Humans Aren't Apes

[DaneaFL]

If I had called this thread "What defines an ape?" would you have clicked it?

I think a 'primate' is any animal that is:

gill-less
organic RNA/DNA protein-based
metabolic
metazoic
nucleic
diploid
bilaterally-symmetrical
endothermic
digestive
tryploblast
opisthokont
deuterostome coelemate
enlarged cerebrial cortex
reduced olfactory region
jawed-skull
specialized teeth including canines and premolars
forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits
single temporal fenestra
vertebrate
hind-leg dominant
tetrapoidal skeleton
sacral pelvis
clavical
wrist & ankle bones
lungs
tear ducts
body-wide hair follicles
lactal mammaries
opposable thumbs
keratinized dermis
embryonic development
placental birth
highly social lifestyle.

Can you find any of those that don't describe humans?
By the way... apes are a subset of primates.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think a 'primate' is any animal that is:

gill-less
organic RNA/DNA protein-based
metabolic
metazoic
nucleic
diploid
bilaterally-symmetrical
endothermic
digestive
tryploblast
opisthokont
deuterostome coelemate
enlarged cerebrial cortex
reduced olfactory region
jawed-skull
specialized teeth including canines and premolars
forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits
single temporal fenestra
vertebrate
hind-leg dominant
tetrapoidal skeleton
sacral pelvis
clavical
wrist & ankle bones
lungs
tear ducts
body-wide hair follicles
lactal mammaries
opposable thumbs
keratinized dermis
embryonic development
placental birth
highly social lifestyle.

Can you find any of those that don't describe humans?
By the way... apes are a subset of primates.

Those are just physical descriptors. That's like not differentiating this:

"Estelle Eleanor Carothers = Estella an
American biologist was born in 1883
and is known for demonstration of an
independent chromosome assortment."

from this:

Are they the same creature? One some levels, yes.

 

[sfs]

I think a 'primate' is any animal that is:

Presumably you mean any animal species that has these characteristics. Individual primates may be missing several of them.

Can you find any of those that don't describe humans?
By the way... apes are a subset of primates.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Has anyone denied that humans are primates, or that apes are a subset of primates?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think that "Hind leg dominant" could be applied, as there are some species of ape that brachiate - swing from their arms, rarely using their legs.

 

[USincognito]

I think a 'primate' is any animal that is:

I posted this a few days ago.

And just because I love this page from the national zoo:
Unique Characteristics of Primateness - National Zoo| FONZ

 

[USincognito]

Those are just physical descriptors. That's like not differentiating this:{snip}

You do realize that if things posess characteristics of a group, if they posess other characteristics, that doesn't remove them from that group, right?

For instance, genetically and physically I could only be described as a Northern European. This is despite the fact that none of my ancestors have lived in Northern Europe for at least 240 years.

Similarly, why my the last common ancestors I share with my fellow hominids lived 6-15 million yeas ago, that doesn't change the fact that I'm a hominid and colloquially an ape.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think a 'primate' is any animal that is:

gill-less
organic RNA/DNA protein-based
metabolic
metazoic
nucleic
diploid
bilaterally-symmetrical
endothermic
digestive
tryploblast
opisthokont
deuterostome coelemate
enlarged cerebrial cortex
reduced olfactory region
jawed-skull
specialized teeth including canines and premolars
forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits
single temporal fenestra
vertebrate
hind-leg dominant
tetrapoidal skeleton
sacral pelvis
clavical
wrist & ankle bones
lungs
tear ducts
body-wide hair follicles
lactal mammaries
opposable thumbs
keratinized dermis
embryonic development
placental birth
highly social lifestyle.

A lot of these traits could be used to describe many mammals (bilateral symmetry, lungs, body hair, specialized teeth etc.). In fact all of these traits could be used to describe monkeys as well as apes.

I don't think that "Hind leg dominant" could be applied, as there are some species of ape that brachiate - swing from their arms, rarely using their legs.

Perhaps "hind leg dominant" could be used to distinguish hominins from other apes, especially since some of them had not yet developed full bipedalism.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Sorry I dropped out here -- I've been doing other things. As for a statement of my current position, I'll just quote what I wrote earlier:

I'm keeping things simple here.

I've looked into the history of the word, and as you say, the word is changing. But it's not just the meaning of "ape" that has changed. The whole classification of humans versus apes has changed, e.g. with the shockingly recent dropping of the family Pongidae, which was basically apes minus humans. This has been replaced by Hominidae, which includes humans.

That there are examples of scientific papers which use the old meaning of "ape" is not surprising because the meaning is still in the process of changing. But there is a growing (and correct) use of the word "ape" in science and general language to mean Homindae.

You are saying that because there is a widely used meaning of "ape" which does not include humans, that the completely unqualified statement "humans are not apes" is therefore valid.

I disagree, because the statement is too strong. There is nothing in context or language in that simple phrase which restricts it to an "everyday" interpretation. And hence for it to be true, then it would have to be true in all contexts. It isn't, and hence the statement requires further context or disambiguating language so that it excludes the contexts where it is false.

 

[DaneaFL]

A lot of these traits could be used to describe many mammals (bilateral symmetry, lungs, body hair, specialized teeth etc.). In fact all of these traits could be used to describe monkeys as well as apes.

That's the whole point! Yes, a lot of those traits are shared with mammals, that's why we are a subset of mammal!

But not ALL of them are shared by ALL mammals. That's why we are specifically classed as apes.

and yes, all of those traits are used to describe monkeys and apes This is exactly what genetics and the fossil record indicates -that humans evolved as a branch of apes.

Since the objections you just posted are actually confirmations of common ancestry, it seems you don't really get how evolution works yet.

Learn about phylogeny:

Falsifying Phylogeny - YouTube

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Since the objections you just posted are actually confirmations of common ancestry, it seems you don't really get how evolution works yet.

Learn about phylogeny

Why are armchair evolutionists so adamant that people whose ideas differ from what their favourite YouTube videos say must know nothing about evolution?

What was the phrase again? Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs?

 

[Guy1]

Why are armchair evolutionists so adamant that people whose ideas differ from what their favourite YouTube videos say must know nothing about evolution?

Because these are fundamental ideas that form the foundation of evolutionary biology. If you don't understand these simple concepts then you don't get the theory at it's most fundamental levels. These YouTube videos (Particularly the one she posted) are made by scientists who work with this stuff every day of their lives.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Because these are fundamental ideas that form the foundation of evolutionary biology. If you don't understand these simple concepts then you don't get the theory at it's most fundamental levels. These YouTube videos (Particularly the one she posted) are made by scientists who work with this stuff every day of their lives.

And what makes you think I don't understand phylogenetics ... ? And please don't say "Because you don't think humans are apes".

 

[Guy1]

And what makes you think I don't understand phylogenics ... ? And please don't say "Because you don't think humans are apes".

I made no comments whatsoever regarding your knowledge on the subject. So I don't see why you're getting like this.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I made no comments whatsoever regarding your knowledge on the subject. So I don't see why you're getting like this.

I know you didn't, but DaneaFL did. So when you wrote "If you don't understand these simple concepts then you don't get the theory at it's most fundamental levels" I thought you were referring to me specifically.

 

[Guy1]

I know you didn't, but DaneaFL did. So when you wrote "If you don't understand these simple concepts then you don't get the theory at it's most fundamental levels" I thought you were referring to me specifically.

It's a simple mis-communication then. I apologize.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

It's a simple mis-communication then. I apologize.

I think this whole thread is a lesson in how some statements (e.g. "Humans are not apes") are magnets for all sorts of misunderstanding and miscommunication. As someone said earlier, it's a mischievous statement.

 

[mkatzwork]

So the point is...'ape' is not such a great word as it has colloquial connotations that confuse the issue.

I guess my point is...is that really under discussion? It seems entirely true to me, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything scientifically. There are many words with different connotations to different people, and we can look back to the etymology of the word from the Proto-Germanic and beyond, and speculate, but it's just a word.

It doesn't change the observed evidence, but it does open up a possibility for perfectly valid science to be attacked purely from semantical distinctions that are really nothing but a peripheral noise.

Hawks has interesting semantical views and argues them well, but his views on evolution and creationism are pretty straight up and down, so it's not a hugely relevant thing other to point out to us that we need to be wary of this kind of attack (which is the creationists' favorite kind of attack, after all, as the evidence isn't on their side).

creationism | john hawks weblog

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So the point is...'ape' is not such a great word as it has colloquial connotations that confuse the issue.

I guess my point is...is that really under discussion? It seems entirely true to me, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything scientifically. There are many words with different connotations to different people, and we can look back to the etymology of the word from the Proto-Germanic and beyond, and speculate, but it's just a word.

For a taxonomist it probably matters. "Pongidae" was used right up until the 1970s. It fell out of use when molecular biology proved that African apes were more closely related to humans than Eastern apes.

It also proved just how closely we were related - there's not much genetic distance between us and chimps. But the term "Hominini" (the group humans and chimps belong to) was only invented in 1989.

Perhaps distinguishing "ape" from "hominin" may also help to emphasize which animals were the first human ancestors.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

For a taxonomist it probably matters. "Pongidae" was used right up until the 1970s. It fell out of use when molecular biology proved that African apes were more closely related to humans than Eastern apes.

It also proved just how closely we were related - there's not much genetic distance between us and chimps. But the term "Hominini" (the group humans and chimps belong to) was only invented in 1989.

Wikipedia says that "Pongidae" was used up until the last few years of the 20th century. Looking around, I find evidence that it's still being used now. E.g. Pongidae (Great Apes) From a scientific view, incorrectly, but it takes time for knowledge to disseminate, and for word usage to change.

Perhaps distinguishing "ape" from "hominin" may also help to emphasize which animals were the first human ancestors.

I can't see how apes need to be distinguished from "hominin", as "hominin" is a subgroup of Homindae, and therefore a subgroup of Hominoidea. The Hominoidea are the apes. The Homindae are the great apes, and the hominins are chimps, bonobos, and us. I can't see why "ape" should be distinguished from "hominin", as I don't think anyone uses "ape" to mean the group that just has chimps, bonobos, and us.

Both in science (as usage of Pongidae is replaced by Hominoidea and Homindae), and in general usage (as "ape" becomes equivalent to Hominoidea), the meanings of these words are being corrected.

 

[USincognito]

I think this whole thread is a lesson in how some statements (e.g. "Humans are not apes") are magnets for all sorts of misunderstanding and miscommunication. As someone said earlier, it's a mischievous statement.

On the flipside however, "humans are apres", when averred in a vacuum, is just as mischievous.