Here we go ...
I couldn't help myself.
Upvote
0
Here we go ...
Your last sentence is exactly correct -- except that the premise is wrong. "Ape" has no formal taxonomic meaning in zoology. That's precisely Hawks's point, in fact: "ape" is not a scientific term. I have seen pro-evolution people arguing that we should change the meaning of the word, to include humans, for the purpose of changing public perception, but there's no question that right now "ape" does not normally include humans.
Thanks, I'll read it when this hangover has gone.If you'd like to read the entire post, the link to his blog is in my OP - but here's a longer excerpt which might clear things up:
I would argue that we are just another species of animal.Are humans just another species of animal or are we something more? I'd like to think we're something more.
That's really cute. Sadly for you this forum is used (At least by my guys) to discuss what we find, as opposed to what we'd like to think.
Paleontologists are not linguists, so why should you care what they think?I admit to being stumped by this one because (1) twice I've been interrupted by paleontologists who assured me that humans are indeed apes, and (2) I'm certain that I've heard Richard Dawkins say that humans are apes.
I didn't quote from Hawks's article.And just a little bit of searching on Google left me even more confused. But I *did* manage to discover that John Hawk's article you quoted from is considered controversial and whether or not it affirms what its the last word on humans<>apes depends on lots of fun complications.
So, your point above could be analogised to: "parrots evolved from birds, and therefore parrots are not birds". Parrots will have evolved from another type of bird, but because "bird" refers to a large grouping, that doesn't mean that parrots are not part of it. We can't really say that golden lorikeets, one species I think, evolved from birds, because it's a bird itself. To say "golden lorikeets evolved from birds", the way I interpret it, includes an implicit error which is that it says that golden lorikeets are not birds.
(I think this will cause much less argument than the Archaeopteryx images
Only the ones without your tail feathers.....You have images of me? Should I be concerned?
Humans ARE apes.
Paleontologists are not linguists, so why should you care what they think?
On the contrary, it is indeed a linguistic one. Did you not read the OP, or Hawks's piece? The argument he's making is entirely a linguistic one, about the acceptable uses of the word "ape".Because the issue really isn't a linguistic debate per se.
You're in a different debate than the one Hawks is engaging in. He has no doubt that humans and apes form a clade, but he argues that humans are not apes on linguistic grounds. His argument has zero to do with the origin of humans.It is a debate (and an emotive one at that) because it is about ORIGINS. So the scientists who work in origins fields DO MATTER in such a debate.
Real linguists have more important issues to argue about. This is an argument about linguistic trivialities among nonlinguists.If the debate was simply an argument over trivialities among linguists, I would agree with you.
This sort of empty, pithy response is exactly the sort of stuff I'd expect from Creationists and something I decry when science advocates toss out bon mots like "every species is transitional".
There's no time limit on the Internet. Take a few minutes to explain what you are saying in detail - as a number of us already have in this thread. "Ape" is a laymans term that lacks precise scientific value. It doesn't take much more typing to explain semantics vs. phylogenetic classifications and provide a link or two.
Could you please do the rest of us the courtesy of reading the thread before replying, or at least reading the post (the OP) you're ostensibly commenting on? Your response has nothing to do with the argument actually advanced in the first post.Pithy? No! Succinct? Yes!
Humans ARE apes! Accept this fact and move on. It is not up to us to educate. This simple fact does NOT require an elaborate response. This is a simple fact that the author of this thread failed to learn at school and has decided to waste our time with it. Your reply is a waste of time, this very response to you is a waste of time!
Could you please do the rest of us the courtesy of reading the thread before replying, or at least reading the post (the OP) you're ostensibly commenting on? Your response has nothing to do with the argument actually advanced in the first post.
The first post is NOT an argument, its a personal opinion, an opinion that is as trivial as the title of this thread is misleading. A "play" on words. There are certain traits that distinguish an ape from other primates. Homo sapiens (and the 4 other great apes) have all these traits which include traits like our dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a "Y" shaped crevasse. This, taken together with all of our other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, and of course lack of tail (we have only a coccyx) which gives us a set of characteristics which ONLY apes share! There is nothing remarkable about homo sapiens belonging to the great apes. This was argued centuries ago. Its 2012 now we should be discussing more remarkable discoveries like our close genetic relationship to a fruit fly or a rat.
--------------------------------Many evolutionary biologists state as if it were an unquestionable fact that humans are apes. I disagree.
Chimpanzees are apes. Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. We routinely differentiate the "great apes" from the "lesser apes", where the latter are gibbons and siamangs. Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren't monkeys.
What's the difference?
"Ape" is an English word. It is not a taxonomic term. English words do not need to be monophyletic. French, German, Russian, and other languages do not have to accord with English ways of splitting up animals. Taxonomy is international -- everywhere, we recognize that humans are hominoids.
In French, apes are singes. So are monkeys. In English we differentiate these terms. In both languages humans are different from other primates. Does that mean French is right and English wrong? Does it mean both languages are wrong?
No, it means that colloquial languages have no problem describing paraphyletic groups. It is useful to have languages that can make these distinctions.
If we must accept that humans are apes, then we must equally accept that chimpanzees are monkeys, and those awful parents at the zoo are right. I don't. I see value in precision about phylogeny, and for that purpose I have taxonomic terms. Humans are hominoids, and anthropoids, and haplorhines, and primates. And mammals.
So human's aren't apes in the same sense that chimps aren't monkeys.
I felt like posting this because, even though some of them obviously have a pretty loose grasp of biology, when a creationist says "Those fossils aren't human ancestors, they're just apes", I don't think it helps when we say "Humans ARE apes."
This is like saying "They're both canines" to someone trying to discuss the differences between wolves and dogs.
It's a shame that the phrase "Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" has dropped out of usage. It would come in handy here.Well, clearly you've shown that sfs doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to human/chimp common ancestry.
The linguistic side to the argument is based on a fallacy. "Ape", like many English words, has more than one meaning.
The easiest way to show this is to consider the word "animal". In any sort of biological/scientific usage, humans are animals. But there are dictionary definitions that reflect the usage where it is applied only non-human animals.
Noting that there is such a usage doesn't in any way justify the claim "humans are not animals" in the context of a discussion of evolution and evolutionary relationships.
Exactly the same applies to "ape". Biologically, there is a clear definition, and that is that humans are apes.
Not only are we "apes", but we're not even, in genetic/evolutionary terms, "out on a limb". We are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than we and chimps/bonobos are related to orang-utans, gorillas, and gibbons.