Are humans related to apes?

[Zzyzx]

.
Are humans related to apes?

Geneticists (people who study such things) tell us that H. sapiens have great genetic similarity to members of the taxonomic group Family: Hominidae (great apes).

This seems to offend some people or to contradict their religious beliefs.

On what basis can argument be made that the classification is in error?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I retired from teaching introductory geology forty years ago -- and have no inclination to teach it here in response to someone plagiarizing Answers in Genesis while attempting to make an argument.

The 'problems' cited are indication of LACK of knowledge regarding geological materials and processes.

Exactly what I thought you have no answer and as soon as you here an idea is from "Answers in Genesis" you use that as your escape clause. People do this all the time on this site.

Suit yourself, but the problems with non conformities are still there.

[Zzyzx]

.

I retired from teaching introductory geology forty years ago -- and have no inclination to teach it here in response to someone plagiarizing Answers in Genesis while attempting to make an argument.

The 'problems' cited are indication of LACK of knowledge regarding geological materials and processes.

Exactly what I thought you have no answer and as soon as you here an idea is from "Answers in Genesis" you use that as your escape clause. People do this all the time on this site.

I have no need for an 'escape clause' from reasoned discussion of geology. However, I do not choose to honor word-for-word plagiarism presented as debate.

Suit yourself, but the problems with non conformities are still there.

Unconformities (or 'non conformities') are well known to geologists and are widespread. They are NOT a 'problem' (except perhaps in the minds of some attempting to dispute scientific findings with pseudo-science in favor of theological dogma).

An unconformity is a surface which at one time was subjected to erosion, either subaerial or submarine, that removed some of the section. An unconformity is characterized by a hiatus, a period of time for which no sediments are present. In stratigraphic interpretation, periods during which sediments were not being deposited are often lumped with erosonal unconformities, because the reason for the missing section may not be evident.

There is a reasonable probability that depositional conditions changed during a hiatus and hence the sections above and below an unconformity are apt to be different. Hence, an unconformity is often marked by a fairly strong reflection, and unconformities often provide the dominant reflections. The reflection patterns above and below an unconformity are often different, and, thus, the dip is apt to be different, especially if the area was tilted during the hiatus. An unconformity is thus often marked by angularities with the unconformity reflection, both below and above the unconformity over at least some portions. Differences between the rocks below and above an unconformity at different locations cause the unconformity reflection to change character and sometimes even polarity. Unconformities may be difficult to recognize if they do not involve a change in dip.
https://wiki.seg.org/wiki/Unconformities

This is Earth science 101 (or Geology 101) material

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 30 by EarthScienceguy]

People are free to believe anything they want to believe but the FACTS indicate that life occurred exactly as the Bible said it did.

Are you now polluting the Christianity and Agologetics section with this AIG nonsense? What you are referring to as "FACTS" are their cherry-picked attempts to pluck a few anomalies or open science issues on a subject, and claim that these invalidate decades and even centuries of actual science to instead favor biblical creationism.

These are standard tactics of the creationist websites that you parrot, but they have utterly failed to make even a tiny dent in mainstream science and the mechanisms of how it works and how it is funded (fortunately!). Doesn't that tell you something?

If biblical accounts of how "life occurred" were actually correct (ie. a god poofing the universe and life, on just one special planet, into existence, from nothing, some 6000 years ago) the manifestation would be a vastly different universe from what we actually observe today, and great effort would have been expended by us curious humans to try and figure out how it all could have proceeded from that specific kind of event, such a short time ago, when observations tell us it very clearly did not.

Efforts to understand origins and the mechanisms involved, in the real world of modern science, do not give up and cave to ancient creation myths. The biblical description of how life "occurred", as you put it, is not supported by the immense body of observational science accumulated in the 2000+ years since those myths were penned by the scientifically illiterate humans of the time.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Clearly humans are biologically related to apes. It is also clear that there are vast differences in ability, language, culture, achievement, industry, artistry, etc. And spirituality. Do apes believe in a higher power? I see no evidence that they do.

I agree. Unfortunately this suggests the other great apes are more intelligent than homo sapiens.

[Danmark]

People are free to believe anything they want to believe but the FACTS indicate that life occurred exactly as the Bible said it did.

What "FACTS" indicate the Bible has it right?

The Bible "FACTS" indicate the Earth is 6000 years old. Do you believe that?

The Bible "FACTS" indicate the earth is flat and is the center of the solar system. Do you believe that?

The Bible claims the Sun could stop moving. Do you believe that?

The Bible claims an ass talked, a snake talked, fiery chariots flew and disappeared into the sky and that Jacob wrestled with God for hours and no one prevailed?*




__________________________________
*“Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.� Genesis 32:28

[Difflugia]

Exactly what I thought you have no answer and as soon as you here an idea is from "Answers in Genesis" you use that as your escape clause. People do this all the time on this site.

Suit yourself, but the problems with non conformities are still there.

This is Earth science 101 (or Geology 101) material

Whenever Answers in Genesis comments on a subject that I know, they grossly misrepresent the science. I therefore assume that they do the same thing when it's a subject I don't know. I'm not a geologist, but I do have a biology background.

In a previous post, you quoted without attribution an article from Answers in Genesis (which, hilariously, is plagiarized from an older book by someone from the opposite side of AiG's weird schism that involved accusations of, among other things, witchcraft).

In short, Answers in Genesis loves quoting a scientist named Alan Feduccia. He thought (and apparently still thinks) that instead of birds evolving from theropods, birds and theropods both evolved from an archosaur ancestor. The reason they like his papers is that he points out things that he thinks differentiate birds from theropods, like the bits about feathers and lungs. Unfortunately for Feduccia, nearly all of his assertions have been disproven in the last twenty years or so, which is why all of the papers that AiG references are from circa 2000. But anyone that didn't bother looking up the references wouldn't know that.

One of the paragraphs you lifted makes a big deal about theropods having very similar lungs to crocodiles (hepatic piston, septate lungs) while avian lungs, though also septate, have what the AiG article calls a "flow-through system." A 1997 paper in the journal Science (which one can download with a free account) discusses the difference. The lung systems are indeed different in important ways. What the AiG article misleadingly leaves out of its discussion is that Archaeopteryx has a lung system that, like birds, lacks the hepatic pump system of earlier theropods, but also lacks a number of adaptations of later birds. It's right in the middle between the two, or in other words, a transitional form! Keep in mind that Answers in Genesis insists that Archaeopteryx is a "true bird."

If they get biology wrong in such obviously self-serving ways, why should I assume that they accurately portray subjects in which I'm less well informed?

[Tart]

.
Are humans related to apes?

Geneticists (people who study such things) tell us that H. sapiens have great genetic similarity to members of the taxonomic group Family: Hominidae (great apes).

This seems to offend some people or to contradict their religious beliefs.

On what basis can argument be made that the classification is in error?

lol... "people who study such things"... so not you???

I want to know how knowledge exists at all... Im interested in the foundations of reasoning.. Im seeking to prove induction... And science? Science is good for my experiences and my research of the reality around me...

What good comes from listening to any man??? The words of anyone??? A knowledge someone told me about, like the genetics of humans and apes...

I'll tell you one thing... To worship creatures, and not the creator, is a fall... When that happens we are "given up" to the lusts of our flesh, and our own selfish desires (Romans 1)...

[Difflugia]

In the dual interests of answering the OP and showing that everyone has research-grade tools and data available to them, I generated a phylogenetic tree of a smattering of primates. It shows humans right where they should be, clustered with the great apes. I annotated the image to show what the main branches correspond to.

I used a single, mitochondrial gene sequence (COX2) to generate the tree. The pattern that you see comes straight from the relationships between different organisms for that single gene. Those relationships are either from evolution or God put them there to look exactly like we would expect from evolution.

The gene I picked is a part of the electron transport chain from aerobic respiration, which is used by all organisms that breathe oxygen. It's both reasonably long and highly conserved, making possible analyses between even distantly related organisms. Gorillas, chimps and humans are actually so closely related (they only differ by something like one or two amino acids in COX2; you can compare them in the data file) that it's tough to tell where exactly the divergence is. We're more closely related to both chimps and gorillas than mice are to rats.

One reason I like this gene in particular is that it completely renders moot the creationist argument that what looks like common descent is simply common design because this gene does exactly the same thing in all organisms. Any differences within even large groups (all mammals, say) can only be due to random drift rather than functional advantage. This gene always does the same narrow thing in a way that doesn't leave room for optimization. Since it does the same thing, all the organisms should have the same sequence, or at least all have diverged the same amount since God's creation. If apparent relationships are due to, as creationists assert, functional similarity as created by God, then those patterns shouldn't be apparent in this gene. But they are. Checkmate, creationists.

In case someone wants to "replicate my findings" and perhaps find all of the "assumptions of the evolutionary paradigm" that are somehow responsible for the graph, here's a quick rundown of my method:

I used two pieces of software, PHYLIP and MUSCLE.

PHYLIP is a software package for molecular phylogenetic analysis. It includes a program named protpars for generating trees using the maximum parsimony method. It also contains a nice java program for turning that tree into a PostScript file.

MUSCLE analyzes DNA or protein sequences and aligns them according to probable insertion/deletion sites. PYLIP requires that its input data be aligned using this or something similar.

I got the data from the GenBank database online from the NIH. In the US, scientific grant money involving gene research comes with the stipulation that results from any gene sequencing performed with the money be submitted to GenBank. It's massive.

In the dropdown box in front of the search box, I selected "Protein". I then did a search for "primata COX2". I selected an entry and clicked on "FASTA" data, which is the format that MUSCLE and PHYLIP use. I copy-pasted the entries into a text document. I decided to use dog DNA as an outgroup, so I searched "Canis COX2". Here's my source document:

Code: Select all

>dog
MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDN
RVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LEMVPLSYFETWSALMV

>human
MAHAAQVGLQDATSPIMEELITFHDHALMIIFLICFLVLYALFLTLTTKLTNTNISDAQEMETVWTILPA
IILVLIALPSLRILYMTDEVNDPSLTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLEPGDLRLLDVDN
RVVLPIEAPIRMMITSQDVLHSWAVPTLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>gorilla
MAHAAQVGLQDATSPIMEELIIFHDHALMIIFLICFLVLYALFLTLTTKLTNNNISDAQEMETIWTILPA
IILVLIALPSLRILYMTDEINDPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLEPGDLRLLDVDN
RVVLPVEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWAVPTLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELIPLKIFEMGPVFAL

>rhesus
MAHPVQLSLQDATSPVMEELITFHDHAFMAMSLISFLVLYALLSTLTTKLTNTSITDAQEMETIWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYLTDEVNDPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGSLIFNSYMLPPLFLNPGDLRLLEVDN
RVVLPIEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTIPTLGLKTDAVPGRLNQTVFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
AELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>bonobo
MAHAAQVGLQDATSPIMEELIIFHDHALMIIFLICFLVLYALFLTLTTKLTNTSISDAQEMETVWTILPA
IILVLIALPSLRILYMTDEVNDPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLEPGDLRLLDVDN
RVVLPVEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWAVPTLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELIPLKIFEMGPVFAL

>chimpanzee
MAHAAQVGLQDATSPIMEELIIFHDHALMIIFLICFLVLYALFLTLTTKLTNTSISDAQEMETVWTILPA
IILVLIALPSLRILYMTDEVNDPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLEPGDLRLLDVDN
RVVLPVEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWAVPTLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>macaque
MAHPVQLSLQDATSPIMEELITFHDHAFMAMSLISFLVLYALLSTLTTKLTNTNITDAQEMETIWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYLTDEVNDPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLNPGDLRLLEVDN
RVVLPIEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTIPTLGLKTDAVPGRLNQTVFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
AELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>sifaka
MAYPVQLGFQDAASPIMEELLYFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLMHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYMMDEITTPSLTLKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDSYMVPSSDLKPGELRLLEVDN
RVVLPTELSIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGVKTDAIPGRLNQATLMTSRPGIYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELVPLKHFEEWLLSMF

>colobus
MAHPVQLGLQDATSPIMEELIAFHDHALMIVCLISFLVLYVLSSVLMTKLTNTNITDAQEMETIWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYLTDEINNPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLNPGDLRLLEVDN
RVVLPIEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTIPTLGLKTDAVPGRLNQTTFTAMRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
AELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>ring-tailed
MAYPVQLGFQDAASPIMEELLYFHDHTLMIMFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTELMHTNTMDAQEVETVWTILPA
AILILIALPSLRILYMMDEITTPSLTLKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLCFDSYMTPSSDLKPGELRLLEVDN
RVVLPTELAVRMLISSEDVLHSWTVPSLGVKTDAIPGRLNQATLMASRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELVPLKHFEEWLLSML

>barbary_ape
MAHPVQLSLQDATSPVMEELITFHDHAFMAMSLISFLVLYALLSTLTTKLTNTNITNAQEMETIWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYLTDEINDPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLNPGDLRLLEVDN
RVVLPIEASVRMMITSQDVLHSWAIPTLGLKTDAVPGRLNQTVFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
AELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>tarsier
MAHSFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIITLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYLMDEINTPSLTVKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTADLKPGELRLLEVDN
RVVLPMELPIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQATLMSTRPGLYYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LELVPLKHFENWSTSMI

>orangutan
MAHAAQVGLQDATSPIMEELVIFHDHALMIIFLICFLVLYALFLTLTTKLTNTSISDAQEMETIWTILPA
IILILIALPSLRILYLTDEINDPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLEPGDLRLLDVDN
RVVLPVEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>gibbon
MAHATQVGLQDATSPIMEELISFHDHALMIIFLISFLVLYALFLTLTTKLTNTNITDAQEMETVWTILPA
IILVLIALPSLRILYLTDEINDPSFTIKAIGHQWYWAYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLEPGDLRLLEVDN
RVVLPIEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>baboon
MAHPVQLGLQDATSPVMEELITFLDQALMAMFLISFLILYALSSTLTTKLTNTNITDAQEMETIWTILPA
VILILIALPSLRILYMTDEINNPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLNPGDLRLLEVDF
RVVLPIEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTIPTLGLKTDAVPGRLNQTVFTATRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
AELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>langur
MAHPVQLGLQDATSPIMEELIAFHDHAFMIVTLISFLVLYVLSSVLTTKLTNTNITDAQEMETIWTVLPA
VILVLIALPSLRILYLTDEINNPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPPLFLNPGDLRLLEVDN
RVVLPIEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTIPTLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTAMRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
AELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>leaf_monkey
MAHPVQLGLQDATSPIMEELIAFHDHTFMIVSLISFLVLYVLSSVLTTKLISTNITDAQEMETIWTILPA
IILVLIALPSLRILYLTDEINNPSFTIKSIGHQWYWTYEYTDYGGLIFNSYMLPSLFLNPGDLRLLEVDN
RVVLPIEAPVRMMITSQDVLHSWTIPTLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTFTAMRPGVYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
AELIPLKIFEMGPVFTL

>black_titi
MAHPAQLGLQNAASPIMEELIAFHDHALMIIFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMNAQEIEMIWTILPA
IILIMIALPSLRILYMTDEFNKPYLTLKAIGHQWYWSYEYSDYEDLAFDSYIMPTYFLEPGEFRLLEVDN
RTTLPMEADIRMLISSQDVLHSWAVPSLGVKADAIPGRLNQAMVASMRPGLFYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LEFIYFQDFEVWASYLYIV

>bearded_saki
MATPAQLGLQNATSPIMEELIAFHDHTLMIIFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMNAQEIETIWTILPA
IILIMIALPSLRILYMTDEFNKPYLTLKAIGHQWYWSYEYSDYEDLFFDSYIMPTYYLQPGEFRLLEVDN
RTTLPMEADIRYLISSQDVLHSWTVPSLGVKADAIPGRLNQAMLASMRPGLFYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LEFIYFQDFEVWASYLYIV

>azaras_night_monkey
MATPAQLGLQNATSPIMEELIAFHDHALMIIFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMNAQEIEMIWTILPA
IILIMIALPSLRILYMTDEFNKPYLTLKAIGHQWYWSYEYSDYEDLAFDSYITPTYFLEPGEFRLLEVDN
RTTLPMEADIRMLITSQDVLHSWAVPSLGVKTDAIPGRLNQAMLASMRPGLFYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LEFIYFQDFEVWASYLYIV

>wieds_marmoset
MAAPAQLGLQNAASPIMEELIAFHDHALMIIFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMNAQEIEMIWTILPA
MILIMIALPSLRILYMTDEFNKPYLTLKAIGHQWYWSYEYSDYEDLAFDSYIMPTYFLEPGEFRLLEVDN
RTTLPMEADIRVLISSQDVLHSWAVPSLGVKTDAIPGRLNQAMVASMRPGLYYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LEFIYFQDFEVWASYLYIV

>tufted_capuchin
MATPAQLGLQNATSPIMEELIAFHDHTLMIIFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMNAQEIEMIWTILPA
IILIMIALPSLRILYMTDEFNKPYLTLKAIGHQWYWSYEYSDYEDLFFDSYIMPTYYLQPGEFRLLEVDN
RTTLPMEADIRMLISSQDVLHSWAVPSLGVKADAIPGRLNQAMLASMRPGLFYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LEFIYFQDFEVWASYLYIV

>squirrel_monkey
MATPAQLGLQNATSPIMEELIAFHDHALMIIFLISSLVLYIMSLMLTTKLTHTSTMNAQEIEMIWTILPA
IILIMIALPSLRILYMTDEFIKPYLTLKAIGHQWYWSYEYSDYEDLAFDSYIMPTYFLEPGEFRLLEVDN
RTTLPMEADIRMLVSSHDVLHSWAVPSLGVKTDAIPGRLNQITLASMRPGLFYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIV
LEFIYFQDFEVWAS

>sportive_lemur
MACPVQLGFQDAASPIMEELLYFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLSTKLTHTSTVDAQEVETVWTILPA
VILILIALPSLRILYMMDEITTPSLTVKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYENLCFDSYMIPLLDLKPGDLRLLEVDN
RVALPTEMSIRMLVSSEDVLHSWTVPSLGVKTDAIPGRLNQVTLMTSRPGIYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELVSLKHFEEWLLTLL

>giant_mouse_lemur
MAYPAQFGLQDAASPIMEELAYFHDHTLMIVFLISSMVLYMISLMLTTELTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPA
VILIFIALPSLRILYMMDEITTPSLTLKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYESLCFDSYMTPPLELDPGELRLLEVDN
RVVLPTEMSIRMLVSSEDVLHSWTVPALGVKTDAIPGRLNQATLMTSRPGIYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELVPLKHFEEWLLSML

>dwarf_lemur
MACPVQLGFQDAASPIMEELMYFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTELTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPA
VILILIALPSLRILYMMDEITTPSLTLKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYENLCFDSYMTPSSDLKPGELRLLEVDN
RVVLPTEMSIRMLISSEDVLHSWTVPSLGVKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMTSRPGIYYGQCSEICGANHSFMPIV
LELVPLKHFEEWLLAML

I aligned the data by running the command:
muscle -in primates.txt -phyiout infile

Protpars expects by default to see the outgroup as the first entry in the file, so I moved the dog gene to the top. It also expects its data file to be named infile, so will run by just typing "protpars" on the command line and accepting the defaults (if you get a message about improper format, try changing the terminal type from "ANSI" to "(none)").

There will then be a text file named "outfile" with an ASCII representation of the tree. PHYLIP comes with a Java program DrawTree that will generate a nice image.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 30 by EarthScienceguy]

People are free to believe anything they want to believe but the FACTS indicate that life occurred exactly as the Bible said it did.

If we had no Bible and only relied on the facts and evidence accumulated over centuries of dedicated observation and research, we would not reach the conclusion that life occurred as described in its pages.

[Tcg]

I'll tell you one thing... To worship creatures, and not the creator, is a fall... When that happens we are "given up" to the lusts of our flesh, and our own selfish desires (Romans 1)...

Worship? This thread doesn't suggest worshiping anything. It asks, "Are humans related to apes?" That question has been answered. Humans are not only related to apes, but in fact are apes.

Romans 1 of course doesn't address this question. In what way do you think it is relevant?


Tcg