APES VS HUMANS

(1.) Characteristics primates typically have in common

1. Opposable thumb - meaning that thumbs can be held in position opposite to the attached fingers.

2. Hands and feet can grasp - i.e. "prehensile" hands and feet

 
3. Fingernails instead of claws - as opposed to other mammals such as bears, dogs, both large and domestic cats, and many other smaller animals have sharp
claws at the end of each digit whereas primates have comparatively flatter fingernails and very sensitive tactile pads on palmer
surface of the digits.
4. Flattened face resulting in two eyes next to each other pointing in the same - as opposed to other mammals such as horses, deer, elephants, dolphins and many others whose eyes are on either side of the
directions head/face pointed in opposite directions, i.e. one eye points to the left and the other to the right. 
Eyes located side-by-side as in primates makes possible stereoscopic vision, which is important for depth perception.

5. 32 teeth in permanent heterodont dentition - "heterodont" refers to animals that have several different types of teeth, e.g. incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. This
indicates feeding/hunting specialization in a species (compared with other species that are often considered more primitive e.g.
certain bony fish, amphibians, and reptiles).
 
6. Single pair of mammary glands (breasts) - as opposed to many other animals such as e.g. cats, dogs, pigs, rabbits and squirrels whose adult females have multiple pairs of
mammary glands, which is important for feeding large litters of many young.

(2.) Compare human anatomy with ape anatomy

Human Anatomy Ape Anatomy

 Limited proportion of skin covered in hair  Dense hairs cover most the skin 
e.g. top, back and sides of head, armpits & genitals (adults), sometimes chest & limbs (adult except face, plantar surfaces of feet and palmer surfaces of hands.
males).
 Skull supported on top of vertebral column  Skull hangs forward from vertebral column
 Cranium larger than face  Face larger than cranium
(cranial volume twice that of apes)
 Facial Structure:  Facial Structure:
o small eyebrow ridges o prominent eye ridges
o protruding nose o flattened nose
o flattened jaws o very large jaw (for eating)
o large lips (beneficial for facial expression) o thin lips
 Walking upright (called "bipedal gait") enhanced by:  Shuffling on all fours ("quadrupedal gait") supported by:
o legs longer than arms o long arms (proportionately longer than in humans)
o wide pelvis (relative to apes) o narrow pelvis (relative to humans)
o ability to straighten the knee o knees bent - to greater or lesser extent
o arched feet o flat, fat, feet (relative to humans)
o large buttocks (relative to apes)

 
 

(3.) Compare human social behaviour with ape social behaviour

Human - Social Behaviour Ape - Social Behaviour

 Social groups not necessarily associated with survival e.g. nationality, cultural/hobby interests,  Social groups are based on survival needs only e.g. cooperation re. finding food, care of young
social media such as Twitter, etc. and defence of group
 Advanced Communication - taking various forms e.g. of sound, writing, art and use of  Communication based on a limited range of sounds and gestures
complicated technologies.
 At least some humans are highly mobile - by making use of modern transport by land, sea or  Live (in the wild) within relatively small territories
air.
 Occupy specific homes, either individually or in small (usually family) groups. Sometimes said  Do not occupy specific "homes" or dwelling places
to have "fixed" homes but some groups of humans are or have been nomadic - even in those
cases they usually travel with a home/shelter or the components needed to create one e.g. tent-
like constructions.
 Can make tools individually and manufacture advanced devices collectively e.g. producing  Do not make tools e.g. by changing the shape of objects in their environment for use for a
component parts (possibly at different locations) assembling and testing or calibrating them, specific purpose. However, may use objects as tools to perform simple tasks.
finally transporting them to even more locations for use.
 Can control and make use of many forms of energy, e.g. fire for heating spaces and cooking  
food, wind for travel by sail or conversion to other types of energy, and even converting nuclear
energy for use in many ways e.g. in homes and businesses.
(4.) Human advances: Respects in which humans seem to be more advanced than apes

1. Larger brain  
2. Different shape of skull Flatter face rather than face projecting forwards
It has been argued that this enables humans to display a wider range of facial expressions but (if they could communicate it to us)
might apes disagree ? 
Is this really an "advance" or just a "difference"?
3. Bipedal gait Human adults walk most naturally on two legs. 
In comparison some other primates can walk on two legs but most normally use all four limbs and have greater need to do so
because they move vertically around trees as opposed to humans moving around predominately on the flat or vertically via lifts and
stairs (designed for humans to maintain upright posture). As an example of an exception to the "rule", see the YouTube clip for an
example of a gorilla that has become known for bipedal movement.
4. More advanced/nimble use of hands Actual use varies between individuals but the ability of some humans to produce finely detailed objects by hand proves that this
is at least possible for the human species to levels of skill and detail not known to have been achieved by primates such as apes.
5. More advanced forms of communicatione.g.  Spoken languages,
 Sign languages/gestures,
 Music,
 Written communication incl. written languages as well as mathematical, chemical and other scientific notation,
also
 (More recently) 
Use of advanced technologies such as radio and television, telecommunication, electronic communication, radar
etc.
 Some people might include psychic communication e.g. "remote viewing" while others would argue that such
abilities would need to be wider-spread and better-developed to be included. More importantly for this topic, there
would need to be an agreed way to test and compare the prevalence of such abilities within and possibly also
between humans and various species of primates and no such criteria is widely accepted.
6. Use and production of (better) tools i.e. better than those of primates generally
7. Human cooperation in such social aspects as ...  Production of food,
 Care of young,
 Building structures and defence of groups against outsiders.

Controversially, while it is easy to think of examples of these and other areas of cooperation, some might argue that it would be
more "advanced" and "civilized" not to need so much cooperation in all of these areas. For example, many women would prefer to
be financially able to spend time looking after their own children instead of arranging for other people - sometimes several other
people at different times and in different places - to do so instead

Similarities between apes and humans, and the implications for human evolution
The anatomical evidence - both fossil and contemporary - demonstrates that australopithecines and
chimpanzees share a geologically recent common ancestor and that Homo sapiensare descendants of
the evolutionary branch that began with the divergence of the australopiths. 

The anatomical characteristics that link the australopiths to Homo, and show their intermediate form
between modern humans and the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees, include:
* The canines of the australopiths do not project much further forward in relation to the other teeth
than they do in Homo;
* Australopith canines also show a decrease in sexual size differences over time - the more recent forms
are more like the condition of modern humans;
* Tooth enamel progresses to a more Homo-like thickness over time;
* Wear patterns on australopith teeth suggest a "crushing" action, similar to that of Homo;
* The cranial capacity of the australopiths increases to a capacity range approaching that of early Homo;
* The australopith foramen magnum, which allows the spinal cord to connect with the base of the brain,
is located more toward the base of the skull than in apes, yet not completely under the skull, as
in Homo but excluding the robust australopiths (also known as Paranthropus) where it was just as
in Homo; and
* The features of the tibiae (orientation angle, thickness and internal structure) shared by australopiths
and Homo reflect the demands placed on their bodies by bipedalism. 

The anatomical similarities between chimpanzees and anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) can
be summarized as follows:
* In both species, the rib cage is broad from side to side and shallow from front to back; the rib cage
extends back beyond the vertebral column
* Both have a dorsally-placed scapula and shoulder joints facing outward to the side, giving humans a
mobile shoulder joint; a hangover from our arboreal ancestry; and
* The positioning and angle of the humeral shaft and humeral head and other joints in the forelimb are
the same in both species. 

Table 1 below summaries the similarities and differences between chimpanzees, australopiths and
modern humans as a result of millions of years of evolution. 

Modern chimpanzees Australopiths Modern humans

Canines larger and Canines of similar size to

Canines slightly larger,
project out from tooth other teeth and non-
but non-projecting
row projecting

Extended canine size Moderate canine size Minimal canine size

determined by sexual determined by sexual determined by sexual
dimorphism dimorphism dimorphism

Thin tooth enamel Moderate tooth enamel Thick tooth enamel

Dental wear pattern Dental wear pattern Dental wear pattern

shows grinding action shows crushing action shows crushing action

Cranial capacity average Cranial capacity 350 - Cranial Capacity > 1000
400 cc 540 cc cc

Foramen magnum opens
Foramen magnum opens Foramen magnum opens
between rear and base
toward rear of skull at base of skull
of skull

Tibiae thicker and

Tibiae thin and angled Tibiae thick and straight
straighter

Rib cage broad and Rib cage broad and Rib cage broad and
extends past vertebral extends past vertebral extends past vertebral
column column column

Scapulae on the back, Scapulae on the back, Scapulae on the back,

shoulder joints oriented shoulder joints oriented shoulder joints oriented
to the sides to the sides to the sides

It is also worthwhile noting Bernard Wood and Brian Richmond's (2000) summary of comparative limb
morphology: "The substantial differences between the lower limbs of modern humans and apes are
largely attributable to the bipedal locomotion of the former. The most striking difference is the great
absolute and relative length of modern human lower limbs that increases stride length and thus the
speed of bipedal walking. Because the lower limbs support the body during bipedal gait, the
acetabulum, femoral head and other lower limb joints are relatively larger in humans. Modern human
femora are distinctive in that they show the valgus condition (i.e. they converge towards the knees),
thus helping to position the feet closer to the midline." 

In addition, recent reviews of the available anatomical (Shoshani et al. 1996) and genetic evidence
(Ruvolo 1995, 1997; Wise et al. 1997) have convincingly re-affirmed yet again the theory that apes and
anatomically modern humans share a common ancestry. The DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2
and 4 have been completely analysed and were published in the April 7 (2005) issue of Nature,
reinforcing the conclusions reached by previous studies. In essence, the chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b
fused to form the human chromosome 2. Previous comparisons between the chimpanzee and human
genomes and other known genomes have yielded a gene which appears to be functional only in
chimpanzees and humans. This gene is suggested to make a protein in the brain and testicals.
Furthermore, geneticists have analysed the differences in the amino acid sequences of protein and in
the base sequences of DNA from apes and humans; the results have yielded a divergence time-frame of
5-8 million years ago. 

A good case study is that of the Dikika child, first published in 2006 and found by the Dikika Research
Project members in Ethiopia. The sandstone sediment in which the child was found was deposited on a
subaerial delta plain; the age of the Sidi Hakoma Member ranges from 3.31 - 3.35 million years. When
combined with the lack of pre-weathering of the anatomical remains, these factors indicate that the
child was buried in a flood. The initial anatomical report (Alemseged et al. 2006) is the accumulation of
five years of painstaking cleaning and examination. Most of the postcranial remains were covered by
sandstone matrix, together with the cranium's midface, left temporal bone and the cranial base.
Analysis of the skeletal elements places the child firmly within the known range for Australopithecus
afarensis and distinguish them from modern gorillas and chimpanzees. CT-scans were used to model the
age using an African ape model. The resulting 3 years of age would not differ by more than a year and a
half if a modern human model had been used instead. Given that A. afarensis is a hominin, the
utilisation of an African ape model is a prudent measure for a minimum age. The tibiae has a sharper
anterior border and its muscle attachment orientations resemble that of modern humans'. In addition,
also like modern humans, the side of the upper part of the shaft is a little concave, becoming convex
towards the back. The ape-like scapula, the longer phalanges and the reconstructed environmental
settings (woodland with a nearby plain) all combine to reinvigorate investigations into the mobility
patterns of A. afarensis. The basis of these investigations will likely be that A. afarensis combined a form
of arboreal behaviour with habitual bipedalism, as reflected by the more derived lower body which
would have been under heavy selection pressures. As more of the sandstone matrix is removed from the
skeletal remains and further analysis is made possible (hopefully including isotope analysis), expect to
see the new models of hominin growth, dietary and evolutionary patterns emerging over the coming
years. These will yield valuable insights which can then be tested against the known and future
anatomical remains of both A. afarensis and other hominin species. 

These models and predictions are based upon detailed anatomical evidence and do not use any
pseudoscientific stance as either the starting point or the given conclusion. Those who back such
fundamentalist works display a profound ignorance of basic 1st year scientific methods, which places a
huge question mark over the reliability of their own published and presented works. Creationist works,
and those who support such efforts, have no basis whatsoever in any scientific procedure and basic plain
scientific reality.