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

[xianghua]

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

and yet any kid can tell when its a monkey and when its a human..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

and yet any kid can tell when its a monkey and when its a human..

... and yet humans are still apes. Apes are separate to monkeys.

 

[xianghua]

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.

common designer of course.

 

[xianghua]

The problem with your 'as any kid can tell', is that this is from the viewpoint of humans who classify 'them' and 'us'.

a kid isnt a biologists and yet he can tell the difference. its not just less hair but also many traits in face and body shape.

 

[xianghua]

But putting humans in the Hominidae is not a matter of definition at all.

its base on similalrity and ignore disimilarity.

 

[xianghua]

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

and yet any kid can tell that both of them are dogs.

 

[tas8831]

He pops in and out from time to time.

Ya. Just wondering how he will respond to being caught misrepresenting a paper... this time...

 

[tas8831]

its base on similalrity and ignore disimilarity.

So.... If someone says that species x and y are 90% similar...

What shall one infer about the remaining 10%?

 

[tas8831]

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!


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?

BUMPING in anticipation of pshun's return. Odd - he has been posting in other forums on here as recently as Mar. 29...

By the way p - was it Walt Brown's laughable online book where you saw this mentioned? His is the only YEC source I've tracked down so far, and he provides the Sterns paper as a citation for this statement:

" The australopithecines are probably extinct apes."

Which is also not evidence from the source.

Misrepresenting published work is a time-honored Creationist tactic.

Why can't you folks learn after being exposed so many times?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

and yet any kid can tell when its a monkey and when its a human..

Any kid can tell a gorilla from an orangutan, but they're both apes too.

It's not always possible to distinguish what are and are not distinct species simply by superficial appearance. That's why we decide using multiple fields of biology backed up by molecular genetics.

 

[Brightmoon]

Everybody has at one time or another called their kids or a neighbors kids , monkeys . Or called an unattractive large man a gorilla. Yeah , it’s that obvious! Gimme a break!

 

[PsychoSarah]

a kid isnt a biologists and yet he can tell the difference. its not just less hair but also many traits in face and body shape.

-_- yeah, we can tell the difference between a human and a chimpanzee. You can also tell the difference between yourself and your mother, but you would never claim that those differences make you a separate species. Ape is a superfamily, not a species designation, thus organisms that belong to this superfamily don't have to be as similar to each other as organisms of the same species. It is a matter of "do we share enough similarities with chimps, etc., to justify humans belonging to the same superfamily as them. And the answer is yes.

Plus, humans have a portion of their brain dedicated to recognizing other humans, so of course humans stand out to us specifically.

 

[tas8831]

and yet any kid can tell when its a monkey and when its a human..

I've yet to meet any creationist that can tell us what a "Kind" is, biologically, and how they can somehow produce all sorts of 'sub-Kinds' in a short time.

 

[pitabread]

and yet any kid can tell that both of them are dogs.

Only because they are taught to recognize them as such. Although even that can fail. Case in point, I used to have a cat who was leash trained. When my friend's 3 y.o. daughter saw my cat on a leash, she referred to him as a "dog".

Anyway, the elementary school approach to identifying animals is all well and good for animals we're familiar with. But it tends to immediately fail when looking at the broader world of biology and given all the esoteric lifeforms on this planet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

None of that changes the primate nature of humans.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and yet any kid can tell when its a monkey and when its a human..

Just like any kid can tell the difference between a lion and a tiger.
Or a chimp and an oerang oetang.
Or a falcon and a pigeon.

So what?

ps: kids don't get to classify species based on comparative anatomy / genetics

 

[DogmaHunter]

a kid isnt a biologists and yet he can tell the difference. its not just less hair but also many traits in face and body shape.

Anatomically, we are much more alike then different, off course.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its base on similalrity and ignore disimilarity.

No.

What makes us alike, is what puts us on the same branch of the family tree.
What makes us different, is what puts us at different ends of the branch.

What makes us alike, is our primate nature.
What makes us different, defines us as a seperate species.

Just like how tigers and lions are both felines, yet different species.
Just like how humans and tigers are both mammals, yet different species.

 

[tas8831]

its base on similalrity and ignore disimilarity.

If dissimilarity was ignored, wouldn't they all be in ONE group?

Do you EVER stop and think about the content of your "arguments"?

 

[xianghua]

It is a matter of "do we share enough similarities with chimps, etc., to justify humans belonging to the same superfamily as them. And the answer is yes.

so where is the limit that a human will not be consider as ape then? by 90% similarity? 70%? 50%?