Are Humans Apes?

It never fails. Whenever I hear people debating the veracity of religion, someone always brings up the apes, as in But how could something as intelligent and spiritual have come from apes? or even less intelligently, If humans are supposed to have come from apes, then how come there's still apes? Normally at this point, I'm trying not to get involved in the conversation and saving my groans for later when I can utter them in private, but frequently such remarks are followed by the evolutionary proponent's reply, in which (s)he explains, sometimes in great detail, how it is a proven fact that humans come from apes. At this point I always lose my self-restraint and interject with my oft-repeated spiel about humans, apes, and evolution:

Humans did not come from apes. No qualified person in the scientific community has ever made that claim, including Darwin. All apes and humans are desceneded from a single proto-ape species that lived millions of years ago and no longer exists. Thus humans can be said to be closely related to the other apes, but we are certainly not descended from them. Actually, we are apes, no less so than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. Whether or not you choose to subscribe to evolutionary theory, there is no doubt that all human beings, including Jesus Christ himself, are classified, both genetically and morphologically as an ape species.

Despite many arguments by people to the contrary, I'd never seriously questioned the fact that humans are apes. After all, I acquired that particular tidbit of knowledge from my father, who is an anthropologist and therefore should know. However, it was disquieting that the CNN article I referenced in my previous post seemed to imply otherwise, as have several other sources I've encountered over the years, so I decided to do some checking. The best explanation I found (under response #6) states in a nutshell that the term ape is sometimes employed to include all species in the superfamily Hominoidea (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons and humans) and sometimes to only include the nonhuman species, although traditionally, usage of the word has often not included humans. Therefore, I am completely correct when I state that humans are apes. Unfortunately, those who argue against me and say that humans are not apes are just as correct. Don't you just love the English language?; it's so free of ambiguity. Anyway, perhaps I should try to be a little less self-righteous in the future.

Comments

[Geoff]

I don't think it matters whether you call humans apes or not. Changing the name of the species does not alter the relationships or lineage. Proving that humans are apes will probably never convince the hardened creationists anyway. Their cosy belief system has to be protected from dangerous theories at all costs.

[Bill]

Great post! I have trouble with people's insistence that "we clearly are not apes" and don't understand about genetic forks. I basically had to compare it to Windows 95 forking into Windows 98 and Windows NT 4. That handles the geeks. Multiple breeds of similar things, e.g., cats helps with others. The persians didn't all just die off. Of course the whole business of taxonomy tends to cause more trouble than help when dealing with a layperson.

[Velvet Wilson]

Okay, I will pose a different sort of dilemma. I suppose it's not an original dilemma, but definitely one that is often not discussed thoroughly in debates between creationists and evolutionists. I myself have deeply religious Christian beliefs, and I do believe that there can be a wonderfully viable marriage between science and religion. A book that I think is terrific for this is called "Is There a God?" by Professor John Oakes, PhD. Professor of chemistry and physics at Marian College in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
The dilemma that I find fascinating is the whole idea of defining what is human.
Creationists, by in large, believe that humans, created in the image of God, have no real spiritual kin to the great apes surviving today. Evolutionary scientists, on the other hand, generally do not search for evidence to determine a "spiritual" difference between present day humans and great apes. They appear to be simply interested in the physical classifications of species, regarding this issue.
My dilemma still has ethical implications however. Clearly the bible (the Talmud--the first five books of the Catholic bible and the holy Jewish books--Genesis 1.26) does not define "Made in His image," though clearly humans are made in this "image" however it is defined. The community in the novel "The Chrysalides" defines humans as having two arms, two legs, five digits on each appendage, one head....bla bla bla, however this sci-fi fic. doesn't really typify the source work one reasonably subscribes to for this kind of definition.
I guess my question is if we really cannot legitimately define what is "human" or "made in the image of God" with any viable definitiveness and accuracy, how can we proceed with the assumption that current apes are not still on the process of evolution or are not already perfectly evolved and are just a different species of human? If this is the case, how do we justify painful, intrusive and lethal testing on other primates? How do we ethically do this? Isn't this what ethics are about--borrowing from religion the concept of "conscience" and "right and wrong" behaviour.
Who is it that defines that other primates are not as VALID as the apparent dominant primate--homo-sapien sapien? So it appears the ethics employed right now by main stream medical science, if we can call them ethics at all, in a nut-shell are "Might Equals Right". (This dilemma also has implications for cloning and the creation of androids.) Biblically we cannot legitimately define "created in His image" which is supposed to be the vertebrae and catalyst of so many ethical debates.
Although this may not keep most up at night, let us please not use the ridiculous ethical argument that 'our' brand of human is oh so much more valuable, therefore so much more worth saving than other primates, clones of humans or androids.
Ultimately, WHO's to say WHO is human?--I suppose, those who are "in" power.

Velvet Wilson—English teacher Grade 12 Toronto Canada

[Velvet Wilson]

Okay, I will pose a different sort of dilemma. I suppose it's not an original dilemma, but definitely one that is often not discussed thoroughly in debates between creationists and evolutionists. I myself have deeply religious Christian beliefs, and I do believe that there can be a wonderfully viable marriage between science and religion. A book that I think is terrific for this is called "Is There a God?" by Professor John Oakes, PhD. Professor of chemistry and physics at Marian College in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
The dilemma that I find fascinating is the whole idea of defining what is human.
Creationists, by in large, believe that humans, created in the image of God, have no real spiritual kin to the great apes surviving today. Evolutionary scientists, on the other hand, generally do not search for evidence to determine a "spiritual" difference between present day humans and great apes. They appear to be simply interested in the physical classifications of species, regarding this issue.
My dilemma still has ethical implications however. Clearly the bible (the Talmud--the first five books of the Catholic bible and the holy Jewish books--Genesis 1.26) does not define "Made in His image," though clearly humans are made in this "image" however it is defined. The community in the novel "The Chrysalides" defines humans as having two arms, two legs, five digits on each appendage, one head....bla bla bla, however this sci-fi fic. doesn't really typify the source work one reasonably subscribes to for this kind of definition.
I guess my question is if we really cannot legitimately define what is "human" or "made in the image of God" with any viable definitiveness and accuracy, how can we proceed with the assumption that current apes are not still on the process of evolution or are not already perfectly evolved and are just a different species of human? If this is the case, how do we justify painful, intrusive and lethal testing on other primates? How do we ethically do this? Isn't this what ethics are about--borrowing from religion the concept of "conscience" and "right and wrong" behaviour.
Who is it that defines that other primates are not as VALID as the apparent dominant primate--homo-sapien sapien? So it appears the ethics employed right now by main stream medical science, if we can call them ethics at all, in a nut-shell are "Might Equals Right". (This dilemma also has implications for cloning and the creation of androids.) Biblically we cannot legitimately define "created in His image" which is supposed to be the vertebrae and catalyst of so many ethical debates.
Although this may not keep most up at night, let us please not use the ridiculous ethical argument that 'our' brand of human is oh so much more valuable, therefore so much more worth saving than other primates, clones of humans or androids.
Ultimately, WHO's to say WHO is human?--I suppose, those who are "in" power.

Velvet Wilson—English teacher Grade 12 Toronto Canada

[Tvindy]

Thank you, Velvet, for your post. I would go even further and say that all animal testing should be reevaluated. Whether or not animals have souls, they still clearly suffer, and little is done to alleviate this. (Some argue that they do not have the capacity for suffering, but unless that can be proven, it is not something we should assume.) What is especially appalling are those experiments which are specifically designed to create suffering, as in the maternal deprivation experiments.

[sara]

hey ,
well i wanted to say God still made all animal's human's and that you have to belive in with you're faith!!

[bob]

yes they did and no they didn't

[Notanape]

So I guess it was just an evolutionary accident that we are conscious? Maybe you're an ape but I sure am not.

[Dr. David Garder]

I am glad to see at least one person who shows complete understanding on the evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin. Getting my Ph.D in Genetics and Evolution in University of Southern Queensland, I here honor very much the author of this "PERFECTLY CORRECT" piece of answer to the Question "Do humans come from apes?"

For Sure, "ABSOLUTELY NO"

[M]

@Notanape:
If you're human, you're an ape. And all apes are self-aware anyway, so consciousness is completely irrelevant to the difference between a human and a non-human ape. I am puzzled as to why you would consider consciousness an important differentiator.

[Casey]

Great post. Even if you were to discount the DNA and fossil record evidence, one just has to step back and view our species as an "alien" observer. It's amazingly obvious we are a species of ape, or at least primate. Personally, as a religious Jew, the fact I am an ape doesn't bother me in the least, and if anything, I find it quite intriguing. It certainly makes me view my fellow simians in a different light.