.

but any car is manufactured.

 

[Speedwell]

but any car is manufactured.

LOL! What about the organic self-replicating car that you are trying to make us believe in?

The point is, that you can't tell it's designed because it's a car, but because it's manufactured.

 

[hecd2]

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."

Marks is playing semantic games. Your quote below shows that his view of where humans fall biologically is no different from the consensus view of modern biologists. I have emboldened the key comments:

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.

But ancestry is identity when it comes to biology. We are Homininae, Hominidae, Catarrhini, Simiiformes, Haplorhini, primates, Boroeutheria, Placentalia, mammals, synapsids, amniotes, Sarcopterygii, Euteleostomes, vertebrates and chordates.

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.

He is confusing class identity with biological identity. It's a poor example.

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.

To which the obvious question is whether you accept being classified as a vertebrate and a mammal. If you don't, then you need to learn some biology. If you do, then we are apes in the same sense that we are mammals or vertebrates. These are all monophyletic groups of which we are a member, and Marks knows this - see above.

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.”

Again - the conflation of class identity with biological identity. Marks's argument is very poor.

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.

And USincognito has already pointed out that this is an erroneous, misleading and dishonest representation of the paper, which says no such thing.

The fact they we are all being called hominidae does not mean a thing as far as established tryth is concerned.

It says that the great apes, human, chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan form a monophyletic group and are descended from a common ancestor. Hominidae is the scientific title for that clade.

People who already held the preconceived belief made up the classification.

No - people who did a systematic analysis of the anatomy, biochemistry and genetics of these species determined the classification.

To call humans apes is not offensive as much as it is categorically incorrect.

If one accepts, as I do, that the term ape refers to the clade Hominidae, then we are apes. If you want to use the term apes in the secular (non-scientific) sense to mean the great apes except humans, then that's your prerogative, but don't object to my use of the term.

Just as chimps are not monkeys, humans are not apes (regardless of how many declare it to make the theory appear supported).

It's true that chimps are not monkeys, because the popular term monkey refers to two separate scientific clades, the Cercopithicoidiae and the Platyrrhini, and the chimp doesn't fall into either of those groups. However chimps belong to the same clade as all monkeys as members of the monophyletic group Simiiformes. And humans and chimps are members of the Hominidae.

They are three different evolutionary lines. Most actually objective scientists know this

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. And Marks doesn't agree with you:

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.

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.

And the purpose of a phylogentic tree is to show phylogenetic relationships, divergences and common descent. As it does.