Did we evolve from apes? Well, yes and no

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #1 5th July 2005, 06:38 AM

This one comes up from time to time (or its friend "Evolution says we evolved from monkeys"), and some of us reply that we did, and some that it's a strawman.

Unfortunately, both answers are true depending on definitions, and this is potentially confusing.

Let's be clear. We did not evolve from any creature we now call an ape. Not chimps, not gorillas, not orang-utan (shame, our kids'd be even cuter with baby orang hair, but I digress).

We evolved from a creature that was a common ancestor between chimps and us. That evolved from a creature that was a common ancestor between chimps and all the other extant apes. Neither of these creatures are around today, but if they were, which they aren't, we would most certainly classify them as apes.

Similarly, that common ancestor of current apes evolved from a creature that, if it were alive today, we would call a monkey. But it did not, and we did not, evolve from any currently existing monkeys.

That is why we say both yes and no. Yes, we evolved from a creature we would call an ape if it were alive today, and that evolved from a creature we would call a monkey were it alive today. But no, we did not evolve from any creatures we now call apes, and not from any existing monkeys.

Dominus Fidelis · #2 5th July 2005, 07:48 AM

Ok...so we evolved from monkeys.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #3 5th July 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dominus Fidelis

Ok...so we evolved from monkeys.

Yes. And no.

Jet Black · #4 5th July 2005, 09:02 AM

monkeys are not even a coherent group, consisting of all of the Platyrrhini and some of the Catarrhini (which also include great apes). it's just a popular word with limited biological meaning. That is where the problem lies, since technically we would not even call our common ancestor a monkey, it would be a simian. but then we are simians, along with all the new world monkeys, old world monkeys and Hominoidea. See again, the creationists obfuscate words. despicable behaviour.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #5 5th July 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

monkeys are not even a coherent group, consisting of all of the Platyrrhini and some of the Catarrhini (which also include great apes). it's just a popular word with limited biological meaning. That is where the problem lies, since technically we would not even call our common ancestor a monkey, it would be a simian. but then we are simians, along with all the new world monkeys, old world monkeys and Hominoidea. See again, the creationists obfuscate words. despicable behaviour.

Well, the cladists are happy to call apes monkeys as well, so are able to talk about a monophyletic group they can call monkeys - I think. Or are the OWM and NWM more distantly related than I thought and so getting a monophyletic clade would bring in things we would never call monkeys?

I'm not keen on the cladistic use of 'monkey' to include apes, however. Creationists use it to obfuscate, classing chimps and squirrel monkeys as "monkeys" as if they were a closely related pair of animals totally different to humans, which makes as much sense as classifying Norwegian and English as "Germanic", and claiming they're totally different to Danish. I think it's better to stick with the traditional use of the word to mean Platyrrhini and some of the Catarrhini - the ones with tails. Cladistic nomenclature can go too far - cladistically, after all, we are fish.

Aron-Ra · #6 5th July 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider

Well, the cladists are happy to call apes monkeys as well, so are able to talk about a monophyletic group they can call monkeys - I think. Or are the OWM and NWM more distantly related than I thought and so getting a monophyletic clade would bring in things we would never call monkeys?

I'm not keen on the cladistic use of 'monkey' to include apes, however.

It comes down to this: If you're going to describe a group, you have to describe it by the characters common to all of its members without making exceptions for certain ones. For example, when describing cars, you can't say they have four wheels because some have only three and some have six. When you describe mammals, you can't say they give birth live, unless you're only talking about placental mammals or marsupials. So when you describe what a monkey is, by all the characters descriptive of all monkeys living or dead, you'll end up describing people at the same time. If you only describe Old World monkeys, you do the same thing again, and if you describe only apes, you'll do the same thing again.

Australopithecus could accurately be described as an ape.
Propliopithecus could also be accurately described as an Old World monkey. So the only way to answer this question is to say yes, we did evolve from apes and monkeys, because we're still apes and monkeys now.

Anthropoidea (primates)
Haplorhini (monkeys)
Catarrhini (Old World monkeys)
Hominoidea (apes)
Hominidae (Great apes)
Hominini (humanoids)
Homo (humans)
Homo Sapiens (people)

The 1957 Nobel prize for literature went to the French author, Albert Camuz, who said; "Man is the only animal who refuses to be what he is."

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #7 6th July 2005, 04:12 PM

Bump for Platz.

rooters · #8 6th July 2005, 04:50 PM

The answer of course (is another question.), who came first. Apes or Monkeys.......

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #9 6th July 2005, 04:57 PM

Monkeys, by millions of years.

rooters · #10 6th July 2005, 05:05 PM

Monkeys, by millions of years.

can't check the validity of that. However, if it's true. Ladies & Gentlemen you have Monkey DNA in your atomic self............

Anyhting else is called "Primatephobia"

Rgds

Root