Idiot, I am not an expert in everything, though it may seem that way to a tard like me. There are times when it is correct to go to experts. This is one of them. Perhaps you should have read the Wiki article that I linked earlier:<quoted text>
I notice that, as usual, you dodge all questions.
If you're going to go around blathering about humans being apes, then you should know what an ape is.
But, no.... All you know how to do is repeat dogma that has been hurled at you by the MSM.
Linnaeus classified humans among the primates (as they were later called) beginning with the first edition of Systema Naturae. During his time at Hartekamp, he had the opportunity to examine several monkeys and noted similarities between them and man. He pointed out both species basically have the same anatomy; except for speech, he found no other differences.[note 5] Thus he placed man and monkeys under the same category, Anthropomorpha, meaning "manlike." This classification received criticism from other biologists such as Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, Jacob Theodor Klein and Johann Georg Gmelin on the ground that it is illogical to describe a human as 'like a man'. In a letter to Gmelin from 1747, Linnaeus replied:[note 6]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form',[note 7] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History.[note 8] I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.