Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Inkorrekt, like all humans, an ape?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 25 (292023)
03-04-2006 8:28 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 03-04-2006 9:03 AM jar has not replied

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 25 (292032)
03-04-2006 8:43 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 03-04-2006 8:49 AM AdminSchraf has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 25 (292037)
03-04-2006 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminSchraf
03-04-2006 8:43 AM


Could I suggest a change in title?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminSchraf, posted 03-04-2006 8:43 AM AdminSchraf has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 4 of 25 (292039)
03-04-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
03-04-2006 8:28 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 03-04-2006 8:28 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Michael, posted 03-04-2006 9:55 AM ramoss has not replied
 Message 6 by Michael, posted 03-04-2006 10:18 AM ramoss has replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 5 of 25 (292051)
03-04-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ramoss
03-04-2006 9:03 AM


not all primates are apes
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, animaux
Phylum 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 03-04-2006 9:03 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 6 of 25 (292058)
03-04-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ramoss
03-04-2006 9:03 AM


superfamily Hominoidea = apes it seems
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, animaux
Phylum 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 03-04-2006 9:03 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 03-04-2006 10:32 AM Michael has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 7 of 25 (292062)
03-04-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Michael
03-04-2006 10:18 AM


Re: superfamily Hominoidea = apes it seems
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Michael, posted 03-04-2006 10:18 AM Michael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Michael, posted 03-04-2006 11:02 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 8 of 25 (292071)
03-04-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ramoss
03-04-2006 10:32 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 03-04-2006 10:32 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 25 (292084)
03-04-2006 11:42 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ReverendDG, posted 03-05-2006 3:43 AM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 03-05-2006 8:23 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 10 of 25 (292287)
03-05-2006 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
03-04-2006 11:42 AM


inkorrekt may or may not be an ape.
maybe he's a robot?
sorry silly moment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2006 11:42 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 11 of 25 (292316)
03-05-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
03-04-2006 11:42 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2006 11:42 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Michael, posted 03-05-2006 9:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 12 of 25 (292324)
03-05-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
03-05-2006 8:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 03-05-2006 8:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ramoss, posted 03-05-2006 10:32 AM Michael has not replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-05-2006 10:39 AM Michael has not replied
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2006 10:51 AM Michael has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 13 of 25 (292331)
03-05-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Michael
03-05-2006 9:49 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Michael, posted 03-05-2006 9:49 AM Michael has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 03-05-2006 10:47 AM ramoss has not replied
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 03-05-2006 11:09 AM ramoss has replied
 Message 24 by U can call me Cookie, posted 03-06-2006 2:56 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 14 of 25 (292334)
03-05-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Michael
03-05-2006 9:49 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Michael, posted 03-05-2006 9:49 AM Michael has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 25 (292336)
03-05-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ramoss
03-05-2006 10:32 AM


headed towards the main point.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ramoss, posted 03-05-2006 10:32 AM ramoss has 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