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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah, I think that's merely a dislike to be called 'ape' at times, and of course other times is a certain theory (not in the scripture) about small details of creation, that God could not use evolution (which of course the scripture does not specify, but rather it says God created all that is, and also made Adam and Eve, who were in time ejected from the garden, and their son Cain went and took a wife in another land, Nod, where there were evidently already a population of humans, or hominins...(Gen ch 4)).

If you happen to have interest though in the fascinating question of how modern humans out competed the competing hominid Neanderthal, here's a representative article:
One hundred thousand years ago, several humanlike species walked the Earth. There were tribes of stocky Neanderthals eking out an existence in Europe and northwest Asia, and bands of cave-dwelling Denisovans in Asia. A diminutive, hobbitlike people called Homo floresiensis inhabited Indonesia. What were essentially modern humans roamed Africa.

Then, about 60,000 years ago, a few thousand of those humans migrated out of Africa. As they slowly moved into new territories over the course of generations, they encountered the Neanderthals, the Denisovans and the hobbit people — all of whom descended from hominin groups that had left Africa during prior waves of migration. DNA analysis shows the humans interbred with these strangers, but other details of the encounters are lost to history. One thing is clear: only humans remain.

Why did we prevail? ....
Why Did Humans Prevail?

I'm not asking about Neanderthals. I'm asking about humans and great apes, as per the OP.
Stop bringing up neanderthals since it has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not asking about Neanderthals. I'm asking about humans and great apes, as per the OP.
Stop bringing up neanderthals since it has nothing to do with the OP.

All the hominins are not 'apes' (in that way of speaking) in your view?

 

[sfs]

Which programme are you talking about/using? Smith-Waterman?

The major point was that there is never a perfect alignment even if one of high statistical value is established.

My major point was that you stated that junk DNA was discarded, and that you statement was completely wrong. As for the algorithm (Smith Waterman is an algorithm, not a program), what difference does it make? They'll all give similar answers.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All the hominins are not apes in your view?

Go back and reread my OP.

 

[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?

Trying to answer even more narrowly, the hominins are, well, hominin, instead of 'ape', if you want a truly narrow answer. But we take it by 'ape' you mean 'didn't we all descend from a more distant common ancestor species' or such a question, so of course, you should expect answers also along that line, as above already. Is this narrow enough? (not trying to nitpick terminology, but here's a reference if you like
Hominid and hominin – what’s the difference? - Australian Museum)

 

[sfs]

My point was that the evidence that points to a common ancestor can actually be reinterpreted in a creationist understanding by simply asserting that our Common Designer differentiated his ongoing code with each new species.

The problem is that your claim is either empty or wrong. If all you are claiming is that creationists can point to the genetic data and say, "See -- God designed it", regardless of what the data actually looks like, then sure, creationists "reinterpret" the data. But if you're claiming that creationists can actually explain the data -- tell why the data looks one way rather than another -- then no, they can't. We can tell that's the case because creationism is unable to predict DNA data, while common descent makes a wide range of accurate predictions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Trying to answer even more narrowly, the hominins are, well, hominin, instead of 'ape', if you want a truly narrow answer. But we take it by 'ape' you mean didn't we all descend from a more distant common ancestor species, so of course, you should expect answers also along that line, as above already.

... Are you being deliberately complicated about this? Homini includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos. I'm talking about ALL APES NOT JUST HUMANS.

 

[Halbhh]

... Are you being deliberately complicated about this? Homini includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos. I'm talking about ALL APES NOT JUST HUMANS.

We shouldn't nitpick more than a second, or I won't. I'm not demanding everyone know all things. This was useful to me:

Hominid and hominin – what’s the difference? - Australian Museum
New definitions
The most commonly used recent definitions are:

Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).

Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).


So you could then assert narrowly that 'humans are apes', but it's such a...well, not useful language, since really what we have instead is a more distant common ancestor species, instead of being in the same related narrow group.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We shouldn't nitpick more than a second, or I won't. I'm not demanding everyone know all things. This was useful to me:

Hominid and hominin – what’s the difference? - Australian Museum
New definitions
The most commonly used recent definitions are:

Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).

Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).

And that's why I wrote down Hominidae, specifying ALL great apes. Do you understand this simple fact?

 

[Halbhh]

And that's why I wrote down Hominidae, specifying ALL great apes. Do you understand this simple fact?

Ok!

 

[Halbhh]

And that's why I wrote down Hominidae, specifying ALL great apes. Do you understand this simple fact?

If you will forgive me, and us, when you say 'aren't humans apes' we think you mean something like: aren't we just about the same as apes? And the clear answer to that in my view is definitely no. We aren't even that similar to Neanderthals, even though we interbreed with them!

Answering the OP question: No --
We have very sharp differences compared to even to much more closely related species!

That was why I offered that article about our advantages over Neanderthals above.

To show how the best general answer is: "No."

Why Did Humans Prevail?

 

[Halbhh]

^
"For this, I would like an answer: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?"

 

[mindlight]

So are dogs and cats and bears and mice and rats. Do you know WHY humans have less hair? Because we evolved to not need as much hair.
Doesn't mean humans aren't apes.

Hair keeps people warm in cold and allows people to carry more parasites. Because humans have lived all over the earth including very warm climates where hair would be no advantage and very cold climates where they could make clothes to protect them from the cold the value of hair is less evident for temperature control. It is an advantage to have less hair from the point of view of lice, parasites etc. A Creationist view can allow for micro-level adaptations like this in human beings. That people exist with more hair simply points out that being hairless does not have to define the human condition. I do not deny a similarity between the ape and human templates. The real difference lies with language and brain capacity.

Yet it still shows that apes are smart enough to use language, albeit in the non-vocal sense.
Doesn't mean humans aren't apes.

They have rudimentary abilities that will never develop to human levels. There is clearly something far more sophisticated in our code.

The only thing I'm getting from your posts, especially with the "Apes are morons!" comment is that you don't appreciate being brought down to the same biological level as other apes.
Still doesn't mean that humans aren't apes.

Apes are not comparable to human beings in intelligence and in language and in all the attributes that mark us as being made in Gods image. As history has demonstrated the difference makes all the difference. That we may well share a biological connection in our genetic coding does not bother me at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you will forgive me, and us, when you say 'aren't humans apes' we think you mean something like: aren't we just about the same as apes? And the clear answer to that in my view is definitely no. We aren't even that similar to Neanderthals, even though we interbreed with them!

Answering the OP question: No --
We have very sharp differences compared to even to much more closely related species!

That was why I offered that article about our advantages over Neanderthals above.

To show how the best general answer is: "No."

Why Did Humans Prevail?

... you are really beginning to get on my nerve because you seem to be deliberately obtuse regarding the topic of the OP.
I'm asking Creationists and ID proponents why THEY claim that humans aren't apes. I'm not asking why humans aren't apes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hair keeps people warm in cold and allows people to carry more parasites. Because humans have lived all over the earth including very warm climates where hair would be no advantage and very cold climates where they could make clothes to protect them from the cold the value of hair is less evident for temperature control. It is an advantage to have less hair from the point of view of lice, parasites etc. A Creationist view can allow for micro-level adaptations like this in human beings. That people exist with more hair simply points out that being hairless does not have to define the human condition. I do not deny a similarity between the ape and human templates. The real difference lies with language and brain capacity.



They have rudimentary abilities that will never develop to human levels. There is clearly something far more sophisticated in our code.



Apes are not comparable to human beings in intelligence and in language and in all the attributes that mark us as being made in Gods image. As history has demonstrated the difference makes all the difference. That we may well share a biological connection in our genetic coding does not bother me at all.

Okay.
Humans are still apes, same as chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos.

 

[Halbhh]

... you are really beginning to get on my nerve because you seem to be deliberately obtuse regarding the topic of the OP.
I'm asking Creationists and ID proponents why THEY claim that humans aren't apes. I'm not asking why humans aren't apes.

"For this, I would like an answer: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?"

You will have to forgive us. This is the question I directly answered.

Forgive me though for getting on your nerves.

I'm perhaps just as narrow focused as you, and that has to be irritating at times!

Also, I'm a creationist, but when guessing about small details God did not reveal in scripture, I suppose He likely chose to use evolution, and intervene. This guess is not of great importance, though it can help some people to realize it's a possibility.

.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"For this, I would like an answer: Biologically, how aren't humans apes?"

You will have to forgive us. This is the question I directly answered.

Forgive me though for getting on your nerves.

I'm perhaps just as narrow focused as you, and that has to be irritating at times!

Okay, thank you.

 

[mindlight]

My major point was that you stated that junk DNA was discarded, and that you statement was completely wrong. As for the algorithm (Smith Waterman is an algorithm, not a program), what difference does it make? They'll all give similar answers.

The alignment programmes I have looked at choose a selection of the DNA to make a comparison with. You stated a whole genome analysis was made comparing apes and humans. I admit this was a surprise as you know from my comment about junk DNA. I asked you what programme made the comparison you referred to. Simple reason I want to see what thresholds it sets for what it considers alignments, what filters are in place and what assumptions it employs in this matching. It must take a very long time to run and I very much doubt any degree of infallibility can be claimed for it.

 

[mindlight]

The problem is that your claim is either empty or wrong. If all you are claiming is that creationists can point to the genetic data and say, "See -- God designed it", regardless of what the data actually looks like, then sure, creationists "reinterpret" the data. But if you're claiming that creationists can actually explain the data -- tell why the data looks one way rather than another -- then no, they can't. We can tell that's the case because creationism is unable to predict DNA data, while common descent makes a wide range of accurate predictions.

Ptolemy made accurate predictions about star and planet movement and still worked with a faulty model.

What do you mean by explanation. God did it is surely enough. How he did it moving from less complex to more complicated designs is something which evolutionists have already articulated so why should I reinvent the wheel. In fact I am accepting a lot of what you say at face value. Are you saying that you are not a reliable source?

The only real difference here is timescale. A Common Designer could duplicate all the things you attribute to Common ancestry in 2 days. Evolutionists are not in error about the facts of what they observe but they attribute it to arbitrary naturalistic developments that are irrelevant from my perspective. They add intellectual dead weight in the name of explanatory power but do not explain how things actually happened. God did it.

 

[Halbhh]

attribute it to arbitrary naturalistic developments

Not arguing with you on that. But, one more viewpoint to understand or allow for, or be aware of, is that some/many of those believing in God as Creator also then believe of course that means He created physics/biology, and because of this, it's quite possible then to think that --

That God was able, a good creator -- competent even to the level to design nature so well that it could all unfold perfectly, by His design, like a flower from a seed.

See? We don't have to presume no time passed during verse 1, nor do we need to presume no time passed between any of the days of the vision. We can think the narration from God to Moses was in order that Moses might understand some of what he was seeing in this vision (instead of little or nothing). Instead, these relatively less important questions of mere duration quantities are....ultimately beside the point, in the end. Could it matter for faith if some time period was 7,423 days instead of 8,158? 28,000 years instead of 11,000? Eons instead of hours? No. None of these is a basis for faith. This wonderful chapter brings us the majesty and awe and wonder of creation, which I can testify to you I have experienced more than once reading in this wonderful chapter.

So, when we do any of us speculate on mere time duration, mere numerical quantities, it's not....very important, really. But, it can help some people hung up on this question of whether God could use evolution to realize it's perfectly possible He could, because He is able, and it would fit the text just as well.

All of this isn't the main point of Genesis chapter 1 -- instead that is to open our minds to the deeper reality.

The point of Genesis chapter 1 isn't history! It's a change of mind. A change in a person's state of mind, to open us up to the wonder/awe of God.

For faith, we have now Romans 10:17 -- the way for those not knowing the accurate things Christ said, that by hearing what He said, they could have faith awakened.