Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Humans are apes, my friend. Edit: If humans lived within a jungle environment, wouldn't they likely far more resemble the other great apes? My city happens to have perhaps the country's best zoo. I've spent time looking thru a pane of glass into a gorilla's eyes. I assure you, the ape I observed is not far removed from me or you. There's complex thought going on in that gorilla's brain. If you say you're an ape - I'm not going to argue that. But I'm not. I have lived in a jungle - time between hot showers would be 6 months. After returning to civilization, couldn't sleep inside any structure, and would still sleep on the ground outside at night for a couple more months, gradually adjusting back. And sorry, I didn't take on the appearance of an ape. Surely if hogs can alter their appearance significantly in a couple months, I could have changed in six. But I didn't. Well, my hair was longer, my skin was darker, mosquitoes would no longer bite me even as they buzzed around me, I could smell, detect, and track upwind humans from 3/4 mile away due entirely to their different diet. But it was still me. I got sideways with some of the monkeys there, as they were very territorial, and I've been run out of some of their territorial areas since they took extreme exception to my presence. If I had said I looked into they eyes of some, and "detected" some complex thoughts - what would your response be to me? Would I get the benefit of doubt, or would a tendency to disagree for the purpose of disagreeing be your response? Would you suggest I was "reaching?" You are one of the great Apes. One reason you and Bigfoot are related. We could just through out scientific classification, if it would suit you though. Edited April 20, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 20, 2016 Author Share Posted April 20, 2016 I'm afraid so Far Archer....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae A major grouping of bipedals - but only ONE has 46 chromosomes. US. All others have 48 chromosomes. I'm not surprised that there have been and continue to be several revisions as to what's what. For this reason, I'll acknowledge the current, conditional classification includes humans, but that's likewise subject to change, as it has in the past. One may note the necessary terminologies - 'hominid,' 'hominoid,' 'hominin,' and 'human', the only extant species being 'homo-sapiens,' with the (according to current science) homo-sapiens-sapiens being the assumed lone survivor subspecies. The terminologies are a moving target designed to accommodate rare fossil finds for placement - some of which in the next few years will likely be dropped as individual fossil species. It's probably just my contrary nature, Norse, but I'll never admit to being an ape. A man's gotta have a bit of pride. And no credentialed academic can convince me otherwise. I take great pride in being a primate and a ape. We are the most fascinating creatures on Earth. But that "group" is mostly made up of quadrapeds. And the number of chromosomes is not indicitive of "superiority". Same goes for a Horse and a Donkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I'm afraid so Far Archer....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae A major grouping of bipedals - but only ONE has 46 chromosomes. US. All others have 48 chromosomes. I'm not surprised that there have been and continue to be several revisions as to what's what. For this reason, I'll acknowledge the current, conditional classification includes humans, but that's likewise subject to change, as it has in the past. One may note the necessary terminologies - 'hominid,' 'hominoid,' 'hominin,' and 'human', the only extant species being 'homo-sapiens,' with the (according to current science) homo-sapiens-sapiens being the assumed lone survivor subspecies. The terminologies are a moving target designed to accommodate rare fossil finds for placement - some of which in the next few years will likely be dropped as individual fossil species. It's probably just my contrary nature, Norse, but I'll never admit to being an ape. A man's gotta have a bit of pride. And no credentialed academic can convince me otherwise. I take great pride in being a primate and a ape. We are the most fascinating creatures on Earth. But that "group" is mostly made up of quadrapeds. And the number of chromosomes is not indicitive of "superiority". Same goes for a Horse and a Donkey. I believe, as, well all species are created equal. Brain size is not a significator of intelligence, so our poor little quadruped cousins are just as smart and worthy as we are. They just don't design nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 20, 2016 Author Share Posted April 20, 2016 Well I dont believe in being created.....much less equal. We are products of our environment over millions of years of natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I think it's safe to say that bigfoot will redefine the hominoid family tree. The absolute least it would do is bring an "extinct" line into the present. It might introduce a new one. Taxonomy tells us the rest. But yep, that tree, either at the trunk or on a major branch, will look significantly different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 20, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2016 Norseman DNA says that we are related to chimps and apes through a singular ancestral being, and that there was a split. This split took place at some where near 5-6 million years ago and that this is where it branches off between humans and chimps and apes. Now as humans we are a pure breed which would make us 100% pure, but chimps and ape are only related to us at 98.8%. The chromosomes in chimps and apes is 48 and in humans is 46 which when split in half equals to 24 in chimps and apes and 23 in Humans. So in fact us humans are on a branch of our own which makes us humans and not chimps or apes like science would like us to believe. Chimps and apes are on their own branch and has no part in us humans but a related ancestor. This makes us pure and defines us as humans and not apes or chimps. Can you prove this fact wrong? that we are not pure and that we are only related to chimps and apes? So in fact we are all brothers and sisters through the relationship of our blood. There is no denial there since it had to take one male and one female to start a population. The problem is, How did it all start from this single ancestral being. Was this single ancestral being a single cell that split and grew, or was it an act of nature of infinite proportions. Now remember I am try to stay with in the perimeters of the rules of the forum and it is not easy. But again we do not understand nature and what it is capable of. So now we turn our attention to these creatures, since humans are so closely related to chimps and apes. What if humans were to mate with each other? it would work, since the law of nature says that the closer the relationship within our DNA is to any creature the better the bond. We now have a chimp and a ape with 24 chromosomes split and humans with 23 chromosomes split. When joined they equal 47 chromosomes , so what happens when both species join? and what would be the effect? What I have found is this that there is a missing chromosome among our species, but why? and is it possible that these creatures have 47 chromosomes? Is there a computer graphics program that would show the results of a species with 47 chromosomes? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/#.VxfMyrX2bI http://www.downsyndrome.org.za/main.aspx?artid=18 http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/disorders/chromosomal/klinefelter/ Even though these do not prove my point it says some thing about the number of chromosomes and the effects. Here is another idea towards humans but I am going to push this idea towards Bigfoot since it has been reported that DNA from them has been found to have pig and Human. Another combination that is possible, a pig has 38 chromosomes and when split has 19 chromosomes and when mixed with chimps equals to 43 chromosomes and with humans equals to 42 chromosomes. so what happens when two species mix with different chromosomes? Does this change the species that is being joined together? Can Bigfoot be found by the amount of chromosomes it has and compared to other creatures as well as it's own DNA? Like I said I enjoy this and this is very enlightment to an understanding to who we are. I enjoy being Human and enjoy belonging to my own branch of the tree of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Again, I disagree. Humans are hominoids. Hominoidea is a taxonomic group. Phylogenetic systematics holds that all taxonomic groups should be monophyletic - meaning they include all the descendants of one ancestor, and don't leave any descendants out. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, more distant to gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons. All these creatures are hominoids. The hominoidea includes all these, including extinct species such as Australopithicus, Proconsul, Dryopithecus, and many others. Chimpanzees are apes, Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. Routinely, we differentiate the Great Apes and the Lesser Apes, the latter being gibbons and siamangs. Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys and baboons, and New World monkeys are marmosets. All of us are anthropoids, but humans aren't monkeys. The difference? "Ape" is an English word, not a taxonomic term, and English words don't need to be monophyletic. German, French, Russian, and other languages don't have to synch up with English ways of splitting up animals. Taxonomy is everywhere, international even, and we all recognize humans as hominoids. In French, apes are singes. So are monkeys. Who's right? Is the French word correct or the English word correct? Or are both incorrect? If I have to accept that humans are apes, then we all must accept that chimpanzees are monkeys. There is value in precision about phylogeny, and I have taxonomic terms. Humans are hominoids, anthropoids, haplorhines, and primates. And mammals. It's downright careless to force taxonomic principles into everyday language just to submit a political argument. It's sloppy and deceitful. It's a contrived argument to suggest we aren't unique and as great as we think we are. Whether we are special or not should be left to biology - not by coercion by applying additional meaning to English words. Not saying that humans aren't part of the primate phylogeny, but we should use taxonomy for it's intended purpose - and not use English words to do the job. I'm not an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 20, 2016 Author Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Shadow Born and Far Archer, I support your right to deny science and believe whatever it is you wanna believe.... Edited April 20, 2016 by norseman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Don't have a big problem with science. Got a problem with using an English word that is overly inclusive and non-specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 The genus Homo is included in the family of great apes (Hominidae) and in the superfamily of apes (Hominoidea). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Read the entire article you referred to. Hominoidea included all supermember Hominoidea except humans. But humans have only recently been included. It will change again. They apparently can't make up their own minds - and these are the experts. They keep moving the goalposts. So I wasn't an ape, now I'm supposed to be an ape . . . No. I'm not an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Hominodea has always included humans. It's the term "ape" that didn't include humans until more recently. There's no logical reason for the term ape not to include humans when every other member the superfamily is included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyzonthropus Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Has it been traced back to see at what point we dropped those last two? Is it perhaps an artifact from a founder stock following a bottleneck killing off nearly all of us, leaving only some population of 46'd mutants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Hominodea has always included humans. It's the term "ape" that didn't include humans until more recently. There's no logical reason for the term ape not to include humans when every other member the superfamily is included. Hominodea has always included humans. It's the term "ape" that didn't include humans until more recently. There's no logical reason for the term ape not to include humans when every other member the superfamily is included. I was quoting from the article. They're the ones that said Hominoidae included all supermembers except humans. It's not my article. The link to the article was posted. So your disagreement is with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) What you posted was your own intepretation of the article, not an actual quote from the article. Here's the actual quote: "Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of those primatologists who developed the idea that there were trends in primate evolution and that the extant members of the order could be arranged in an ".. ascending series", leading from "monkeys" to "apes" to humans. Within this tradition "ape" came to refer to all members of the superfamily Hominoidea except humans.[1] As such, this use of "apes" represented a paraphyletic grouping, meaning that, even though all species of apes were descended from a common ancestor, this grouping did not include all the descendant species, because humans were excluded from being among the apes." Edited April 21, 2016 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts