why humans are not primates

[: D]

still not adequately discussed
bones - thinner lighter than all other primates
skulls/brains - impossible to compare to other primates
head hair - constant growth unlike all other primates
nails - must be trimmed unlike other primates
(this was answered for great apes but not all primates)
skin - not adapted to sunlight exposure like all other primates
(response left unanswered ^)
muscles - 5 to 10 times weaker for relative size compared to all other primates
adipose tissue - 10 times more body fat than all other primates
(someone kindly debunked the ToE narrative for this one ^)
locomotion - human locomotion different than all other primates
(response left unanswered ^)
speech 1 -throats completely different than all other primates
speech 2 -brain construction different than all other primates
penis bone - missing unlike all other primates
(response inadequate ^ and unanswered )
genetic disorders- 4000 not in primates
chromosomes - 46 compared to the primate 48
(response concluded tobacco, potatoes and great apes share the same chromosome count unlike humans and the antelope)

not quite a clean sweep but even at an early stage its obvious humans require their own classification.

: )

 

[Larniavc]

humans are obviously a stand alone species.

Please provide evidence that this this is the case because you could be wrong and a nice piece of evidence will end the discussion in your favour.

 

[: D]

Please provide evidence that this this is the case because you could be wrong and a nice piece of evidence will end the discussion in your favour.

still waiting on a few responses,
what's the hurry ?
feel free to dive in with evidence to the contrary.
I have requoted the unanswered or hanging issues.

 

[sfs]

how about you start a campaign to have pluto reinstated as a planet.

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

wasn't your sole argument that once classified things cannot be reclassified,
ergo humans are primates because someone said so in the 1800s.

No, that's never been my argument. Taxonomists reclassify things all the time; how things are classified in natural languages changes too. That just means the classification scheme is different now.

humans are obviously a stand alone species.

This is (a) simply wrong according to the people whose job it is to study species, and (b) not an answer to my question. What does it mean for a classification scheme to be wrong?

 

[Larniavc]

still waiting on a few responses,
what's the hurry ?
feel free to dive in with evidence to the contrary.
I have requoted the unanswered or hanging issues.

These points were rebutted in the second post; hardly hanging issues.

ABE: I went back and checked and you ignored post two in favour of getting into an argument with AV1611VET. Maybe you could address that post?

No hurry.

 

[: D]

These points were rebutted in the second post; hardly hanging issues.

ABE: I went back and checked and you ignored post two in favour of getting into an argument with AV1611VET. Maybe you could address that post?

No hurry.

ha ha ha,
in your rush to attack me you missed the part of the thread where the second post was addressed.

oops

: )

 

[: D]

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

No, that's never been my argument. Taxonomists reclassify things all the time; how things are classified in natural languages changes too. That just means the classification scheme is different now.

This is (a) simply wrong according to the people whose job it is to study species, and (b) not an answer to my question. What does it mean for a classification scheme to be wrong?

well, because it was decided the classification of pluto was wrong, and it was reclassified.

in my opinion the primate classification for humans is wrong and should be re-evaluated and reclassified as a stand alone entity.

in the name of accuracy.
its that simple.


: )

 

[AirPo]

well, because it was decided the classification of pluto was wrong, and it was reclassified.

in my opinion the primate classification for humans is wrong and should be re-evaluated and reclassified as a stand alone entity.

in the name of accuracy.
its that simple.


: )

Any reason to believe your opinion on the subject should carry any weight?

 

[: D]

Any reason to believe your opinion on the subject should carry any weight?

is my opinion worth less than another humans opinion ?

 

[AirPo]

is my opinion worth less than another humans opinion ?

In some cases, yes.

 

[HitchSlap]

is my opinion worth less than another humans opinion ?

One's opinion is only "worth" something when it's correct.

 

[: D]

In some cases, yes.

explain,
an opinion holds weight regardless of who is expressing it.
in your opinion that may be wrong,
but then that would only be your opinion.

 

[: D]

One's opinion is only "worth" something when it's correct.

in my opinion that's cobblers.

: )

 

[AirPo]

explain,
an opinion holds weight regardless of who is expressing it.
in your opinion that may be wrong,
but then that would only be your opinion.

No it doesn't.

As has been pointed out, the opinion of taxonomists carry far more weight than yours when discussing taxonomy. Unless, of course, you are also a qualified taxonomist.

 

[HitchSlap]

in my opinion that's cobblers.

: )

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[: D]

No it doesn't.

As has been pointed out, the opinion of taxonomists carry far more weight than yours when discussiong taxonomy. Unless, of course, you are also a qualified taxonomist.

so the taxonomists are beyond reproach ?

is this the case of all "authorities" ?

 

[HitchSlap]

so the taxonomists are beyond reproach ?

is this the case of all "authorities" ?

Yes, it's the case with all "authorities."

 

[bhsmte]

is my opinion worth less than another humans opinion ?

That would depend on the expertise in regards to the topic you demonstrate.

 

[bhsmte]

explain,
an opinion holds weight regardless of who is expressing it.
in your opinion that may be wrong,
but then that would only be your opinion.

If you had a significant cardiac health issue, would you give the same weight of opinion to your accountant, as you would a cardiologist?

 

[Aman777]

in my opinion the primate classification for humans is wrong and should be re-evaluated and reclassified as a stand alone entity.

One's opinion is only "worth" something when it's correct.

Amen, and here's God's Word on it:

Humans (man) was made on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 long BEFORE any other living creature, since everything else was made, from the Water, on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 which was some 10 Billion years AFTER Adam was made. All other living creatures began only 3.77 Billion years ago, in the Water, EXACTLY as God tells us. Scripture and Science AGREE. Amen?