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

[xianghua]

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.

maybe you should meet more creationists

and yet any kid can tell that a chimp, gorila or orangutan are monkey like creature and human isnt. this is why any kid will call them "monkeys".

 

[Brightmoon]

Humans have never evolved away from being apes. We have arms with fully extending elbows ( monkeys don’t) a hyperflexible shoulder girdle which allows our arms to hang freely and swing around ( again,monkeys don’t) a scapula that is in the back( ditto) a wide flattened rib cage (ditto) . All traits for tree swinging . We can tree-swing (gymnasts do it easily) but we also have very long legs which makes this more difficult.

 

[xianghua]

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

its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?

 

[Speedwell]

its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?

No, but we are like in some of the characteristics we share--we are both placental mammals, for instance.

 

[Brightmoon]

its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?

. We both have a sarcopterygian based skull roof and brain case . We’re both tetrapods, we’re both bilaterians ; we both have eucaryotic cells; we’re both vertebrates; we’re both placental mammals etc etc etc. Rabbits are closely related to the Rodentia and so are the Primates

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?

He said anatomically. Meaning the anatomy of the humans and other great apes are incredibly similar.

 

[Brightmoon]

its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?

No,just a close relative

Oh Just in case you didn’t figure it out monkeys don’t treeswing they’re quadrupeds and walk on top of the branches

 

[DogmaHunter]

its also true for human and a rabit. are you a rabit then?

We sure bother are mammals.

We aren't chimps either (your comments seems to imply that I said that), but we sure both are primates.

 

[tas8831]

maybe you should meet more creationists

Yet you provide no definition of Kind.

Also, I have encountered hundreds of creationists, to include several "professionals". None have defined Kind in any meaningful way. The closest I have seen to a real definition is that "Kind" is somewhere around the level of Family or Genus or even Class, depending on the bible tale they are attempting to save.

and yet any kid can tell that a chimp, gorila or orangutan are monkey like creature and human isnt. this is why any kid will call them "monkeys".

Most of the kids I know look at a chimp or a gorilla or an orang and marvel at how similar they are to us.

Saw a kid in a zoo one time roll a ball to a juvenile mandrill, and was shocked that it did not roll the ball back. If this kid knew they were so different, why do you suppose he expected the mandrill to roll the ball back?

 

[tas8831]

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

Funny - I have asked professional YECs why they do not perform sequence analyses on taxa that they feel are part of a 'Kind', and I never get an answer.

I suspect this is because the creationists are afraid that they will find a greater sequence dissimilarity between taxa they think belong to the same Kind than there is between human and chimp, and they will be left having to dream up d hoc excuses and made even bigger fools of themselves.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

-_- well, all the great apes are over 90% genetically similar. However, animal taxonomy, while influenced by genetics, isn't determined purely by genetics. For humans to not be apes, we'd have to lack at least one of the basic qualifying traits, such as shoulder mobility due to the dorsal position of the scapula. As it is, humans have all of the qualifying traits and the genetic similarity to justify being in the ape superfamily.

Basically, it'd take many millions of years more of evolutionary divergence for our descendants to no longer belong to the same superfamily as orangutans, let alone chimpanzees. And those descendants wouldn't be the same species as ourselves. That is, Homo sapiens will never cease to be a species that is an ape.

 

[PsychoSarah]

maybe you should meet more creationists

and yet any kid can tell that a chimp, gorila or orangutan are monkey like creature and human isnt. this is why any kid will call them "monkeys".

-_- and those kids would be incorrect, seeing as a chimp, while perhaps superficially looking like a monkey to some people, objectively is physically more similar to a human than any monkey.

And I'll remind you again that the reason humans look so "distinctly human" to you is due to the structure in the human brain that has the specialized function for recognizing humans. This is why humans stand out to you compared to other animals, not because of any objective separation between humans and other animals.

 

[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?

I see that pshun has been active on other forums as recently as April 2. Interesting.

 

[xianghua]

-_- and those kids would be incorrect, seeing as a chimp, while perhaps superficially looking like a monkey to some people, objectively is physically more similar to a human than any monkey.

And I'll remind you again that the reason humans look so "distinctly human" to you is due to the structure in the human brain that has the specialized function for recognizing humans. This is why humans stand out to you compared to other animals, not because of any objective separation between humans and other animals.

are you saying that human doesnt realy look different compare to other apes?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

are you saying that human doesnt realy look different compare to other apes?

Who is saying that? No-one is saying that!

 

[USincognito]

. We both have a sarcopterygian based skull roof and brain case . We’re both tetrapods, we’re both bilaterians ; we both have eucaryotic cells; we’re both vertebrates; we’re both placental mammals etc etc etc. Rabbits are closely related to the Rodentia and so are the Primates

Euarchontoglires are one of my favorite super-orders, and not just because I am one.

 

[USincognito]

and yet any kid can tell that a chimp, gorila or orangutan are monkey like creature and human isnt. this is why any kid will call them "monkeys".

Maybe that kid can explain to us why we call our fellow hominids "anthropoids".

 

[loveofourlord]

Apparently the difference makes all the difference in distinguishing man and ape. Also when people do these comparisons they discard large chunks of what they call junk DNA which may actually be more significant than we think. Also what is a match? It is rarely ever a 100% match. With code so complex a single line or character may change everything and no one is really in a position as yet to say how.

The bible says God made us from the clay in a single day. It seems to me that the shared DNA across species is testimony to that shared Designer who in a sense followed a template for life which he differentiated at each stage of His creation process until he had the final types. The evidence of a tree of life is consistent with this Design process but on a vastly more accelerated time frame than evolutionists allow. Subsequent to that we have also seen further differentiation by microevolution which is scientifically observable so that for example now we have lots of kinds of sparrow and dog.

unfortunetly thats not how this works, they ignore the "junk" DNA, because they are focusing on the parts that we know don't readily mutate, the goal is to compare the important differences such as sequences and such that encode for proteins. Also getting a exact % as I've pointed out before is tough because depends on criteria.

Is:

Thequickbrownfoxjumpsoverthelazydog becoming
Thequickbrownfoxjumpsverthelsazydog

2 changes or 14? One insertion one deletion so 2, but at the same time 14 have been changed position.

what about.

superhappycattle becoming
superhapelttacyp 1 change, or 8?

or both becoming

Thequickbrownfoxjumpsoverthelazydogsuperhappycattle 1 change, or 16?

We see these changes in the DNA all over the place, combining of chromosones such as human chromosone 2, or some parts flipped and such so it's not as easy as lining up the DNA and cross referencing them.

And same designer, same design falls apart when you realize how much junk DNA is there, and when I say junk I'm talking about the parts of DNA that we don't use, but encode for things our ancestors used and so on.

 

[Brightmoon]

Some Junk DNA aka non protein forming DNA does have some regulatory usage. Pseudogenes do sometimes form strings of amino acids which then get degraded . By forming those useless temporary strings the body doesn’t overproduce the protein and keeps the number of transfer rna units the same . I’m assuming that you mean the totally useless stuff

 

[loveofourlord]

Some Junk DNA aka non protein forming DNA does have some regulatory usage. Pseudogenes do sometimes form strings of amino acids which then get degraded . By forming those useless temporary strings the body doesn’t overproduce the protein and keeps the number of transfer rna units the same . I’m assuming that you mean the totally useless stuff

well some yeah, but they are harder to detect, where as it's easier to look for coding genes, since they code for things they are more likly to be preserved over longer times, and only neutral or important changes are likly to be preseved. So they look at the parts that likly make up the bulk of the genetic differenecs between us and apes.