• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Info Humans are Apes, that is a fact.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9998 said:
Sure, and our DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzees. However, evidently that 2% seems to matter enough that we're riding cars and blasting off into space, while the chimps are still living in trees.

Then again, some 62 million homo sapiens voted for Donald Trump, so perhaps the 2% hasn't taken us as far as we'd like to imagine.
Click to expand...
I must agree with this. It does boggle the mind and does not reflect well on the species.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Correction on your lingo. We are not apes. We are human. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Our DNA in 98% identical to chimpanzees, but not 100%. Therefore, we are related to apes without being apes.
Click to expand...
I suppose a sandwich that is 98% poop and 2% ham is still a ham sandwich by your logic?

Men are apes. Smarter and more complex but still apes. The elevation of men above apes is mostly religious influence in my opinion.
 
Sunburn74 said:
I suppose a sandwich that is 98% poop and 2% ham is still a ham sandwich by your logic?

Men are apes. Smarter and more complex but still apes. The elevation of men above apes is mostly religious influence in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think we need some perspective about what 98% of the DNA means. We share about 80% DNA with rodents. All animals, and especially all mammals share a similar basic DNA. The 98% makes us quite similar to chimps, enough to make it clear that we're a relatively recent split off (about 10 million years IIRC), but not quite as similar as the number suggests.

I really don't think this "elevation" was a result of religion because there is was no awareness that we were even related to apes until the 19th century. Various religions then of course denied this because it conflicts with their creation myths. I think that prior to the theory of evolution it didn't occur to anyone because the distinctions are rather obvious, one being that we can talk and write.

So we're related to apes, yes, but not apes. It's just semantics, really. We created all these classifications ourselves.

Definition of ape

1a: any of various large tailless semi-erect primates of Africa and southeastern Asia (such as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon)

Find me a definition of "ape" which includes humans and I'll rethink it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv
There you go, like I said, it's just semantics and pretty frivolous. Now I have been eating a lot of bananas, I have over 15 in the house right now.

Warning: Be careful with a chimpanzee. They can and have ripped people's faces off on a whim. And they don't give a damn about your discourses.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I think we need some perspective about what 98% of the DNA means. We share about 80% DNA with rodents. All animals, and especially all mammals share a similar basic DNA. The 98% makes us quite similar to chimps, enough to make it clear that we're a relatively recent split off (about 10 million years IIRC), but not quite as similar as the number suggests.

I really don't think this "elevation" was a result of religion because there is was no awareness that we were even related to apes until the 19th century. Various religions then of course denied this because it conflicts with their creation myths. I think that prior to the theory of evolution it didn't occur to anyone because the distinctions are rather obvious, one being that we can talk and write.

So we're related to apes, yes, but not apes. It's just semantics, really. We created all these classifications ourselves.

Definition of ape

1a: any of various large tailless semi-erect primates of Africa and southeastern Asia (such as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon)

Find me a definition of "ape" which includes humans and I'll rethink it.
Click to expand...
And where did you get that definition at? Any modern textbook on Biology or Evolution will tell you that Humans are Apes.
 
whm1974 said:
And where did you get that definition at? Any modern textbook on Biology or Evolution will tell you that Humans are Apes.
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ape

Dictionary definitions are taken from common usage. The word "ape" predates the theory of evolution, so it couldn't possibly have included "human" in its original definition. And it doesn't include "human" today, not as used by the vast majority of people.

If evolutionary biologists have decided to redefine the word, fine, but the popular definition is much older and has not changed. I don't really understand how biologists get to redefine the word though, since "ape" isn't a scientific word. For science, we're better off sticking with the taxonomic classifications and leave common popular definitions as is. Then again, none of this changes the facts.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ape

The word "ape" predates the theory of evolution, so it couldn't possibly have included "human" in its original definition. If evolutionary biologists have decided to redefine the word, fine, but the popular definition is much older and has not changed. I don't really understand how biologists get to redefine the word though, since "ape" isn't a scientific word. For science, we're better off sticking with the taxonomic classifications and leave common popular definitions as is. Then again, none of this changes the facts.
Click to expand...
Well I'm going by the Scientific Definition of the word Ape, just like I go with meaning Scientific meaning of Theory.
 
whm1974 said:
Well I'm going by the Scientific Definition of the word Ape, just like I go with meaning Scientific meaning of Theory.
Click to expand...

Yes I can see that, and that is fine.

But ape was a common word, not a scientific term, until very recently. Taking a common word and applying a new definition to it within a field can be done, but it's not going to change how people in general define the word. In this case, the word goes back in English hundreds of years and has its precursor in ancient Hebrew. It's been defined as not including humans for literally thousands of years.

Your example of "theory" I think is distinguishable. While that particular word, like the word ape, has a popular and a scientific definition, the problem is when laypeople try to use the word according to its popular definition when referring to an actual scientific theory. So when creationists say "evolution is just a theory" they are incorrect to apply the popular definition because evolution is in fact a scientific theory and hence "theory of evolution" has to be understood in the scientific sense. By contrast, using "ape" according to its popular definition isn't incorrect. It's just a popular definition. The word "treason" also has a legal and a popular definition. Both are "correct" but either can be misused in the wrong context. You wouldn't use the popular definition if you were arguing a legal point in court, for example.
 
sandorski said:
They want to be Special. It doesn't matter that Humans don't have even one unique Physical feature, superior features(outside the Brain), or that even on the one major biological advantage, the Brain/Consciousness, other animals have varying degrees of that same phenomenon. It's reasonable, IMO, that we are arrogant in our position regarding valuing Earth Life, but many take their arrogance to even higher levels.
Click to expand...

I'd take it a step further and say they want to feel superior. They see apes as a lower life form. Add to that the need to 'understand a reason' and you've got religion that plays a large part of it. Remember only 'humans' have souls. Everything else are godless souless underlings to be raped and eaten.
 
ImpulsE69 said:
I'd take it a step further and say they want to feel superior. They see apes as a lower life form. Add to that the need to 'understand a reason' and you've got religion that plays a large part of it. Remember only 'humans' have souls. Everything else are godless souless underlings to be raped and eaten.
Click to expand...

Raped? Do you mean by humans?
 
This is my great, great, (x24) grand pappy.

images
 
Sunburn74 said:
I suppose a sandwich that is 98% poop and 2% ham is still a ham sandwich by your logic?

Men are apes. Smarter and more complex but still apes. The elevation of men above apes is mostly religious influence in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Or the influence otherwise known as obedience to the glaringly obvious.
 
To "ape" is to mimic.

Don't go apeshit on me.

My doctor told me I definitely did not have appendicitis.

My appendage is aching.

Ap-e.....ap-e........ap-e..........ap-ee................... choo!
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
Sure, and our DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzees. However, evidently that 2% seems to matter enough that we're riding cars and blasting off into space, while the chimps are still living in trees.

Then again, some 62 million homo sapiens voted for Donald Trump, so perhaps the 2% hasn't taken us as far as we'd like to imagine.
Click to expand...
We have the same DNA as amazonian tribesfolk, why are they not blasting into spaec ?




Also, no homo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top