Humans as one of the great apes, why is it controversial?

[VHS]

According to wikipedia, humans are one of the great apes, and the only one
that is not endangered:
Hominidae - Wikipedia

Then, even some paleoanthologists may disagree, and John Hawks is one of them:
John D. Hawks - Wikipedia

He wrote this a few years back:
Humans aren't monkeys. We aren't apes, either.

I admit this blog post is fairly confusing and convoluted; we have fewer problems with identifying
ourselves as primates or simians.

Yuval Noah Harari remarked in 21 Lessons for 21 Century:

“When I think of the mystery of existence, I prefer to use other words, so as to avoid confusion. And
unlike the God of the Islamic State and the Crusades--who cares a lot about names and above all about
His most holy name--the mystery of existence doesn't care an iota what names we apes give it.”

The French novel of La Planète des singes, which is better known for its movie adoption, even confuses
the matter more.

In Evolving Ourselves: How Unnatural Selection and Nonrandom Mutation Are Changing Life on Earth,
Juan Enriquez and steve Gullans suggested that within the human domain, we are driving evolution
of both humans, crops, pets, and livestock. We may call this "Human Selection"; as for great ape, it is
a controversial term so far.

Why is it controversial to call humans one of the great apes?
Is La Planète des singes scientifically improbable? If so, why?
Even Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens: a Brief History is controversial due to his theory of cognitive revolution,
and can we seriously track what was revolutionary during the paleolithic era?

 

[Scaeva]

Morons who think the Bible is a science textbook.

 

[VHS]

Morons who think the Bible is a science textbook.

Please abstain from abusive language here:
They can be considered troglodytes who don't recognize current science, and in Richard Dawkins' God Delusion, such a person is mentioned
for running education in the UK.
We are treading in dangerous territories if we talk about the specialty of the human mind; then, Steven Pinker might have mentioned quite a bit
already as a cognitive scientist, even though he is an atheist as well.

 

[stevev]

Humans were actually a degenerate form of the great apes. They were smaller, weaker and lost most to their fur; running around in their bare skin. They didn't stand chance against the great apes they devolved from. The only reason they ended up walking upright is to because they were inferior to virtually every other beast in their environment. They had to be able to see them first so they could run away like squirrels.

 

[AlpinLuke]

Humans were actually a degenerate form of the great apes. They were smaller, weaker and lost most to their fur; running around in their bare skin. They didn't stand chance against the great apes they devolved from. The only reason they ended up walking upright is to because they were inferior to virtually ever other beast in their environment. They had to be able to see them first so they run away like squirrels.

Scientifically we are "great apes".

To be technical, the "great apes" are "Hominidae". They are primates belonging to some genres [even if scientists prefer to use the Latin "genera"]. Substantially we are "mates" of gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans.

 

[stevev]

Scientifically we are "great apes".

To be technical, the "great apes" are "Hominidae". They are primates belonging to some genres [even if scientists prefer to use the Latin "genera"]. Substantially we are "mates" of gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans.

I don't think that contradicts my calling humans a degenerate form of the great apes.

 

[Haakbus]

As he states in the article, "ape" is not a taxonomic term. It's for classification. We have so many fundamental changes that we're as different from the living apes today as monkeys are, perhaps moreso, I think is his argument.

I don't think anyone is denying the taxonomic relations between us and the great apes (unless they're religious like some Christians and Muslims).

Not that I even care what term people use. I'm much more interested in the details of human evolution, not the semantics of common-use terms.

 

[Theodoric]

It's not controversial in any meaningful way. It's kind of like the fake controversy with saying the world is a globe. But it's not contentious as a topic like climate change; despite the fact, 99.94% of peer-reviewed climate science studies support the view that human activity on earth is impacting the climate.

 

[MG1962a]

Humans were actually a degenerate form of the great apes. They were smaller, weaker and lost most to their fur; running around in their bare skin. They didn't stand chance against the great apes they devolved from. The only reason they ended up walking upright is to because they were inferior to virtually every other beast in their environment. They had to be able to see them first so they could run away like squirrels.

Human eyes have exception motion detection capacity. We also have the best stamina of any Hominidea

 

[sculptingman]

According to wikipedia, humans are one of the great apes, and the only one
that is not endangered:
Hominidae - Wikipedia

Then, even some paleoanthologists may disagree, and John Hawks is one of them:
John D. Hawks - Wikipedia

He wrote this a few years back:
Humans aren't monkeys. We aren't apes, either.

I admit this blog post is fairly confusing and convoluted; we have fewer problems with identifying
ourselves as primates or simians.

Yuval Noah Harari remarked in 21 Lessons for 21 Century:

“When I think of the mystery of existence, I prefer to use other words, so as to avoid confusion. And
unlike the God of the Islamic State and the Crusades--who cares a lot about names and above all about
His most holy name--the mystery of existence doesn't care an iota what names we apes give it.”

The French novel of La Planète des singes, which is better known for its movie adoption, even confuses
the matter more.

In Evolving Ourselves: How Unnatural Selection and Nonrandom Mutation Are Changing Life on Earth,
Juan Enriquez and steve Gullans suggested that within the human domain, we are driving evolution
of both humans, crops, pets, and livestock. We may call this "Human Selection"; as for great ape, it is
a controversial term so far.

Why is it controversial to call humans one of the great apes?
Is La Planète des singes scientifically improbable? If so, why?
Even Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens: a Brief History is controversial due to his theory of cognitive revolution,
and can we seriously track what was revolutionary during the paleolithic era?

People desperately want to believe in magical juju- and forever after.

If we are just apes- we die and end, just like any other animal.

Scientists are no less prone to being indoctrinated with magical nonsense as children- no less prone to fearing death and grasping at whatever straw of belief might give them a way out of oblivion.