I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Monkey is not ape.

Shhh! Cladistically we are monkeys too. Don't tell the creationists!

 

[viole]

bat, whale, baboon... are all mammals, but a baboon is not a bat, nor is a whale a baboon.
So trying to say a human is an ape, because both fit into the category of mammal, is not only illogical, but ludicrous.
Since it's viole making the statement though, I will say, you have a mistaken view.

Well, I think that is a non sequitur. I could equally say:

chimps, gorillas, bonobos... are all apes, but a chimp is not a gorilla, nor is a gorilla a bonobo.

So what is your argument exactly?

Ciao

- viole

 

[night912]

I am not really concerned with how man defines things. They can believe whatever they feel to.
I don't follow the changing tide.
Going against the tide in this world seems to work well for me.
So, if you want to accept how they define you, ...but I don't have to accept how you want to define me.
Should I accept whatever a person defines me as?
There are some really obscene descriptions given to people and their body parts.
I don't have to accept these.

I just laughed when I read this. For someone who claims to not follow the changing tide of this world, you sure like to follow the changing tide of this world. I've seen you used the word, "God" so many times that I've lost count.

BTW,
I'm referring to your usage of the actual English word, "God." It's like the English language was being used during the biblical era. Languages change and/or went out of use, while new ones are developed all throughout the changing tide of this world .

 

[joelr]

No. You are adding to what I said, Viole.
Man can use whatever terminologies he wishes. It has nothing to do with me, or living and breathing.


You have a serious flaw in your understanding. Are you sure you read the entire post? It contains a lot, if you don't just read it superficially.
Nonetheless, aside from the fact that you are wrong, classifications are the product of men, and men are not gods. Nor do they control everyone.
If you are happy to have them control you, that's your choice, dear.

Me? Not
Human - Wikipedia

Note. They say...
All modern humans are classified into the species Homo sapiens
What does that mean? The name "Homo sapiens" means 'wise man' or 'knowledgeable man'.
Ha Ha. Who determines that? The term was coined by Carl Linnaeus in his 18th-century work Systema Naturae.
Who? Carl Linnaeus? Who's he?

The generic name "Homo" is a learned 18th-century derivation from Latin homō, which refers to humans of either sex. The word human can refer to all members of the Homo genus, although in common usage it generally just refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant species.

There is disagreement if extinct members of the genus, namely Neanderthals, should be included as a separate species of humans or as a subspecies of H. sapiens. They were too stupid?

Human is a loanword of Middle English from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjectival form of homō ('man' — in the sense of humankind). The native English term man can refer to the species generally (a synonym for humanity) as well as to human males. It may also refer to individuals of either sex, though this lattermost form is less common in contemporary English.
The word person is often used interchangeably with human, but philosophical debate exists as to whether personhood applies to all humans or all sentient beings, and further if one can lose personhood (such as by going into a persistent vegetative state).

Can you blame me for not accepting what terminologies man in his "wisdom" decides to use.
Imagine I am a Neanderthal, who believe my species are more wise that the two footed creatures that build all these crazy stuff rhat mess up the environment, and lives. Do you think I would jump for joy at their calling themselves 'knowledgeable man'? Ha.
I would have a name for them, which they would not like.

God classified his creation. That's all I need to accept, viole.
Genesis 1:26 - God said: “Let us make man. . ." Hebrew : אָדָם adam - man, mankind.
You are woman viole - womankind, or simply man - mankind. Okay? Are you not? Please don't go ape, because some man's idea dictates you are.

You can use whatever ancient myths you want to call people. Homo sapien is used as a species to classify us from all the other genus homo species over the last several million years. Then it's broken down into tribe - Hominini, subfamily, family is where you get "ape" but it's ofically called hominidae...... and so on until you get to mamalia and beyond. That is how diverse life is.
If Neanderthal had a classification system they may work with us and accept the terms. As if they care what Latin words mean? Or they could do their own research. Or maybe they would get a prophet who gets messages from the Neanderthal God and gives them all the "true " facts and rules. Obviously revelations and God messages are far more reliable than science so they would go by whatever those said to do.
Just like you who doesn't accept scientific terminologies (yet you use a computer and other technology just fine, you seem to be fine with science that helps you?) maybe they would also have a deity tell them what to do and think.

Human taxonomy is a scientific field, based on genitics and dna and needed to sort out the diversity of life in the field. Asking others to ignore science because your book of Mesopotamian creation myths reworked for Israelites doesn't have them speaks for itself. I don't even need to comment.

Why utilize scientific technology though if you've such a distaste for knowledge outside of ancient allegory? Some man's idea? Maybe it's based on evidence? A computer is a long string of ideas. Why don't you make one from prayer? Or stick to walking to churches and communicating with others of your mindset? No driving, those are mens' ideas put to use.
Pray for a car or magic rug. Yahweh has a chariot, get a ride on that chariot.

You want scientific classification to be words ancient people pretended a God spoke 2000 years ago? "Please don't go ape, because some man's idea dictates you are" You say that after quoting a bunch of words that a man wrote down is if it was a God speaking? ?

 

[joelr]

You were supposed to ask me that question, as step two.
So, I will answer here, even though this is not addressed to me.

The answer is simple.
A bat, whale, baboon... are all mammals, but a baboon is not a bat, nor is a whale a baboon.
So trying to say a human is an ape, because both fit into the category of mammal, is not only illogical, but ludicrous.
Since it's viole making the statement though, I will say, you have a mistaken view.

Holy ....there are different levels needed based on the biology.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae - this is the "ape" classification
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo

species of Homo:

• Homo sapiens
• †Homo antecessor
• †Homo erectus
• †Homo ergaster
• †Homo floresiensis
• †Homo habilis
• †Homo heidelbergensis
• †Homo luzonensis
• †Homo rudolfensis
• †Homo naledi
• †Homo neanderthalensis

This is how science works. When more is discovered about genetics, dna, body types, parts, blood type, metabolism, and so on more groups are needed. Hominidae are great apes. There is a subfamily of great apes called Homininae and a tribe called Hominini. Our Genus is Homo and species Homo sapien. We are great apes.
Chimps are great apes. We have 99% of the same DNA. Chimps also share the subfamily and tribe with us. At the Homo genus we differ. Why are we so physically different? The Homo line started way back with Homo erectus which did look like a chimp a bit. Millions of years later Homo heidelbergensis had no body hair (uses sweat as a cooling system), made tools, clothes, buried their dead, language, they were similar with slightly different skulls and brains.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know him, but if he's related to Carl Sagan then yay.

I knew Carl Sagan's cousin well, plus he pointed out flaws in the recapitulation ontogeny theory which was taught de rigeur in the NYC school system. If ya didn't answer according to the current teaching back then, you got the answer wrong. I believed it back then, or shall I say, didn't question the theory until...later.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can use whatever ancient myths you want to call people. Homo sapien is used as a species to classify us from all the other genus homo species over the last several million years. Then it's broken down into tribe - Hominini, subfamily, family is where you get "ape" but it's ofically called hominidae...... and so on until you get to mamalia and beyond. That is how diverse life is.
If Neanderthal had a classification system they may work with us and accept the terms. As if they care what Latin words mean? Or they could do their own research. Or maybe they would get a prophet who gets messages from the Neanderthal God and gives them all the "true " facts and rules. Obviously revelations and God messages are far more reliable than science so they would go by whatever those said to do.
Just like you who doesn't accept scientific terminologies (yet you use a computer and other technology just fine, you seem to be fine with science that helps you?) maybe they would also have a deity tell them what to do and think.

Human taxonomy is a scientific field, based on genitics and dna and needed to sort out the diversity of life in the field. Asking others to ignore science because your book of Mesopotamian creation myths reworked for Israelites doesn't have them speaks for itself. I don't even need to comment.

Why utilize scientific technology though if you've such a distaste for knowledge outside of ancient allegory? Some man's idea? Maybe it's based on evidence? A computer is a long string of ideas. Why don't you make one from prayer? Or stick to walking to churches and communicating with others of your mindset? No driving, those are mens' ideas put to use.
Pray for a car or magic rug. Yahweh has a chariot, get a ride on that chariot.

You want scientific classification to be words ancient people pretended a God spoke 2000 years ago? "Please don't go ape, because some man's idea dictates you are" You say that after quoting a bunch of words that a man wrote down is if it was a God speaking? ?

Homo sapien in itself is a somewhat biased term, isn't it? Why are gorillas not called homo sapiens? Furthermore, primate is also a term associated with the head of a church. So like the great ape homo wise head?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew Carl Sagan's cousin well, plus he pointed out flaws in the recapitulation ontogeny theory which was taught de rigeur in the NYC school system. If ya didn't answer according to the current teaching back then, you got the answer wrong. I believed it back then, or shall I say, didn't question the theory until...later.

Wow!! Breaking headline news! And idea refuted about a hundred years ago does not work.

The problem is that creationists conflate recapitulation theory with embryology. Embryology is still well accepted and has not been refuted.

I wonder if @YoursTrue knows the difference between the two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Homo sapien in itself is a somewhat biased term, isn't it? Why are gorillas not called homo sapiens? Furthermore, primate is also a term associated with the head of a church. So like the great ape homo wise head?

Please, now you are relying on an equivocation fallacy. Gorillas do not even qualify as Homo. They are more distantly related to us than Lucy was.

 

[ppp]

I knew Carl Sagan's cousin well, plus he pointed out flaws in the recapitulation ontogeny theory which was taught de rigeur in the NYC school system. If ya didn't answer according to the current teaching back then, you got the answer wrong. I believed it back then, or shall I say, didn't question the theory until...later.

My mother is 90, and recapitulation theory was obsolete even in her backwoods Florida high school. You must be as old as dirt!

 

[joelr]

Homo sapien in itself is a somewhat biased term, isn't it?

No it's an animal (in the broad sense) that is just one type of great ape.

Why are gorillas not called homo sapiens? Furthermore, primate is also a term associated with the head of a church. So like the great ape homo wise head?

I went over this earlier. Here are the classifications. Forget about some dual use of "primate", just focus on biological groups. Humans and gorillas are both Mammals, primates, haplorhini, simiiformes, hominiddae (great apes), homininae, but then gorillas are tribe - gorillini while humans are tribe - hominini. Finally the genus is gorillia/homo and the species - homo-sapien/
Troglodytes gorilla.


Human
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia - so everything below is a mammal
Order: Primates - now the Order is primates, so everything below will be a primate
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae - this is the "ape" classification for human and gorilla
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini - here is the split with human and gorilla, their tribe name is Gorillni
Genus: Homo - and their genus is Gorilla

our species is homo-sapien. There were many homo species before sapien. Millions of years. The split at Hominini is where some tree ape became more of a walking ape due to forests becoming plains. The walking ape (Hominid) evolved into a new genus Homo which slowly evolved into modern humans. At some point they began eating meat - bugs and leftover kills, developed bigger brains, lost bodyhair for sweating as a cooling system and began relying on intelligence for survival.


Gorilla
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Gorillini
Genus: Gorilla

one species is Troglodytes gorilla, another species is ....King Kong

 

[YoursTrue]

No it's an animal (in the broad sense) that is just one type of great ape.





I went over this earlier. Here are the classifications. Forget about some dual use of "primate", just focus on biological groups. Humans and gorillas are both Mammals, primates, haplorhini, simiiformes, hominiddae (great apes), homininae, but then gorillas are tribe - gorillini while humans are tribe - hominini. Finally the genus is gorillia/homo and the species - homo-sapien/
Troglodytes gorilla.


Human
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia - so everything below is a mammal
Order: Primates - now the Order is primates, so everything below will be a primate
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae - this is the "ape" classification for human and gorilla
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini - here is the split with human and gorilla, their tribe name is Gorillni
Genus: Homo - and their genus is Gorilla

our species is homo-sapien. There were many homo species before sapien. Millions of years. The split at Hominini is where some tree ape became more of a walking ape due to forests becoming plains. The walking ape (Hominid) evolved into a new genus Homo which slowly evolved into modern humans. At some point they began eating meat - bugs and leftover kills, developed bigger brains, lost bodyhair for sweating as a cooling system and began relying on intelligence for survival.


Gorilla
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Gorillini
Genus: Gorilla

one species is Troglodytes gorilla, another species is ....King Kong

Ok since I have an issue with humans classified as apes, I will no longer go along with the classification. But thanks anyway for your reply. If I were to take a test on the current teaching in school I would go along with the current responses and not consider it improper to do so. But I no longer agree that humans are great apes.

 

[ppp]

Ok since I have an issue with humans classified as apes, I will no longer go along with the classification. But thanks anyway for your reply. If I were to take a test on the current teaching in school I would go along with the current responses and not consider it improper to do so. But I no longer agree that humans are great apes.

Just based on how you feel?

 

[nPeace]

Well, I think that is a non sequitur. I could equally say:

chimps, gorillas, bonobos... are all apes, but a chimp is not a gorilla, nor is a gorilla a bonobo.

So what is your argument exactly?

Ciao

- viole

You could say anything you like viole, but what does that have to do with me?
You could also easily say nPeace is a baboon... or ape... or silly wabbit... but I have no need of your hypotheses.
You see, I don't believe those ideas. You do. So what?
That's my argument.

I could easily say to you that you are a product of God's creation, or an offspring of Satan the Devil, but you would not accept either.
You don't see the problem, do you.
Don't put your beliefs on other people, as you don't want them to put their beliefs on you.
You have beliefs... they are yours. Others have beliefs as well.
You are not forcing your beliefs down other's throat, are you?

 

[nPeace]

Ok since I have an issue with humans classified as apes, I will no longer go along with the classification. But thanks anyway for your reply. If I were to take a test on the current teaching in school I would go along with the current responses and not consider it improper to do so. But I no longer agree that humans are great apes.

Was reading 1 Corinthians 1:17-31 and Chapter 2.
This is like banging your head against a wall.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know him, but if he's related to Carl Sagan then yay.

Why yah? These are 2 foot creatures, with a head, just like you and I. They go to the bathroom like you and I.
Now if you said, if he is a brother of Jesus the Christ, and you went "yah", I would go, Praise Yah!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Homo sapien in itself is a somewhat biased term, isn't it? Why are gorillas not called homo sapiens? Furthermore, primate is also a term associated with the head of a church. So like the great ape homo wise head?

Homo sapiens is a different species in a different genus of great apes. Wouldn't make sense to classify them all in the same genus and species, since they are not.

An ape has many different meanings too. I don't see any reason that is a point of contention.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I knew Carl Sagan's cousin well, plus he pointed out flaws in the recapitulation ontogeny theory which was taught de rigeur in the NYC school system. If ya didn't answer according to the current teaching back then, you got the answer wrong. I believed it back then, or shall I say, didn't question the theory until...later.

I worked with the husband of Tom Eisner's former administrative assistant. Eisner was a major professional rival of Sagan's at Cornell.

It doesn't mean anything. I thought we were playing 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

I'm pretty sure that whole ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny thing has been dead for some time longer than that. They weren't teaching it 40 years ago when I was a young student in high school or college.

Embryology is still an important discipline though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Was reading 1 Corinthians 1:17-31 and Chapter 2.
This is like banging your head against a wall.

Yup. I'm stopping methinks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I worked with the husband of Tom Eisner's former administrative assistant. Eisner was a major professional rival of Sagan's at Cornell.

It doesn't mean anything. I thought we were playing 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

I'm pretty sure that whole ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny thing has been dead for some time longer than that. They weren't teaching it 40 years ago when I was a young student in high school or college.

Embryology is still an important discipline though.

The problem is that creationists conflate the two. From Kent Hovind on up. They will laugh and point out that ontogeny vs. phylogeny was refuted a long long time ago and not understand that we are not talking about that any longer. This is what happens when one has a fifth grade level of understanding of science.