Darwinism as equivocation

Darwinism at times seems like one long (and fallacious) equivocation of man and animal.

Quotes and comments;

1. ''Although altruistic behavior is well-documented in other primates, the range of altruistic behaviors in other primate species, including the great apes, is much more limited than it is in humans.'' [1.]

- The authors are engaging in equivocation; one of the most frequent intellectual sins engaged in by Darwinists. You cannot compare the 'altruism' (i.e. instincts) of apes with the altruism of human beings. This makes no sense; and is grossly misleading. This is akin to imagining the fall of an apple and the fall of the stock market can be explained the same way.
Darwinism encourages (if not makes necessary) the constant use of equivocation. This has been one of the worst fallouts from the triumph of Darwinism on campus.)

2. “This suggests that there may be fundamental differences in the social preferences that motivate altruism across the primate order, and there is currently considerable interest in how we came to be such unusual apes.”

- The authors are staring at evidence that refutes Darwinism and they apparently can't see it, can't even imagine doubting it. It's extraordinary.

It apparently never occurs to them (even as a possibility) that humans are Not apes; not even 'unusual' apes. (Just what does 'unusual' ape mean? Does it mean something other than non-ape? How unusual does this 'ape' need to be to qualify as non-ape?
How would an evolutionist know how to answer this question? Do any of them even ask it? (If so they're keeping pretty quiet about it.)

3. “Differences in performance across species and differences in performance across tasks are not yet fully understood and raise new questions for further study,” they concluded.

- Why do the authors insert the words 'not yet' into their sentence? The sentence should simply read; ''...differences are not understood....''
I see no reason to believe the Darwinian model will ever explain the chasm that exists between animals and the human. If they haven't done it by now, why should we think they ever will? It's only a faith in Materialism that leads people to imagine they will 'solve' this problem. (There isn't any problem here from a creation perspective. It's only a problem that needs to be solved if you reject biblical creation.)

M. Johnson

Notes;
1. If This Is Evolution, What Is Trivia? Creation/Evolution Headlines June 24
Nice Humans; [quoting from below]
2. Silk and House;
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/16/1100305108.short
3. Synonyms for unusual; Uncommon, unwonted, singular, remarkable, odd, peculiar, supernormal, abnormal...
4. Isn't it unusual to call such disparate entities (or behaviors) by the same name? Isn't this considered poor method?
5. Altruism;
A. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
- One problem with the authors use of altruism, is that apes don't have a self in the sense humans do. e.g. they presumably don't even know they're going to die (know their lineage, etc.)
- I would suggest that only a creature capable of symbolic language would be capable of true altruism, as it requires ideas about justice, society, etc.
B. 'A term first employed by the French philosopher Comte to denote the benevolent instincts and emotions in general, or action prompted by them: the opposite of egoism.
- Animals don't distinguish their impulses from their true (or ideal) selves, but 'identify' fully with them.
6. While our authors admit some problems, Eugenie Scott insists there are no problems with Darwinism at all.