Author
|
Topic: Is Inkorrekt, like all humans, an ape?
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 16 of 25 (292337)
03-05-2006 10:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Michael 03-05-2006 9:49 AM
|
|
politics? or ego?
Look at it a different way -- I have not seen classification of humans as {not-apes} in any biological classification scheme. Recently there has been an effort to reclassify chimps\bonobos as hominids, due to their genetic (and behavioral?) similarity (especially vs the dissimilarity between species in other families). I think traditionally humans have been kept in a distinct family due to speciocentric egotism (the need for hierachic superiority that is also the basis of racism etc). "My dog's better than your dog" subconscious thinking. If it's politics, it's the politics of bias. Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 12 by Michael, posted 03-05-2006 9:49 AM | | Michael has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 19 by Michael, posted 03-05-2006 11:25 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.5
|
|
Message 17 of 25 (292346)
03-05-2006 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by ramoss 03-05-2006 10:32 AM
|
|
The creationist crowd does not like to think of themselves as animals either.
Let's be fair. There are many non-creationists who also don't like to think of themselves as animals. In colloquial usage, the word "animal" often is taken to exclude humans.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 13 by ramoss, posted 03-05-2006 10:32 AM | | ramoss has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 18 by ramoss, posted 03-05-2006 11:19 AM | | nwr has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
Message 18 of 25 (292348)
03-05-2006 11:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by nwr 03-05-2006 11:09 AM
|
|
To be sure, but the creationist are the most vocal on that.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 17 by nwr, posted 03-05-2006 11:09 AM | | nwr has not replied |
|
Michael
Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: 05-14-2005
|
|
Message 19 of 25 (292351)
03-05-2006 11:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD 03-05-2006 10:51 AM
|
|
Homo (Pan)
Recently there has been an effort to reclassify chimps\bonobos as hominids, due to their genetic (and behavioral?) similarity (especially vs the dissimilarity between species in other families). I've seen a scheme that takes this further and reclassifies Pan as a subgenus of Homo. Do you know if this is being considered seriously by systematists? This seems to me to be on-topic.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 16 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2006 10:51 AM | | RAZD has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 20 by Asgara, posted 03-05-2006 11:29 AM | | Michael has not replied | | Message 25 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2006 11:49 PM | | Michael has not replied |
|
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: 05-10-2003
|
|
Message 20 of 25 (292353)
03-05-2006 11:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Michael 03-05-2006 11:25 AM
|
|
Re: Homo (Pan)
Back in the 1700s, I believe Linneaus originally classified chimps as Homo troglodytes
This message is a reply to: | | Message 19 by Michael, posted 03-05-2006 11:25 AM | | Michael has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2006 11:40 AM | | Asgara has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 21 of 25 (292357)
03-05-2006 11:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Asgara 03-05-2006 11:29 AM
|
|
Re: Homo (Pan)
Apparently it was an orang utan that he named Homo troglodytes. All he seems to have had was a pickled specimen. Chimps may not have been known to Europeans in 1756.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 20 by Asgara, posted 03-05-2006 11:29 AM | | Asgara has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 22 by Asgara, posted 03-05-2006 11:46 AM | | Coragyps has replied |
|
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: 05-10-2003
|
|
Message 22 of 25 (292360)
03-05-2006 11:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Coragyps 03-05-2006 11:40 AM
|
|
Re: Homo (Pan)
mmmm... pickled orang
This message is a reply to: | | Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2006 11:40 AM | | Coragyps has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2006 12:11 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 23 of 25 (292368)
03-05-2006 12:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Asgara 03-05-2006 11:46 AM
|
|
Re: Homo (Pan)
Oh, yeah, I'm sorry! That should have been in the food thread!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 22 by Asgara, posted 03-05-2006 11:46 AM | | Asgara has not replied |
|
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: 11-15-2005
|
|
Message 24 of 25 (292596)
03-06-2006 2:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by ramoss 03-05-2006 10:32 AM
|
|
Many taxonomic classifications above the level of species can be regarded as arbitrary, and in some cases dependent on the views of the person putting forth the classification, as is the case with the human clade. It doesn't really matter much if we are ape or not (IMO: we are). What does matter is whether or not we are animal. All the evidence i've encountered, whether morphological, behavioural, or genetic, clearly points to humans being members of the Kingdom Animalia . I've encountered no evidence that contradicts this.
"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine
This message is a reply to: | | Message 13 by ramoss, posted 03-05-2006 10:32 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 25 of 25 (292868)
03-06-2006 11:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Michael 03-05-2006 11:25 AM
|
|
Re: Homo (Pan)
Do you know if this is being considered seriously by systematists? I've seen papers to this effect. How serious it is can be difficult to judge given that the whole cladistics thing is in a state of flux now due to the new data from genetics. I give it a couple of years to sort out. Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 19 by Michael, posted 03-05-2006 11:25 AM | | Michael has not replied |
|