Are Humans Apes?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- Are humans apes? It all depends on how you use words. It isn't wrong to call humans apes, if by "ape" you mean hominoid. However, in common language the term "ape" excludes humans. That is a perfectly appropriate use of the term.
Sources:
Tuttle, R.H. (2006). Are Human Beings Apes, or are Apes People too?. In: Ishida, H., Tuttle, R., Pickford, M., Ogihara, N., Nakatsukasa, M. (eds) Human Origins and Environmental Backgrounds. Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects. Springer, Boston, MA . doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29798-7_19
Dunbar, R.I.M., 'Mind the Gap: or Why Humans Aren’t Just Great Apes', in R. I. M. Dunbar, Clive Gamble, and J. A. J. Gowlett (eds), Lucy to Language: The Benchmark Papers (Oxford, 2014; online edn, Oxford Academic, 16 Mar. 2015), doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/..., accessed 19 June 2024.
FUENTES, A. (2018). How Humans and Apes Are Different, and Why It Matters. Journal of Anthropological Research, 74(2), 151-167. www.jstor.org/stable/26548812
johnhawks.net/weblog/some-say... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
And still watching creationists being ignorant. It's hilarious. Humans are:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
gorillas are:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Gorillini
Genus: Gorilla
great apes are in the same family:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
That's a useful categorization system, maybe watch the video before you comment
@@Pyr0Ben yep, it is since it shows that the nonsense that creationists claim are lies.
@@velkyn1 ? Did you skip the video?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 nope. I enjoyed how this fellow is amazingly ignorant evolution and tries so hard to pretend humans are magical creations of his imagniary friend.
@@velkyn1 The creationist seem to think that splitting hairs in a manner that makes them sound like they are using science to debunk science never ceases to entertain. As Jesus would say: Straining at gnats!
Humans are not just related to apes, they are also related to dogs, cats, horses, every mammal.
And if we look far enough in time, we are related to squids, mushrooms, ferns and even bacteria.
The case of virus is problematic however.
Anyway, whhhhhyyyyyy did youtube sent me on a creationist channel ?
@@mecha-sheep7674the same thing happen to me. why did youtube sent me a creationist channel?
@@mecha-sheep7674 Staunch Rus/Aus atheist here 😅
This is a laugh. We share 98% of our genes with Chimpanzees.
@@MiraSubieGirl Well, that metric is somehow a bad one anyway. But one just has to look at a chimp to see that we are more closely related to them than to bears. And more related to bear than to lizards. And more to lizards than to squids. And more to squids than to fungi and so on.
It's so obvious, I don't understand why some religious people still deny it.
@@mecha-sheep7674 As an ex Minister for many it boils down to Jesus sacrificed himself (to himself ) because of the fall of Adam (Eve is in there somewhere but women really don't matter) also known as Adamic nature. If there is no Adam then there is no Atonement/Sacrifice. So Jesus did not need to shed his blood as required by Jehovah (slaughterhouse religion) and the whole fabric of the cult comes undone like a cheap suit.
"Atheists are just being pedantic to seem smart"
"Heres ten minutes of me doing exactly that, except I'm actually wrong the whole time."
To be fair im probably a deist.
Hes still really wrong though haha
Kudos! Stole my snark!
You: don't do a pedantry
Also you: immediately does a pedantry
THANK YOU!
You are talking about linguistics first, then conflating it with nomenclature.
Then the argument is this makes the public think humans aren't unique? The dumbest person alive can recognize that humans are unique to any other animal. In the same way they can tell that all animals are unique to all other animals... This changes nothing about the relations between all animals. Even if it was a sound argument ----- How does this do *anything* at all to support your final point which is that God created humans, as they are, and in a miraculous manner rather than through genetic mutation, selection, drift, etc.
I don't mean to be rude, but I am dumbfounded that you took the time to think all this up, script it, get the maps and skulls all set up, film it, edit it, and then hopefully review it without at any time realizing that there is absolutely no real argument being made here.
You may read this and assume that I will just bash anything to do with God, but I assure you this is not the case. You can know that God is real and still understand endlessly-supported science. There is so much to learn, I implore you.
Instead of using all your brain power trying to prove yourself right, try to prove yourself wrong. You will learn some fantastic things. It could even strengthen your faith, who knows.
We are probably the most strange ape in existence. If anything us being apes makes us more special. Because just look at us... We live in a niche nothing like them at all.
@@catpoke9557 Lots of people think humans are such an evil species. We certainly have the capacity for the most evil, but I think as an entire species we are the most wonderful animals to ever exist on Earth.
People drop what they're doing to save beached whales. People risk their lives to save deer on ice. People dedicate their lives to trying to understand animal physiology so they can act as doctors for them. People trade their limited time for money, then go ahead and spend that money on toys and treats for another species in their life just because they love the animal so much. We are actually so compassionate!
As a former Christian, here's my respectful response. Firstly, many religious people are within the scientific community and agree with humans being apes, it's not just atheists. The general public does not identify humans as apes for the same reason most people do not consider humans animals, ego. Traditionally, we have put ourselves into our own category of life, and religion is a big part of why this is.
But on a scientific level, we are apes for the same reason why dogs are Canids. They belong to the same family, and this is not just appearance-based. For example, the peccary is closely related to pigs, but is not a part of the pig family, therefore it is not a pig, but a warthog is a member of the pig family, despite looking a lot less like pigs.
This is my big problem with the Argument of Kinds here. A "kind" in the Creationist perspective is not a scientifically accurate grouping, but a category based on convenience. It's a way to confuse people about how evolution works. For example, to dismiss visible evolution in bacteria, they will say that a bacteria turning into another bacteria is not "macroevolution", because bacteria is a kind. But bacteria are an extremely diverse group, even more diverse than the animal kingdom. If there's dog-kind and cat-kind, wouldn't there logically be different bacteria "kinds"?
I really hope this guy sees this comment. The "kinds" argument is the most refuted, most unreliable system creationists pretend to have
This is a semi-decent attempt to confuse people, but ultimately, none of it holds up.
It's your right to use any word however you like. In general, communication works best if we all agree on how words are defined (that's why we have dictionaries), but it's your right to order a big-mac with apes (and by that mean fries), if you really want to. We thankfully don't have word police to force you to do otherwise.
That being said, the adult way to go about this is for us all to acknowledge that you prefer the fuzzy layman's definition, for ideological reasons. And that's fine. But if we all afford you that right, it's only fair to expect you to afford everyone else the same right! That's why context matters. Like thousands of other words, they can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of biological taxonomy, the word "ape" absolutely has a scientific and rigorously defined meaning. As long as we all know what the other person means, we can leave it at that and move on. There is no need to make a fuss over semantics. I think so far, we should all be on the same page.
The real dispute comes about because you don't do that. You claim that your usage is better or more reasonable or at least not wrong, but more importantly, you imply there is some malevolent agenda behind "evolutionists" (that term itself is ridiculous) insistence on defining "ape" differently. There is not. Even if there was, it is their right to do so just as much as it is yours not to. In reality, their usage flows entirely naturally from the fossil record and the taxonomical system we use. There is no "agenda". Their usage merely reflects our best understanding of biology.
Personally, I think your negative view of those who disagree with you is just you projecting, because it actually is you who has an agenda, which I don't think you are arguing about honestly. That agenda is the only reason you're making this TH-cam video, and it's one of science denialism and religious dogma, and I would go so far as to call it malevolent.
You're clearly a clever and at least decently educated guy, who could portray the other side's stance correctly if you wanted to, but you prefer not to, as a way to score cheap points. Consider the dictionary definition of the word "ape", which you presented as being in support of your own cause. However, you conveniently ignored how the dictionary specifically mentioned "anthropoid" as being another word for "ape", and that humans are part of the phylogenetic group "anthropoid", which is why humans, according to that dictionary entry, are in fact correctly referred to as apes. But you didn't do that, although I'm sure you knew better. That is arguing in bad faith. That is malevolent.
If we imagine a TH-camr doing what you do in a different domain of human discourse, one that is free of religious dogma, I'm certain you too would think that TH-camr is detrimental to human society. You'd think of that TH-camr as someone who is deliberately trying to confuse and de-educate people. Religious dogma prevents you from adopting that view, but that is how everyone not inside your echo chamber sees you. That's why you get a rise out of people when you go online and low-key pick fights by claiming only your usage of the term "ape" makes sense. What other sort of reaction would anyone expect?
So yeah, according to biological taxonomy, you are an ape, and that is at least as valid as your claim to the contrary.
We are humans (Homo),
and apes (Hominidae),
and catarrhines (Catarrhini)
and monkeys (Simiformes),
and haplorhines
and primates,
and euarchontoglires,
and boreoeutharians,
and placentals,
and eutherians,
and mammals,
and synapsids,
and amniotes,
and tetrapods,
and lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygians)
and bony fish (Osteichthyes)
and chordates,
and deuterosomes,
and bilaterians,
and animals,
and eukaryotes.
The very first one shows why his argument is wrong. Our own genus has an entire common name. Common names can indeed be given to distinct taxonomic groups. And they should be used correctly.
This is what I would be posting too if I didn't know anything about evolutionary biology, nomenclature, and the history of science 💀
Did you even watch the video?
I don't know if he did, but I did and I'm sorry to say it...this commenter is correct. @@caleblepore9848
Did you skip watching the video?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Yeah...the whole thing. That's why I made sure to comment about his ignorance. Anyone with half a brain knows why this whole video is nonsensical
I'll never get that nine minutes and thirty-one seconds back...
You could make the same argument for why it's okay to say gorillas aren't apes.
You can call humans whatever you want, but saying they AREN'T apes is applying your terminology to everyone else. It implies calling them apes is downright incorrect, which it isn't.
And scientists are trying very hard to get people to stop using words for animals inconsistently. Because it makes it easier for everyone. Fact is that we're a part of a clade we call every other members of a certain common name. That being apes. There's no reason to exclude us. I'm certain you consider us mammals. There is not a single reason to deny us being apes. It has nothing to do with evolution unless you want it to. You either group things by genetic history or by morphology. In either method we are undeniably apes, even if you don't call us as such.
Hey Peter, what book would you recommend to read on human evolution from a biblical view? I think Contested Bones is the latest creationist book on this? Is there one you know of that you find to be an accurate analysis of the fossils?
Depends. Some still go with the idea that the fossils were put there by Satan to deceive the elect of God. Others say that regardless of strata the fossil is found in they were all put there by the flood. Feel free to make up your own it has not stopped anyone before.
You put quite a bit of thought into the distinction you make here! I agree--you can conflate Hominoidea with the colloquial term "ape" if you really want to, but why do that when it goes against the common usage of the word? It does seem like an attempt to make people think in terms of human evolution.
On a related note, what are your thoughts regarding terms like "non-avian dinosaur"? I personally am okay with the term, as long as I am clear in defining what I mean by how I use it. Same with "non-mammalian synapsid." But what do we do with terms like Sarcopterygii, which in phylogenetic definitions includes tetrapods? We obviously don't believe in fish-to-tetrapod evolution, but we recognize that tetrapods are a type of vertebrate that has bony limbs, just like sarcopterygians. Do we opt to use the phylogenetic definitions for classification's sake, but just clarify that our definitions are based on morphological, genetic, and developmental criteria rather than a belief in evolutionary relationships?
I guess it gets tricky because the common term for "sarcopterygian" is "lobe-finned fish." If we use the same logic you use in this video, would it be right to call tetrapods fish?
Hi @caleblepore9848 I think that the term non-avian dinosaur is appropriate. Sir Richard Owen coined the name "Dinosauria". The word "dinosaur" is basically just a short form of "Dinosauria". So, unlike the term "ape", "dinosaur" was actually devised in a scientific context and has a strictly defined meaning. Now, one could still point out that the public has created an alternate definition of "dinosaur" to the exclusion of birds. That would, I think, make it unnecessary to go around correcting people who distinguish between birds and dinosaurs. In common language, the two do not overlap. But, since "dinosaur" was conceived in a scientific context, it is more technically correct to say that birds are dinosaurs.
I think that at present it is most useful to use terms like Sarcopterygii to encompass tetrapods. I think generally we can use phylogenies for classification, but as you point out, make sure that people know we don't agree with the inferences about relationships. At the same time, I think that lobe-finned fish probably is not a great descriptor to apply to tetrapods. Sarcopterygii used to apply just to the "fish-like" members of the modern group. It was expanded to include tetrapods. To me, it seems that "lobe-finned fish" could be used more similarly to the original definition of Sarcopterygii (to the exclusion of tetrapods).
Ape is just a word. A classification.
Nothing more.
It makes us no less human that we are Apes than dog are dogs that they are a subspecies of wolf.
I'm a creationist but I can hear a resemblance in our laughter reflex and the chimpanzee's screams.
It's almost as if there's a very clear relationship connecting humans and our great ape cousins...
An interesting discussion but you must understand that words are not defined by dictionaries, instead by what speakers use them to mean. Looking at the origins of the words "ape" and "monkey" is all well and good but current usage is the most important thing to consider, living English speakers DO conflate Hominidae and apes and as such they can be considered synonyms in some contexts.
I'm not sure what the point of the semantics argument is though as your main point was about differentiating between humans and things like chimps, gorillas and orangutans. I don't think there is anyone out there who would disagree with you that they are different creatures from humans or that humans are very special, none of that proves or disproves a creator however.
You've made me curious as to how much you agree with taxonomy in that case? Do you believe in a hybrid evolution/creationism scenario where all creatures other than humans evolved? I would love to hear your thoughts.
At some point, kid, this video will make you cringe and you'll take it down.
Unfortunately he probably won't. He doesn't realize why what he said is ridiculous, so he will never see an issue with it.
you can only hope but in reality he'll go on to teach this BS to his children.
Gotta admire him. In spite of the fact that he gets constantly attacked by you guys, he keeps on trucking. Lol
That's some guts, man.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 There is no "you guys". I am a Christian as well, but unlike him, I don't deny what science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. When new evidence is presented, intellectually honest humans alter their beliefs based on new understanding. Many Christians do not, which is why the faith is in rapid decline.
A new venture Peter?
Humans are also fish, cladistically speaking.
God's true form is a horned lizard.
Well I think my cousin is.
Ape became a more scientific term. Just because something was a general term doesn't mean it can't become a scientific term. I can't remember all the definitions of apes, but it did include about mobile shoulders, broader chests, and larger brains. We have those similarities, as well as all the other similarities like lack of tails and feeding young with milk. By the way, gibbons do not walk on four legs.
Also, not an atheist
Hominidae is equivalent to great ape. So, you have argued that humans are not apes, but great apes (......?!?!?)
Is my foot really my hand and my nose really my elbow 😮
Patriarch of Serbia Pavle spent whole day and night trying to convince a person that we weren't apes. And he when he gave up he said. "My brother, I spent whole day and night trying to convince you that God exists and that we weren't monkeys, and yet when I kept saying "Man of God" to you, you weren't offended... but if I told you MONKEY you surely would be." - Now "Man of God" is sorta slang we use in our language, "Čoveče Božiji"
News flash. Humans are apes. You cannot find one thing that separates either from one another
Atheist: Humans are hairless monkeys flying through outer space on a spherical spacecraft made of water. 😂 Flat Earthers: Intelligent design populated with people who have God's DNA.
Don't look up the actual definition (specifically the noun) of ape, you'll be upset.
What happened to paleologos???
It moved over here.
That is quite an ego you have there. Why is it that to you we have to be a distinct special thing.
it's the human ego backed by "god" painful to witness
Nested Hierarchies. Look into them champ.
Judging by the comments, everyone else already did the work of correcting this guy for me, I'm just here to enjoy the aftermath. So glad to see scientifically literate people dunking on creationist time and time again
Edit: if humans are apparently made in the image of God, why aren't we invisible? Or better yet, why is your god an ape if it's so bad and not "unique"? 😂
Why tf is a creationist channel on my feed? Glad I spent less than a minute on this.
I like to watch them every now and then to make sure I'm not just trusting debunking channels without knowing at all what they're saying.
What I've learned is I can indeed pick up on the lies told in (unscientific) creationist channels without some stinker telling me they're wrong.
I specify only the unscientific ones lie because I'm sure there's plenty of good creationist channels out there. But I don't get recommended those ones or if I do I don't notice.
Blah blah blah.
Spoken with the conviction of someone who has yet to realize god is dead.
Woah there nietzsche we aren't ready for that revelation yet
That’s gay (science)
@@opossumboyo happy pride!
seems like you just want to be special. can't blame you for that but it doesn't make it true. Most thing in life aren't unique. Making peace with that is humility.
@7:05
Humans are unique. All species are unique from each other.
Think of some of the utterly out there unmatched critters out there: elephants, octopi, termites, and other bizarre but wonderful animals.
Homo sapiens wasn't the only species of human in our distant past, however.
We were a lot less unique than most people realize.
Other Hominid species shared the planet with us. They had different cultures, languages, and even diets, but they were distinctly human.
And I really hate your paraphylletic treatment of Homo sapiens.
I respect your freedom to believe whatever you want, but to believe in Creationism with a Scientific angle is just, illogical/incorrect understanding of Science.
God bless you, brother 🙂🙏✝️
We know we're made in the image of God
You had me agreeing with everything, you changed my mind about it all, you even listed your sources but then I just lost all interest once you started yapping about god. Save that for bible study not scientific videos, because religion is based on belief. Not science.
By what Authority do you command our language and our speech?
Jesus is in charge and we(believers) will continue to speak of Him in all contexts.
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559 by what authority do you Christians have to shove your religion down my throat as you have been for thousands of years? We get tired of it.
Romans 14:22 "The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves" in other words, quit flaunting your faith no matter what the others believe. God didn't want exactly this because it just turns people away from him.
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559 feel free, it's a free country, doesn't mean we can't call you cultists out as the idiots you are.
What if God IS scientific though? Seems kind of unscientific to discount or eliminate that possibility based solely on your own personal *feelings* about God. Contrary to the cliches pushed about religious types, in my experience the majority of people who believe in God have been more open to science than Athiests are to the idea of God.
"God can't possibly be real, therefore there MUST be some other explanation" is a presupposition about an unfalsifiable concept, and is just as faith-based or just as much a belief as any religious ideology.
You're too young to be this misinformed. Who failed you this bad?
This is pretty stupid.
Very informative, and awesome that you debunked this very common argument at the same time. I think this is the first time ive seen this refuted clearly. Great video to share.
Can you tell me which common argument is debunked and precisely how it is debunked? I genuinely can't understand what anything about this video is supposed to be saying.
Humans aren't apes because ape is a different word and even under phylogeny humans aren't apes (lol) but evolutionists want people to call humans apes so that it confuses/distracts them from realizing that humans are unique and therefore since humans are unique this means they are created through divine means by God?
Please help me.
he literally didn't. if you had a single bone in your body capable of critical thinking you'd know that. he's just going into semantics of words usage. that's it. that's all he did. he didn't debunk anything.
@@ploopy8780 try listening to the video again. It's a specific argument he is responding to. Is it an argument you have used in the past? Just to clarify, do you think it's a good argument?
@@ploopy8780 LMAO my comment got deleted! Perhaps I will try comment again
Can you identify what, exactly, was debunked here and precisely how it was debunked? I truly can't understand at all what the point of any of this is supposed to be. Help me pls. Here's my best attempt:
Humans aren't apes because ape and human is different word and even under nomenclature they are different (lol) but evolutionists want everyone to call them apes to confuse/distract people from the fact that we are unique to apes and all of this is evidence that we were created by God in a miraculous way.
Honestly my question for you last time was more clear, but it got deleted! SOMEHOW!
Too bad god doesn't exist
Well you can't create things out of non Existence in the void. So Fortunately he does exist.
@@SinsiMonkey nah you're just delusional.
@@SinsiMonkeythen who created god. if what you say is true then god could not exist.
@@ploopy8780 The thing is he cannot be created because he is literally existence. He is everywhere at once. He is that Void and then he created light. So existence can't be created. And if this didn't happen then the void would continue to be Non Existence. The Big bang cannot exist if. There are no particles. Everything must be created for growth. And if people say it's a fairy tale then I can ask him this question does the universe being created by itself make sense? So did the particles just magically appear for no reason?
@@SinsiMonkeyyou can try to disprove science all you want, but you have done absolutely nothing to prove a god. I'm sorry, but you're still not even close to being in the position to make that wild assertion without even a speck of evidence
There's a conflation here between the word or common name and the scientific classification. Ultimately a common name for a species or a group of organisms may not have any sort of evolutionary implications, as you mentioned it may be non-monophyletic, but it can also be entirely nonsensical.
We are Primates; we possess opposable two-jointed thumbs with five tri-jointed fingers
we want Apes to not apply to non-sapien human species and pre-human non-chimps.
Sapien, Neanderthal and Erectus have non-ape subtribes; but share tribe with Bonobos and Chimps
Technincally, Chimps and Bonobos have to be included for this to work.
Larger Apes and Smaller Primates
really, humanities' only defining feature is our lack of sagittal crest (which allows greater brain development as an adult; compare a chimp infant Skull to that of a chimp adult; the babies look more like adult us, while baby us looks like premature chimps)
To be scientific; humans are "Primates of the Hominini Tribe with extremely altricious young and without a sagittal crest."
But I mean, I've never seen Chimps and Bonobos as apes; I've always considered them to be those who didn't take the slow drip of "the Human and God Pill" (you could teach the Gospel, Islam, or Torah to Erectus, Neanderthal, and Sapiens; but not to Chimps or Bonobos); aka a "return to monke" before you could even "return to monke"
but this also brings orangutans; considering their human-like intelligence but extreme slyness and hiding of ability (similar to how human geniuses often never tell their minimum-wage job that they have greater skills like IT, unless it involves a raise)
Or, simply "Humans genuinely possess language; Apes do not." as semiprotolanguages and complex communication (beyond just a single sound) exist in avian, insect and marine mammals; but not on any land species at all, besides human.
Language is what makes a Human not an ape; Same with religion (especially Christianity and Islam).
Did you make up the word Semiprotolanguages?
@@eddardstark5034semiprotolanguages is not a real word, but protolanguage is a real word, and semi is a prefix that can be added to words to indicate half way similarities. so semi-protolanguages would be the correct way to phrase it.
This is a semi-decent attempt to confuse people, but ultimately, none of it holds up.
It's your right to use any word however you like. In general, communication works best if we all agree on how words are defined (that's why we have dictionaries), but it's your right to order a big-mac with apes (and by that mean fries), if you really want to. We thankfully don't have word police to force you to do otherwise.
That being said, the adult way to go about this is for us all to acknowledge that you prefer the fuzzy layman's definition, for ideological reasons. And that's fine. But if we all afford you that right, it's only fair to expect you to afford everyone else the same right! That's why context matters. Like thousands of other words, they can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of biological taxonomy, the word "ape" absolutely has a scientific and rigorously defined meaning. As long as we all know what the other person means, we can leave it at that and move on. There is no need to make a fuss over semantics. I think so far, we should all be on the same page.
The real dispute comes about because you don't do that. You pretend your usage is the only reasonable one, or at least the superior one. You imply there is some malevolent agenda behind "evolutionists" (that term itself is ridiculous) insistence on defining "ape" differently. There is not. Even if there was, it is their right to do so just as much as it is yours not to. In reality, their usage flows entirely naturally from the fossil record and the taxonomical system we use. There is no "agenda". That usage merely reflects our best understanding of biology.
Personally, I think your negative view of those who disagree with you is just you projecting, because it actually is you who has an agenda, which I don't think you are arguing about honestly. That agenda is the only reason you're making this TH-cam video, and it's one of science denialism and religious dogma, and I would go so far as to call it malevolent.
You're clearly a clever and at least decently educated guy, who could portray the other side's stance correctly if you wanted to, but you prefer not to, as a way to score cheap points. Consider the dictionary definition of the word "ape", which you presented as being in support of your own cause. However, you conveniently ignored how the dictionary specifically mentioned "anthropoid" as being another word for "ape", and that humans are part of the phylogenetic group "anthropoid", which is why humans, according to that dictionary entry, are in fact correctly referred to as apes. But you didn't do that, although I'm sure you knew better. That is arguing in bad faith. That is malevolent.
If we imagine a TH-camr doing what you do in a different domain of human discourse, what that is free of religious dogma, I'm certain you too would think that TH-camr is detrimental to human society. You'd think of that TH-camr as someone who is deliberately trying to confuse and de-educate people. It's only because of religious dogma that you can't see it that way, but that is how everyone not inside that same echo chamber sees you. That's why you get a rise out of people when you go online and low-key pick fights by claiming only your usage of the term "ape" makes sense. What other sort of reaction would anyone expect?