My great great granfather was not a monkey!!!!!

[john crawford]

Such new genes are also inherited. The gene with a mutation is a modification of an inherited gene. So it is still an indication of a relationship with the person or species it was inherited from.

That's a meaningless tautology.

And you have not answered the original question. How can you tell the difference between a gene that is inherited and one that is not?

C'mon, professor, you tell me what your genetic riddles have to do with human 'speciation' since the whole human genome can only account for gradual raciation within the human species and there is no genetic evidence of human speciation in the past.

 

[john crawford]

Excuse me, but "hominoid" = "ape" and "ape" = "hominoid".
--Word reference "hominoid"

The two words are synonemous; they mean exactly the same thing.
--University of Manitoba / Anthropology / Course 121 / Primatology / "hominoid"

Those are only Darwinist definitions based on shared common traits in the physiological/structural designs of human beings and anthropoid apes. You don't take such Darwinist symbolism or designs literally, do you? They just mean we are anatomically and organically designed similarly to non-human apes. One can't reasonably or logically classify human beings in the same family as non-human apes and expect anyone other than fellow Darwinists to take them seriously.

 

[Caphi]

Those are only Darwinist definitions based on shared common traits in the physiological/structural designs of human beings and anthropoid apes.

Can you think of a better way to classify things?

You don't take such Darwinist symbolism or designs literally, do you? They just mean we are anatomically and organically designed similarly to non-human apes.

Then whence comes the difference between humans and lizards?

One can't reasonably or logically classify human beings in the same family as non-human apes and expect anyone other than fellow Darwinists to take them seriously.

Sure they can. It's backed up by physiology and genetics.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Excuse me, but "hominoid" = "ape" and "ape" = "hominoid".
--Word reference "hominoid"

The two words are synonemous; they mean exactly the same thing.
--University of Manitoba / Anthropology / Course 121 / Primatology / "hominoid"

I may be wrong, but I belive that hominoid does not equal Ape. An ape is large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae. The human is the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

 

[gluadys]

I may be wrong, but I belive that hominoid does not equal Ape. An ape is large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae. The human is the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

The family Pongidae is an obsolete term. It no longer exists in current phylogenies. The great apes and humans are both placed in the family Hominidae as they do not differ enough from each other to warrant separate familial classification.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I may be wrong, but I belive that hominoid does not equal Ape. An ape is large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae. The human is the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

I just gave you a dictionary reference that included an anthropological cladogram in addition to a university level primatology course definition, and you think you can trump both of those with Dictionary.com?! You didn't even look up the right word! You just read the definition for "hominid" not "hominoid". There is a difference. "Pongo" is now a genus which includes only orangutans, Sivapithecus and Gigantopithecus. Otherwise, hominids are the "large" apes, and include pongids, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans, australopithecines, paranthropines, dryopithecus, etc. "Hominoids" include not just the "great" [large] apes, but the lesser apes too, like gibbons, siamangs, Proconsul, and Aegytopithecus.

 

[Timmothy]

I dont know if this is right. But I think apes have different DNA than humans.

 

[john crawford]

The family Pongidae is an obsolete term. It no longer exists in current phylogenies. The great apes and humans are both placed in the family Hominidae as they do not differ enough from each other to warrant separate familial classification.

The great apes and humans are only placed in the Hominidae family by Racial Darwinists though who confuse common design with common origins. Normal humans have their own family trees of genealogical descent.

 

[john crawford]

I just gave you a dictionary reference that included an anthropological cladogram in addition to a university level primatology course definition, and you think you can trump both of those with Dictionary.com?!

Ooo, definitional supremacy rears it's superior anthropological and academic head.

You didn't even look up the right word! You just read the definition for "hominid" not "hominoid". There is a difference.

Is there a difference between hominids, hominoids and humans though? If so, don't humans rate their own family taxon? Why stick us on some branch of the Darwinist Hominoidae superfamily?

"Pongo" is now a genus which includes only orangutans, Sivapithecus and Gigantopithecus. Otherwise, hominids are the "large" apes, and include pongids, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans, australopithecines, paranthropines, dryopithecus, etc. "Hominoids" include not just the "great" [large] apes, but the lesser apes too, like gibbons, siamangs, Proconsul, and Aegytopithecus.

That's evolution for you. All the apes, branches and trees get changed and rearranged by Racial Darwinists in the Hominidae family branch on the great tree of the Hominoidea superfamily.

 

[john crawford]

I dont know if this is right. But I think apes have different DNA than humans.

I should hope so. Even chimpanzees and Neanderthals differ from other apes.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I should hope so. Even chimpanzees and Neanderthals differ from other apes.

Wow John. I don't know what to say. You're right! YOU are actually right about something!

 

[Aron-Ra]

I dont know if this is right. But I think apes have different DNA than humans.

Let me ask you this; do mammals have different DNA than humans do? How about vertebrates?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Is there a difference between hominids, hominoids and humans though?

No. Humans are members of both of these. Is there a difference between ducks, birds, and waterfowl?

If so, don't humans rate their own family taxon?

We have that too. In addition to each of the parent groups, we also have our own genus. So you're not just a Hominoid and hominid and a hominine too, but you're also a homo!

Why stick us on some branch of the Darwinist Hominoidae superfamily?

That's just the fact, Jack.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Kudos for Anon for still trying to explain. But John seems to make up his own definitions of things. I'm still not even sure of his definition of racism, no matter how many tiems he repeat it.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Lol

Maybe he understands pictures?

 

[Jet Black]

I dont know if this is right. But I think apes have different DNA than humans.

no, you're wrong.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10751034&postcount=9

 

[MQTA]

no, you're wrong.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10751034&postcount=9

thanks for pointing that out, excellent resource thread. Thanks for your awesome contributions to it, too

 

[john crawford]

Can you think of a better way to classify things?

Sure. Start out by identifying and classifying Human beings as the only creatures capable of designing and creating phylogenetic classification systems in which they have the taxonomic power to place themselves in a unique and special category from which all other creatures may be biologically related to.

In other words, invert the order of the Darwinist tree of life from least complex cellular forms ascending over time to the most complex form of all, and arrange the phylogenies in a descending taxonomic order starting with human intelligence and complexity at the top since all other forms of life may be shown to be related to the human taxon in some way, whether it be according to families, orders, classes or phyla.

 

[john crawford]

Wow John. I don't know what to say. You're right! YOU are actually right about something!

Shucks, thanks, Aron-Ra. I knew we'd both be right about something sooner or later.

 

[Caphi]

Sure. Start out by identifying and classifying Human beings as the only creatures capable of designing and creating phylogenetic classification systems in which they have the taxonomic power to place themselves in a unique and special category from which all other creatures may be biologically related to.

In other words, invert the order of the Darwinist tree of life from least complex cellular forms ascending over time to the most complex form of all, and arrange the phylogenies in a descending taxonomic order starting with human intelligence and complexity at the top since all other forms of life may be shown to be related to the human taxon in some way, whether it be according to families, orders, classes or phyla.

Instead, why not start with the most general properties and work your way down to the specifics? For instance, a eukaryote which has cellulose cell walls can be a plant, while a eukaryote with no such cell walls will be either a fungus or an animal, depending on whether it reproduces by spore or not. Under animals, we can divide them into further phyla based on whether they have gills and bones, gills and cartilage, scaly skin and exotherm, etc. Under the ones which possess, say, a backbone, fur and a placenta, we can pick out the ones which have similar body features like a long snout and so on. A certain set of such animals will be red, have large, pointed ears and a long bushy tail. And that's how we get from kingdom Animalia to Vulpes vulpes, the common red fox.

Makes much more sense than using the Bible as the basis for division of species, yes?