Noah's Flood part II

Apples are not oranges or bananas either, humans and apes are animals but apes are not humans and humans are not apes. That is the distinction that you all need to understand.

 

If you really think that gorillas, chimps etc. are more intelligent than you than please prove it invite them over to post and take part in this discussion I would very much like to meet them and maybe they can educate me or maybe they'll educate you.
Please do not generalize, now you want to dictate who are humans, who we should vote for or what language we should speak? No if you want to think you are an APE that is your free choice and that ability of free choice comes from being a human me and many humans like me are not apes and did not evolved from apes because we are HUMANS.

I am assuming that you never bother to expand your studies as to how early European scientist first came with labeling humans as apes and what political motives that comes behind it. Aside from those early European scientist who initiated the human is ape theory other ancient civilized countries such as China, Japan, India, Egypt, Greece or Persia do not share their theories.

 

What do you base this on? And how exactly do you define ape in this case?

 

Indeed and who gets' to label those? Humans.

 

Yes, and we labelled apes to refer to a certain genetically coherent group of living beings, characterised by similarity to one another. Humans are part of this group, even though they are rarely referred to as such, since there are usually other aspects to take into account when discussing humans.

Edit: I gather from the title of the discussion that maybe there is some link between this thread and the Noah's ark story. I wish to point out that the original story may have eluded to another word with another definition which is only translated to today's words "ape" or "animal" or whatever. I therefore suggest that we are being very careful with exactly what we are referring to.

 

First off, what does this have to do with Noah's Flood? Secondly, we know that apples are not oranges, and we know that humans are not orangutans.

However, apples and oranges ARE FRUIT, aren't they?

Ape is a word that isn't used to denote one specific species. Ape, in modern biology, is a term used to describe any species that belongs to the biological superfamily Hominoidea. Humans are apes. Orangutans are apes. Gorillas are apes. Chimpanzees are apes.

Now, why don't you be honest and admit what your true problem is with calling humans apes? You have before told me that you don't like the word used because it is derogatory in your mind. That is your, and only your, problem. In biology ape is not a derogatory term, it simply is a term used to describe many different species. The same way that buzzard means any bird that belongs to the genus Buteo. Buzzard also has been used as a derogatory name for people in the past, but that doesn't mean that it can't also mean something completely innocuous in a different context.

 

No.

"Ape" is in reference is a type of primate, human is a specific primate.
Apples and oranges are both specific type of fruit, they are not a general type of seed.

If you are to correct people on their comparisons, you should at least use logically consistent comparisons yourself.

 

Post unrelated to the OP, this is bait and switch. Mods?

 

I'm not sure some of the humans on this Forum are more intelligent than a gorilla....especially Bible literalists.




Speaking of apes....how did banana trees escape being destroyed by being under water for 40 days?

 

Exactly... therefore... it is all subjective.

 

So you're fine with grouping every other tail-less primate under the heading of Ape, but humans you insist on keeping separate? Is that it?

- - - Updated - - -

No worries; some people just take offense at being called a primate

It would somehow destroy their worlds to accept that humans are animals.

 

The same people who will divorce their spouses if gay marriage were legalized.

 

First of all it was not I who claim that apples and oranges are the same nor was it I who try to inconsistently compare it. Check the quote

Yes, Ape is in reference to a type of primates that are chimps, monkeys, gorillas, orangutang, baboons. While Humans reference to the different human races that are totally different from apes in fact aside from the Renaissance European scientist all other civilizations of that same era such as China, Japan, Persia, Turkey, India, Egypt do not agree with the European ape-human theory.

 

Modern scientist hardly use Ape in regards to human evolution they use the scientific term Homo to refer to humans in fact modern term of this great ape is not great ape it is Hominidae and in that Hominidae humans are separated from chimps, gorillas and orangutans meaning humans did not evolved from apes. The theory that this four groups evolved from one single source Hominidae is not conclusive because scientist are still struggling to discover who or what is that single source (Hominidae), how humans develop intelligence, why the other three have not developed for thousands of years while humans have. The term Hominidae was not even known or have been developed during in the 18th century not even Darwin has known the existence of such word. The cloud of racial science is very dominant and clear during that era to advance political dominance they must also back it up with scientific claims (false as it may).

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/race/rc5.html
During the nineteenth century theories of race were advanced both by the scientific community and in the popular daily and periodical press. Even before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, the old concept of the great chain of being, marking the gradations of mankind, was being subjected to a new scientific racism. The "science" of phrenology purported to demonstrate that the structure of the skull, especially the jaw formation and facial angles, revealed the position of various races on the evolutionary scale, and a debate raged on whether there had been one creation for all mankind (monogenism) or several (polygenism). "To a large extent, the story of racial science in Britain between 1800 and 1850", Nancy Stepan writes (The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain, 1982, 30) "is the story of desperate efforts to rebut polygenism and the eventual acceptance of popular quasi-polygenist prejudices in the language of science." Polygenists stressed the unequal nature of the various creations and this theory mingled with general evolutionary theories and concepts of arrested development to create an atmosphere congenial to racial stereotyping.

The claim of the single ancestor to all primates is very parallel to the Bible that God is the source.

As mentioned, Hominidae was originally the name given to humans and their extinct relatives, with the other great apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. However, that definition made Pongidae paraphyletic because at least one great ape species appears to be more closely related to humans than to other great apes. Most taxonomists nowadays encourage monophyletic groups – this would require the use of Pongidae to be restricted to one of the great ape groups (containing Pongo, the orangutans) only. Thus, many biologists consider Hominidae to include Pongidae as the subfamily Ponginae, or restrict the latter to the orangutans and their extinct relatives, such as Gigantopithecus. The taxonomy shown here follows the monophyletic groupings according to the modern understanding of human and great ape relationships.

 

Yes apples and oranges are fruits just like humans and apes are animals or primates but it does not mean ape is human or human is ape.

Modern term is Hominoidea not Ape. Humans are Homo and are part of that Hominoidea that scientist have not yet conclusively learn who or what this Hominoidea that humans have evolved that other apes have also evolved from why humans have develop while the other hominoidea have not.
The use of the word ape at that time by early European scientist was because they have not yet known of this proper term.

I have been saying that from the very beginning that humans are not apes nor did they evolved from apes evidences do not support humans evolved from apes but you insist that humans are and the reason I have a problem with that is because that is pure disinformation and distortion and the history behind the term Ape was mainly base on colonial racism. In biology they don't use ape that word is use only use in order to simplify the studies indirectly affecting the study of true science.

 

So far no one has been able to provide any apes to take part in this discussion clearly demonstrate that apes are not humans and we Bible believers accept that, do you?
Banana trees were replanted after the flood.

 

The text you pasted in blue contradicts your statement.. It says that the great apes include humans (genus homo).

We are apes, and we evolved alongside the other apes. No one, however, is saying that humans evolved from gorillas or chimps. They are modern species, just like homo sapiens sapens is a modern species. We all come from common ape ancestors, however. That is, there were no chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans as they exist today way back before modern humans existed in the form we do today either.

Clear now?

 

Yes very clear that you can not accept the scientific findings that humans did not evolved from apes or that humans are apes.
There is no contradiction in my post what you did was you cherry pick and intentionally ignored HOMINIDAE the scientific modern term the words "great apes "also known was base on early Europeans given term. Also you ignore that clearly humans have been separated from your chimps, gorillas and orangutangs.

Humans are Homo not Pan, Gorilla or Pongo.

Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera:
chimpanzees (Pan) – 2 species
gorillas (Gorilla) – 2 species
humans (Homo) – 1 species
orangutans (Pongo) – 2 species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#China
The multiregional hypothesis is an alternative scientific model that provides an explanation for the pattern of human evolution. The hypothesis holds that humans first arose near the beginning of the Pleistocene two million years ago and subsequent human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species. This species encompasses archaic human forms such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

Hominidae are considered one of the great apes. Again, it's in your text: Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes. It couldn't be any clearer than that. Hominidae are also known as great apes.

 

The horse and the rhinocerus have a common ancestor but you don't see the horse wallowing in the mud and water. They have evolved differently' nevertheless are from the same family.
No-one has said the apes are humans, it's another of your distortions. Just that they have come from the same family.

It's a well known fact, and proven by experiments, that the young of some apes are far more intelligent than the young of humans. They are quicker at working out physical problems and at working together to solve problems that need their co-operation.
If we don't wipe out our cousins by our greed for land they might even reach the standard we are today - in a few million years.

 

It is also a fact, proven by experiments, that you are talking to someone who simply makes things up, to suit.
Ie...Banana trees were replanted after the flood

 

Apples and oranges are fruit.
Humans and chimps are primates.

Not that hard to figure out.

 

One of the great apes?? So you are saying there is more than one great ape?

Hominidae is that single source where gorillas, chimps, orangutang and humans according to scientific THEORY evolved from. Hominidai is not part of a group of great apes.
Hominidae is the scientific term from modern science also known the great ape the great ape that was coined by early European colonial scientist that was not accepted by other none European civilized nations.

The multiregional hypothesis is an alternative scientific model that provides an explanation for the pattern of human evolution. The hypothesis holds that humans first arose near the beginning of the Pleistocene two million years ago and subsequent human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species. This species encompasses archaic human forms such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

multiregional hypothesis does not believe humans evolved from apes or from some sort of great ape.

 

And is a horse a rhino or a rhino a horse? No they are not in fact the theory is that horse, rhinos, apes and humans all evolved from one single source and from that one single source it establish its own evolutionary history separate from one another that is why you will never see a horse evolving into a rhino or rhino into a horse anymore and who or what is that single source science call it Great Ape, Higgs-boson, Great Atom, Great Cell, Great DNA, etc. that single source is actually God the God-partricle.

Do they also learn to read and write? Or speak different human languages or dialects? No, they have been experimenting for years to try to evolved apes into humans and all these experiments are carried out with HUMAN INTERVENTION soon I believe they will succeed in evolving apes into humans just like they have already succeeded in cloning other animals.

That is one huge difference between apes and humans, so now do you understand that humans are not apes or apes are not humans do you really want to see apes evolved into humans don't we have enough greed and wars already now you want to add the apes into it too?

- - - Updated - - -

So figure this out; are apples an orange?
Are humans apes or apes humans?