Difference between revisions of "Talk:Primate"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Humans are apes.)
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
:::Clearly the word "animal" is used differently in the Bible than it is in modern science. I'm becoming acutely conscious of the new talk page rule, so I'll post no more on this topic (I'm not joking). [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::Clearly the word "animal" is used differently in the Bible than it is in modern science. I'm becoming acutely conscious of the new talk page rule, so I'll post no more on this topic (I'm not joking). [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Humans are apes. ==
 +
 +
Humans are apes in the sense that we're (technically) animals that would be classified as an ape by the definition of ape (as a way to think about it: are we plants, fungi, or bacteria? Biologically, are we different enough to have our own kingdom for life?).
 +
 +
It comes down to a semantic argument, but primatologists do study the apes (and include humans into that classification) because of our exceedingly close similarities. We fit the definition of ape, but we shouldn't be offended since we're much more complex. -
 +
[[User:JulietB|JulietB]] 00:34, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 +
:God created us in His image, He did not create us as apes. End of story. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:23, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 +
::As stated above, there's a distinction between how the word animal is used. An analogy would be cats and dogs. We can agree they are two distinct animals. But we can also agree they have similarities. In the same way, taxonomically, we're apes because that's what we'd be classified. Ape is just a smaller tier of primate. If you reject the fact that we're apes (which actually has smaller groups to which humans are unique), you might as well go all the way up the chain and not call humans primates or animals. -[[User:JulietB|JulietB]] 00:35, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 +
:::You say that as though there would be something wrong with such a claim. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
 +
::::Creationism and evolution aren't at odds here. It's the classification of humans as apes. If they are not apes, what would you propose they are? If they are not animals, you are suggesting that humans have their own separate kingdom. Humans would be considered mammals, yes? Mammals are animals. So humans are animals. We can go down further by saying humans are apes because they have ape characteristics (our digits, especially our thumbs, have apical tufts; but we are distinct from other apes in that we have many more faculties). Ape is just a classification. We tend to equal it with thoughts of gorillas, but it's a much broader term. -[[User:JulietB|JulietB]] 01:09, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 00:09, 16 January 2010

Mainstream biologists place humans in with primates, but I feel that this is the same as asserting that people are only animals. --Ed Poor 14:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Biologically; yes. However, in my opinion, what makes us different is that we have the power of higher thinking and creativity. Marl Karx 14:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
There might be more to it than that (see Creationism). --Ed Poor 14:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Clearly the word "animal" is used differently in the Bible than it is in modern science. I'm becoming acutely conscious of the new talk page rule, so I'll post no more on this topic (I'm not joking). RDre 14:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Humans are apes.

Humans are apes in the sense that we're (technically) animals that would be classified as an ape by the definition of ape (as a way to think about it: are we plants, fungi, or bacteria? Biologically, are we different enough to have our own kingdom for life?).

It comes down to a semantic argument, but primatologists do study the apes (and include humans into that classification) because of our exceedingly close similarities. We fit the definition of ape, but we shouldn't be offended since we're much more complex. - JulietB 00:34, 16 January 2010 (EST)

God created us in His image, He did not create us as apes. End of story. AlexWD 00:23, 16 January 2010 (EST)
As stated above, there's a distinction between how the word animal is used. An analogy would be cats and dogs. We can agree they are two distinct animals. But we can also agree they have similarities. In the same way, taxonomically, we're apes because that's what we'd be classified. Ape is just a smaller tier of primate. If you reject the fact that we're apes (which actually has smaller groups to which humans are unique), you might as well go all the way up the chain and not call humans primates or animals. -JulietB 00:35, 16 January 2010 (EST)
You say that as though there would be something wrong with such a claim. AlexWD 00:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Creationism and evolution aren't at odds here. It's the classification of humans as apes. If they are not apes, what would you propose they are? If they are not animals, you are suggesting that humans have their own separate kingdom. Humans would be considered mammals, yes? Mammals are animals. So humans are animals. We can go down further by saying humans are apes because they have ape characteristics (our digits, especially our thumbs, have apical tufts; but we are distinct from other apes in that we have many more faculties). Ape is just a classification. We tend to equal it with thoughts of gorillas, but it's a much broader term. -JulietB 01:09, 16 January 2010 (EST)