originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Barcs
No, I don't. We could be classified as primates perhaps, but definitely not apes. Or is your theory flawed?
Could you explain why exactly it is that humans are not only definitely NOT apes in your mind but also why you only give a tangential "perhaps" to
their inclusion with primates? It just comes off as willfully ignorant when every biologist in the modern world as well as every anthropologist
completely disagrees with your notions. They are in complete contravention of the biological sciences.
Phylogeny is the relationship among different species. Phylogenetic systematics argues (among other things) that our taxonomy should reflect
phylogeny. The result in anthropology is that we have rejected some taxonomic ideas. In the past, many anthropologists categorized chimpanzees,
gorillas and orangutans together as “pongids”. Today, we recognize that these are not a natural group. Phylogenetically, humans are part of the
group that includes orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Many anthropologists call this group “Hominidae”, although others would put
this at a different taxonomic level than the family level (the level implied by the “idae” ending).
None of this is especially controversial. We disagree about the taxonomic level – some would retain “hominid” to refer to the human branch, and
assign the great apes and humans to a higher-level taxonomic level. But the phylogeny is perfectly clear. Humans are hominoids, and hominids, and
anthropoids, and primates
Humans are hominoids. Hominoidea is a taxonomic group. Phylogenetic systematics holds that taxonomic groups should be monophyletic – meaning that
they include all the descendants of one ancestor, and don’t leave any descendants out. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, more
distantly to gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons. All these living creatures are crown hominoids. The Hominoidea includes all these, together with
extinct animals like Australopithecus, Proconsul, Dryopithecus, and many others.
Chimpanzees are apes. Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. We routinely differentiate the “great apes” from the “lesser
apes”, where the latter are gibbons and siamangs. Do you see where I'm going with this?
You were already incorrect in the former statement, and you're incorrect in this one too. But hey, Stars bro. Who #ing cares about science,
No need to be nasty and use epithets to get your point across. If the science were on your side, why not just provide citations to put all the true
believers in their places? It should be rather simple to do so... you know, science not stars right?
Really? How many times have those theories changed? Based on how many bones, in which stratta? Do you have a clear connection between
homosapiens and concocted monkey men? no? Then why are you pretending other people are so stupid, and you are so intelligent?
Enlighten us...how many times have theories been changed based on new fossil finds? Seriously...when was the last time an entire THEORY was altered
based on some new find? Faulting science for giving the best information it currently has and updating hypothesis and postulations based on new
research and data while dwelling on anachronistic worldviews from the bronze age, ranting about science and simultaneously failing to demonstrate your
point WITH science is rather interesting from a research point of view. It's not next level crazy like taking forensic anthropology advice from the
guy who put braces on my niece but this early in the day I'm not terribly picky. But if you would like to provide specific examples I would be happy
to explain them to you. See, unlike Orthodontist Cuozzo or any other dissenters in this thread, I actually have a degree in Anthropology and I did my
graduate work specifically on Neanderthals. I can tell you from a professional point of view, Cuozzo has his head so far up Jesus' bum that no number
of Hail Mary's or Hail Lucy's are going to get him back to the light of day or reality when it comes to this topic and you are so sorely misled on
the truth of biological sciences and anthropological definitions and classifications that I'm not sure why I'm even looking the horse in the mouth
other than the fact that for years, this is what I did...tried to teach people the truth. You can't sit here and say you've looked in depoth at both
sides of the issue and come out believing that science is all faulty. There are far too many dominos in this chain for that postulation to ever work
out properly in the end.
Almost like Lucy. We should just start saying 7 "Hail Lucy"'s instead of hail mary's.
what does that even mean? it comes off as a desperate nonsequitor to distract from the fact that you're making up your own science as you move
through the posts simply because you disagree with established science. Please demonstrate HOW and WHY the science as it is taught is incorrect or
start adding qualifiers to your statements such as " I don't believe" or "from what I understand" to your statements of "fact" because
there's not a lot of fact going on thus far. A lot of conjecture, hyperbole and suspensuion of belief but not much fact as yet.