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

[Grengor]

And what are the requirements to be in that order?

 

[john crawford]

See? I told creationists won't answer that question!

What do you mean? I just did in Post #11. Monkey see - monkey do.

 

[john crawford]

And what are the requirements to be in that order?

The requirements for being in a Human order and Human family of primates would be determined by Human beings like ourselves who don't wish to be included in a neo-Darwinist order of primates or a neo-Darwinist superfamily of Hominoidea.

Normal powers of human speech ought to qualify most humans for unique membership in a Human order and family of primates. Anything else like the unique form of intelligence, consciousness and personalities of human beings in comparison to other animals, may equally be considered as valid qualifications for membership in the human race, family and order.

 

[Grummpy]

Normal powers of human speech ought to qualify most humans for unique membership in a Human order and family of primates.

So Koko the gorilla can join your little club, or do you reject all applicants who speak sign??? (google Koko)

Grummpy

 

[Aron-Ra]

Yes, but once we arrive at the primate order, a creationist subset of that order will put humans in a mammalian taxonomic class and family of their own order even though we still share a few special physical traits with other primates in their families.

Of course, they have to -since their faith is not in God per se, but in fables written by men pretending to speak for God. So to defend these fables, creationists are forced to create false taxonomies to try and sever men from the other anthropoids. But the fact remains that they cannot either by morphology, physiology, development or genetics. In all respects, men are apes, and a subset of monkeys, -no matter how much some men would rather pretend to be golems made out of dirt. When you put away the blinders of dogmatism, you realize immediately that we a apart of nature, not apart from it.

 

[gluadys]

Are you equating or just comparing people like Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed to rats, pigs, snakes, skunks, weasels and vultures?

Are you suggesting that Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed were not people? Are you suggesting that none of them gestated in a womb in which they were surrounded by an amniotic membrane?

Well, rats, pigs, skunks and weasels do, too. And embryonic snakes and vultures are protected by an amniotic membrane in their eggs. (yes, I know some snakes are born live, but they too are amniotes.)

 

[gluadys]

Yes, but once we arrive at the primate order, a creationist subset of that order will put humans in a mammalian taxonomic class and family of their own order even though we still share a few special physical traits with other primates in their families.

Arriving at the primate order does not cancel the fact that primates are mammals and all mammals, including all primates are amniotes. We share all the characteristics that are common to all amniotes. We share all the characteristics which are common to all mammals (and which differentiate mammals from other amniotes). We share all the characteristics that are common to all primates (and differentiate them from other mammals.) And we have particular characteristics which we share only with other humans, and differentiate humans from other primates.

 

[Omacron]

Arriving at the primate order does not cancel the fact that primates are mammals and all mammals, including all primates are amniotes. We share all the characteristics that are common to all amniotes. We share all the characteristics which are common to all mammals (and which differentiate mammals from other amniotes). We share all the characteristics that are common to all primates (and differentiate them from other mammals.) And we have particular characteristics which we share only with other humans, and differentiate humans from other primates.

Kudos to you Gluadys. I could never understand why some people have such impoverished egos. They try their best to make themselfs out to be more than they really are in an effort to bolster that ego. Why can't they just accept that they are what God has made them? That no amount of myth, emotionalism, pseudoscience or illogic will change that. Just because ape and man have a common ancestor dosn't mean he loves us less or them more. He loves and cares for us all.

Matthew 6


25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

 

[cwolf20]

weird and random thought. How many apes want to beat monkeys about the head with sticks because they're too annoying to be related?

According to self-identified neo-Darwinist monkeys though, apes are monkeys too.

 

[Omacron]

mon·key n. pl. mon·keys

1. Any of various long-tailed, medium-sized members of the order Primates, including the macaques, baboons, guenons, capuchins, marmosets, and tamarins and excluding the anthropoid apes and the prosimians.

ape n.

1. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.

I hope this helps.

 

[Cassandra]

perhaps it would've been better if the OP had said "My Great Great Grandfather was not a chimpanzee!!!!!" that way 2 pages wouldn't be wasted discussing what a monkey is/isn't.

 

[Tomk80]

But then again, that discussion does hit one of the central issues exactly in the bulls-eye.

 

[Dannager]

Sorry, John. By the commonly accepted scientific definition, you are an ape. You can whine about how it's racist all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're an ape, your father was an ape, and his father was an ape. Reality doesn't care what you think or reject, so please stop wasting your words here.

 

[Silent Bob]

We are all apes. Except for those who are AI bots and the Marklars who are Marklar.

 

[Beastt]

The requirements for being in a Human order and Human family of primates would be determined by Human beings like ourselves who don't wish to be included in a neo-Darwinist order of primates or a neo-Darwinist superfamily of Hominoidea.

Okay John, I'm willing to hear you out. If you were to re-establish biological classifications, what physical traits possessed by humans would you utilize to suggest that they should be classified as other than an ape?

Normal powers of human speech ought to qualify most humans for unique membership in a Human order and family of primates. Anything else like the unique form of intelligence, consciousness and personalities of human beings in comparison to other animals, may equally be considered as valid qualifications for membership in the human race, family and order.

You're attempting to suggest that the "power" of human speech might suggest that we be classified as other than an ape. But can you show that our sounds somehow separate us uniquely in a way that other primate sounds do not? How do we exclude parrots such as Alex, the African Gray at the University of Arizona who not only speaks English but applies his words, phrases and comments in a proper context. He can answer questions about the number of objects presented to him, the color, shape and texture of objects and has even invented his own phrases from existing words to lend greater understanding to words where it was perhaps more obvious to him that the words he'd been taught provided insufficient distinction. Now surely, Alex isn't a primate, but in possessing that which you present as unique to humans, it would seem that such a defining trait would need to be excluded from the traits used to classify humans as other than apes.

So what is it about humans, based on a biological classification, which you feel is obvious enough, confirmable and separates us from the other apes?

 

[Cassandra]

But then again, that discussion does hit one of the central issues exactly in the bulls-eye.

What? That people need to brush up on their taxonomy? Maybe it's silly to me because it's so simple...

 

[Aron-Ra]

mon·key n. pl. mon·keys

1. Any of various long-tailed, medium-sized members of the order Primates, including the macaques, baboons, guenons, capuchins, marmosets, and tamarins and excluding the anthropoid apes and the prosimians.

ape n.

1. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.

I hope this helps.

I have consistently seen that layman dictionaries are lousy biology teachers. First of all, there are plenty of what you would call "monkeys" that have either short tails or no tails at all. Secondly, this definition very old. In the last few years, molecular data has forced a redefinition of both "monkey" and "ape". It used to be that chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans were all in the genus, Pongo, (as this definition still believes) and that humans were in a separate genus called Hominidae. Well now, orangutans are the only apes still considered Pongids, and even they (along with chimps and gorillas) are all in the family Hominidae along with us. The word, Hominidae is now synonemous with the term, "great apes".

Homindae - According to Wikipedia
Hominidae - According to systematics

 

[Lignoba]

Wrong. Even among just the animals you would accept as monkeys, they do have opposable thumbs, and many of them do not have tails.

If you're going to define a group of anything, you have to define it by the characters common to every member of that group. And you can't do that with monkeys without describing apes too. And you can't describe the traits common to all apes without describing people at the same time.

Read the link I gave you which defines Haplorhini precisely, and you'll better understand what I mean.

I wouldnt say many of them have no tails, and I have yet to see a monkey with opposable thumbs, most of them have hands designed much like our feet are designed where all the digits can only bend in one direction.

This also explains a lot of the obvious differences

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question660.htm

 

[john crawford]

So Koko the gorilla can join your little club, or do you reject all applicants who speak sign?

Gorillas don't belong in a Human family or suborder of Human primates, so they get their own family taxon to sit on a branch in our creationist phylogenic tree.

 

[Omacron]

I have consistently seen that layman dictionaries are lousy biology teachers. First of all, there are plenty of what you would call "monkeys" that have either short tails or no tails at all. Secondly, this definition very old. In the last few years, molecular data has forced a redefinition of both "monkey" and "ape". It used to be that chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans were all in the genus, Pongo, (as this definition still believes) and that humans were in a separate genus called Hominidae. Well now, orangutans are the only apes still considered Pongids, and even they (along with chimps and gorillas) are all in the family Hominidae along with us. The word, Hominidae is now synonemous with the term, "great apes".

Homindae - According to Wikipedia
Hominidae - According to systematics

Hey cool. Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that.