Hey! That's not what an ape is!

[Barak]

Heh. You people are -so- going to Hell.

www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp


Well ok, so it's a new Chick tract. But it's sorta on topic too.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Dude, I wish people would stop mocking Jack Chick. He's just a faintly crazy old man who's trying to do what's right and not hurting anybody.

 

[Barak]

Weird, you're the one who assumed I was mocking him though.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Despite this classification, the genetic evidence is that gorillas split from our line only at most a very little time before chimps did, so really we should all be in the same subfamily.

Edit: in fact if the same standards were applied to humans as are applied to other animals, we should all be in the same genus.

Actually, the problem isn't with chimps, bonobos, or humans, the problem is with gorillas. From what I understand of the matter there's something of a debate as to where exactly gorillas belong, and in what order the species differentiated. Specifically, whether or not the gorilla line diverged at the same time as bonobo/chimp/human ancestors, or beforehand. True, compared to a strictly traditional approach, gorillas should be closer to humans than they are. However, bonobos and chimps are slightly closer to humans genetically (and when I say slightly, I mean much less than 1%) so it's tough to really make that call.

Personally, I feel a combination of a phenetic approach (based on phenotype) and cladistic approach (based on genetics) is the best way of classifying the groups. Personally, I feel having all of them (plus orangs) in the same family aptly classifies them. Additionally, a combination phenetic/cladistic approach takes into account the differences in humans and properly (IMO) classifies them as a seperate genus. We are quite a bit different than bonobos and chimps - that 2% difference really does alter us significantly, not to mention the presence of higher brain functions.

 

[Kai Lord]

Yup. We're pretty similar to chimpanzees and gorillas anatomically.

A Chevy Corvette is pretty similar to a Chevy Camaro. I guess that proves they both randomly evolved out of nothing too.

 

[DMScott]

A Chevy Corvette is pretty similar to a Chevy Camaro. I guess that proves they both randomly evolved out of nothing too.

If you honestly think that statement has any meaningful content, I suggest you spend some time reading FAQs over at talkorigins.org and talkdesign.org, and then picking up some of the books recommended there and at linked sites. If you want to discuss the topic, a good place to do so is the evolution messageboard over at http://www.carm.org - it's not a subject that can be usefully addressed here, due to board rules.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Weird, you're the one who assumed I was mocking him though.

Sorry, I made an (evidently unwarrented) assumption. It's just that people seem to dislike him and say that he's a mean person who hates all non-Christians. "Faintly crazy" is not exactly what I meant; more that he is misinformed about some things (like D&D ) and tends to caricature (sp?) his opponents. BUT, I'm hijacking the thread, and, I suspect, traipsing across the "No religion or politics" line.

 

[Barak]

Heh no, you assumption was quite warranted, in fact.

I just hadn't said anything one way or another, so the fact that you assumed I was mocking him (right or wrong) sorta showed the reason for me posting the link in the first place. Well that and the fact that it was spot-on the discussion.

 

[Kai Lord]

If you honestly think that statement has any meaningful content, I suggest you spend some time reading FAQs over at talkorigins.org and talkdesign.org, and then picking up some of the books recommended there and at linked sites.

Actually I prefer Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I find it takes much less faith to believe that God created the world in six days than the "theory" that life and all things in existence just randomly happened. Its not like there exists a single transitionary fossil, or case of one species giving birth to another in all of documented science, or few enough holes in the very theory as to make it anything other than completely dismissable.

Gorillas, oranguatans, men, spider monkeys, chimps, neanderthals. And they say we haven't found the missing link. There would have to be thousands of missing links between each of those, where are they?

If you want to discuss the topic, a good place to do so is the evolution messageboard over at http://www.carm.org - it's not a subject that can be usefully addressed here, due to board rules.

Then why all the talk in this thread of evolution and men being related to gorillas and whatnot before my post?

 

[DMScott]

Then why all the talk in this thread of evolution and men being related to gorillas and whatnot before my post?

None of those posts addressed religion or politics, both forbidden topics here. Your post does. If you're interested in such a discussion, I again recommend you seek out other boards.