100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

[Floyt]

Apes

Taxonomy semantics either way, and entirely dependent on usage. Humans and gorillas are or aren't both "apes" the same way that sharks and carps are or aren't both "fish" - i.e. you chooses your clade philosophy, you gets your terminology. Taxonomy is sometimes distressingly similar to jurisprudence in that you make up your terms and then run with them. Whatever is sufficiently descriptive!

 

[Vorticity]

On the Ape/Human thing:

I was all set to agree that humans are apes, on the basis of this wikipedia article:

...
The Hominidae (anglicized hominids, also known as great apes) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans.
...

But then I looked up the dictionary definitions of Ape and Great Ape, which seem to suggest that humans are not apes.

So there is indeed some confusion, if only of the "scientists mean this, everyone else means that" variety.

 

[temporalillusion]

So in spite of your commendable effort in locating them, I really don't need to see any creationist video's.

It's a good thing I put all the links in one place for you then so you know which ones not to click!

 

[Vorticity]

I J K
H L
G M
F N
E O
D P
C Q
B R
A S

(Edit: This is meant to be a circle of letters, but reverts to columns when I post.)

Salamander A can breed with Salamander B and so on around the lake, but Salamander A cannot breed with Salamander S, even though they are next to each other and breeding is possible all the way around.

Thanks, I understand now. So this must mean that the salamanders happened to be wandering in a clockwise direction around the lake during the time that they were diverging from each other.

 

[Simon39759]

I love this forum. Where else can you find people who have a favorite method of speciation?

(Mine is polyploidy.)

Yeah! Mine too!
Rock on my polyploidy brother!

 

[Robert Oz]

Thanks, I understand now. So this must mean that the salamanders happened to be wandering in a clockwise direction around the lake during the time that they were diverging from each other.

That's the general gist of it, yes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry. I meant it only works clockwise from the starting point. There is a point around the lake where the next salamander group clockwise can breed with Salamander Group A, but the next salamander group anti-clockwise cannot.

It didn't occur to me that my sentence didn't make sense until your post.

I J K
H L
G M
F N
E O
D P
C Q
B R
A S

(Edit: This is meant to be a circle of letters, but reverts to columns when I post.)

Salamander A can breed with Salamander B and so on around the lake, but Salamander A cannot breed with Salamander S, even though they are next to each other and breeding is possible all the way around.

I wonder, without being too energetic about that wonderment, is it the same in the northern hemisphere as in the southern? Would it work anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere?

 

[zooterkin]

I wonder, without being too energetic about that wonderment, is it the same in the northern hemisphere as in the southern? Would it work anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere?

I would think it depended more on local topology which affected which way round the salamanders set off.

 

[Toke]

From earlier in the thread:

I see.
So it is quite famous.

It's a good thing I put all the links in one place for you then so you know which ones not to click!

Yes, and if I sounded derogatory think of it as pointing at the OP, not you.

 

[sphenisc]

You have a reference for this?

Ape

Yes, it's very ambiguous on that point

Then maybe more nuanced responses would be more appropriate than bald contradictions, on both sides?

 

[Olowkow]

I would think it depended more on local topology which affected which way round the salamanders set off.

Downhill?

Nonetheless, it struck me both wildly imaginative and scientifically curious that someone would take the "ring species" that literally.

It's very funny, reminding me of the bathtub vortex problem, but a useful thought experiment....as it were.

 

[Vortigern99]

The vernacular and scientific denotations of the word ape are different. The vernacular use of the word tends to mean "all apes which are not humans", while the scientific use means "all apes including humans".

This is a semantic argument and has little to do with the veracity of the ToE.

 

[sphenisc]

I followed the link that you provided. It said this:

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans.

And then it also said this:

Until a few decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still do not think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included. The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the monophyletic relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species.

That seems to go directly against your point unless I've misunderstood. Are you sure this is what you wanted to link to?

Yes it's the correct link. The first quote goes against my point as you said. The second says " many people still do not think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. ", since words are defined by usage - that agrees with my point.
The fact that "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency is not sufficient to demonstrate that the alternative usage is wrong. It is reasonable to suggest it makes the term ambiguous.

 

[joobz]

Yes it's the correct link. The first quote goes against my point as you said. The second says " many people still do not think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. ", since words are defined by usage - that agrees with my point.

Do you believe scientific classifications are all determined by popular opinion or only this one?

 

[sphenisc]

Are you really arguing that
Hominidae <> great apes?

Yes

 

[sphenisc]

Do you believe scientific classifications are all determined by popular opinion or only this one?

No and no

 

[Olowkow]

Thank you. I really needed some entertainment today. I had no idea it was this easy to get a PhD. I think I'll get one this weekend.

Just don't forget to make the first line in your dissertation:

"Hello, my name is 'rightbrain'".

And the typist is #1 in the acknowledgments.

This work of literary art is a must for anyone trying to comprehend the mind of the fundy. If you don't want to read it, find the episode from the Irreligiosophy podcast which does a... critique, shall we say.

 

[jadebox]

They evolved into goats. At least, a "kind" of sheep evolved into goats. If you don't think it was a "kind" of sheep, then you're going to have to define what you mean by "kind".

Be careful ... you're getting close to one of the mistakes David is making. A "sheep" didn't evolve into a "goat".

Goats and Sheep have a common ancestor just as other apes and humans have a common ancestor (just as goats and sheep and humans have a common ancestor). A common mistake creationists make - on purpose or not - is to say that evolution implies that existing species are evolving into other existing species. Of course, they aren't and "the theory of evolution" doesn't say they are.

-- Roger

 

[jadebox]

So there is indeed some confusion, if only of the "scientists mean this, everyone else means that" variety.

We could get into a big discussion over what the words "species" and "ape" and "human" (etc). mean, as well as what it means to classify something as being a member of a specific species when we know that each individual is different and that the group is changing over time. But, I think that such a digression isn't relevant to this thread and would just confuse things. And David Henson is certainly confused enough as it is.

-- Roger

 

[Nogbad]

Well, I don't want a long debate that goes on until one of you are demonstrably right, that would take forever.

In this particular thread I'm not interested in God, the Bible, or religion, except for that what I have been saying all along about Evolution being a religious belief is true.

What is a religious belief?