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

Warden_of_the_Storm · Mar 24, 2018

I'm going to put in a request to close this thread. This is just getting ridiculous now. (I have kind of forgotten how do that though)

But I think my point has been proven: no creationist has a valid reason or any scientific reason to say that humans aren't apes.

Snappy1 · Mar 24, 2018

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I'm going to put in a request to close this thread. This is just getting ridiculous now. (I have kind of forgotten how do that though)

But I think my point has been proven: no creationist has a valid reason or any scientific reason to say that humans aren't apes.

Asking questions of creationists around here and expecting a real answer is like pulling teeth.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 24, 2018

pshun2404 said:
Chimps are twice as small and their muscles are smaller as well, yet they are about three times stronger.

Wrong, it's a myth. Chimps are only about 1.5 x as strong relative to body mass, but humans are heavier, so generally outperform them. See Chimps are Not as Strong as We Thought.

hecd2 · Mar 24, 2018

Aman777 said:
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.

So godless evols developed the ToE because they were ignorant of Genesis? Man, that's some twisted logic there. Why should the godless evols give two pins about what Genesis says about anything?

xianghua · Mar 24, 2018

hecd2 said:
I see. "Kinds" equate to families when it suits you but not when it doesn't suit you.

no. i actually said that we have evidence that its possible for two species to interbreed even above the family level. means that "kind" can be above the family level. means that human and chimp are clearly diffferent. any kid can tell who is a monkey and who is human.

hecd2 said:
All eukaryotes share a common ancestor,

no. its just a belief and not a scientific claim. as i showed: we can get the same mutations without a common descent. therefore shared mutations cant be evidence for a common descent. simple.

xianghua · Mar 24, 2018

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
no creationist has a valid reason or any scientific reason to say that humans aren't apes.

what about the abillity to walk naturally on two? the abillity to speak? the abillity to invent music?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Mar 25, 2018

xianghua said:
what about the abillity to walk naturally on two? the abillity to speak? the abillity to invent music?

Does not change the fact that, biologically, humans are still apes.

AnotherAtheist · Mar 25, 2018

xianghua said:
what about the abillity to walk naturally on two? the abillity to speak? the abillity to invent music?

That just shows that humans have some unique characteristics compared to other apes. It doesn't in any way show that humans are not apes.

All apes have unique characteristics compared to other apes. Otherwise we would all be one species, not several.

Given that you have been unable to answer the question with a valid response, I have to agree that the thread is finished and it has been shown that nobody here has any answer for the OP.

xianghua · Mar 25, 2018

AnotherAtheist said:
That just shows that humans have some unique characteristics compared to other apes. It doesn't in any way show that humans are not apes.

All apes have unique characteristics compared to other apes. Otherwise we would all be one species, not several.

Given that you have been unable to answer the question with a valid response, I have to agree that the thread is finished and it has been shown that nobody here has any answer for the OP.

its easy. under texonomic definition human is an ape. so by definition human is ape no matter what. to change this we need to change the definition.

AnotherAtheist · Mar 25, 2018

xianghua said:
its easy. under texonomic definition human is an ape. so by definition human is ape no matter what. to change this we need to change the definition.

Why would it be sensible to change the definition?

Can you give me an objective logical reason for this, not based on religion or seeing ourselves as special for no biologically supportable reason?

xianghua · Mar 26, 2018

AnotherAtheist said:
Why would it be sensible to change the definition?

on reason will be that a tipical human doesnt look like a monkey. as any kid can tell.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Mar 26, 2018

xianghua said:
on reason will be that a tipical human doesnt look like a monkey. as any kid can tell.

But humans fall under all of the classification points necessary to describe something as ape.

hecd2 · Mar 26, 2018

xianghua said:
means that human and chimp are clearly diffferent. any kid can tell who is a monkey and who is human.

Yes humans and chimps are different. No-one is denying this (although the reference to monkeys shows that you don't know what you are talking about). The question is whether humans and chimps are in the same clade as gorillas and oranutans and bonobos. And all the evidence is that they are.

hecd2 · Mar 26, 2018

xianghua said:
hecd2 said:

All eukaryotes share a common ancestor

Click to expand...

no. its just a belief and not a scientific claim.

I only have two things to say to you.
1. 20 amino acids used, all others excluded.
2. Eukaryotic 80s ribosome; two subunits: 60s subunit consisting of 28S, 5.8S and 5S rRNA subunits and 49 proteins; 40S subunit consisting of 18S rRNA and 33 proteins across all eukaryotes.

AnotherAtheist · Mar 26, 2018

xianghua said:
on reason will be that a tipical human doesnt look like a monkey. as any kid can tell.

But, when we inspect the actual biology, we do look incredibly like apes. The main visual difference is that we have less body hair. Which is a trivial surface change.

The problem with your 'as any kid can tell', is that this is from the viewpoint of humans who classify 'them' and 'us'. Biological definitions are supposed to be unbiased, which makes us look incredibly like the other apes compared to the visual variation found in other animal families.

It's biologists who decide what groups living things are put in, not kids. For a good reason.

hecd2 · Mar 26, 2018

xianghua said:
its easy. under texonomic definition human is an ape. so by definition human is ape no matter what. to change this we need to change the definition.

But putting humans in the Hominidae is not a matter of definition at all. It is a matter of process, namely a rather blind process of formally comparing attributes and building a family tree. The same process that puts domestic cats and snow leopards in the Felidae put humans and chimps in the Homindae. The conclusion doesn't rely on a definition or a perception. It relies on a process.

hecd2 · Mar 26, 2018

xianghua said:
on reason will be that a tipical human doesnt look like a monkey. as any kid can tell.

And a typical Dachsund doesn't look like a Great Dane as any kid can tell. And they are the same species.

AnotherAtheist · Mar 26, 2018

hecd2 said:
And a typical Dachsund doesn't look like a Great Dane as any kid can tell. And they are the same species.

I personally think that, speaking hypothetically, that if dogs had arisen naturally rather than by selective breeding, that they would be classified as more than one species.

tas8831 · Mar 27, 2018

No responses from pshun yet? Interesting.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Mar 27, 2018

tas8831 said:
No responses from pshun yet? Interesting.

He pops in and out from time to time.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mostly Harmless

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Well-Known Member

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mostly Harmless

Mostly Harmless

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Mostly Harmless

Mostly Harmless

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency