The ape is on my father's side, mind you
by KrauzeAlthough the origin of humans lies far beyond my ID interests, I still found this comment, by anthropologist John Hawks, refreshing:
That's the same old saw you hear a lot: "Evolution doesn't say our ancestors were apes, it just says we share common ancestors with apes."
That's true to a point — our ancestors were not chimpanzees, or gorillas, or any other living species of ape. Those species did not exist at the time of our common ancestry with them.
But the thrust of the claim is that these ancestors weren't apes at all — that they were some kind of mysterious other-being that somehow isn't quite so repulsive as an ape. That is just a lie. Our common ancestors with chimpanzees were not chimps, but they were apes. Ditto for all our ancestors from around 7 million years ago all the way back to around 30 million or more — they were all apes!
The arm-waving sophistry that tries to escape this fact just makes evolution look bad — like whiny wishy-washery. After all, those arms can wave because they inherited shoulder mobility from our arboreal ape ancestors! Accept it! Embrace it!
February 28th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Krause,
I fully agree with you, you chose just the right word about John Hawks' post: "refreshing". He is obviouysly still untainted by "doubletalk", "doublethink" and "politiking": no "whiny wishy-washery" for John Hawks!
His article will just fly in the face of the "romantics" of Evolution, the secret orphans of Teilhard de Chardin: those "mystical" ones who see evolution as a mystically, magically and gloriously "ascending" process. It will also just fly in the face of those Theo-Evos who love talking about "hominization", but manage to remove the ape-like prodromes. So, Mystics and Theo-Evos, beware: the going is getting tough …
Bravo John Hawks!
Comment by Servetus — February 28, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
February 28th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Sorry Servetus, I don't see it that way. Though I must say in my experience the only time I've heard "Our anscestors weren't apes" or any such thing is when Darwinists are trying to set those 'ignorant' creationists straight. For instance, like National Geographic's recent defense of Darwinism, which at one point literally stated, "Humans are not descended from apes. But then Charles Darwin never claimed we are"
So now, who really thinks this way?
Comment by Dane Parker — February 28, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
February 28th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
His article will just fly in the face of the "romantics" of Evolution, the secret orphans of Teilhard de Chardin: those "mystical" ones who see evolution as a mystically, magically and gloriously "ascending" process.
Yeah, those who look at the historical road from a big bang singularity to the internet society and say "it's all a big f******* accident of blind natural processes" are so much wiser and more objective thinkers!
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 28, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
February 28th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
I perhaps should add to my above post that I am referring to such "ancestors weren't apes" phrases as used in the context of evolution affirmed. Since, obviously, creationists have always said and thought that our ancestors were not apes (or anything else).
Comment by Dane Parker — February 28, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hi Servetus,
Here is the quote Hawks is replying to:
Comment by Krauze — March 1, 2006 @ 9:40 am
March 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am
This problem derives from the different ways in which the word "ape" is used. In common English usage, "ape" typically refers to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans, and gibbons. When the word is used in that sense, then it is reasonable to say that according to evolutionary biology, humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. Buttars seems to have been using the word in that sense.
When "ape" is used in a more technical sense to include all of the Homonidae and the Hylobatidae, then Hawks is correct to point out that the common ancestor of humans, chimps, et al. was also an ape. But, in that sense of the word "ape" modern humans are also apes.
Either way, Buttars' statement was idiotic.
As an aside, I find it curious that people like Buttars go ape when told that humans are apes. They also object to the idea that humans are animals, but I have not heard anyone object to calling humans mammals or vertebrates. But, if you call a human a mammal, you are also calling him or her an animal. Why do certain taxonomic categories induce an emotional response?
Comment by Nick — March 1, 2006 @ 10:59 am
March 1st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
If scientists had presented the facts about evolution as the mystery it is instead of the conjectures of Darwinian naturalism as a cudgel to bludgeon religion with, you wouldn't have the widespread religious opposition to evolution.
Instead we have a half-baked theory of how evolution must occur, at odds with the facts, which virtually all biologists swear fealty to, and which vast numbers of people find not believable on the face of it: that life is some kind of accidental mechanism created by blind processes.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 1, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Nick,
Good point. I suggest that the reason "animal" evokes a stronger response than "mammal" or "vertebrate" has to do with historical conceptual distinctions. Whether we like it or not, much of our language and our thought is colored by the concepts of the past, despite conceptual development in the present.
So, the ancients made very simple distinctions like:
- animate vs. inanimate vs. vegitative
- animal vs. human
And then they looked for those essential features that differentiated the classes.
One of the projects of human inquiry for thousands of years was to deterine that essential feature that makes us human. Today, we'd refer to something like our DNA and our evolutionary history (features we share in common with other animals). In the past, they'd refer to something like reason or the intellect (things that made us unique and superior).
So, those primitive distinctions are still ingrained in our language and ways of thinking. I think the term "animal" evokes emotion because in our less focused moments, we still fall back on those inherited distinctions, one of which was the animal vs. human distinction based on rationality. So, unlike vertebrate and mammal, animal still retains "non-rational" or at least "non-linguistic" connotations.
Comment by bipod — March 1, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Nick (March 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am):
A very simple solution to the "problem" would be to resort to the taxonomically correct word, which is Primates and not Apes.
Or is it, perhaps that the staunch advocates of Evolution still prefer "apes" precisely because the term Primates makes the connection between "Humans & Apes" too remote?
Comment by Servetus — March 1, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 8:22 pm
bipod (March 1st, 2006 at 2:53 pm):
This is only partly true. For instance Aristotle, the great philosopher (384-322 BC), included the following in the definition of Humans:
Comment by Servetus — March 1, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 am
Servetus:
A very simple solution to the "problem" would be to resort to the taxonomically correct word, which is Primates and not Apes.
As the very definition that you quote indicates, "primate" is not a taxonomically correct substitute for "ape." Primates include many mammals that are specifically excluded from any definition of "ape."
If you use the term "primate" you are making a much more vague statement, and you obscure the very close relationship between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas.
There's really no substitute word for "ape" that will be both unambiguous and intelligible to laymen. You could use "Pongidae" for modern Chimps, gorillas, and Orangutans, "Hylobatidae" for gibbons, and "Hominidae" for humans. But if you substitute "Pongids" for "ape," hardly anyone will understand you, and the offending statement is still true: Hominids are probably not descended from Pongids. Rather, modern Hominids and modern Pongids share a common ancestor.
Or, you could go with more modern taxonomic treatments that do away with Pongidae and classify chimps et al. in the Hominidae. In that case, you still need a way to clearly state that humans are not descended from the other modern species.
IMO, the problematic statement can be cleared up by adding a few specifics, thus:
Humans and other modern apes share a common ancestor. Humans are not descended from any currently existing species.
That clears up several misconceptions often spouted by people like Buttars:
1. It makes clear that humans are not descended from chimpanzees or gorillas.
2. It emphasizes that humans are apes.
Comment by Nick — March 2, 2006 @ 11:01 am
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Nick, read carefully!
I did not ever dream of writing that "primate" is a taxonomically correct substitute for "ape".
I said that it is more appropriate to use the word "primates", to which order both humans and apes belong.
The one you bolded, and repeated at pos. 1., is the only legitimate statement.
That "humans are apes", on the contrary, however much you "emphasize" it, remains a non sequitur, an arbitrary statement.
Your comment just confirms the suspicion I expressed at the conclusion of my previous comment:
Comment by Servetus — March 2, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
The one you bolded, and repeated at pos. 1., is the only legitimate statement.
That "humans are apes", on the contrary, however much you "emphasize" it, remains a non sequitur, an arbitrary statement.
Read more carefully yourself. The statement that you dismiss as arbitrary is also included in the bolded statement, which you call legitimate. Note the key word "other."
Your comment just confirms the suspicion I expressed at the conclusion of my previous comment:
Perhaps the staunch advocates of Evolution still prefer "apes" precisely because the term "Primates" makes the connection between "Humans & Apes" too remote?
Your suspicion is strangely worded. Using the term "primate" obscures the connection, it doesn't make it "too remote" (whatever that means). By saying that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are all primates, you are not saying anything intelligible about the very close relationship between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas within the larger order Primates.
Like it or not, most people do use the word "ape." When someone like Buttars starts rambling on about his grandfather not being an ape, the best one can do is try to state the relationship clearly using terms that person will understand.
Comment by Nick — March 2, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Nick,
compare these two phrases of yours:
a. Humans and other modern apes share a common ancestor
b. humans are apes
It's simply a matter of logic, not of biology or paleo-anthropology. Propositions a. and b. can be true together if and only if:
i. "apes" means something different form "modern apes"
ii. "(ancient) apes" is the progenitor of "modern apes" and of "(modern) humans".
I hope you do realize you are just playing with words.
What you are trying to "emphasize", once again, is that, unlike other primates, humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (?) are closely related.
Is it on the father's side?
Comment by Servetus — March 2, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Servetus:
It's simply a matter of logic, not of biology or paleo-anthropology. Propositions a. and b. can be true together if and only if:
i. "apes" means something different form "modern apes"
ii. "(ancient) apes" is the progenitor of "modern apes" and of "(modern) humans".
What exactly are you disagreeing with? Both i and ii are true and both are consistent with what I have been writing. "Apes" would encompass modern apes and ancient apes. Humans are descended from ancient apes, not any of the other modern apes. A corollary to that, based on the genetic relationships between the modern species and the fossil record, is that humans are also a species of modern ape, and specifically they are a sister taxa to the African apes. My statement is entirely consistent with Hawk's argument, which you applauded.
Your blog suggests that English is not your native language, so perhaps that may explain some of your apparent misreading. Look, the phrase "humans and other modern apes" means that humans are members of the category "modern apes." Modern apes is obviously a subset of the more general category "apes." Therefore, "humans and other modern apes" and "humans are apes" are in no sense contradictory. Your logic doesn't work. Statements a and b can be true even if your point (i) is not true, and your point (ii) is irrelevant to points a and b.
What you are trying to "emphasize", once again, is that, unlike other primates, humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (?) are closely related.
Close. More precisely, that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to any other primate. That's why referring simply to primates is inadequate.
Is it on the father's side?
That's childish.
Comment by Nick — March 2, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
My English is not mother language, but is good enough to tell you that your "logic" won't help you climb up the walls.
Nope! Mission impossible, dude. And you are not Tom Cruise.
Comment by Servetus — March 2, 2006 @ 5:27 pm