Your Age, My Assertion, Your Fallacy

[Tomk80]

Jet did not tell you about the Cerebellum or the frontal lobes did she. She did not mention the other genetic and anatomical differences and the definition is highly subjective anyway. The issue is not whether or not we have things in common with apes but whether or not we have a common ancestor, which we don't.

Have a nice day
Mark

The fact is that we are apes, regardless of whether we have a common ancestor with the other apes. The differences don't enter into that. If you define all apes (as in the great apes) you end up defining humans as well. That's all.

 

[LittleNipper]

The fact is that we are apes, regardless of whether we have a common ancestor with the other apes. The differences don't enter into that. If you define all apes (as in the great apes) you end up defining humans as well. That's all.

Well, since most kids today, walk hunched over and drag their knuckles as they waddle from side to side, I guess I would have to agree with your observed classification.

 

[Schroeder]

The fact is that we are apes, regardless of whether we have a common ancestor with the other apes. The differences don't enter into that. If you define all apes (as in the great apes) you end up defining humans as well. That's all.

no i think we are or we are not. cats and dogs have similiar charictaristics but a cat isnt a dog. they are mammals but that is it. since we have more then Apes we are not apes. even if we did come from apes, we are not apes now. otherwise we would just be a subspecies of apes or a different type of ape. if differences didnt matter and only charicteristics most mammals would all be called the same thing what ever the first one came to be and was called.

 

[Army of Juan]

no i think we are or we are not. cats and dogs have similiar charictaristics but a cat isnt a dog. they are mammals but that is it. since we have more then Apes we are not apes. even if we did come from apes, we are not apes now. otherwise we would just be a subspecies of apes or a different type of ape. if differences didnt matter and only charicteristics most mammals would all be called the same thing what ever the first one came to be and was called.

Cats and dogs are also both carnivores and share a common ancestor as well. The difference between a cat and dog is much greater than a human and say a chimpanzee, especially genetically.

We are a type of ape because we fit under the classification created for the ape family.

 

[Tomk80]

no i think we are or we are not. cats and dogs have similiar charictaristics but a cat isnt a dog. they are mammals but that is it.

Indeed. And if we go up, cats, tigers and lions are all Felidae (cat-like). And dogs, wolves etc all belong to the dog-like group (Canidae).

since we have more then Apes we are not apes.

That is just as nonsensical as saying that because a Ferrari has more of a motor as other cars, it is not a car. We are apes, just as a Ferrari is a car. The same way we are primates, eutheria, mammals and eukaryotes.

even if we did come from apes, we are not apes now.

Yes we are. If we describe all characters that other apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) have in common, we also describe us. That we have some characteristics that set us apart from the other apes doesn't make us less of an ape, just as the fact that a ferrari has certain characteristics that set it apart from other cars, does not make a Ferrari less of a car.

otherwise we would just be a subspecies of apes or a different type of ape. if differences didnt matter and only charicteristics most mammals would all be called the same thing what ever the first one came to be and was called.

That is like saying if differences didn't matter and only characteristics most cars would be called the same thing.

Ferraris, Peugeots, Fords, Mazdas and even Smarts are all cars. The same way gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans are all apes. Just as we are also primates and mammals. And that we belong to those groups doesn't make us any less human.

 

[LittleNipper]

Cats and dogs are also both carnivores and share a common ancestor as well. The difference between a cat and dog is much greater than a human and say a chimpanzee, especially genetically.

We are a type of ape because we fit under the classification created for the ape family.

Genetically, don't we have more in common with a Butter Bean? Humans are human. Evolutionists believe we evolved from a common ancestor with apes and so THEY and not reality has dictated how man is classified at the PRESENT.

 

[Tomk80]

Genetically, don't we have more in common with a Butter Bean?

No

Humans are human.

Correct. They are also apes, primates, mammals etc, but this doesn't make them any less human.

Evolutionists believe we evolved from a common ancestor with apes and so THEY and not reality has dictated how man is classified at the PRESENT.

Actually, it was the creationist Linneaus who first classified humans with the apes. Nothing evolutionists are particularly guilty of. Sorry.

 

[Tomk80]

It has struck me before, and strikes me now again, that the opposition creationists seem to have against the idea that humans are apes, is the inherent thought they seem to have that this makes humans less human. I can't help but wonder about that, because that is an idea so alien to me. Where does such a strange idea come from, that to belong to a certain group would make you somehow completely equal to all things in that group?

 

[LittleNipper]

No

Correct. They are also apes, primates, mammals etc, but this doesn't make them any less human.

Actually, it was the creationist Linneaus who first classified humans with the apes. Nothing evolutionists are particularly guilty of. Sorry.

Have you examined the DNA of Butter Bean and compaired it to that of humans? So creationists are right when it is convenient. A classification can be changed. It isn't written in store. Linneaus was just a mortal----as was Darwin the seminary student. GOD called Adam MAN. Adam called EVE woMAN. I see no reason that a man is to be classified as an animal unless one is attempting to prove something. Obviously, the "creationist" made a mistake in judgment. Something you seem to point out when it suits you..

 

[Tomk80]

Have you examined the DNA of Butter Bean and compaired it to that of humans?

Have you? I have examined the claim you made in the past, yes. It was false. But by all means, show me the evidence.

So creationists are right when it is concenient.

Creationists are right when they are right. They are wrong when they are wrong. Linneaus was right on this part of his classification, and wrong on other parts. But that doesn't matter. Your claim was that the classification of humans as apes is entirely dependent on evolution. I've shown you that this is not the case, that this classification has already been made independant of evolution.

A classification can be changed. It isn't written in store. Linneaus was just a mortal----as was Darwin the seminary student. GOD called Adam MAN. Adam called EVE woMAN. I see no reason that a man is to be classified as an animal unless one is attempting to prove something. Obviously, the "creationist" made a mistake in judgment. Something you seem to point out when it suits you..

If humans have all the characteristics of animals, they are animals. If they have all the characteristic of apes, they are also apes. Just as Kit from the nightrider will be classified as a car and also as a Pontiac, because Kit has all the characteristics of a car and all the characteristics of a Pontiac. Yes, Kit can talk and think (and apparantly has emotions), but that doesn't make him suddenly not a Pontiac or a car.

I will point out errors when I see them, whether by creationists or others. It is highly ironic that you are so confident that Linneaus was wrong, despite obviously never having studied his work and why he drew the conclusions he did. It is even more ironic that you point at me as taking data 'when it suits me', when you are doing exactly that at this moment.

 

[TheBigAl]

Have you examined the DNA of Butter Bean and compaired it to that of humans?

Have you?

So creationists are right when it is concenient.

Please explain this.

A classification can be changed. It isn't written in store. Linneaus was just a mortal----as was Darwin the seminary student. GOD called Adam MAN. Adam called EVE woMAN. I see no reason that a man is to be classified as an animal unless one is attempting to prove something. Obviously, the "creationist" made a mistake in judgment. Something you seem to point out when it suits you..

So, I’m guessing you would like to be classified in a other way. Will protista suit you? Or how about plantae? Fungi sounds good.

 

[Tomk80]

Have you?



Please explain this.



So, I’m guessing you would like to be classified in a other way. Will protista suit you? Or how about plantae? Fungi sounds good.

Yup, I think littlenipper is actually a fungus indeed

 

[LittleNipper]

Have you?



Please explain this.



So, I’m guessing you would like to be classified in a other way. Will protista suit you? Or how about plantae? Fungi sounds good.

I understand that there are striking simularities between the DNA but I don't believe humans were ever anything other then human.
The explanation is I hit a "c" instead of a "v". HUMAN error and not apa error.....
I would classify humans as "human"----they are not animals, as they alone were said to be created in the image of GOD. And humans named the animals and not the other way around.

 

[Tomk80]

I understand that there are striking simularities between the DNA but I don't believe humans were ever anything other then human.
The explanation is I hit a "c" instead of a "v". HUMAN error and not apa error.....
I would classify humans as "human"----they are not animals, as they alone were said to be created in the image of GOD. And humans named the animals and not the other way around.

Doesn't matter. They are animals by every definition of the word, created in the image of God or not.

 

[LittleNipper]

Doesn't matter. They are animals by every definition of the word, created in the image of God or not.

"Man", according to the Bible was created alittle lower then the angels. This is not said of any animal. The Bible says that GOD breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul. The Bible says that man was given dominion over all the animals. Man alone was given the right to subdue the land. Man is GOD's special creation. Animals were created for MAN's benefit.

 

[Tomk80]

"Man", according to the Bible was created alittle lower then the angels. This is not said of any animal. The Bible says that GOD breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul. The Bible says that man was given dominion over all the animals. Man alone was given the right to subdue the land. Man is GOD's special creation. Animals were created for MAN's benefit.

So what? If you define animals, you also define man. Live with it! You may not like the idea, but even if man is god's special creation, man is still also an animal. Just as Kit is Universal Studio's special creation, but is also still a car.

 

[TheBigAl]

I understand that there are striking simularities between the DNA but I don't believe humans were ever anything other then human.

The explanation is I hit a "c" instead of a "v". HUMAN error and not apa error.....
I would classify humans as "human"----they are not animals, as they alone were said to be created in the image of GOD. And humans named the animals and not the other way around.

We’re classified as animals, because thats what we are. Do you want to know what makes us animals? Here we GO!!!:

We digest food.
We walk.
We get rid of body waste.
We nurture our young.
We socialize.
We reproduce.
We live.
We die.
We fight with one another
We cooperate with one anohter.
We communicate.
We adapt.
We give life.
We take life (sadly).
Heck, even the usage of instruments makes us animals.
ETC...

 

[Guywiththehead]

"Man", according to the Bible was created alittle lower then the angels. This is not said of any animal. The Bible says that GOD breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul. The Bible says that man was given dominion over all the animals. Man alone was given the right to subdue the land. Man is GOD's special creation. Animals were created for MAN's benefit.

How do humans not fulfill this definition?

1. An organised living being endowed with sensation and the power of voluntary motion, and also characterised by taking its food into an internal cavity or stomach for digestion; by giving carbonic acid to the air and taking oxygen in the process of respiration; and by increasing in motive power or active aggressive force with progress to maturity.

Sorry, the Bible saying how special humans are doesn't change the fact that humans are animals.

 

[Nightson]

Nipper, shinbits, humans being animals doesn't mean anything more than we aren't bacteria, or fungi, or plants or anything like that.

Humans being mammals means we aren't fish or insects.

Humans being primates means we aren't cats or dogs.

Humans being apes means we have the characteristics of one branch of the primate family.

Whatever you do, DO NOT apply the casual definition of these words. Saying huamns are animals in a scientific context is not the same as saying it in ordinary context.

 

[ebia]

None of you guys has ever tried to teach maths to less able 12 year olds have you? Specificially tried to teach them that a square is a rectangle is a parrallelogram, ...

Why do I ask? Because if you had you would realise that the idea of classifying things based on properties - that anything that fits the properties fits the definition and therefore is in that category - is not an obvious concept for people. You can tell them it's true all you like, but until they really absorb that idea, telling them is a waste of breath. The more they have vested in their prior understanding (that a square is something different from a rectangle, or that a human is something different than an animal) the harder to break through that misconception.