Interesting Read, excerpt:

Most of the misconceptions about Neanderthal man resulted from the claims of the Frenchman Marcelin Boule who, in 1908, studied two Neanderthal skeletons that were found in France (LeMoustier and La Chapelle-aux- Saints). Boule declared Neanderthal men to be anatomically and intellectually inferior brutes who were more closely related to apes than humans. He asserted that they had a slumped posture, a “monkey-like” arrangement of certain spinal vertebrae, and he even claimed that their feet were of a “grasping type” (like those of gorillas and chimpanzees). Boule concluded that Neanderthal man could not have walked erectly, but rather must have walked in a clumsy fashion. These highly biased and inaccurate views prevailed and were even expanded by many other evolutionists up to the mid-1950s.

In 1957, the anatomists William Straus and A.J. Cave examined one of the French Neanderthals (La Chapelle-aux-Saints) and determined that the individual suffered from severe arthritis (as suggested by Virchow nearly 100 years earlier), which had affected the vertebrae and bent the posture. The jaw also had been affected. These observations are consistent with the Ice Age climate in which Neanderthals had lived. They may well have sought shelter in caves, and this, together with poor diet and lack of sunlight, could easily have led to diseases that affect the bones, such as rickets.

In addition to anatomical evidence, there is a growing body of cultural evidence for the fully human status of Neanderthals. They buried their dead and had elaborate funeral customs that included arranging the body and covering it with flowers. They made a variety of stone tools and worked with skins and leather. A wood flute was recently discovered among Neanderthal remains. There is even evidence that suggests that Neanderthals engaged in medical care. Some Neanderthal specimens show evidence of survival to old age despite numerous wounds, broken bones, blindness, and disease. This suggests that these individuals were cared for and nurtured by others who showed human compassion.

Still, efforts continue to be made to somehow dehumanize Neanderthal man. Many evolutionists now even insist that Neanderthal man is not even directly related to modern man because of some differences in a small fragment of DNA! There is, in fact, nothing about Neanderthals that is in any way inferior to modern man. One of the world’s foremost authorities on Neanderthal man, Erik Trinkaus, concludes: “Detailed comparisons of Neandertal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neandertal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.”3

Conclusion
Why then are there continued efforts to make apes out of man and man out of apes? In one of the most remarkably frank and candid assessments of the whole subject and the methodology of paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about.

SOURCE

Ramblings...

Just read your Bible.

Yes, there are a lot of theories about Neanderthals, some of which, just like many other theories, might be slightly incorrect, insufficient or that might need correction in the future.

Neanderthals, everyone agrees, shared the same ancestry with humans , and must have been from a slightly seperate branch of the homo-habilis species.

I fail to see how this fact, or any other mysteries of the neanderthal man takes away the general idea of early human ancestry.

I find it desperate and quite laughable that someone would bring this up as an attempt to refute the scientifically accepted idea of human ancestry and origins.

If the op had even read and understood the article very well, then the thread and title would not have been necessary.
One important point in the article that eluded the op is this " These observations are consistent with the Ice Age climate in which Neanderthals had lived."

If the Neanderthals lived during the ice age, this would put them a little over 10,000yrs ago.
If this is so, then what exactly was the point of this op?
That modern humans descended from Neanderthals or that modern humans co-existed with them?

I continue to advise people against the grand folly of arguing against something that they do not fully understand.

plaetton: Yes, there are a lot of theories about Neanderthals, some of which, just like many other theories, might be slightly incorrect, insufficient or that might need correction in the future.

Neanderthals, everyone agrees, shared the same ancestry with humans , and must have been from a slightly seperate branch of the homo-habilis species.

I fail to see how this fact, or any other mysteries of the neanderthal man takes away the general idea of early human ancestry.

I find it desperate and quite laughable that someone would bring this up as an attempt to refute the scientifically accepted idea of human ancestry and origins.

If the op had even read and understood the article very well, then the thread and title would not have been necessary.
One important point in the article that eluded the op is this " These observations are consistent with the Ice Age climate in which Neanderthals had lived."

If the Neanderthals lived during the ice age, this would put them a little over 10,000yrs ago.
If this is so, then what exactly was the point of this op?
That modern humans descended from Neanderthals or that modern humans co-existed with them?

I continue to advise people against the grand folly of arguing against something that they do not fully understand.

As usual you do not address the topic but cast aspersions and bash personality, citing your "you do not understand" mantra.

The topic clearly is about whether or not our ancestors were apes or ape like creatures. Neanderthals have been portrayed as subhuman and even stretching the imagination to making them ape like when the evidence does not support such a stretch. According to the article the evidence is very thin to make a conclusion that our ancestors were ape like. This is the beauty of science it will seek more knowledge without prejudice to already established bodies of knowledge or thought.

Our ancestors were not just ape-like, they were apes. In fact, every human being on this planet is an ape. Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. And we, with the chimps and gorillas form a natural group (the African apes) that is genetically distinct from orangutans and the lesser apes (gibbons).

Humanity are just one branch on the great tree of life. You can trace our ancestry back through monkey-like primates, to rodent-like mammals, to reptilians, to fish-like creatures, and all the way back to the unicellular organisms that are the grandparents of all life on earth.

How you feel about this doesn't matter. Its the truth and you'll just have to deal with it.

EvilBrain1: Our ancestors were not just ape-like, they were apes. In fact, every human being on this planet is an ape. Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. And we, with the chimps and gorillas form a natural group (the African apes) that is genetically distinct from orangutans and the lesser apes (gibbons).

Humanity are just one branch on the great tree of life. You can trace our ancestry back through monkey-like primates, to rodent-like mammals, to reptilians, to fish-like creatures, and all the way back to the unicellular organisms that are the grandparents of all life on earth.

How you feel about this doesn't matter. Its the truth and you'll just have to deal with it.

So at some point our ancestors were bananas since we share 50% genetic similarities with them?

EvilBrain1: Our ancestors were not just ape-like, they were apes. In fact, every human being on this planet is an ape. Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. And we, with the chimps and gorillas form a natural group (the African apes) that is genetically distinct from orangutans and the lesser apes (gibbons).

Humanity are just one branch on the great tree of life. You can trace our ancestry back through monkey-like primates, to rodent-like mammals, to reptilians, to fish-like creatures, and all the way back to the unicellular organisms that are the grandparents of all life on earth.

How you feel about this doesn't matter. Its the truth and you'll just have to deal with it.

So at some point our ancestors were bananas since we share 50% genetic similarity with it?

LordReed:
So at some point our ancestors were bananas since we share 50% genetic similarity with it?

you ever hear of the juju called common ancestry? alluded to in the post you quote....

this is quite silly BTW, even by your standards

EvilBrain1: Our ancestors were not just ape-like, they were apes. In fact, every human being on this planet is an ape. Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. And we, with the chimps and gorillas form a natural group (the African apes) that is genetically distinct from orangutans and the lesser apes (gibbons).

Humanity are just one branch on the great tree of life. You can trace our ancestry back through monkey-like primates, to rodent-like mammals, to reptilians, to fish-like creatures, and all the way back to the unicellular organisms that are the grandparents of all life on earth.

How you feel about this doesn't matter. Its the truth and you'll just have to deal with it.

The truth. The more-than-gospel truth.

wiegraf:

you ever hear of the juju called common ancestry? alluded to in the post you quote....

this is quite silly BTW, even by your standards

It was meant to be silly.

Our shared ancestor could not have been a banana same way it could not have been an ape.

LordReed:

It was meant to be silly.

Our shared ancestor could not have been a banana same way it could not have been an ape.

I say our ancestors are apes because all their descendants, including humans are apes. All the characteristics we use to define an ape are present both in australopithecines and in humans. That we don't refer to ourselves as apes is just down to ego and semantics. We are hominid apes of the African ape variety.

Many researchers even consider chimpanzees and bonobos to be in the same genus as us (i.e. Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus). We all need to get off our high horse and accept the truth.

EvilBrain1:

I say our ancestors are apes because all their descendants, including humans are apes. All the characteristics we use to define an ape are present both in australopithecines and in humans. That we don't refer to ourselves as apes is just down to ego and semantics. We are hominid apes of the African ape variety.

Many researchers even consider chimpanzees and bonobos to be in the same genus as us (i.e. Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus). We all need to get off our high horse and accept the truth.

Australopithecines was better adapted to bipedal motion than an ape so which characteristics are you talking about?

LordReed:

Our shared ancestor could not have been a banana same way it could not have been an ape.

yeah, this is the silly bit. basically boils down to 'can't be ape cos apes are stoppid lalalalala I'm so special'

we're also rather stoopid, look around. stoopid apes to be precise...

elephants are special too, or do you know of another species with such awesome trunks?

etc etc blah blah blah

and technically speaking, our ancestors weren't bananas, we share common ancestors with bananas...

wiegraf:

and technically speaking, our ancestors weren't bananas, we share common ancestors with bananas...

Exactly, you can say we shared a common ancestor with apes but you can't say our ancestors were apes.

EvilBrain1:

I say our ancestors are apes because all their descendants, including humans are apes. All the characteristics we use to define an ape are present both in australopithecines and in humans. That we don't refer to ourselves as apes is just down to ego and semantics. We are hominid apes of the African ape variety.

Many researchers even consider chimpanzees and bonobos to be in the same genus as us (i.e. Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus). We all need to get off our high horse and accept the truth.

I wonder if that's the reason why movies like Planet of the Apes came out

EvilBrain1:

I say our ancestors are apes because all their descendants, including humans are apes. All the characteristics we use to define an ape are present both in australopithecines and in humans. That we don't refer to ourselves as apes is just down to ego and semantics. We are hominid apes of the African ape variety.

Many researchers even consider chimpanzees and bonobos to be in the same genus as us (i.e. Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus). We all need to get off our high horse and accept the truth.

read your books again, the scientific claim is that "man and apes have a common ancestor". Not that the apes are ancestor to man.
with regards to Neanderthals, there are claims that they cross-bred with humans. So some of us have neanderthal genes.

Illuminatus: The two basic theories, the Scientific theory that man evolved from apes, and the Religious theory, that man was created by God are fables and generally unproven at best. At the moment, anyone who feels the need to totally understand the origin of man must (blindly) believe either of these two. Find your own way.

Yours is a senseless position because it offers nothing while rubbishing the 2 possibilities regarding the existence of life. BTW creation beats evolution since there is repeated evidence of humans making coded systems and natural processes don't. I find the atheist suggestion that, since stars, snowflakes and diamonmds arise naturally then life can, to be silly since they aren't coded systems. Life is an exaquisaite coded system based on organic chemistry and its complexity demands a Creator.

LordReed:

Exactly, you can say we shared a common ancestor with apes but you can't say our ancestors were apes.

really?

what exactly is your understanding of the word 'great ape'? scientifically speaking, of course.

and are you simply trying separate humans from the rest of the great apes? are you claiming humans are not apes?

wiegraf:

really?

what exactly is your understanding of the word 'great ape'? scientifically speaking, of course.

and are you simply trying separate humans from the rest of the great apes? are you claiming humans are not apes?

It's typically those that are too much into their religion that do not want to associate themselves with "animals" even though human beings themselves are the worst of animals. I personally thoroughly believe that we can't argue with science and modern technology. God gave us the ability to explore these things with science and technology.

Fulaman198:

It's typically those that are too much into their religion that do not want to associate themselves with "animals" even though human beings themselves are the worst of animals. I personally thoroughly believe that we can't argue with science and modern technology. God gave us the ability to explore these things with science and technology.

that's cool, though I still think there'll be inevitable clashes. eg how does god deal with chaos, or uncertainty (if it holds) etc etc

but again, that's a 'meh' provided the believer does not interfere with science for frivolous, especially nonscientific, reasons

wiegraf:

that's cool, though I still think there'll be inevitable clashes. eg how does god deal with chaos, or uncertainty (if it holds) etc etc

but again, that's a 'meh' provided the believer does not interfere with science for frivolous, especially nonscientific, reasons

I don't think God is ever uncertain. What I do believe personally is that God gave human beings the ability adapt to the ever changing world. We are the only animals in the world capable of that. Every animal (save homosapiens) are the exact same way they have always been. Human beings on the other hand continue to make greater strides in both technology and science. Human beings can use their never ending expanding mindset to discover new things that can prevent chaos.

As humans, we are much better off than we were from a technological perspective 100 years ago. We have advanced so much even from 10 years ago. Can you imagine how humans will be another 100 years from now? We are constantly innovating and developing new things at such an astounding rate. I hate to say this, being a semi-religious person myself, but religion is quickly becoming a thing of yesterday. All thanks goes to God though for making human beings the way we are.

LordReed:

Australopithecines was better adapted to bipedal motion than an ape so which characteristics are you talking about?

Bipedal motion is not considered to be a defining characteristic of the ape family for many good reasons (e.g too many monkeys do it so it doesn't really distinguish apes from other primates).

Apes are large, tailless, non-arboreal primates with highly mobile shoulder joints and specially shaped molar teeth. There are other characteristics that are common but not universal to all apes. For instance, they all live in large groups with complex social interactions (except orangutans), they're all expert tree climbers and at least occasionally move by swinging from branches (except gorillas and humans), and they all occasionally fling poo (except me).

In order to separate humans from the other African apes, you need to resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics. Even with that, the DNA evidence will always expose the lies you are telling yourself. If we are to apply the same standards we use to classify every other mammal to humans, then we can't excape the fact that we are apes. End of story.

Fulaman198:

I don't think God is ever uncertain. What I do believe personally is that God gave human beings the ability adapt to the ever changing world. We are the only animals in the world capable of that. Every animal (save homosapiens) are the exact same way they have always been. Human beings on the other hand continue to make greater strides in both technology and science. Human beings can use their never ending expanding mindset to discover new things that can prevent chaos.

As humans, we are much better off than we were from a technological perspective 100 years ago. We have advanced so much even from 10 years ago. Can you imagine how humans will be another 100 years from now? We are constantly innovating and developing new things at such an astounding rate. I hate to say this, being a semi-religious person myself, but religion is quickly becoming a thing of yesterday. All thanks goes to God though for making human beings the way we are.

That's not the sort of uncertainty I speak of, but it's not important.

This here is random, somewhat relevant tangent.

There is a documentary I saw featuring dolphins training their kids a particular hunting technique. This was not something innate, they were the only family employing this technique, and over various generations. It involved beaching then riding the waves back. It was dangerous, as if they did not beach properly, they would be unable to ride the waves back to the sea and would therefore die within a few minutes/hours (i forget). This process involved, of course, mama's carefully observing, coordinating and directing, using their now well documented rudimentary language skills to interact.

A hypothesis for the evolution of language is just exactly that. ie, it's hypothesized the primary impetus was mamas fussing over their children, (especially as human young are particularly weak and as helpless as they come), just as those dolphins are doing to a lesser degree (it also explains why women can't sharrap).

Now, do you know what feral kids are like? Thankfully there aren't many of cases of this (very much so, especially when you consider it's usually a result of abuse of the unspeakable type), as those confirmed aren't pretty. They're no Mowglis. Crucially, their (verbal, in particular) language skills are non existent. And apparently, once a certain period passes during childhood and you don't acquire these skills, it becomes nigh on impossible to get them later.

now think about it; you use language to arrange your abstract thoughts. How exactly then would you function without language? Feral. Not much unlike our chimp cousins. And that's what feral kids tend to be like. Smarter, of course, but still rather similar.

I'm not saying if you socialize a chimp it will turn to mojojojojo. The other apes lack a few tools, eg (and crucially) lack certain genes which give our vocal cords our range, certain parts of their brains do not possess the processing power of ours and vice versa, etc etc. I am, however, highlighting the importance of language, socialization, etc etc. how possessing certain tools would nudge a species towards acquiring greater mental prowess. Eg aforementioned vocal cords, free flexible limbs for tool usage, etc. We are the first (or amongst the first), to possess the tools necessary to enable us to conceptualize as we do.

Considering dolphins already go down that path; teaching, socializing, using language etc creatively even if at an rudimentary level, this while using less impressive tools than ours, (I mean, they don't even possess free limbs, have no access to fire, etc), one can see how, little by little, as evolution works, higher mental functioning could be attained. Other animals evolve too, they do not remain the same, obviously.

With the evolution of the eye, one can actually show you different species with eyes at the various of stages of evolution. Showing a map of how the more 'evolved' eyes come to be. Overall point of this ramble is to point out the same can be done with our sort of intelligence, or at least its nascent stages as we are (maybe) the first (and only so far) to have attained intelligence of this scale.

We won the lottery in a sense, as our intelligence give us what appears to be an unprecedented advantage over other species. We're now perhaps the most apex of all apex predators that have existed on this rock. All this makes us seem spectacular, but it's not particularly so. We simply stumbled there first.

Unlucky dolphins were stuck in water, else they might have been the ones lording over us and worshiping the great sky dolphin swimming through the clouds who, seemingly, created the universe just for them. Unlucky neanderthals had to compete with us, and it seems we developed certain brain functions just before them. It likely ended up being either them or us, and we know how that tends to end up. Otherwise they would be the ones currently debating if they were apes or no. etc etc blah blah blah

PS: This is all conjecture. Don't take it seriously, some may be BS as I have to recheck some of the claims, and some may be leaps. Plus I'm somewhat high. When it did get this fing long? anyhoo

wiegraf:

really?

what exactly is your understanding of the word 'great ape'? scientifically speaking, of course.

and are you simply trying separate humans from the rest of the great apes? are you claiming humans are not apes?

That classification has been revised several times over the years and probably will in future as more data is found.

For here and now I would say no humans are not apes.

EvilBrain1:

Bipedal motion is not considered to be a defining characteristic of the ape family for many good reasons (e.g too many monkeys do it so it doesn't really distinguish apes from other primates).

Apes are large, tailless, non-arboreal primates with highly mobile shoulder joints and specially shaped molar teeth. There are other characteristics that are common but not universal to all apes. For instance, they all live in large groups with complex social interactions (except orangutans), they're all expert tree climbers and at least occasionally move by swinging from branches (except gorillas and humans), and they all occasionally fling poo (except me).

In order to separate humans from the other African apes, you need to resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics. Even with that, the DNA evidence will always expose the lies you are telling yourself. If we are to apply the same standards we use to classify every other mammal to humans, then we can't excape the fact that we are apes. End of story.

I pointed out to you that we share 50% genetic similarity with bananas so does that make us bananas? Genetic similarity and classification are two different things. We also share genetic similarities with insects but are we classified as insects?

No ape has bipedal motion like man's so the walk on two legs is very distinct between man and ape. And yes it is a defining characteristic because the skeletal framework is also very distinct.

In tracing man's origins scientists have found man's genetic inheritance to be valuable but it is not the whole story.

LordReed:

I pointed out to you that we share 50% genetic similarity with bananas so does that make us bananas? Genetic similarity and classification are two different things. We also share genetic similarities with insects but are we classified as insects?

We share some DNA with almost all organisms on earth, even bacteria. I'm not claiming that sharing genes means we're the same, I'm talking about what it means to be an ape. Any group that includes chimpanzees and gorillas will have to also include humans unless we want to start cherry picking the characteristics we use to define an ape.

No ape has bipedal motion like man's so the walk on two legs is very distinct between man and ape. And yes it is a defining characteristic because the skeletal framework is also very distinct.

The other apes' bipedality is very, very similar to ours. Its not exactly the same, but if you look at apes as a group, you see clear commonalities (and more importantly, clear differences that distinguish us as a group from other primates and mammals). The main differences between human bipedality and that of say chimps is that our backs are a bit more vertical, we use our arms less (but we still swing them) and our legs are better developed. But those differences are nothing compared to the huge changes that allowed all apes to be bipedal in the first place (the vertical spine, the very different pelvis, he use of the hands for grasping and manipulating the environment. From a taxonomic point of view, the similarities between apes are far more significant than the differences.

Plus even if you insist on removing humans from the ape family, you'll first have to remove gibbons, then orangutans, then gorillas before you can justify pulling out humans. We'll be stuck with the chimps and bonobos till the very end because they're more similar to us than any other animal.

EvilBrain1: Our ancestors were not just ape-like, they were apes. In fact, every human being on this planet is an ape. Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. And we, with the chimps and gorillas form a natural group (the African apes) that is genetically distinct from orangutans and the lesser apes (gibbons).

Humanity are just one branch on the great tree of life. You can trace our ancestry back through monkey-like primates, to rodent-like mammals, to reptilians, to fish-like creatures, and all the way back to the unicellular organisms that are the grandparents of all life on earth.

How you feel about this doesn't matter. Its the truth and you'll just have to deal with it.

Does any monkeys carry the mtdna and ydna of humans?

LordReed:
That classification has been revised several times over the years and probably will in future as more data is found.
For here and now I would say no humans are not apes.

aaaand while the details have been debated, please, whose ever claimed hominids aren't apes?


and atheists are the arrogant ones? mayhaps we aren't mammals as well..

wiegraf:

aaaand while the details have been debated, please, whose ever claimed hominids aren't apes?


and atheists are the arrogant ones? mayhaps we aren't mammals as well..

Where is the arrogance please?

I don't accept we are apes same way we are not bananas regardless that we shared a common ancestor. Speciation occurred far back enough for a whole new specie to emerge. If this is true for bananas and humans then I hold it true for apes and humans as well.

EDIT
To further clarify my position:

One of the most persistent myths, however,
concerns the relationship of humans to great
apes, a group of primates that includes the
gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee. Someone
who believes the myth will say, "If evolution
exists, then humans must be descended directly
from apes. Apes must have changed, step by
step, into humans." This same person will often
follow up with this observation: "If apes 'turned
into' humans, then apes should no longer exist."
Although there are several ways to attack this
assertion, the bottom-line rebuttal is simple --
humans didn't descend from apes. That's not to
say humans and apes aren't related, but the
relationship can't be traced backward along a
direct line of descent, one form morphing into
another. It must be traced along two
independent lines, far back into time until the
two lines merge.
The intersection of the two lines represents
something special, what biologists refer to as a
common ancestor . This apelike ancestor, which
probably lived 5 to 11 million years ago in
Africa, gave rise to two distinct lineages, one
resulting in hominids -- humanlike species --
and the other resulting in the great ape species
living today. Or, to use a family tree analogy,
the common ancestor occupied a trunk, which
then divided into two branches. Hominids
developed along one branch, while the great
ape species developed along another branch.

SOURCE

EvilBrain1:

We share some DNA with almost all organisms on earth, even bacteria. I'm not claiming that sharing genes means we're the same, I'm talking about what it means to be an ape. Any group that includes chimpanzees and gorillas will have to also include humans unless we want to start cherry picking the characteristics we use to define an ape.



The other apes' bipedality is very, very similar to ours. Its not exactly the same, but if you look at apes as a group, you see clear commonalities (and more importantly, clear differences that distinguish us as a group from other primates and mammals). The main differences between human bipedality and that of say chimps is that our backs are a bit more vertical, we use our arms less (but we still swing them) and our legs are better developed. But those differences are nothing compared to the huge changes that allowed all apes to be bipedal in the first place (the vertical spine, the very different pelvis, he use of the hands for grasping and manipulating the environment. From a taxonomic point of view, the similarities between apes are far more significant than the differences.

Plus even if you insist on removing humans from the ape family, you'll first have to remove gibbons, then orangutans, then gorillas before you can justify pulling out humans. We'll be stuck with the chimps and bonobos till the very end because they're more similar to us than any other animal.

As I pointed out to wiegraf in my preceding post, speciation occurred far back enough that the common ancestor was not an ape. The precursor to humans and ape would probably not be in recognisable to us on a dark and lonely road if we happened to meet one.

To further my position, this is from John Hawks an associate professor of anthropology:

Humans are hominoids. Hominoidea is a
taxonomic group. Phylogenetic systematics
holds that taxonomic groups should be
monophyletic — meaning that they include all
the descendants of one ancestor, and don’t
leave any descendants out. Humans are closely
related to chimpanzees and bonobos, more
distantly to gorillas, then orangutans, then
gibbons. All these living creatures are crown
hominoids. The Hominoidea includes all these,
together with extinct animals
like Australopithecus , Proconsul , Dryopithecus,
and many others. Chimpanzees are apes.
Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans,
and gibbons. We routinely differentiate the
“great apes” from the “lesser apes”, where the
latter are gibbons and siamangs. Humans are
not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all
hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World
monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys
like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But
humans aren’t monkeys.

SOURCE