Are Humans Animals

[ADigitalArtist]

OMG! Here, take a look at the following.

So far as we know the "the last common ancestor of old world monkeys and apes [,which] lived about 25 million years ago" were primates like Rukwapithecus fleaglei and Nsungwepithecus gunnelli, neither of which are called or even considered to be monkeys or apes, but simply "primates." Technically, those primates leading to Old World monkeys and apes are classified as parvorder Catarrhini, and those primates leading to the New World monkeys are classified as parvorder Platyrrhini. Those primates leading to both Catarrhini. and Platyrrhini are classified as infraorder Simiiformes. See below.

Order Primates

• Suborder Strepsirrhini: lemurs, lorises, etc.
• Suborder Haplorhini: tarsiers + monkeys, including apes
• Infraorder Tarsiiformes
  • Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers
• Infraorder Simiiformes: simians, or higher primates
  • Parvorder Catarrhini
    • Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
      • Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys
    • Superfamily †Propliopithecoidea
      • Family †Propliopithecidae (includes Aegyptopithecus)
    • Superfamily †Saadanioidea
      • Family †Saadaniidae
    • Superfamily Hominoidea
      • Family Hylobatidae: gibbons
      • Family Hominidae: great apes (including humans)
  • Parvorder Platyrrhini: New World monkeys

Source: Wikipedia................†: extinct


.
​

We don't use polypheletic cladograms anymore. You can't take an offspring and detatch it from its parent line for an equivalent grouping. You cannot have both cercopithecidae and platyrrhini be monkeys without catarrhini also being monkeys, because that would mean 'monkey' evolved independently twice, which isn't possible.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

And yet no link to the article, or anything found in searching PNAS.org. Marvelously helpful.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And yet no link to the article, or anything found in searching PNAS.org. Marvelously helpful.

?

You have the direct links to the abstracts and full texts in my post. That there is increasing evidence against the dinos to birds theory is not even all that controversial these days. I encourage you to read it, lots more where they came from

 

[FearGod]

According to what I hear from science Humans are Great Apes along with Gorillas, Orangutans and Chimpanzees. They are cousins through evolution.

Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’ - Australian Museum

Humans are a different creation but the earthly matter are the same for all God's creation.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You have the direct links to the abstracts and full texts in my post.

Neither of which provide anything but speculated challenges to fossil record.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Neither of which provide anything but speculated challenges to fossil record.

Yes, It's an inherently speculative subject after all, which was the point. Over a century after Darwin and we have even less of the basic transitional examples predicted by the theory than we started with.
It's at least understandable why most people are a tad skeptical, we like a little evidence with our science.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

A few people disagreeing doesn't quite make it "speculative".

 

[idav]

Over a century after Darwin and we have even less of the basic transitional examples predicted by the theory than we started with.

This is false. Evidence from very branch of science supports evolution.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

A few people disagreeing doesn't quite make it "speculative".

You are absolutely right, especially since the "speculative" is about the details of one of the various models...nothing in the so-called speculation calls evolution itself into question...the authors still believe that evolution happens, and are offering alternatives to current classifications. They are not by any stretch of the imagination saying that evolution did not happen...

 

[idav]

Humans are a different creation

Evolution extends the biblical view that all have mans share an ancestor and extend it to animals. All animals also have a common ancestor. Chimps share a closer ancestor than most other animals, the DNA doesn't lie.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is false. Evidence from very branch of science supports evolution.

Sorry, I should have attributed the paraphrased quote, it's from the paleontologist, professor and curator of the Chicago Field Museum, David Raup, (recently deceased),

• We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
  

I concede he was far more qualified than I am to reach this conclusion.

 

[idav]

Sorry, I should have attributed the paraphrased quote, it's from the paleontologist, professor and curator of the Chicago Field Museum, David Raup, (recently deceased),

• We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

I concede he was far more qualified than I am to reach this conclusion.

I guess it's a bit out of context that way. It only means to say answers only raise more questions due to complexity of evolution. And didn't realize it is from 1979, that's way different.

Religious creationists are known for quote mining the work of Raup. Creationists usually quote mine Raup's paper titled Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology (1979).[1] The quote the creationists take out of context is:

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.[2]

David Raup - RationalWiki

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Sorry, I should have attributed the paraphrased quote, it's from the paleontologist, professor and curator of the Chicago Field Museum, David Raup, (recently deceased),

• We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

I concede he was far more qualified than I am to reach this conclusion.

1) So, you get your quotes--out of context, of course--from azquotes.com, rather than from the actual articles or books...
2) Without context, these statements reflect the thoughts of ONE paleontologist--certainly a respected and qualified one...but still, just one person
3) without context, you have some quotes, but not even so much as an argument...

 

[Skwim]

We don't use polypheletic cladograms anymore. You can't take an offspring and detatch it from its parent line for an equivalent grouping. You cannot have both cercopithecidae and platyrrhini be monkeys without catarrhini also being monkeys, because that would mean 'monkey' evolved independently twice, which isn't possible.

All I'm looking for is to get my point across to Satans_Serrated_Edge, which the cladogram and the taxonomic hierarchy will hopefully do.


.

 

[psychoslice]

It would?

......and how many mass extinction events have happened over the history of this planet, that had absolutely nothing to do with humans?

I think that there have been, er....five. Some scientists think we are currently in a sixth one, but unlike all of the others, THIS one might actually be ameliorated because one of the species a: understands the idea of 'mass extinction,' b: doesn't like the idea and c: might be able to do something about it. Maybe.

What's the difference between homo sapiens and all the other animals on the planet? I can't say that it is 'we have souls and none of the other animals do," because in my belief system that's not true. We believe that all things living have spirits.

WE, however, (whether one believes that we are spiritually 'special' or not) have something none of the others do; brains enough to think about stuff other than eating, mating and protecting our young, and hands to do something about what we think of. THAT makes us pretty darned special.

I have a dog...first dog I've had in thirty years, actually. My avatar is her when she was nine weeks old at the pound. I've always been a 'cat person,' so getting this puppy was completely out of character for me. I've had her a year, and she's VERY busy, all springs and bounce. She mourns when I leave (I've never heard her howl, but Mom tells me that if I'm gone for more than a couple of hours, she'll do that). her excitement when I come home is very much over the top. Where I am, she is. Constantly. If I am ill, she's right there. If I'm tired, she's right there. "Unconditional love,' is what I'm told it is, and that might be right. She's also very smart....for a dog.

But as smart as she is, she can't talk to me--or communicate complex ideas with other dogs. She can't write. She can't cook me breakfast. She can't call 911 and describe the problem if I need that. She can't knit or crochet or sew quilts or use power saws. In fact, no other animal on the planet can do any of those things; only we can.

BECAUSE we can, we 'rule' over every other animal. Why? Because unlike any other animal, we CAN destroy the planet, force another species to extinction, and change climates. It's not a matter of 'should we...' but 'we have to."

The Bible has told us that we have been made stewards over the earth and all on it. Of course we have...whether one thinks that God appointed us to that job or not, we ARE the stewards and we are responsible....because we CAN destroy it all, we are responsible for it all.

...........................and that, theist or a-.............makes us very, very different from all the other animals on the planet, doesn't it?

That was all very nice, but we are still at the end of the day animals, dogs can communicate together as all other animals do, we humans think they are below us, but there is no such things as being below or higher than each other, we are all animals and we are all one collectively.

 

[psychoslice]

The vast majority of species on this planet went extinct long before humans got here. Heck, if we detonated every nuclear device in every arsenal it wouldn't equal to the K-pg meteor. Nature was harsh and unforgiving before us, it probably will be after us, too.

Yes of course, but why add more suffering to the planet ?.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry, I should have attributed the paraphrased quote, it's from the paleontologist, professor and curator of the Chicago Field Museum, David Raup, (recently deceased),

• We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

I concede he was far more qualified than I am to reach this conclusion.

Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)
​

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)
​

The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about.
source


.​

 

[Jose Fly]

A few people disagreeing doesn't quite make it "speculative".

Guy is exhibiting a common creationist line of silly logic, i.e., "here is an area of paleontology where there is some debate, therefore the entire enterprise is speculative". Throw in a dishonest quote mine or two and you have the creationist trifecta.

What amazes me is how they engage in this sort of behavior, and then can't figure out why scientists don't take them at all seriously or why they keep losing in court.

 

[psychoslice]

Well the ego most certainly is! High on itself that is. It's a big problem in religion and science as well. They seem to agree often times that the size of ones ego determines what is correct.

Yes, but at least one party has more reliable theories, guess which one, yea yea.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

1) So, you get your quotes--out of context, of course--from azquotes.com, rather than from the actual articles or books..

the quote is from a paper entitled 'conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology'- so that gives you some context- unless quoting the title is 'out of context quote mining'!

2) Without context, these statements reflect the thoughts of ONE paleontologist--certainly a respected and qualified one...but still, just one person.

one University of Chicago, Harvard Graduate paleontologist, curator of one of the greatest natural history museums in the world (of sue and lucy fame) opinions on this subject don't get much more academically qualified than this, though I concede that academia is not always the most hospitable environment for cutting edge science

But I would agree- science is a method, not a consensus of opinion, those are so often diametrically opposed.

without context, you have some quotes, but not even so much as an argument...

Here is more from Raup quoted directly from an anti-creationist site if that is a 'better context'

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.


At the very least, anyone who thinks darwinism is some sort of slam dunk, undeniable theory, that only idiots dare to question, as we are taught in school and pop science culture, is cheating themselves out of some very interesting scientific questions which natural history presents us. Darwinism made perfect sense in the Victorian age it was introduced, and has gained a very large following in certain circles since, but the scientific evidence has simply not cooperated as it was supposed to- that'll happen!