Page Summary
- (Anonymous) - (no subject)
Active Entries
- 1: Five SFF Works About Contests and Competition
- 2: Numamushi by Mina Ikemoto Ghosh
- 3: Five Stories About What Happens After You’ve Defeated the Big Bad
- 4: Stupid but true
- 5: I had a tiny little tense moment last night
- 6: NDP display firm resolve
- 7: NDP celebrate electoral trounsing
- 8: Port Eternity by C J Cherryh
- 9: Young People Read Old Nebula Finalists: Mikal's Songbird by Orson Scott Card
- 10: Two Comments
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2020-04-02 09:39 pm (UTC)Even without the collection of hominid fossils, and direct DNA comparisons with the other great apes, it was always clear to the biologically informed doing comparative anatomy that humans were properly classified among the monkeys and apes; primates among mammals among vertebrates (and so on).
Linnaeus' 1747 letter to Gmelin (https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:alvin:portal:record-223725):
Of course, Linnaeus was a creationist. Given that natural historians of that era still believed in a great chain of being, rather than nested family trees of common descent, I guess he thought that apes were "below" humans despite the strong anatomical similarities.
The concept of the chain of being was one of the things that Darwin explicitly rejected -- "Never say higher or lower", he wrote.
It seems very strange to me to accept evolution and common descent in general, yet also posit a strange exceptionalism for humans as not being a part of that common descent.