TracyP Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Yes. But I think it may have some errors as to humans as "descended from apes" ideas, "survival of the fittest" ideas etc.??? That is, perhaps errors in taking some popular misconceptions and putting them in as if they are what scientists believe to be fact??? I did not read it, so that was just an impression I had been given. How does it deal with those topics? The quote (pulled from an Amazon review cuz we read this from the library) from the book is: "... 5 million years ago. The ancestors of early humans, descended from apes, are living in Africa. They are the first apelike animals to walk upright." I am not an expert on evolution, but I do not think this is an error. We are apes, descended from apes that are now extinct. It could lead to the "my great grandpa's not an ape" type nonsense, but it doesn't need to be understood that way. Overall, I thought this book was very good. I think this gets back to the problem that was mentioned earlier - these children's books are so simplified (necessarily) that it could lead to misconceptions. That is a fair point that I hadn't considered before. I agree with others though, Attenborough is the best. :001_wub: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 It's actually that we and apes are descended from a common ancestor that is now extinct. Subtle but crucial difference. The quote (pulled from an Amazon review cuz we read this from the library) from the book is: "... 5 million years ago. The ancestors of early humans, descended from apes, are living in Africa. They are the first apelike animals to walk upright." I am not an expert on evolution, but I do not think this is an error. We are apes, descended from apes that are now extinct. It could lead to the "my great grandpa's not an ape" type nonsense, but it doesn't need to be understood that way. Overall, I thought this book was very good. I think this gets back to the problem that was mentioned earlier - these children's books are so simplified (necessarily) that it could lead to misconceptions. That is a fair point that I hadn't considered before. I agree with others though, Attenborough is the best. :001_wub: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 It's actually that we and apes are descended from a common ancestor that is now extinct. Subtle but crucial difference. I gotcha, but aren't we apes in taxonomy speak? Wouldn't that mean that we are descended from apes? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 I gotcha, but aren't we apes in taxonomy speak? Wouldn't that mean that we are descended from apes? :confused: I suppose, yes, just as we could correctly say that in taxonomy-speak a salmon is descended from fish, or a chicken is descended from birds. It is not all that meaningful in trying to understand evolution if all we mean is that we are a form of ape and so are our parents--moreover, in the case of humans and apes it gives a misimpression, I think, in so far as when people hear it they are likely to picture a modern day gorilla, or something similar to that, for the word ape. I guess we could say that wolves and dogs and foxes are all in the canid dog family, and so are all descended from a form of dog...but then if you say foxes are descended from dogs in a way that makes it seem like a modern fox is descended from a modern dog, you would give a misimpression. ???? What about how the book deals with "survival of the fittest"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 From Wikipedia: Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia and distinguished by a wide degree of freedom at the shoulder joint indicating the influence of brachiation. There are two main branches, the gibbons, or lesser apes, and another branch including hominids and other great apes. Since Humans are hominids, I would say that it is not incorrect to say that humans are apes. It would be definitely incorrect to say that the fox descended from a dog or that the fox is a kind of dog, but it would be correct to say that the fox descended from a canine ancestor and that the fox is a type of canine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 I suppose, yes, just as we could correctly say that in taxonomy-speak a salmon is descended from fish, or a chicken is descended from birds. It is not all that meaningful in trying to understand evolution if all we mean is that we are a form of ape and so are our parents--moreover, in the case of humans and apes it gives a misimpression, I think, in so far as when people hear it they are likely to picture a modern day gorilla, or something similar to that, for the word ape. I guess we could say that wolves and dogs and foxes are all in the canid dog family, and so are all descended from a form of dog...but then if you say foxes are descended from dogs in a way that makes it seem like a modern fox is descended from a modern dog, you would give a misimpression. ???? What about how the book deals with "survival of the fittest"? I agree that it can give a misimpression, but I don't know that it follows that we shouldn't use that terminology. I started really trying to understand evolution about 9 months ago and I was left with two realizations. 1) Evolution is Awesome and Bigger than I could have ever imagined. It has blown my mind in a very good way. 2) There is still so much more I could learn. One of those "the more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know" things. Anyway, I say that to explain that I don't claim in any way to know the right answer here. :) I don't recall how the book deals with "survival of the fittest". Hopefully somebody else can chime in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 The quote (pulled from an Amazon review cuz we read this from the library) from the book is: "... 5 million years ago. The ancestors of early humans, descended from apes, are living in Africa. They are the first apelike animals to walk upright." I am not an expert on evolution, but I do not think this is an error. We are apes, descended from apes that are now extinct. It could lead to the "my great grandpa's not an ape" type nonsense, but it doesn't need to be understood that way. Overall, I thought this book was very good. I think this gets back to the problem that was mentioned earlier - these children's books are so simplified (necessarily) that it could lead to misconceptions. That is a fair point that I hadn't considered before. I agree with others though, Attenborough is the best. :001_wub: Actually, though, I do think the quote is quite clear. If that is the worst part of the book, then it is probably a very good book! I think the Mammals that Morph might be slightly clearer than that sentence (but I have the book to go by, not a single sentence, and so this may be unfair), but anyway, Mammals that Morph gives in the back materials a diagram that shows apes branching off into various groups--according to fossil evidence--first orangutans then gorillas, and last hominids and chimpanzees. It also explains "apes" as a form of "primate" to help alleviate confusion. I hope it does not deal with "survival of the fittest" at all, and that I was under the impression that it did as an error! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................... Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 God said it and BANG it Happened is a really awesome book to consider Old Earth Creation. very well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 You guys are mostly having a semantics problem. "Apes" is not a scientific taxonomic classification. Some of you are referring to it as today's apes (like gorillas) and other as a taxonomic classification (like a family they all belong to). Humans are in the family of Hominidae. So rather than saying that humans 'are apes', it is better to say that humans are in the family of Hominidae which also includes chimps, gorillas, and oragutans. (I would not use 'great apes' either, just because of the semantics problem mentioned above. It just leads to confusion.) And instead of saying that humans 'descended from apes', reefgazer is correct, modern humans and modern 'apes' descended from a common ancestor. This is an important distinction, because modern apes will be as different from the shared common ancestor as modern humans are. I can explain the scientific details if anyone is interested, but probably off topic. :001_smile: Ruth in NZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Are you trying to say I'm not a great ape, but merely a mediocre ape? :smilielol5: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.