Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 1025 of 1075 (626385)
07-28-2011 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 11:14 PM


Re: Understanding ERVs by way of analogy.
So you don't understand the analogy. Go back and re-read it.

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1024 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 11:14 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1027 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 1:06 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 1045 of 1075 (626542)
07-29-2011 9:50 PM


On to classification.
Mazzy,
Could you please give us some examples of barims and explain what the standards are for determining whether something belongs in a barim or not?
What would have been helpful is if you'd ever gone to the The Creationist Challenge - Can You Identify Kinds? thread I started and help us understand how kinds are determined. (I assume that there is no significant difference in meaning between "kind" and "barim." If there is, please clarify.)
I'll reproduce the quiz here. Take your time.
Can you tell me which of the following are different kinds and which are the same? What standard are you using to make these determinations?
1. A dog and a wolf.
2. A macaw and a cockatoo.
3. Vibrio cholerae and E. coli
4. A termite and a cockroach
5. A tiger and a cheetah
ABE: Just to be clear, I don't want to drag the conversation off topic into discussing any of these species per se. I just think that if Mazzy wants to assert that humans and non-human apes belong in different barims/kinds, that we should see what standards exist for making such a determination.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:56 PM ZenMonkey has replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 1054 of 1075 (626612)
07-30-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 10:56 PM


Re: On to classification.
Mazzy writes:
Do you know what off topic refer to? We could spend the next month discussing this alone. So unless you think these organisms are Homo erectus or something close to them, you are what is called straining a useless point and playing "make one mistake and you're gone", as well as going off topic....Sorry I am not a child anymore.
I don't beleive that this is an off-topic request at all. I clearly stated that I wasn't trying to drag us off into a discussion of the particulars of any of the species used as examples here. All I'm asking is for you to show us how to use barimology to determine if two species belong in the same barim or not.
You're claiming that humans do not belong in the same taxon as the other Hominidae. You're making the claim. I'm leaving to more knowledgable people than myself the burden of explaining why the currently accepted classification system makes humans a member of a larger group instead of a distinct group unto themselves. All I want is for you to support your clam by giving the rational basis for separating human beings from the others.
If you can't show us how barimology works to determine groupings among other organisms, how can we know whether or not your placement of humans in one group and the other Hominidae in another is valid? Talking about differences in skull configurations and the relative lengths of limbs is all fine and good. All we want to know is how how similar two things have to be to be in the same kind/barim, or how different they have to be to belong in different kinds/barims.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:56 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by Nuggin, posted 07-30-2011 3:23 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(6)
Message 1065 of 1075 (626690)
07-30-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Admin
07-30-2011 5:28 AM


Classification of H. sapiens
Admin writes:
The evolution side should explain why humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are placed within a single group, and the creation side should explain not just why they shouldn't be grouped together, but how they should be regrouped and why.
Since no-one else has done it yet, here's my attempt at laying out the way that human beings are classified in the modern Linnaean system:
Kingdom = Animalia
quote:
Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. All animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance.
Does this apply to human beings? I believe the answer is yes.
Phylum = Chordata
quote:
Chordates (phylum Chordata) are animals which are either vertebrates or one of several closely related invertebrates. They are united by having, for at least some period of their life cycle, a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail.
Do human beings have spinal cords? Check.
Class =Mammals
quote:
Mammals (formally Mammalia /məˈmeɪli.ə/) are members of a class of air-breathing vertebrate animals characterized by the possession of hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands functional in mothers with young. Most mammals also possess sweat glands and specialized teeth, and the largest group of mammals, the placentals, have a placenta which feeds the offspring during gestation.
Breath air? I believe so. Backbones? Yes. Hair? Yep, head hair, body hair - got that too. Sweat glands, specialized teeth (not all the same like a crocodile's), ear bones, breasts, placentas? Looks like we qualify as mammals.
Order = Primates
Well, now we're getting a little more specific. Let's look at the list of features that the primates have in common:
  • retention of the collar bone in the pectoral girdle;
  • shoulder joints which allow high degrees of movement in all directions;
  • five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes;
  • nails on the fingers and toes (in most species);
  • a flat nail on the hallux (in all extant species);
  • sensitive tactile pads on the ends of the digits;
  • orbits encircled in bone;
  • a trend towards a reduced snout and flattened face, attributed to a reliance on vision at the expense of olfaction (most notably in haplorrhines, and less so in strepsirrhines);
  • a complex visual system with stereoscopic vision, high visual acuity and color vision;
  • a brain having a well-developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a calcarine fissure;
  • a large brain in comparison to body size, especially in simians;
  • differentiation of an enlarged cerebral cortex;
  • reduced number of teeth compared to primitive mammals;
  • three kinds of teeth;
  • a well-developed cecum;
  • two pectoral mammary glands;
  • typically one young per pregnancy;
  • a pendulous penis and scrotal testes;
  • a long gestation and developmental period; and
  • a trend towards holding the torso upright leading to bipedalism.
Well, that's a pretty long list. But if you take the time to think about it as you read it, you will have to admit two things:
1. Sounds like all those features apply to us.
2. They also apply to baboons, lemurs, orangutans, and gorillas. You might be able to find some primates that are missing a feature or two from this list, but all in all, if you can find a critter that matches up to what we have here, you'll have to call it a primate.
Family = Hominids
At last, our final stop on the classification trail. Here's what it takes to be considered a hominid:
  • No tail (last time I looked);
  • males generally bigger than females;
  • hands to do clever things with;
  • omnivorous (though we eat a lot more grains and pizza);
  • gestation lasts about 8 or nine months;
  • usually give birth to a single offspring;
  • helpless young that need to be cared for;
  • which means a delayed adolescence (much longer for some of us than others); and
  • no distinct breeding season (unless you count spring break).
Look at that list carefully, please. It describes us. It describes chimps. It describes gorillas. It describes orangutans. They're apes. We're apes.
Forget genetics. Forget common ancestry. All we're talking about is physical features and behaviors. That's the scientific rational for putting H. sapiens in the same group as those other guys. If you have a rational for a different classification, please let us know what it is.
Human beings are hominids. Period.

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Admin, posted 07-30-2011 5:28 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024