Re: We are apes.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:33:12 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sadly, the cry of "I am not descended from apes!" is something we hear
far too often from creationists on Talk.Origins. Some will even go
further and replace the word 'ape' with 'monkey' in a successful
effort to show just how poorly educated they are. Or even worse still,
we have the likes of Dishonest Ray claiming that evolutionists believe
"apes morphed into men."

So, what is the truth?

Well, for starters, no scientist has ever said that humans were
descended from monkeys. Most scientists would also tend to avoid
saying that we were descended from apes either - because that is a
fallacy (though not for the reason most creationists would suppose).
The reason it is a fallacy is that humans are, and always have been,
apes. So, when you think about it, each one of us must be descended
from apes in the same way that a cow must be descended from other cows
and not, for the sake of argument, from elephants.

As we have found so often on this newsgroup, this reality of humans
being apes does not go down very well with creationists, not very well
at all. But the fact remains, as I hope I can show, that ALL humans
tick ALL the boxes on the questionnaire defining "what is an ape".

Life on Earth is classified using the Linnaean system, originally
developed by Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) and set forth in his 1735
publication "Systema Naturae". The modern binomial nomenclature is
the formal system of naming species based on the foundations laid by
Linnaeus's 18th century works. In essence each species name is given
in (modern scientific) Latin and has two parts, the genus name and the
specific name. For example humans belong to genus "Homo" and their
specific name is "sapiens". Humans were therefore, as a species,
classified by Linnaeus as Homo sapiens. Note that the first name, the
genus, is capitalized, while the second is not.

The first question is whether we can fit humans into the Linnaean
classification system. You see the thing is, for some reason I've
never understood, most creationists seem to accept the Linnaean system
while rejecting evolution. Since that system can, theoretically,
classify any living organism all that is necessary is to show that
humans are living organisms. Humans reproduce, grow, eat, and excrete,
all the major functions of living things, so I will hold that, by
definition, we are living organisms. [I make exception for usenet
trolls]

There are eight main levels of classification in the modern version of
the Linnaean system: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family,
genus, and species.

The top level is domain. There are three of these:-

Archaea (single celled organisms that are not bacteria)
Bacteria (most single celled organisms)
Eukarya (multi-celled organisms).

Well, humans are definitely multi-cellular, we must be Eukaryotes.

Next we come to kingdom. There are five:-

Monera (bacteria)
Protista (all the non bacterial mono-cellular organisms)
Fungi (organisms like molds and mushrooms)
Plantae (plants)
Animalia (animals).

The question we have to answer then is where to put humans?

Even if someone doesn't like to think of themselves as an animal, the
question is "what would you rather be, a fungus?"

The only valid kingdom to put humans in is, beyond doubt in my
opinion, Animalia.

The next classification down is phylum. There are innumerable phyla
within the kingdom Animalia, but only one is even a close fit for
humans. All the others phylum are either creatures with exoskeletons
or shells, worms, or things like jelly fish and sponges - none of
which, I hope you will agree, bear even a passing resemblance to
humans). So, it looks like the only choice is that of Chordata. This
phylum is defined as creatures which, at some point in their
development, have a spinal cord of nervous tissue.

Good, we are making progress already - not only are humans animals,
but we now know that they are more specifically, chordates.

After phylum comes class. Of course there are lots of these as well,
but I will skip going through them all and say that humans are
mammals. We are warm blooded, we have hair and the female of our
species have mammary glands used to feed our young and excite some of
our males.

So humans are chordates, but more specifically mammalian chordates.
One more stage sorted.

The next division of life, working from largest to smallest, is
order.

Mammalian orders include:-

Artiodactyla (even toed hoofed animals)
Carnivora (cats, dogs and bears)
Insectivora (moles and shrews)
Lagomorpha (rabbits and hares)
Marsupials (mostly from Australia)
Monotremes (egg-laying mammals)
Perissodactyla (horses rhinos and their relatives)
Primate, (monkeys lemures and apes)
Proboscidae (elephants and their extinct relatives)
Rodentia (rodents)

Humans do not have hooves (except some of the trolls), nor are they
especially like wolves or cats, they are not tunnelling animals with
few or no teeth, they do not have teeth that continually grow and are
used for gnawing, and they don't have trunks, there are only three
options left. Humans are either Primates, Marsupials, or Monotremes.
Humans don't have a pouch and don't lay eggs, so humans must be
primates by process of elimination.

Again, I know some will object to being called a primate, because they
think it is distasteful, but my response to that has to be - what
other order would you rather be in?

And so, we have now moved another stage further. Not only are humans
mammals but, more specifically, they have to be considered as
primates. By now some creationists may start to feel uncomfortable,
but it will only get worse for them.

Ok, unless this is going to be a lot longer, I'm going to skip a bit.
Between 'order' and 'family' in the Linnaean classification system
there are actually three more taxa whose names vary. "Ape" is actually
a "super-family", this particular one is called Hominoidea, it is
characterized by forelimbs with the ability to rotate almost 360
degrees, the absence of a tail, a five cusped molar, and large complex
brains. Under the current classification system there are two
families of hominoids:-

Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 13 species of gibbon,
including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the
lesser apes.
Hominidae consisting of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and
humans, together collectively known as the great apes. Here is our
family as it stands today:-

Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes [extinct genera and
species excluded].

Subfamily Ponginae
Genus Pongo
Bornean Orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus
Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus
Pongo pygmaeus morio
Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii
Sumatran Orangutan, Pongo abelii

Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Gorillini
Genus Gorilla
Western Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla
Western Lowland Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla gorilla
Cross River Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla diehli
Eastern Gorilla, Gorilla beringei
Mountain Gorilla, Gorilla beringei beringei
Eastern Lowland Gorilla, Gorilla beringei graueri
Tribe Hominini
Genus Pan
Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes
Central Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes troglodytes
West African Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes verus
Nigerian Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes vellerosus
Eastern Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii
Bonobo (Pygmy Chimpanzee), Pan paniscus

Genus Homo
Human, Homo sapiens

All humans are, as I think I've shown, are not only descended from
apes - they are apes, whether or not creationists care to admit it. A
scientific classification system that has been shown to work with all
life on Earth has us clearly and unequivocally defined as apes.

And if creationists don't think we are apes then it is up to them to
show just how they would fit us in to the systems as, say, rodents.
The challenge is laid, can any creationist meet it?

This is a nice attempt but, sadly, is wrong in too many places.

Your definition of the domains is entirely wrong. The Eukarya are not
the multicellular organisms but rather organisms made up of one or
more cells with particular characteristics, the membrane bound nucleus
being one of the main ones. There are an enormous number of
unicellular eukaryotes.

The reason we are animals is not because we don't fit into any of the
other kingdoms. It is because we meet the definition of members of
the kingdom: we are multicellular heterotrophs who feed by ingestion.
Further, the genomic data shows us to have a shared heritage with all
the other members of this kingdom separate from the other kingdoms.

The phylum Chordata is not defined as organisms that have a spinal
cord of nervous tissue. Many animals have a longitudinal nerve cord
and many chordates do not have a spinal cord -- only the vertebrates
have that. However all chordates have a dorsal hollow nerve cord.
More important, all chordates have, at some point in their
development, a notochord. The word chordate -- note the 'h' in the
spelling -- refers to the notocHord, not the spinal cord (no 'h').
Notochord is mainly connective tissue of mesodermal origin. Spinal
cord is nervous tissue of ectodermal origin. The soft gel-like
squishy material in the middle of our vertebral disks is all that
remains of our own notochords.

So there are serious biology errors in your first three levels of
classification. What you are arguing is noble in intent and could
easily be made right in detail, but is not about to convince anybody
who rejects the notion that we are animals. The Detroit Metropolitan
Airport used to have signs on the doors saying "No Animals Allowed". I
often wondered how many plants or fungi would buy airline tickets. Now
similar signs usually have been changed to be politically correct and
allow "Service Animals Only". That means humans not in the military
can't use the facilities.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No creationist ever claimed that humans should be removed from
    ... classification of humans as apes. ... Tony ran away, after making some irrelevant assertions about Linnaeus, and ... taken out of the primate class because creationists dispute the lineal ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We are apes.
    ... "apes morphed into men." ... fallacy (though not for the reason most creationists would suppose). ... The reason it is a fallacy is that humans are, and always have been, ... Archaea (single celled organisms that are not bacteria) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We are apes.
    ... "apes morphed into men." ... fallacy (though not for the reason most creationists would suppose). ... The reason it is a fallacy is that humans are, and always have been, ... Archaea (single celled organisms that are not bacteria) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • We are apes.
    ... the cry of "I am not descended from apes!" ... fallacy (though not for the reason most creationists would suppose). ... The reason it is a fallacy is that humans are, and always have been, ... Western Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No creationist ever claimed that humans should be removed from the primate class
    ... All seemed to get distracted by my bringing up Linnaeus' ... classification of humans as apes. ... taken out of the primate class because creationists dispute the lineal ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading