Yuchi1 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 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 ​destructive 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. FIFY
Yuchi1 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 This is silly. A poster doesn't care for English words. Engages in anti-science. Hey, everyone is welcome to their opinion, silly as it might be. Maybe the world is 6K years old, too. I think it's just oversimplification by a group who are too lazy to get into details. You have a group all given different scientific names, and then you have an all inclusive, language specific name applied to dissimilar organisms. Why even bother to use other names for Hominoidea if we're not going to differentiate? Everything else has 48 chromosomes, and only one has 46 chromosomes, but some are just too sorry to account for the one that's much, much different from all the rest. Much easier to throw them all in the same bucket and use a general term. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed - are extinct. That's what I call science. Oh. That's right. The first complete skulls found at Dmanisi, all significantly different, but all H. Erectus, will eliminate previously approved, sanitized, and published - but mistakenly misidentified species of H. ruldolfensis, H. ergaster, H. gautengensis, and even the big boy, H. habilis. Come to find out - they're all H. erectus. That's not what I call human evolution science. That's what I call jumping to conclusions from a lack of sufficient knowledge and the rushing pursuit of fame. And I'm supposed to rely on this stuff without question? I'd have to be dumb as dumb can be. Or ignorant. Ignorance goes a long way. To rely on this "science" currently proposed under the broad heading "evolution," might as well believe the sun, stars, and planets revolve around the earth. FA, IMO, what your running into is the self-anointed forum oracles taking issue with the factual information you referenced because it somehow casts their scientific gods (Meldrum, et. al.) into a less than stellar light. They then attack the messenger as the message stands upon it's own and the factual basis is just too much for them to bear. What they've truly done is demonstrate for all to see how truly irrelevant their self-induced hubris actually has become. 1
norseman Posted April 21, 2016 Admin Author Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) We cannot debate in a scientific manner because you and far archer reject science concerning human evolution. Your reasoning as to why you reject it is "just becauseHow am I rejecting science when all I am saying is that Humans is a sub-species of apes and that ape chimps and Humans all had a common ancestor. Where is the rejection. If I am stating a truth that we as humans are a subspecies and by definition subspecies means :sub·spe·cies /ˈsəbˌspēSHēz,ˈsəbˌspēsēz/ noun Biology noun: subspecies; plural noun: subspecies; symbol: subsp.; symbol: ssp.; noun: sub-species; plural noun: sub-species a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race. Subspecies are designated by a Latin trinomial, e.g., (in zoology) Ursus arctos horribilis or (in botany) Beta vulgaris subsp. crassa " usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race " Now does this sound like we are ape or that we are just related to apes which should be the correct interpretation. Shadowborn wrote:Posted Today, 07:10 PM "I agree there Fararcher and have no problem there and yet it did happen. But like you said we are not apes but humans" -------------------------------------------------------- We ARE Apes.....the genus Homo IS of the Ape family (homindae). Your making a distinction that doesnt exist, we are not related to them......we are THEM. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens Saavy? Edited April 21, 2016 by norseman
Yuchi1 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) Or, did we diverge to form our own species, independent of the great apes and/or before them as the hybrid speciation theory suggests? Edited April 21, 2016 by Yuchi1
TritonTr196 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Or, did we diverge to form our own species, independent of the great apes and/or before them as the hybrid speciation theory suggests? ^ This... No monkies for me,thanks..
norseman Posted April 21, 2016 Admin Author Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) ^^^^^^ People simply do not understand Taxonomy enough to form an intelligent conversation about it. Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Clade: Synapsida Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorhini Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens If for example if we go all the way up to class? Then Humans, Shrews and Orcas share the fact we are all mammals. Order? Old and new world monkeys and lesser and greater apes, including Homo Sapiens are all Primates. Family? Only Great apes are left including Homo Sapiens. Genus? All are extinct except for one species......Homo Sapien. Its like a giant Oak tree with a trunk at its base, and the higher you climb the more the branches fan out. This is about middle school science in our current education system. Obviously some of us are older and may have missed this, I fortunately had the time/life series of books that broke out science for me during the 70's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Nature_Library Edited April 21, 2016 by norseman
ShadowBorn Posted April 21, 2016 Moderator Posted April 21, 2016 Its like a giant Oak tree with a trunk at its base, and the higher you climb the more the branches fan out This is the point that our species is on a branch of it own, related to a single trunk of this mighty oak. This is why I have said that we are on our own branch and that we are only related to the great ape through a single ancestor. This does not make us apes or we would not be where we are at today as far as intelligence. There was a reason why we split away from apes and chimps especially chimps some 5 ~ 6 million years ago. I believe it is due to us evolving where apes and chimps stayed in a limbo state where they are at today. By calling our self an ape or a chimp is like calling or making our selves dumber then apes and chimps, and this is not true. We are above apes and chimps which makes us Humans, hence Human erectus . Our capabilities to walk with a straight back and to have a larger brain, and the ability to make tools as well as fire. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/our-origins2/ch/10/answers.aspx So we are separate only because we branch of from that tree unto our own branch only being related by a single trunk. Not very hard to understand , yet for some of us would prefer to be called that of a lesser primate. This is why we are not ape, since nature has made us to be superior to all creatures on earth. It is also why our DNA does not completely match between Ape and Man. If we were ape then there would be a match with in our DNA, but no there is no match. So this makes us unique from all creatures on earth and makes our make up as Human. But as much as you said that this could not be debated , it is being debated. The problem is , how is this connected to these creatures that some of us know exist? Some where in evolution these creatures evolved and they evolved by either us or have branched of on their own. This is what needs to be figured out?
ShadowBorn Posted April 21, 2016 Moderator Posted April 21, 2016 Or, did we diverge to form our own species, independent of the great apes and/or before them as the hybrid speciation theory suggests? This was done after wards , and this is what I have suggested. We diverged from chimps some 5~6 million years ago independent of chimps and apes. But we are in no way hybrids but a people of pure blood. This is why they are upset since it does not fit what they want us to believe. It is like taking a square peg and shoving it down a round hole, it does not work. But yet they try to explain how a male and a female were able to start a population of humans with out there being some way a start to it. We just did not start from apes or chimps and yet here we are. The only explanation that science has is this evolution backed by DNA, But man or Humans just did not start out of no where and there is no explanation on we were actually created except that at some point in time we diverge. A Real Good Explanation on How We Evolved. Millions of years is a long time for beings to evolve but we do not see it.
southernyahoo Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Why even bother to use other names for Hominoidea if we're not going to differentiate? Good point, it only serves those who want the lines intentionally blurred.
southernyahoo Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Getting back to the hybrid hypothesis, the OP article says we lost the Y chromosome Neanderthal specific mutations and thus their paternal lineage. I find it to be more likely to be lost than the Neanderthal maternal lineage because that is carried in the mitochondria of each cell and is passed on to both males and female off spring from the mother which supposedly kept breeding with Cro Magnons. Yet we lost the maternal lineage too. So, we should come up with a scenario that would explain this and it would be a better explanation for both facts than the natural male abortion theory.
norseman Posted April 21, 2016 Admin Author Posted April 21, 2016 Its like a giant Oak tree with a trunk at its base, and the higher you climb the more the branches fan outThis is the point that our species is on a branch of it own, related to a single trunk of this mighty oak. This is why I have said that we are on our own branch and that we are only related to the great ape through a single ancestor. This does not make us apes or we would not be where we are at today as far as intelligence. There was a reason why we split away from apes and chimps especially chimps some 5 ~ 6 million years ago. I believe it is due to us evolving where apes and chimps stayed in a limbo state where they are at today. By calling our self an ape or a chimp is like calling or making our selves dumber then apes and chimps, and this is not true. We are above apes and chimps which makes us Humans, hence Human erectus . Our capabilities to walk with a straight back and to have a larger brain, and the ability to make tools as well as fire. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/our-origins2/ch/10/answers.aspx So we are separate only because we branch of from that tree unto our own branch only being related by a single trunk. Not very hard to understand , yet for some of us would prefer to be called that of a lesser primate. This is why we are not ape, since nature has made us to be superior to all creatures on earth. It is also why our DNA does not completely match between Ape and Man. If we were ape then there would be a match with in our DNA, but no there is no match. So this makes us unique from all creatures on earth and makes our make up as Human. But as much as you said that this could not be debated , it is being debated. The problem is , how is this connected to these creatures that some of us know exist? Some where in evolution these creatures evolved and they evolved by either us or have branched of on their own. This is what needs to be figured out? We ARE an Ape. OUR Ape genus HOMO diverged from our closest relatives of the Ape genus PAN roughly four million years ago...... BOTH Chimps and Humans ARE Apes. NOTHING about us being an Ape holds us back from walking upright or having a large brain. We are just one species of MANY now extinct upright walking large brain Apes in the Ape genus HOMO. Your folly is your comparing two seperate SPECIES of APE and calling one APE and the other HUMAN. Both species are APE and one is a CHIMP and the other is a HUMAN. 2
ShadowBorn Posted April 21, 2016 Moderator Posted April 21, 2016 Getting back to the hybrid hypothesis, the OP article says we lost the Y chromosome Neanderthal specific mutations and thus their paternal lineage. I find it to be more likely to be lost than the Neanderthal maternal lineage because that is carried in the mitochondria of each cell and is passed on to both males and female off spring from the mother which supposedly kept breeding with Cro Magnons. Yet we lost the maternal lineage too. So, we should come up with a scenario that would explain this and it would be a better explanation for both facts than the natural male abortion theory. This is even more complex since this is what Norseman is debating. But you are stating a scenario that we have lost our maternal lineage and that would mean that we have no idea from where or what we came from. Yet it took a male to start a linage which has XY chromosome and a female which has XX chromosome if we cancel out two XX with XY we are left with XY which is male. This only leaves that an offspring had mated with it's own maternal mother and started a population and if math is right then every so many off springs a female should be born. Making her eligible for population of a species . Now the there is a good reason why we lost the Y chromosome in Neanderthal and it could due to incompatibilities, but I will let the article speak for it's self: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/148962/20160410/genetic-incompatibilities-kept-lineage-of-modern-humans-and-neanderthals-apart.htm
ShadowBorn Posted April 21, 2016 Moderator Posted April 21, 2016 Its like a giant Oak tree with a trunk at its base, and the higher you climb the more the branches fan outThis is the point that our species is on a branch of it own, related to a single trunk of this mighty oak. This is why I have said that we are on our own branch and that we are only related to the great ape through a single ancestor. This does not make us apes or we would not be where we are at today as far as intelligence. There was a reason why we split away from apes and chimps especially chimps some 5 ~ 6 million years ago. I believe it is due to us evolving where apes and chimps stayed in a limbo state where they are at today. By calling our self an ape or a chimp is like calling or making our selves dumber then apes and chimps, and this is not true. We are above apes and chimps which makes us Humans, hence Human erectus . Our capabilities to walk with a straight back and to have a larger brain, and the ability to make tools as well as fire. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/our-origins2/ch/10/answers.aspx So we are separate only because we branch of from that tree unto our own branch only being related by a single trunk. Not very hard to understand , yet for some of us would prefer to be called that of a lesser primate. This is why we are not ape, since nature has made us to be superior to all creatures on earth. It is also why our DNA does not completely match between Ape and Man. If we were ape then there would be a match with in our DNA, but no there is no match. So this makes us unique from all creatures on earth and makes our make up as Human. But as much as you said that this could not be debated , it is being debated. The problem is , how is this connected to these creatures that some of us know exist? Some where in evolution these creatures evolved and they evolved by either us or have branched of on their own. This is what needs to be figured out? We ARE an Ape. OUR Ape genus HOMO diverged from our closest relatives of the Ape genus PAN roughly four million years ago...... BOTH Chimps and Humans ARE Apes. NOTHING about us being an Ape holds us back from walking upright or having a large brain. We are just one species of MANY now extinct upright walking large brain Apes in the Ape genus HOMO. Your folly is your comparing two seperate SPECIES of APE and calling one APE and the other HUMAN. Both species are APE and one is a CHIMP and the other is a HUMAN. Norseman You know I am not going to give up on this. So here I go again. Merriam Webster definition of Ape: Full Definition of ape 1 1 a : monkey; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms b : any of various large tailless semierect primates of Africa and southeastern Asia (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon) —called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape — compare great ape So if you want to call your self this , then so be it. I am Human the erect type. The apex who has been placed to rule over the creatures of the earth, I am that Human.
FarArcher Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 The more we learn, the more complicated it gets. Numerous Hominoidae, all with 48 chromosomes, and once in a million - one individual experiences a chromosome fusion. This genetic, one-of-a-kind, 46 chromosome individual cannot replicate with the other 48 chromosome individuals - so he/she should just die and that event would pass without notice. But no. Somehow, this very lonely genetic, one-of-a-kind 46 chromosome individual manages to find the only other 46 chromosome female/male in the whole world, and they fall in love despite their parents objections - and they ARE able to replicate - and produce other 46 chromosome offspring. That's a great love story.
FarArcher Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 ^^^^^^ People simply do not understand Taxonomy enough to form an intelligent conversation about it. Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Clade: Synapsida Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorhini Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens If for example if we go all the way up to class? Then Humans, Shrews and Orcas share the fact we are all mammals. Order? Old and new world monkeys and lesser and greater apes, including Homo Sapiens are all Primates. Family? Only Great apes are left including Homo Sapiens. Genus? All are extinct except for one species......Homo Sapien. Its like a giant Oak tree with a trunk at its base, and the higher you climb the more the branches fan out. This is about middle school science in our current education system. Obviously some of us are older and may have missed this, I fortunately had the time/life series of books that broke out science for me during the 70's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Nature_Library Norse, my gratitude. You just listed the taxonomy of humans. And nowhere do I see the taxonomy term "APE." Which I have been stating, is an English term, not a scientific term.
Recommended Posts