|
0 members (),
381
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Well, and your family pet is a wolf who is much more closely related to the wild wolves than we are to the apes. I'm curious as to why you continue to state that we are merely related to apes. We are apes, and the time since the minor genetic divergence from chimpanzees is irrelevant to the taxonomic facts. Of course people recognize the difference between humans and other apes. Unfortunately, as with yourself, that tends to lead them into insisting that we're not apes.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
By the same logic then dogs are still wolves.
And if you continue that backward you don't have any species at all???
He is using the standard biological science defininiton of species life-domain-kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species you are using some other species definition which you will need to define.
Under life-domain-kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species
dog and wolf are different as are man and ape. They merely share a common ancestory.
You want to define a different species definition they may not be, wont be sure until you define it.
Last edited by Orac; 06/16/11 03:02 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Of course it doesn't follow that dogs are still wolves. The point here is that dogs are still of the family Canidae, which includes wolves, just as Homo sapiens is still of the family Hominidae, which includes the rest of the Great Apes.
Talk of species is an irrelevant diversion from that point.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Well, if you are going to be that way about it then chimpanzees are human. They belong to the family Hominidae the same as we do. It all depends on your point of view. And my point of view is that there are enough differences between us and the other Hominidae that I will consider us to be completely different beings. There is a relationship, but then you may have some relations you would like to have no connections with.
That being said there is a huge question of just when our ancestors started being Homo. Ian Tattersall in his writings has made the point that the definition of the genus Homo is a very subjective thing. The most accepted criteria are brain size and tool making. But it appears that some of the australopithecines may have been tool makers. Their brains though were not much larger than the brains of modern chimpanzees. Any way the definition of homo is very vague, except that we are now the only species in the genus.
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Bill: "Well, if you are going to be that way about it then chimpanzees are human."
That's a curious and unreasonable thing to say, Bill. Okay, you reject the current classification system, and evidently have your own reasons for placing humans in their own separate family rather than in that of the other Great Apes. No more to said on that point then.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
What I am trying to get across is that apes and humans may share a common ancestor, but does not make us apes and it doesn't make apes humans. For example, I suspect that if I could trace my family tree far enough back I could probably find that I am related to the Queen of England. But that doesn't make me royal. So sharing an ancestor with the apes doesn't make me an ape. While we share a lot of our genetic material with the apes it still doesn't mean that much. After all I have heard that we share 60% of our genetic material with fruit flies. That sure doesn't make me a fruit fly.
The way that the Linnaean classification system works is to classify life forms by what other life forms they are like. The ones that are the most alike are classified as being a species. Groups of life forms that are somewhat alike, but not enough alike to be considered species are genera. Then they diversify up to the family. And from that on to more general classifications. But while these classifications are based on similarities, the thing that makes different taxa are things that are different. So if you get up to the family, you are just saying that there is a relationship between them. So all you can say when you say that humans and the apes are in the same family is that there is some distant relationship and they are somewhat alike. That doesn't mean that you can then assign the same lower level classification. Apes are enough different from homo sapiens that trying to say they are the same is not a realistic statement.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696 |
Bill Gill said...
What I am trying to get across is that apes and humans may share a common ancestor, but does not make us apes and it doesn't make apes humans. ..............................> So sharing an ancestor with the apes doesn't make me an ape. While we share a lot of our genetic material with the apes it still doesn't mean that much. After all I have heard that we share 60% of our genetic material with fruit flies. That sure doesn't make me a fruit fly.
Bill Gill
Well said Bill,
of course while we share a lot of Genetic material with the apes.
There are also a number of great ureconcilable differences between ape and man.
Notably, Man the world over, everywhere, truly communicate thru speech and a developed language.
Apes, the world over, communicate using their voice-box for making
various single vocal notes.
Bill Gill said,
The way that the Linnaean classification system works is to classify life forms by what other life forms they are like. The ones that are the most alike are classified as being a species. Groups of life forms that are somewhat alike, but not enough alike to be considered species are genera. Then they diversify up to the family. And from that on to more general classifications. But while these classifications are based on similarities, the thing that makes different taxa are things that are different. So if you get up to the family, you are just saying that there is a relationship between them. So all you can say when you say that humans and the apes are in the same family is that there is some distant relationship and they are somewhat alike. That doesn't mean that you can then assign the same lower level classification. Apes are enough different from homo sapiens that trying to say they are the same is not a realistic statement.
Bill Gill
Mike Kremer said,
Carl Linnaeus attempted to classify similar looking plants, flowers and animals back in the 1750's. Things that looked similar, were placed in the same box. Science has advanced greatly in the last 260 years, where there have been a number of re-classifications.
Is it your opinion that there might be...even should be...a human/ape re-classification in the future due to the use of DNA?
I wonder if a change has been noted, but not officialy registered, for fear of upsetting the preverbial 'apple-cart?'
.  . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Is it your opinion that there might be...even should be...a human/ape re-classification in the future due to the use of DNA? Personally I don't see that there is any need to do a such a re-classification. The DNA evidence seems to indicate that the apes are our nearest relatives. So the current classifications seem to me to be perfectly satisfactory. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Bill- I think most of us understand "what we mean when we talk about man and apes separately". Rede was pointing out that in fact we are not separate species. We too are a form of ape. There are branches to the evolutionary tree, I know, but do we not carry with us the evidence of our origin in our genetic make-up?
Since I posted this (whilst I was typing it), Mike and Bill expertly disposed of the point I was trying to make!
I have left it there as I feel strongly that we need to acknowledge that we have evolved on this planet, as have other species, and we are not the most important, just very much more noisy and opinionated than most. And more destructive, often because we feel we are different and special.
Last edited by Ellis; 06/17/11 05:25 AM. Reason: because of posts posted after mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Is it your opinion that there might be...even should be...a human/ape re-classification in the future due to the use of DNA? Personally I don't see that there is any need to do a such a re-classification. The DNA evidence seems to indicate that the apes are our nearest relatives. So the current classifications seem to me to be perfectly satisfactory. Glad to see we're clear on that then. For a moment I thought you were suggesting that we're not, or ought not to be, in the Great Ape family.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Glad to see we're clear on that then. For a moment I thought you were suggesting that we're not, or ought not to be, in the Great Ape family. Actually I think that the better way to say that is that we and the apes are in the same family. Saying that we are apes doesn't say much about the many differences between humans and apes. And remember that the family name is Hominidae. Which is based on homo, or human. So it isn't that we are apes, but we have admitted the apes into our exclusive company, as poor relations. And don't forget that we are special. Because we are the only species on Earth that can make major changes in the way the Earth is organized. Claiming that we are just apes is simply a way to try to put down our humanity. We are human and we are special. Keep in mind of course that there is no good reason why we are special. There is no great plan that we are following, it just happened that way. And of course if horses were the intelligent lifeforms, then they would be special. The same way we are special. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Thanks for your opinions, Bill. Obviously, I see things differently. I have no objection to the term 'ape'. It's simply a label for a particular group of genetically related animals that includes us. The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696 |
Thanks for your opinions, Bill. Obviously, I see things differently. I have no objection to the term 'ape'. It's simply a label for a particular group of genetically related animals that includes us. The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system.
Mike said...
Well I am afraid I am another (of many millions?) who sees things differently.
Nor am I too happy with your above last sentence Rede.
Prehaps you ought to add- "The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system as recognised at the present time?
For I feel sure that eventually it will be scientificly recognised that Apes and Humans are indeed different species.
Bill Gill said-
"And don't forget that we are special. Because we are the only species on Earth that can make major changes in the way the Earth is organized. Claiming that we are just apes is simply a way to try to put down our humanity. We are human and we are special. Keep in mind of course that there is no good reason why we are special. There is no great plan that we are following, it just happened that way."
Yes Bill, we are special, due to the huge differences in capabilitys... besides our Speech, Art and Writing, and our ability to re-shape the the World (as you mentioned) that we live in....I cannot see any species of monkey or ape, even given another 50 or 100 million years of time... ever develop the technology or ability to leave our Earth and walk on the Moon.
That seems the best proof to me, that we are supremely unique in our intellectual and cognitive skills.
That said, I do believe we will eventually name ourselves, as a separate species.
All Species of animals upon Earth have developed to the top of their particular tree, accordingly to their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc. etc.
Hundreds of thousands of seemingly perfect Ok Darwinean species have become extinct, over the last few million years.
Most of these single species having reached the 'top of their tree', did not develop any further than we were able to unfold, or tease out from their Darwinian and Archeological historys.
If as humans, we really did develop from Lemurs, or tree Shrews etc, (one school of thought) then it must have taken a few million years of Darwinian development, all the while keeping a very low profile, together with a lot of luck.
If true, we deserve to be in our own seperate species.
If we humans arrived by any other means, we still deserve to have a seperate classification.
Nor do I see much point in using or talking about DNA to back up theories.
We all know that every form of life upon this Earth, is based upon DNA
So there is not a lot of argument to be gained by stating that we have
a certain percentage DNA simularitys to Monkeys.
Dont forget we all have DNA simularities to all other species of Earth life, (as well other forms of life yet to be found within our Universe)?
For I believe the DNA Double Helix, as the basis of life, is probably everywhere.
. . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
[quote=redewenur]Thanks for your opinions, Bill. Obviously, I see things differently. I have no objection to the term 'ape'. It's simply a label for a particular group of genetically related animals that includes us. The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system.
Mike said...
Well I am afraid I am another (of many millions?) who sees things differently.
Nor am I too happy with your above last sentence Rede.
Prehaps you ought to add- "The differences in capabilities between species are of no account in the taxonomic system as recognised at the present time?
For I feel sure that eventually it will be scientificly recognised that Apes and Humans are indeed different species.
Mike, it would help if you understood the difference between family and species. Presently you are clearly unaware of the distinction. There is no scientific dispute - and there never has been as far as I know - regarding the fact that humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are each of a different species. No taxonomist ever said that any one of those species is the same as any other. You may wish to see a different system that doesn't offend your sensiblities regarding human superiority, but I see very little hope for you in that respect. Is it really not enough for you that humans are patently superior in certain respects? Do you really require that the most logical, accurate and scientifically verifiable system of classification ever achieved, i.e. DNA sequencing and analysis, be thrown out to satisfy your pride and indignation. Frankly, Mike - and I very much regret having to say this to you - the fact is, you don't have a clue what you're talking about re both taxonomy and DNA.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
All Species of animals upon Earth have developed to the top of their particular tree, accordingly to their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc. etc. Mike, I'm not sure just what you mean by that. One way of reading it is that a species has a natural 'lid' on how far it can develop. I'm afraid I can't go along with that. It implies that there is some sort of goal for evolution. If that isn't what you meant I apologize. But one thing about evolution is that there is no direction to it. It is strictly random. If a species happens strictly by chance to develop a characteristic that makes it a better fit for its environment then it will expand to fill that environment. In the process it may become a new species. This usually happens when there is some change which will cut off a small group from contact with the main body of the existing species. So in fact there is nothing to keep any other animal on this planet from developing, through a long process of evolution and speciation, into another intelligent species. Of course there is nothing to make them do it either. For I believe the DNA Double Helix, as the basis of life, is probably everywhere. Well, it seems to me that something like the DNA double helix will be used, but we don't really know enough about the original development of life on this planet to make any hard and fast statements about how it would develop on other planets. Right now we have just one example of life. That is really not enough to generalize to all possible forms of life. Rede, I think we are pretty much in agreement, except that I don't think of us as being apes, just remote relatives of the apes. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696 |
All Species of animals upon Earth have developed to the top of their particular tree, accordingly to their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc. etc. Mike, I'm not sure just what you mean by that. One way of reading it is that a species has a natural 'lid' on how far it can develop. I'm afraid I can't go along with that. It implies that there is some sort of goal for evolution. If that isn't what you meant I apologize. But one thing about evolution is that there is no direction to it. It is strictly random. If a species happens strictly by chance to develop a characteristic that makes it a better fit for its environment then it will expand to fill that environment. In the process it may become a new species. This usually happens when there is some change which will cut off a small group from contact with the main body of the existing species. So in fact there is nothing to keep any other animal on this planet from developing, through a long process of evolution and speciation, into another intelligent species. Of course there is nothing to make them do it either.
Yes I do understand you Bill. thank you for being so patient.
I realise my explanations are often very poor. It is a slight dyslexic failing that I have at times.
I realise I should not have mentioned "top" with regard to animal/species tree.
What i meant to convey is that hundreds of our Earth species have died out over time...
dependant upon their location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc.
Meaning...that as far as we humans are concerned, they did reach the top of their evolutionary tree at the time they died out.
Of course they could have gone on developing (if thats the correct word)with no natural lid (as you mentioned) were they not subject to those above pressures that I mentioned.
Then again they they might not have progressed up the evolutionary tree, but remained virtually static ...similar to the crocodillian famillies, which don't seemed to have changed over millions of years.
I wonder what progressing UP the evolutionary tree... really means for us humans?
As usual I have my own very peculiar thoughts upon various subjects, one of them being evolution.
Here I believe that the longer any species lives....the less likely any
Genetic or evolutionary change will be for the good, or of benefit to that species.
My basis for saying that is ...that earler genetic changes are (always) good, because the species is/and was, still around, and muliplying.
Until it sucuumbed to various evolutionary pressures... and then went extinct.
Hope i have explained my thoughts a bit better this time.
I do agree with you Bill, that theoretically there should be no end to the development of a particular species up the evolutionary tree....
providing there is not any serious competition from the interactions I mentioned previously??.(i.e location, their interaction with other species, the local fauna, food chain, weather, and historical time line etc) bringing everything to an extinct halt.
Your thoughts upon what progressing up the evolutionary tree means for us humans?
....and has it a different meaning for other (non human)species??
I mean if a species does NOT go extinct, is it theoretically climing up the evolutionary tree.?..Or..would you say that it is ultimately putting extinction pressures upon the other remaining species ....to their detriment?
For I believe the DNA Double Helix, as the basis of life, is probably everywhere.
Bill Gill said in reply..
Well, it seems to me that something like the DNA double helix will be used, but we don't really know enough about the original development of life on this planet to make any hard and fast statements about how it would develop on other planets. Right now we have just one example of life. That is really not enough to generalize to all possible forms of life.
Rede, I think we are pretty much in agreement, except that I don't think of us as being apes, just remote relatives of the apes.
Bill Gill
. . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Your thoughts upon what progressing up the evolutionary tree means for us humans?
....and has it a different meaning for other (non human)species?? I have some question about what "progressing up the evolutionary tree" means. It almost sounds like there is some kind of a path that evolution follows. From what you said up above I don't think that is what you mean. The problem to me is the idea of progress in relation to evolution. I have problems myself trying to keep from using the general idea of progress, but as I understand evolution it is not a matter of progress. Evolution is a matter of undirected random change in the genome, which is voted up or down by natural selection. Under that regime we can't really say that any organism has progressed over any other organism. All we can say is that it has changed, and it either succeeded or died out. I think we can talk about primitive organisms, but only as long as we are clear that what we mean is an earlier version of the organism, not that the new organism is better. It may or may not be better, in the environment in which it finds itself. But better just means that it has a greater survival rate. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
I agree totally with you Bill but have a couple of additions. Not only does primitive organism mean earlier the earlier organism may infact be more complex. It is a myth that primitive organisms are infact simplier than later decendants ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...complexity.html) People assume natural selection is a linear process and Human's are even somehow outside it. Events occur outside the sphere of biology can and do abruptly change the enviroment and hence as per Bill's comment there is no possible concept of progressing. If a massive metorite plowed into Earth tomorrow the most likely survivor would be ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20534-goldmine-worm-shows-animals-could-be-living-on-mars.html). It requires no light, its temperature is very well protected it has a very good survival prospect in such an event we and most other animals and organisms do not.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
reading it is that a species has a natural 'lid' on how far it can develop. I'm afraid I can't go along with that. It implies that there is some sort of goal for evolution. Surely there must be some sort of 'lid' which organisms at least approach. I had the impression that they pretty much stabilize after a long enough time. Then if the environment changes and they're suddenly not so well suited to it, they'll start to evolve more rapidly in a different direction - possibly becoming worse at surviving in their former environment. This does imply there's a goal of being best able to survive in whatever environment it's in. But that goal would only be approached if the environment remains stable for a long enough time. Surely that's already true for many species? Obviously there's no possibility of a "perfect" human or "perfect" bird, because none will be best suited to all possible environments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Surely there must be some sort of 'lid' which organisms at least approach. I had the impression that they pretty much stabilize after a long enough time. The problem with saying something like lid is that it somewhat implies something in the form of a guide. In fact organisms do tend to stabilize when they reach a level where they can successfully utilize the environment where they are established. After that evolution for that organism will be very slow unless something comes along to disrupt the environment. Their adaptation to the environment also isn't necessarily the "best" adaptation possible. It is an adaptation that is simply "good enough". There isn't any goal for evolution, unless you want to say that the goal is to keep on with life. But evolution has no interest in any given species of organism. If the random changes which occur in the DNA of a particular species cause it to be better adapted to its environment, well that is good for that species. If it isn't good for the species, well that is too bad, but evolution doesn't keep score. As far as perfection is concerned, if we were perfect then we would have fewer backaches, fallen arches, and sinus headaches. A lot of the physical ails of humans are caused by the fact that evolution never starts over, it just twists things around so they will do the job, and keeps on going. I would fire any engineer who did as bad a job of designing a system as we show. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
