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

[tas8831]

Anthropologist Jonathan Marks believes “..

Man, I never tire of creationists that find that one whiner in the woods (Marks in this case) and present him/her as the one true voice of truth.

Jon Marks never recovered from being scooped by Sibley and Ahlquist. After they published their DNA-DNA hybridization study before Marks got his banding study out, he has been on a singular mission to make people reject their (and similar) findings. Not many people in the know take Marks' ranting seriously:

Wrongheaded anthropologist claims that humans aren’t apes

"But Marks disputes this universally accepted classification in a post at the website PopAnth called “Are we apes? No, we are humans.” What he’s doing in the post, as you’ll see below, is denying that we’re apes because the popular conception of apes includes every hominid other than humans, but not humans themselves. "

"Marks goes on, confusing the issue of ancestry, which is what our classification with other apes is meant to show, with “identity,” a term that is pretty nebulous and has no formal meaning in biological classification, or even in biology."

"Saying that we are not apes is like saying that Drosophila are not flies (dipterans). It’s just dumb, and somehow meant to set us apart from other great apes. Yes, we do have unique traits, but we’re still in the family of hominids. And, contra Marks, that does not mean that we are our ancestors. It means we share a common ancestor that lived in the past."​

But hey - he says what you need to be able to quote, so you go with what you need!

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983, clarifies that all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more.

Weird that you offered no link or quote...

I think I know why - which YEC website referred to it?

The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. - PubMed - NCBI

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.

Abstract

The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.​

Imagine that - earlier specimens a more generalized ape, but later ones "missing links."

Right there in the abstract.

Did you even read THAT?

Clearly not - that or you hoped nobody would bother checking your sources.




So tell us, pshun2404 - was it YOU that decided to totally misrepresent this paper?

Or was it some professional YEC that did it for you, and you just took him/her at their word?

You want to be taken seriously, yet it is trivially easy to catch you doing this.

Why should ANYBODY trust your claims?

Here are some other ACTUAL analyses of Australopithecines:

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002;Suppl 35:185-215.
Interpreting the posture and locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: where do we stand?

From the Abstract:

"While most researchers agree that A. afarensis individuals were habitual bipeds, they disagree over the importance of arboreality for them... [...]
When the A. afarensis data are evaluated using this framework, it is clear that these hominins had undergone selection for habitual bipedality, but the null hypothesis of nonaptation to explain the retention of primitive, ape-like characters cannot be falsified at present... Evidence from features affected by individual behaviors during ontogeny shows that A. afarensis individuals were habitually traveling bipedally, but evidence presented for arboreal behavior so far is not conclusive..."

Hmmm... Habitual bipedality in 'total apes'... Odd apes, huh?

Or this one:

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Jun;82(2):125-33.
Hallucal tarsometatarsal joint in Australopithecus afarensis.
Latimer B1, Lovejoy CO.
Author information
Abstract

Hallucal tarsometatarsal joints from African pongids, modern humans, and Australopithecus afarensis are compared to investigate the anatomical and mechanical changes that accompanied the transition to terrestrial bipedality. Features analyzed include the articular orientation of the medial cuneiform, curvature of the distal articular surface of the medial cuneiform, and the articular configuration of the hallucal metatarsal proximal joint surface. Morphological characteristics of the hallucal tarsometatarsal joint unequivocally segregate quadrupedal pongids and bipedal hominids.


Maybe you should not rely on YEC sources or keyword searches any more?

You know... there really are people on forums like this that are actually familiar - MORE familiar with the science than you are, and can spot your, shall we say, errors?

 

[tas8831]

I am sure you are aware of the GIGO principle.

Yes - anything that a creationist reads on a YEC website is Garbage In, and anything creationists then regurgitate on forums like this is Garbage Out.

The programmers (already taught and convinced of the idea that humans ARE apes), designed a program that would ignore the obvious dissimilarity and focus on, in fact select, those areas where the sequence appears to be the same. However it is an unintentional deception and I will show you.

This idiocy was refuted that last time you tried make this ridiculous claim.

It is as though you think nobody will remember how you got humiliated all the other times you try these tactics, that nobody will use the SEARCH function on this forum.

Amazing...

One thing to consider, Mr.3-decades-of-study -

The programmers who write DNA analysis software have NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT DNA ARE GOING TO BE ANALYZED.

The top line represents humans and the bottom apes. When the algorithms are applied, we can see that in some places they do not match and in others unnatural spaces are created. The spaces do not exist in reality (the actual data).

Wow - straight form Gish's mouth???!!!

Your sad "arguments" are not really worth the effort.

I will look for where I lambasted you on this before and just copy paste it like you do.

 

[tas8831]

I've just read the first few pages of that thread. It's not just that he makes the same refuted arguments in this thread that he made in that one, but the words are identical. It's an unthinking cut and paste as though that thread and the complete demolition of his ideas there had never happened. People like Kent Hovind do that over and over and over again. Same MO.

That is the way of many YECs. I've caught him making the exact same arguments and copy-pastes at other forums. It would be one thing if his arguments were sound and accurate and made sense, but it is these same excessively-wordy, incoherent, over-confident assertions 'backed up' by out of context quotes, plagiarized "explanations", etc. It is something to behold.

 

[tas8831]

I don't know where this was copy and pasted from, but based upon this dishonest section, it appears to be from a dishonest Creationist website. Here's what the actual paper actually says:

The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. - PubMed - NCBI

In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.​

It literally calls A. afarensis a "missing link" and there is no reference to "totally ape". They are instead referring to earlier species of Australopiths not having bipedal characteristics, but primarily arboreal. The source from which you copy and pasted that section simply lied when they wrote what they did.

I saw that as well - should have read more posts before I tore the autodidact a new one...

Wonder how he will respond - will it be 1. the martyr? 2. the nit-picker? 3. the 'omit that from any responses as if it never happened'?

Hmmmm...

 

[tas8831]

As far as USincognito’s comment. I will ignore his unfounded assumption other than saying I did not find Marks’s quote on any such site. But I am busy at this time (with life) so I may not be immediately responsive

LOL!

The old 'conflate and deny' - forgot about that one!

 

[tas8831]

First we can look at the more obvious outward topical characteristics and then I will address some issues we have discovered in science.


We have big brains (1100 cc to 1500 cc), they have small brains (300 cc to 600 cc)…

We are bi-pedal, and they are knuckle walkers,

We have pronounced chins, they have small receded chins,

We have a big toe in line with our other toes, and they have opposable or separated big toes.

Ours are for balance and walking, theirs for grasping and other forms of manipulation…

We also have very different skeletal structures…

We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, Apes have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)

The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.

Ape teeth demonstrate a need as a weapon and a show of dominance as well as for eating, where humans teeth are smaller, more regular, for eating (and sometimes part of attracting mates)

Our pelvis is properly designed for our distinctly bi-pedal gait, the Ape's is longer and narrower for knuckle walking, Humans by nature are bi-pedal except for short bursts of walking on all fours, apes are arboreal knuckle walkers with short bursts of standing or walking upright.

Our spines are long and straight for energy efficiency and support, the Apes is bent differently and positioned so their heads can jutt forward for walking on all fours.

Ape intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence.

Humans demonstrate things like uniqueness of culture, religion, philosophy, abstract thinking, art, intricate application of symbolic thought, and more, where chimps exhibit none of these things,

Humans live very long compared to most apes.

We have a covering of fine hairs and with apes their's is thick, coarse, fur.

The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases or tasks taught by conditioning (in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on).

Human communication (language) utilizes vocabulary AND also syntax. For chimps "give orange me," can mean something totally different than "give me an orange" even among different signing chimps. We can condition them to sign “give orange me” to ask for an apple, or even “give me orange” to say “I am tired now”.

That would make no sense to a human (and even confuse a child). On the other hand, from a very young age, humans sense and understand syntax. If your two or three year old asks for some orange and you gave them apple, they would protest or say “No! Orange not apple”…or at least exhibit confusion. When taught this or that apes merely perform as conditioned, they do not get confused, nor do they associate the difference.

Humans appear to have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.

Human children demonstrate the ability (on their own) to vary syntax and express related ideas and concepts (sometimes very abstract), while even the most mature chimps, trained from birth show no propensity of being able to produce this variance to either communicate with others or even to get their own way.

Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that apes are nearly unable to infer the mental state of another, like if they were interested in some goal, or in love, or jealous, or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary).

My proposition is not true because it has not been proven false...it is true because it has been proven true. These differences are real, and I believe they are significant enough to be considered meaningful to the full implications of "How humans are not apes" aside from us merely creating a new umbrella category to place them both in.

We should not just buy into the media popularized assessments but always pose new questions...you are free to disagree and believe these are not significant, but I say there are enough notable differences that these should be equally stressed.

Finally as lead in to the next few posts, depending on which description one presents, it IMPLIES to the hearer two different things....of course numerically they are the same.

Copy paste from here:

Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

However, IF presenting the 4 or 5% figures (or less) the masses assume incredible similarity...but IF the 120 or 165 million differences is stressed in the presentation then they get a totally different perspective.

This is probably because the masses are ignorant of what the numbers mean and also of genetics.

Millions of differences becomes the logical and factually demonstrated reality.

Are you implying that the number of nucleotide differences = the number of 'real' morphological/physiological differences?

If so, why?

 

[tas8831]

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).

Seeing as how only around 2% of the genome is genes, and another maybe 10% is regulatory (I've seen varying estimates, don't care to look them up right now).

So that means maybe 12% of the genome is 'functionally important'.

The genetics expert pshun will not tell you that - amazingly - every mutation does not occur in these areas, and in fact, substitutions are far more common in non-exonic, non-regulatory DNA.

Pshun will not tell you that the overwhelming bulk of those DIFFERENCES are indels or repetitive DNA, most of which does nothing.

This is just a sad "argument via big numbers" that many creationists employ. Sadly, because it probably does impress those that don't know much about genomes or genetics.

 

[tas8831]

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.

And when comparing 2 humans, and we see indels - whatever shall we do?

Assume multiple acts of Divine Creation from dust?

Oh my goodness -

Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 32, January 2018, Pages 18-25

A GHEP-ISFG collaborative study on the genetic variation of 38 autosomal indels for human identification in different continental populations

Highlights

•A collaborative study was performed by laboratories members of the GHEP-ISFG for a 38 autosomal indel multiplex.
•Allele frequency databases were created covering a comprehensive geographic area with representative samples from 21 different countries.
•Statistically significant differences were found among some admixed populations inside Latin America, namely in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.
•The high levels of diversity found in all populations support the usefulness of this marker set in the forensic context.​

PRE-held beliefs demand that all of these human populations were separate creations, right?


By the way - the Britten paper counted the numbers of nucleotides within each indel despite the fact that indels are single-mutational events.

 

[hecd2]

Sialic acids are one type of sugar molecule found on the cell surface of all primates, however apes are very distinct from humans in that they lack one oxygen atom. Insignificant? You think? Tell that to your cells. The Sialic acid molecules play an essential role in cell-to-cell communication and serve as binding sites for receptors on other cells. So even on this biochemical level we are distinct. There are also apparently stark noticeable differences in thyroid metabolism between humans (in all their varieties) and the great Apes (in all their varieties). So biologically, humans are not part of the great apes! We are two different groups, and will never be, and were never, and thus are not, the same.

Could have been the same in a common ancestor? Fine show me. One could have resulted from mutation? Fine did the ape mutate from the human or the human from the ape? Show me.

What would cause either entire group (each with their unique varieties) to lose an oxygen atom in this significant molecule, or gain one? In my opinion, the genetic plan in each unique creature’s DNA is already distinct at conception.

Chimps are twice as small and their muscles are smaller as well, yet they are about three times stronger. Some of this had to do with where ape genetic plan causes the muscles to be attached (as opposed to the genetic plans for a human). I suppose the alleged foremost authority on such differences is Kevin Hunt, director of the Human Origins and Primate Evolution Lab at Indiana University. Now though I am sure he believes in the re-grouping of the two groups into one (now called hominidae) he cannot deny these biological differences. For example one of the factors may be due to their muscle fibers biologically being more dense.

Other biological discrepancies exist in our biochemistry. For one example consider “Identification of differences in human and great ape phytanic acid metabolism that could influence gene expression profiles and physiological functions” posted at NCBI

(Identification of differences in human and great ape phytanic acid metabolism that could influence gene expression profiles and physiological functions

Which concludes “We identified differences in the physiological levels of phytanic acid in humans and great apes and propose this is causally related to their gut anatomies and microbiomes. Phytanic acid levels could contribute to cross-species and sex-specific differences in human and great ape transcriptomes, especially those related to lipid metabolism. Based on the medical conditions caused by phytanic acid accumulation, we suggest that differences in phytanic acid metabolism could influence the functions of human and great ape nervous, cardiovascular, and skeletal systems.”

Even if we accept that these analyses as presented are correct, and I have my doubts about some of them, so what? Everyone who knows what they are talking about accepts that there are lineage-specific attributes in humans. There must be, otherwise we wouldn't be a distinct taxon. If we didn't differ from a chimpanzee, we would be a chimpanzee. These aren't 'discrepancies' - these are expected lineage-specific differences (lineage-specific biochemistry or genetics are those present in a single taxon). But there are also lineage specfic attributes in chimpanzees, in gorillas and in orangutans. That is not the point. The point is whether, taking a wide range of criteria (including anatomy, biochemistry and genetics), humans and chimps are more closely related than chimps are to gorillas and orangutans. Humans and chimps are confirmed by these studies to be more closely related. Game over!

 

[hecd2]

Sialic acids are one type of sugar molecule found on the cell surface of all primates, however apes are very distinct from humans in that they lack one oxygen atom. Insignificant? You think? Tell that to your cells. The Sialic acid molecules play an essential role in cell-to-cell communication and serve as binding sites for receptors on other cells. So even on this biochemical level we are distinct. There are also apparently stark noticeable differences in thyroid metabolism between humans (in all their varieties) and the great Apes (in all their varieties). So biologically, humans are not part of the great apes! We are two different groups, and will never be, and were never, and thus are not, the same.

Could have been the same in a common ancestor? Fine show me. One could have resulted from mutation? Fine did the ape mutate from the human or the human from the ape? Show me.

What would cause either entire group (each with their unique varieties) to lose an oxygen atom in this significant molecule, or gain one? In my opinion, the genetic plan in each unique creature’s DNA is already distinct at conception.

Dude, you're delinquent. You have posted new material but you are not dealing with the old material that has been refuted. The new material is not less of a disaster than the older material, but that's no excuse for not engaging in the responses to your posts. Wait - you don't know how to respond to criticism because the creationist websites you cut and paste from leave you on your own when you it comes to defending the absurdities they promote? That's a common creationist MO - the multiple drive-by posts.

 

[USincognito]

To me “Biologically” speaks to forms, functions, and system interactions and inter-dependencies of living organisms. This includes the relations to and interactions with their environment. So “how AREN’T humans apes?” This asks how and what ways are we different enough to not be placed in this man made category in tis intelligently designed system of classification.

So in a few posts I will demonstrate reasons why we may not be placed in this box as opposed to why we may.

As far as USincognito’s comment. I will ignore his unfounded assumption other than saying I did not find Marks’s quote on any such site. But I am busy at this time (with life) so I may not be immediately responsive

If you're going to mention me at least have the decency to tag me and/or actually address the point I made (which had nothing to do with Marks).

 

[xianghua]

Great - if that's the way you want to go, humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are a family, so they must all be one kind.

of course not. since human and chimp are clearly belong to a different group according to the creation scenario.

But they are not identical.

Marmoset and micro bat differ in these ways:

• Exon 3 lost in marmoset and present in bat
  
• A 5bp insertion on exon 3 in bat not seen in marmoset (the exon's missing)
  
• A splice donor site mutation on exon 3 in bat not seen in marmoset (well the exon's missing)
  
• Exon 4 lost in marmoset and not in bat
• Exon 6 lost in marmoset and mostly present in bat
• A frame shift 1 bp deletion on bat exon 6 not found in marmoset
• Another frame shift 1 bp deletion on bat exon 6 not found in marmoset
• Exon 9 present in marmoset but not in bat
• A 2bp inserion in marmoset exon 9 not in bat (missing exon)
  
• A 28bp insertion in marmoset exon 9 not present in bat (missing exon)
• A splice donor site mutation on exon 9 in marmoset and not bat (exon missing in bat)
  
• Exon 12 present in marmoset and not in bat
• A stop codon mutation on exon 12 in marmoset and not bat
  
• A 5bp deletion on exon 12 in marmoset and not bat

Human and chimp differ in these ways:

realy? according to this criteria since gorila and human differ too in several mutations they dont share a common descent. this is what you want to argue?

Give it up already.

why should i?

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Speedwell]

of course not. since human and chimp are clearly belong to a different group according to the creation scenario.

What's a "group?" What is the "creation scenario?"

 

[bhsmte]

What's a "group?" What is the "creation scenario?"

Good luck with that.

 

[hecd2]

Great - if that's the way you want to go, humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are a family, so they must all be one kind.

of course not. since human and chimp are clearly belong to a different group according to the creation scenario.

I see. "Kinds" equate to families when it suits you but not when it doesn't suit you. As usual creationists define terms to mean whatever they need them to mean to prop up their beliefs. But now you are introducing a new trm, "group", having failed to define "kind" in a self-consistent way. What's a "group" and how are human and chimp "clearly" not in the same group?

Marmoset and micro bat differ in these ways:

• Exon 3 lost in marmoset and present in bat
  
• A 5bp insertion on exon 3 in bat not seen in marmoset (the exon's missing)
  
• A splice donor site mutation on exon 3 in bat not seen in marmoset (well the exon's missing)
  
• Exon 4 lost in marmoset and not in bat
• Exon 6 lost in marmoset and mostly present in bat
• A frame shift 1 bp deletion on bat exon 6 not found in marmoset
• Another frame shift 1 bp deletion on bat exon 6 not found in marmoset
• Exon 9 present in marmoset but not in bat
• A 2bp inserion in marmoset exon 9 not in bat (missing exon)
  
• A 28bp insertion in marmoset exon 9 not present in bat (missing exon)
• A splice donor site mutation on exon 9 in marmoset and not bat (exon missing in bat)
  
• Exon 12 present in marmoset and not in bat
• A stop codon mutation on exon 12 in marmoset and not bat
  
• A 5bp deletion on exon 12 in marmoset and not bat

Human and chimp differ in these ways:

realy? according to this criteria since gorila and human differ too in several mutations they dont share a common descent. this is what you want to argue?

All eukaryotes share a common ancestor, the only question being how far back. Human and gorilla share an identical set of fatal mutations on the GULO gene. In addition gorilla has a 4bp deletion on exon 7 and a 7bp deletion on exon 9 which are obviously lineage-specific mutations (ie mutations which occurred after the divergence of the lineages) as they are not present in other primates. But the pattern of shared fatal mutations on GULO between humans, chimps, orangutans and gorillas is exactly the same set as the set that chimps and humans have, with gorilla and orangutan adding one or two lineage-specific mutations (mutations which occurred after the divergence of the gorilla and orangutan lineages. This is overwhelming evidence for the fact that these taxa all share a common ancestor in which the gene was broken and most of the mutations occurred.

 

[Aman777]

As usual creationists define terms to mean whatever they need them to mean to prop up their beliefs.

False. You have confused Creationists with godless evols. These people changed descent with modification within kinds to godless "evolution" because they were ignorant of what Genesis actually teaches about kinds.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

False. You have confused Creationists with godless evols. These people changed descent with modification within kinds to godless "evolution" because they were ignorant of what Genesis actually teaches about kinds.

Except they didn't.

 

[Aman777]

Except they didn't.

Google:>>Descent with modification is simply passing traits from parent to offspring, and this concept is one of the fundamental ideas behind Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Perhaps they could use your brain at Google.

 

[Speedwell]

False. You have confused Creationists with godless evols. These people changed descent with modification within kinds to godless "evolution" because they were ignorant of what Genesis actually teaches about kinds.

Or not. "Kind" is used in Genesis in a relative way. There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that it was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy.