Wortfish wrote:

Thommo wrote:People sometimes choose their words without meticulous care, therefore God.

I'm constantly bemused that you don't have better things to do.

I believe in the Freudian slip.

There's no Freudian slip - you're pretending that the massive preponderance of evidence is contradicted by your nonsensical interpretations of words.

Go learn how to read.

Wortfish wrote:In the evolutionary mix of things, humans ARE great apes.

In reality, humans are great apes.

But we can still tell different species of great apes apart. That's why they're called 'species'.

Here, even you can manage it:



See this black furred chap smiling in bemusement at you?

Notice how it has black fur?

Do humans have black fur?

No?

So there's something different about them? You can tell the difference between a human and a chimpanzee if by nothing else than that one has black fur and one does not?


Moving on with our elementary school Spot the Difference game

See this chap?



He's not so happy, in fact, he's a bit disappointed because he was under the impression that humans were intelligent.

However, as you can see, he's covered in orange fur.

Are humans covered in orange fur?

No?

How about chimpanzees? Are they covered in orange fur?

No?

So does that mean that chimpanzees and orangutans cannot both be hominids just because you can tell something different about them?

Now, I wonder why this might be.

Is it because Creationists have caught the evilutionists red-handed in pretending there was no differences detectable among the hominidae family?

Or is it just possibly because the hominidae, colloquially known as 'the great apes', is a family containing several species, and the fact that they're separate species necessarily means that you can find differences between them because if you couldn't, then they wouldn't be separate species?

You might want to have a little think at this point. Then think a bit more.

I await your answer with bated breath.

Thommo wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Thommo wrote:People sometimes choose their words without meticulous care, therefore God.

I'm constantly bemused that you don't have better things to do.

I believe in the Freudian slip.

I'm constantly bemused that you don't have better things to do.

The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662717

Grooming is a widespread activity throughout the animal kingdom, but in primates social grooming, or allo-grooming (the grooming of others), plays a particularly important role in social bonding which, in turn, has a major impact on an individual's lifetime reproductive fitness. New evidence from comparative brain analyses suggests that primates have social relationships of a qualitatively different kind to those found in other animal species, and I suggest that, in primates, social grooming has acquired a new function of supporting these. I review the evidence for a neuropeptide basis for social bonding, and draw attention to the fact that the neuroendrocrine pathways involved are quite unresolved. Despite recent claims for the central importance of oxytocin, there is equally good, but invariably ignored, evidence for a role for endorphins. I suggest that these two neuropeptide families may play different roles in the processes of social bonding in primates and non-primates, and that more experimental work will be needed to tease them apart.

The inescapable conclusion from reading the title and abstract is that humans are non-primates.

Humans are NOT primates for the following reasons:

1. Primates are arboreal, humans are terrestrial.
2. Primates have penile bones, humans do not.
3. Primates have opposable big toes, humans have opposable thumbs.

Wortfish wrote:The inescapable conclusion from reading the title and abstract is that humans are non-primates.

Or that he grew up at a time when the current taxonomic classification was not known and fell into linguistic habits that are now outdated. Or that grooming behaviour among human primates differs from grooming behaviour among primates in general. Or something else.

I don't honestly believe that you think that conclusion is inescapable. Even if you do, it obviously isn't. And even if it were the implication of the words, the loose informal implications of English are no substitute for evidence anyway.

All of this stuff is below basic though, so I'm sure we all have better things to do, than grub around misrepresenting people.

Wortfish wrote:
The inescapable conclusion from reading the title and abstract is that humans are non-primates.

Try reading more than the title because you're talking gibbering. It's like claiming that humans aren't mammals.

Wortfish wrote:...
The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662717

Grooming is a widespread activity throughout the animal kingdom, but in primates social grooming, or allo-grooming (the grooming of others), plays a particularly important role in social bonding which, in turn, has a major impact on an individual's lifetime reproductive fitness. New evidence from comparative brain analyses suggests that primates have social relationships of a qualitatively different kind to those found in other animal species, and I suggest that, in primates, social grooming has acquired a new function of supporting these. I review the evidence for a neuropeptide basis for social bonding, and draw attention to the fact that the neuroendrocrine pathways involved are quite unresolved. Despite recent claims for the central importance of oxytocin, there is equally good, but invariably ignored, evidence for a role for endorphins. I suggest that these two neuropeptide families may play different roles in the processes of social bonding in primates and non-primates, and that more experimental work will be needed to tease them apart.

The inescapable conclusion from reading the title and abstract is that humans are non-primates.

The first sentence in the abstract at that link reads:

Grooming is a widespread activity throughout the animal kingdom, but in primates (including humans) social grooming, or allo-grooming (the grooming of others), plays a particularly important role in social bonding which, in turn, has a major impact on an individual's lifetime reproductive fitness.

Why did you edit out "(including humans)"?

Was it to make yourself tell a lie?

Well that's a good question. And a good spot.

Wortfish wrote:Humans are NOT primates for the following reasons:

1. Primates are arboreal, humans are terrestrial.

Gorilla. You know, that terrestrial 'great ape'? Yep, primate.

Arboreality/Terrestriality is too broad a brush. Hominoidea have shorter, stubbier spines and sit upright in contrast to most other primates. That doesn't mean they don't live in trees, and it doesn't mean they're not primates.

Also, see how cladistics works. It doesn't operate on whether you live in trees or not. Also try genetics.

Wortfish wrote:2. Primates have penile bones, humans do not.

Bonobos have a baculum that's just a few millimetres long.

Also, see how cladistics works. It doesn't operate on the presence or lack of a single bone. Also try genetics.

Wortfish wrote:3. Primates have opposable big toes, humans have opposable thumbs.

The majority of primates have opposable thumbs - it's a common misconception to think otherwise. Of course, you should inform yourself before making claims based on falsehoods.

No primate has 'opposable toes' - there's no such thing. You're talking about the grasping hallux. That's basically an adaptation for arboreality, whereas humans are bipedal and don't use our toes to grasp things, so it's the same point as your first, meaning you only had two points and they were both wrong or insufficient to support your claim.

Also, see how cladistics works. It doesn't operate on the shape of a single bone. Also try genetics.

newolder wrote:

Wortfish wrote:...
The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662717

Grooming is a widespread activity throughout the animal kingdom, but in primates social grooming, or allo-grooming (the grooming of others), plays a particularly important role in social bonding which, in turn, has a major impact on an individual's lifetime reproductive fitness. New evidence from comparative brain analyses suggests that primates have social relationships of a qualitatively different kind to those found in other animal species, and I suggest that, in primates, social grooming has acquired a new function of supporting these. I review the evidence for a neuropeptide basis for social bonding, and draw attention to the fact that the neuroendrocrine pathways involved are quite unresolved. Despite recent claims for the central importance of oxytocin, there is equally good, but invariably ignored, evidence for a role for endorphins. I suggest that these two neuropeptide families may play different roles in the processes of social bonding in primates and non-primates, and that more experimental work will be needed to tease them apart.

The inescapable conclusion from reading the title and abstract is that humans are non-primates.

The first sentence in the abstract at that link reads:

Grooming is a widespread activity throughout the animal kingdom, but in primates (including humans) social grooming, or allo-grooming (the grooming of others), plays a particularly important role in social bonding which, in turn, has a major impact on an individual's lifetime reproductive fitness.

Why did you edit out "(including humans)"?

Was it to make yourself tell a lie?

Explain your intentional editing of the source to change its meaning in such a deceitful manner.

Lying is frowned upon in all social situations, including this one. In fact, we're pretty damn insistent that you don't lie about facts, evidence, and sources.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/old-a ... t-t76.html

Membership Agreement for rationalskepticism.org

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to:

1.2. not

m. quote mine, plagiarise, or otherwise misrepresent information

You signed that forum user agreement, so even if you lack the moral compass to know why editing out words to change the meaning of a source is wrong, then you are still liable to receive moderator attention.

However, you do have the opportunity to acknowledge your deceitful behavior and apologize for it along with promises not to repeat, then I am sure no one will alert the moderators to deal with your obvious infraction.

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Humans and apes are different! I had no idea!

Pull the other one Wortfish.

In the evolutionary mix of things, humans ARE great apes.

Great apes now! If you want to play bait and switch like a used car salesman, go ahead. The caveat being that you end up acting like a used car salesman.

No one wants the stale crap you are selling here.

Hominini / hominins = a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae (hominines), includes the genus Homo, the Australopithecina, and possibly - but still disputed - the genus Pan. That means this group includes all of our most recent ancestors including modern humans, and possibly the 2 species of chimpanzee.

Homininae / hominines = a subfamily of the Hominidae (hominids), includes 2 tribes, i) as above, the hominins, and ii) the Gorillini, i.e. the 2 extant species of gorilla, and one extinct genus Chororapithecus. If chimps aren't hominins (which I would say they are) then they're hominines.

Hominidae / hominids / "great apes" = a taxonomic family of the superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids or 'apes'), includes all the above, plus the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan, and several extinct genera.

Hominoidea / hominoids / "apes" = one of the 2 superfamilies of the Catarrhini (Old World anthropoids), which includes all the above, plus the Hylobatidae family; the 16 species of gibbon.

In turn, the catarrhines are part of the simiformes (simians) including all the Old World monkeys, which together with the tarsiers form the haplorhines, which together with the platyrrhines (New World Monkeys) are part of the order Primates, which contains all of the above.

Humans are just as much primates as each and every other species within all of these classes. To argue otherwise is simply to expose yourself as lacking any relevant knowledge. No primatologist contends this at all, there is no controversy, and you Wortfish lack the knowledge to manufacture one.

newolder wrote:

Wortfish wrote:...
The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662717

Grooming is a widespread activity throughout the animal kingdom, but in primates social grooming, or allo-grooming (the grooming of others), plays a particularly important role in social bonding which, in turn, has a major impact on an individual's lifetime reproductive fitness. New evidence from comparative brain analyses suggests that primates have social relationships of a qualitatively different kind to those found in other animal species, and I suggest that, in primates, social grooming has acquired a new function of supporting these. I review the evidence for a neuropeptide basis for social bonding, and draw attention to the fact that the neuroendrocrine pathways involved are quite unresolved. Despite recent claims for the central importance of oxytocin, there is equally good, but invariably ignored, evidence for a role for endorphins. I suggest that these two neuropeptide families may play different roles in the processes of social bonding in primates and non-primates, and that more experimental work will be needed to tease them apart.

The inescapable conclusion from reading the title and abstract is that humans are non-primates.

The first sentence in the abstract at that link reads:

Grooming is a widespread activity throughout the animal kingdom, but in primates (including humans) social grooming, or allo-grooming (the grooming of others), plays a particularly important role in social bonding which, in turn, has a major impact on an individual's lifetime reproductive fitness.

Why did you edit out "(including humans)"?

Was it to make yourself tell a lie?

Game over. Blatant purposeful lie. Waste of time to deal with shit like that. We'll see him in another 6 months when he thinks everyone forgot. I'll remind y'all.

Wortfish wrote:

Svartalf wrote:maybe evolution is just a theory, but creationism is an argument from authority, ergo, a falsehood as the "authority" has no ground to stand on.

Mike Pence is on record as denying that humans are primates, as are other creationists.

In a glaring admission, a primatologist - commenting on ancient protein evidence linking orangutans to an extinct giant ape - has given ammunition to creationists by drawing a distinction between humans and primates:

'Primates are relatively close to humans, evolutionary speaking. With this study, we show that we can use protein sequencing to retrieve ancient genetic information from primates living in subtropical areas even when the fossil is two million years old.

In a book on the evolution of sexual behavior, another researcher draws the same distinction:

Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression against Females
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php ... 0674033245

I'll grant you, there's likely more kinship between a real human and a tarsier than between real humans and bible thumpers.

felltoearth wrote:Humans and apes are different! I had no idea!

Pull the other one Wortfish.

Of course they are, humans have
1) perfectly developed bipedalism
2) a larger brain
3) more advanced vocalisation and use of language.

Wortfish wrote:Humans are NOT primates for the following reasons:

1. Primates are arboreal, humans are terrestrial.
2. Primates have penile bones, humans do not.
3. Primates have opposable big toes, humans have opposable thumbs.

Great apes are primates
Humans are great apes
ergo humans are primates, QED.

Wortfish wrote:Humans are NOT primates for the following reasons:

1. Primates are arboreal, humans are terrestrial.
2. Primates have penile bones, humans do not.
3. Primates have opposable big toes, humans have opposable thumbs.

Your fantastical notions about species characteristics are completely irrelevant and only serve to demonstrate your ignorance on the topic.

The_Piper wrote:
Game over. Blatant purposeful lie. Waste of time to deal with shit like that. We'll see him in another 6 months when he thinks everyone forgot. I'll remind y'all.

I was just trying to do justice to the author's title distinguishing humans and primates. Good citizen editorship on my part.

"Genetic Differences between Humans and Great Apes": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0300907991

The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes could warrant their classification together as a single genus. However, whereas there are many similarities in the biology, life history, and behavior of humans and great apes, there are also many striking differences that need to be explained.

Wortfish wrote:
I was just trying to do justice to the author's title distinguishing humans and primates. Good citizen editorship on my part.

Ok, if you insist on bullshitting people then play juvenile games when caught, then you clearly are incapable of self-regulation and have to be moderated by morally competent adults.

Wortfish wrote:

The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes could warrant their classification together as a single genus. However, whereas there are many similarities in the biology, life history, and behavior of humans and great apes, there are also many striking differences that need to be explained.

Already addressed:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2720635


Next manufactured bullshit please.