|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Inkorrekt, like all humans, an ape? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In this thread Inkorrekt asserts that he "is not an ape."
What evidence is there that Inkorrekt like any human is or is not an ape?
edited to change title and include all humans This message has been edited by jar, 03-04-2006 08:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSchraf Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Could I suggest a change in title?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
He is, if he is human. Humans are primates, which if a form of Ape. From a biological point of view, all humans are a species of ape. The various now extinct forms of hominads were apes too.
I will assume that Inkorrekt is human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: |
Humans are primates, which if a form of Ape. I don't think this is correct. "Apes" are in the order Primates, but not all primates are apes. From here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_7.htm
Apes and humans differ from all of the other primates in that they lack external tails. For reference, here is the hierarchy from http://www.itis.usda.gov for Homo sapiens (with authorities and common names): Kingdom Animalia -- Animal, animals, animauxPhylum Chordata -- chordates, cordado, cordés Subphylum Vertebrata -- vertebrado, vertebrates, vertébrés Class Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 -- mamífero, mammals, mammifres Subclass Theria Parker and Haswell, 1897 Infraclass Eutheria Gill, 1872 Order Primates Linnaeus, 1758 -- homem, macaco, primata, primates, primates, sagui Family Hominidae Gray, 1825 -- man-like primates Genus Homo Linnaeus, 1758 -- hominoids Species Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 -- human, man --spelling error corrected This message has been edited by Michael, 03-04-2006 09:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: |
From here it seems that the superfamily Hominoidea is synonymous with "apes"--though they are a bit sloppy with the terminology at the top of the page. I will go ahead and insert this into the ITIS hierarchy. Note that they seem to be making a distinction between apes and humans however.
Homo sapiens (with authorities and common names): Kingdom Animalia -- Animal, animals, animauxPhylum Chordata -- chordates, cordado, cordés Subphylum Vertebrata -- vertebrado, vertebrates, vertébrés Class Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 -- mamífero, mammals, mammifres Subclass Theria Parker and Haswell, 1897 Infraclass Eutheria Gill, 1872 Order Primates Linnaeus, 1758 -- homem, macaco, primata, primates, primates, sagui Superfamily Hominoidea -- apes and humans Family Hominidae Gray, 1825 -- man-like primates Genus Homo Linnaeus, 1758 -- hominoids Species Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 -- human, man --Added by edit: This site also makes the distinction between apes and humans at the superfamily level. --minor edit to edit made This message has been edited by Michael, 03-04-2006 10:26 AM This message has been edited by Michael, 03-04-2006 10:28 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Of course, the question arises on how much of that is science , and how much of that is political. The great apes and humans are all Hominoidea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: |
Of course, the question arises on how much of that is science , and how much of that is political. The great apes and humans are all Hominoidea Agreed, it could be political. I am having a little trouble finding out how primatologists define "ape." I am also getting sidetracked along the way. A couple of sites talking of a "new" classification scheme for primates are here and (though not primary literature) here. This is fun, but got to get to work. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The trouble is that "ape" is a colloquial word that doesn't have any set technical meaning.
Many people use "ape" to mean a member of Hominoidea, like Michael points out. In that case, since inkorrect is, presumably, a member of Homo sapiens and so a Hominoidean, then he is an ape. Note that this is independent of evolution; this is based strictly on taxonomic classification. Even Linnaeus, who was not (to my knowledge) an evolutionist, classified the great apes and human beings together. In fact, I believe that he originally wanted to place humans and chimpazees in the same genus! At any rate, this classification was originiall based soley on morphological similarities, so on this basis is simply cannot be denied, even by creationists, that humans are apes. On the other hand, "ape" is also used by many people to refer to non-human members of Hominoidea. In that case, inkorrekt would be perfectly justified in claiming that he is not an ape (provided that he is not a chimpanzee who was taught to type -- but then I think a chimpanzee would know more biochemistry than he has so far demonstrated). As always, since "ape" is not a technical term with a precise definition, it means whatever the people who use it mean. So, depending on how you use the term (and I have used the word in both senses myself) inkorrekt may or may not be an ape. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
inkorrekt may or may not be an ape.
maybe he's a robot? sorry silly moment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Perhaps the question to Inkorrekt should be rephrased: does he accept that humans are a member of the same biological family, Hominidae, as chimps, gorillas and orangutans?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: |
Perhaps the question to Inkorrekt should be rephrased: does he accept that humans are a member of the same biological family, Hominidae, as chimps, gorillas and orangutans? I think it should go beyond this. Those in the science crowd who like to call creationists "apes" (in part, I think, because those people know it annoys the creationists so much) should refrain, unless a consensus can be found among primatologists that the term "ape" includes humans. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
As far as I am concerned, in the broad sense, APE does include all humans.
The creationist crowd does not like to think of themselves as animals either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Michael writes: Those in the science crowd who like to call creationists "apes" (in part, I think, because those people know it annoys the creationists so much) should refrain, unless a consensus can be found among primatologists that the term "ape" includes humans. Agreed. That's why I suggested a title change in Message 3. I was hoping for something that didn't include the word "ape", but you take what you can get. But I think the main point evolutionists are trying to make is that Inkorrekt and creationists reject the classification on religious rather than scientific grounds. Inkorrekt no doubt accepts that humans are vertebrates just like fish, reptiles, mammals and birds. And he no doubt accepts that humans are mammals just like deer, elephants, lions and kangaroos. And he may even accept that humans are primates just like lemurs, monkeys and apes. But I believe it likely that somewhere between primates and hominids he refuses to accept that humans are in the same category as chimps and gorillas. It's a very interesting inconsistency that highlights the religious influence on creationist thinking. They accept the grouping of humans with broad classifications of animals like vertebrates and mammals, but reject more specific classifications with monkeys and apes. The reason they feel this way is because they see no overt evolutionary implication to lumping humans with vertebrates or mammals. We have backbones, so obviously we're verebrates. We have hair and suckle our young, so obviously we're mammals. But the evolutionary implications of grouping humans with monkeys and apes are just too obvious to ignore, and so they must reject the classification and argue for a special category for humans that doesn't include other primates. But having a religious motivation for something doesn't automatically make it scientifically wrong. The important question is whether they can provide scientific arguments for their preferred classification. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The creationist crowd does not like to think of themselves as animals either. That is an important observation. And there is more support for that position in the Bible than for the former. After all, in both of the Creation myths in the Bible animals are created in a separate act than the animals. So the key question is "Is there some evidence that would exclude humans from membership in the Class Animal?" Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024