Did you say Evolution doesn't teach man evolved from ape?

[Cirbryn]

I am glad ya'll are posting at the bottom this thread is getting gnarled and hard to read.

Maybe Cibryn you could repost one of your pertinent posts as a new thread for him to respond to?

I could do that for a discussion of whether a cladistic or a Linnaean system would be better, if we ever get that far. I don't want to do it for this question of whether humans are monkeys because I have to keep referring back to previous posts in this thread to make any progress at all.

 

[Lilandra]

When I said I *know* that, I *knew* that, I did, and I was referring to one of your many misjudgements of me. That being when you thought I didn't know that 'Catarrhini' meant "downward-pointing nostrils". Consideringlily will back up me on this I'm sure, because I explained that very fact to her more than a year ago.

And thanks to the handy C&E Archive posted by Empirical Agnostic up top I can play that back.

Cue flashback music...

Infra-order, Catarrhini: (Old World monkeys) A subset of Haplorhini, Catarrhines are a more specific simian group, recognizable in fossils by the fact that they have only two premolars (cuspids & bicuspids) while New World monkeys (of the order, Platyrrhini) have three. Old World monkeys are actually "newer" in some respects than the 'New World monkeys. New World monkeys actually have more "primtive" features than Old World monkeys do. One of these are the splayed position of the nostrils. Old World monkeys have downward turned nostrils, and most of them have a recognizable nose. None of this group has claws. All of their nails are as flat and harmless as our own. For grasping, they've replaced their claws with sensative fingertips, and each of them bears a uniquely distinctive fingerprint as well, particularly certain subgroups. In Platyrrhines, the tail is usually long and prehensile. But among Catarrhines, the tail is effectively useless and unimportant since most of these monkeys now live on the ground. Some Catarrhines have weak, wispy tails, some have short stubs for a tail, and many don't have any tail at all.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=13767587#poststop

So I have had a go around w/him on this topic.
I responded w/ this...

No I said homology can be used to make a case for ancestry. No that it is an indication of ancestry. Big Difference
Although humans share characteristics with the primates you detailed there are many that we don't but I won't get to that until you get to hominids.

he said this

Is there any character or aspect common to every other Old World monkey that doesn't also apply to humans?

so I said...

I would have to say no that I don't have a calloused sitting pad on my tail region so that I can sit in a tree. I don't know anyone like that either.

You kinda convieniently left out the built in tree cushion pad in this description of Old World monkeys:

So it was sorta the same discussion ya'll are having now.

 

[SaleBete]

Don't you all think that the whole ape/monkey debate is a bit unconclusive. I mean many languages don't even make the difference. In french for example they're all "singes".

Just my two cents

 

[Aron-Ra]

Don't you all think that the whole ape/monkey debate is a bit unconclusive. I mean many languages don't even make the difference. In french for example they're all "singes".

Just my two cents

That's a very good point, one I was hoping to tie into my argument soon.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron is saying the Linnaean system ought to be scrapped, but he's admitted at least twice that it is still the current standard.

Only because it takes time for changes like this to be widely accepted everywhere.

So suppose we hash it out and he makes his case that a cladistic system would be better. How would that change whether it's technically correct to tell people "humans are monkeys"?

Because technically, we are. But as yet, only a few universities are teaching that new standard.

I've offered several times to discuss whether a cladistic approach would be better than the Linnaean; but only after settling this first point of whether humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard.

I never added "according to the accepted standard." I'm sorry. I thought I had made abundantly clear several times over that the "accepted standard" dances around semantics deliberately trying to deny monophyly -using all sorts of subtle synonyms that mean "monkey" while trying very hard, (and making an obvious effort) not to use that particular word, at least not in English. I've already shown you and SLP several of these, and even some of the hints that there is a deliberate agenda behind it.

"Thus, for example, usage of a paraphyletic concept "monkey" in the sentence "a man originated from a monkey" have made this sentences a famous target for attacks and jeer by opponents of the evolutionary theory and opponents of science in general. Some people which regard themselves to be evolutionists, finding in this sentence words of the same form "man" and "monkey" believe that if here the word "man" means "every man", thus the word "monkey" should mean "every monkey". As a result of this confusion, the scientific theory about origin of man transforms to an absurd version, that if give a stick in hands of any monkey, and to create for it some other mysterious conditions, by force of some inexplicable "laws of evolution" after many generations descendants of this monkey will become indistinguishable from people. Of cause, hearing such version, somebody who is not highly educated but can think critically, feels disappointment about science.
Hence, the question if paraphyletic taxa are useful or not, has no a single answer : existence of this taxa allows us to formulate easily ideas about relations ancestor-descendant, but easily formulated idea is not always easily and adequately accepted by others."
--Principles of Systematics

As you can see, traditional taxonomists know what a monkey is, but they try very hard not to use that word because of the connotations they think it will bring.

To my mind, now that we've agreed on what the standard is that ought to be pretty cut and dried. Aron being the reasonable man he is, I'm sure we'll be able to get on to the more interesting questions any minute now.

Once again, if I haven't explained this enough times already, the point is not (and never was) what the accepted standard is according to the unquestioned authorities, because I am challenging those authorities and their strategically-erected standard. I'm not saying men are monkeys according to anything but demonstrable reality -regardless what the standard wants you to believe. Now, read post # 202 again baring that in mind, and you'll see why everything you dismissed as meaningless really is critically important to this discussion.

 

[Jan87676]

Humans are apes, our ancestors were ape-like. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm a descendant of an ape? Really?

I always thought it was wrong to have a crush on the ape-girl in the moive Planet of the Apes.

Since I'm a descendant of an ape,however, I guess a relationship with her and me could work out. . .

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm a descendant of an ape? Really?

Better than that, you're still an ape right now.

I always thought it was wrong to have a crush on the ape-girl in the moive Planet of the Apes.

Since I'm a descendant of an ape,however, I guess a relationship with her and me could work out. . .

One of the points of this thread, (for me) is that there's no way to determine when an ape descendant isn't an ape anymore, and that in fact its not possible to evolve out of your ancestry under any circumstances anyway no matter how much those descendants may change. That, and it is still true that the total tally of all the character traits indicative of all apes collectively still describes humans at the same time. So that actress was already an ape before she put the make-up on.

Most evolutionists don't have any problem recognizing themselves not just as ape 'descendants', but indeed as apes still. I'm extending that out another level to say that we are monkeys too -for all the very same reasons. From my perspective, this is what the smartest and most common species of monkey looks like.

Opponants of that idea have two criteria to meet; (1) They have to show that none of our ancestors were considered monkeys either by the scientific community or the common laity. And (2) failing that on both counts, they would then have to defend paraphyly by explaining how a population of monkeys could beget descendants who somehow weren't monkeys anymore. Both of these points require some very serious analysis of just what a monkey is exactly. The only way I could imagine how to make the word, 'monkey' inapplicable to humans is to show some verifiably consistent way to define other monkeys with practical application -according to an [alleged] suite of characters common to all of them that don't or can't apply to any of us, so that collectively definining them doesn't also describe us at the same time.

Once again, my point is not whether we are yet properly classified as monkeys. [edit: which I still believe we are] My point is that we really are monkeys regardless how we're currently classified.

 

[Cirbryn]

Once again, if I haven't explained this enough times already, the point is not (and never was) what the accepted standard is according to the unquestioned authorities, because I am challenging those authorities and their strategically-erected standard.

First off Aron, you haven’t explained this already at all. It’s been like pulling teeth to get you to admit that by the currently accepted (Linnaean) classification system humans aren’t monkeys. I still don’t think you’ve done so in so many words.

Secondly, you are not “challenging those authorities and their strategically-erected standard.” You are misrepresenting the accepted standard to a bunch of people on an internet discussion board; many of whom aren’t likely to know any better. By claiming humans are monkeys in this venue, you knowingly imply we are monkeys according to the accepted scientific classification system. That isn’t true. All I’m asking you to do is to tell people you’re using a non-standard system, or that this is your opinion rather than something that’s generally accepted. You can do that and still carry on your campaign against the powers that be.

Now, read post # 202 again baring that in mind, and you'll see why everything you dismissed as meaningless really is critically important to this discussion.

I didn’t dismiss it as meaningless. I dismissed it as off-point. It’s still off-point.

 

[Pats]

Better than that, you're still an ape right now.

By what classification system?

Opponants of that idea have two criteria to meet; (1) They have to show that none of our ancestors were considered monkeys either by the scientific community or the common laity. And (2) failing that on both counts, they would then have to defend paraphyly by explaining how a population of monkeys could beget descendants who somehow weren't monkeys anymore.

Perhaps my question here will only serve to show how little I understand about evolution... and I appologize if this is overly nieve, but...

If this is so, then does that knock out the theory of all mammals having a common ancestor? I guess I don't understand how your comments here work with common ancestory?

 

[Cirbryn]

By what classification system?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Once again, if I haven't explained this enough times already, the point is not (and never was) what the accepted standard is according to the unquestioned authorities, because I am challenging those authorities and their strategically-erected standard.

First off Aron, you haven’t explained this already at all. It’s been like pulling teeth to get you to admit that by the currently accepted (Linnaean) classification system humans aren’t monkeys. I still don’t think you’ve done so in so many words.

If you still doubt that I’ve adequately made my case, (I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t answer) what more do you need?

Secondly, you are not “challenging those authorities and their strategically-erected standard.” You are misrepresenting the accepted standard to a bunch of people on an internet discussion board; many of whom aren’t likely to know any better.

Think about that for a moment. “Many of whom aren’t likely to know any better” is the very reason the Linnaean system is still popular even though its already been overturned a decade ago. I’m not misrepresenting anything. All I’m doing is helping to spread the word that Linnaean system is no longer in vogue –and for good reason.

By claiming humans are monkeys in this venue, you knowingly imply we are monkeys according to the accepted scientific classification system. That isn’t true.

Yes it is true, as I have already shown you, and will continue to –indefinitely it seems. Because while we’re discussing the dentistry of debate, its been like pulling teeth to get you to properly address any of the points or queries I’ve brought forth. You still to date have adamantly refused to produce any generic character, nor any other reason or method by which we could separate men from monkeys. You apparently never had anything to base that on -other than an inapplicable layman’s definition which refuses to use that particular word in its proper [monophyletic] context. In another language, I’m sure you would concede the point without contest. In Russian, for example, “обезьяна” means both “monkey” and “ape” just like “simian” does. Would you agree that humans are обезьяны?

All I’m asking you to do is to tell people you’re using a non-standard system, or that this is your opinion rather than something that’s generally accepted. You can do that and still carry on your campaign against the powers that be.

But I can’t say that if it isn’t true! I’m not using either opinion or any “non-standard system”, I’m using the very same “standard” you did when you said people were apes. And I did clarify many times that it isn’t “generally-accepted” …yet; -but that it inevitably will be!

Remember, you yourself said the “accepted standard” taxonomy was the phylogenetic reclassification of chimpanzees and gorillas out of Pongidae and into Hominidae. You admitted this was entirely cladist rather than Linnaean, but you still said it was the accepted standard anyway. I granted that the Linnaean system is still the most popular, because it is still popularly taught even in most college science classes. But that system is being rapidly replaced for the very reasons you yourself cited. As even SLP’s work will attest, taxonomy beyond the college student level is already almost entirely Phylogenetic. Systematics have overturned Linneaus’ strictly-character-based traditional system, but hasn’t gained full acceptance yet. This has permitted you to flip-flop as to which system is the “accepted standard”; Its whichever one seems to agree with your position.

Now, read post # 202 again baring that in mind, and you'll see why everything you dismissed as meaningless really is critically important to this discussion.

I didn’t dismiss it as meaningless. I dismissed it as off-point. It’s still off-point.

How can you even pretend to justify that? My next question for you would have to be, what did you think the topic was? I thought that topic was whether it is defensibly accurate to describe humans as a highly-derived subset of monkeys. You seem to agree with that topic only as long as you can confine our measure of ‘accuracy’ to mean ‘only according to your interpretation of the antiquated and biased Linnaean system.’

SLP said his position, (which he shared with you) would be wrong -if the stem of Hominoidea was an animal that would be recognized as a monkey by scientists. To that end, I have shown (1) that Propliopiths and Parapiths are both outside of, and basal to, extant monkey groups, yet they are still considered ‘monkeys’ even by specialists in this field. This justifies the more inclusive monophyletic grouping to account for all monkeys, Old World and New, living or dead, -and it nullifies your earlier contention for paraphyly. (2) I have shown that both of these basal monkey groups are indeed considered ancestral to Hominoids as well, and that stem species of all anthropoids (like Apidium phiomense) are also recognized as monkeys even in the realm of science. (3) I have shown that cladistics has already replaced Linnaean taxonomy at the forefront of this field, and I can continue to show as much proof of that as you will ever need.

You asked for citations from scientists in this field, authorities who describe humans as “monkeys” in a literal matter-of-fact sense, and I have given you that repeatedly. And you asked for verification that systematics is in fact replacing Linnaean taxonomy, and I have given that repeatedly too. I have shown that university level education is also beginning to accept these terms as the new standard system of classification. For example, North Carolina State University actually does define the words “anthropoid” and “simian” both as “monkeys”, and they further define humans and other apes as “monkeys” also, again using that very word. For another example, the neighboring University of North Carolina at Wilmington teaches that Cercopithecoidea includes baboons, macaques, etc. Hominoidea includes “lesser apes” and “great apes”. But Catarrhini includes all “Old World monkeys” in either superfamily! They’re so specific about that that they actually say “Old World monkeys” is the infraorder classification, and the word, “monkey” is only used in a context that includes apes.

So if you enroll in North Carolina, you’ll learn the new standard, one which admits that humans are monkeys in the literal sense. But if you go to school here in Texas, they’ll still say tell you that Chimpanzees belong to the Pongo family -even though this was shown to be false better than ten years ago. That’s how it is that the Linnaean system hasn’t been disposed of yet. Information is slow to be adopted, and not enough of us even realize any change is under way. But on another level, there are many taxonomists who realize that humans are monkeys, but they won’t admit it, insisting instead on referring to monkeys only in the paraphyletic sense. However, even when this happens, there is an admission that it is paraphyletic, and sometimes they’ll even admit that the monophyletic option would include humans, implying that this may be the only reason the monophyletic usage is discouraged among traditional Linnaean taxonomists.

So the question is, (yes or no) do respected scientific authorities in relevant fields consider humans to be derived from monkeys, and consider us to be technically monkeys still- according to both ancestral origin and the suite of morphological characters in common? That answer is yes. Do taxonomists, -both cladistic and Linnaean- understand that the monophyletic application of that word certainly would include humans? Again, the answer is yes, though that certainly doesn’t account for everyone’s opinions in either case, and depends largely on the extent of one’s knowledge of fossil forms. So what it really boils down to is this; are we really monkeys in reality regardless what the opinions of others may be?

I’ve offered a way to determine that for certain, and you’ve refused to even consider it, choosing instead to accuse me of something that is not even close to the truth of the matter. Because I’m not misrepresenting anything, nor am I misleading anyone. But Linnaean taxonomy is, and always did, ever since Hominidae was first separated from Pongidae for no other reason than for men to pretend they weren’t really simians.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Better than that, you're still an ape right now.

By what classification system?

Phylogenetic systematics.

Opponents of that idea have two criteria to meet; (1) They have to show that none of our ancestors were considered monkeys either by the scientific community or the common laity. And (2) failing that on both counts, they would then have to defend paraphyly by explaining how a population of monkeys could beget descendants who somehow weren't monkeys anymore.

Perhaps my question here will only serve to show how little I understand about evolution... and I appologize if this is overly nieve, but...

If this is so, then does that knock out the theory of all mammals having a common ancestor? I guess I don't understand how your comments here work with common ancestory?

Yes I find this question a bit confusing. If in fact we are all part of the ape lineage, and that is part of the monkey lineage, which is part of the primate lineage, within the archontids within the family of placental mammals etc., then how can that imply anything other than that we are all related?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Better than that, you're still an ape right now.

By what classification system?

Well, Cirbryn? Why don't you explain to her which classification system you used to determine that?

 

[Edx]

You still to date have adamantly refused to produce any generic character, nor any other reason or method by which we could separate men from monkeys.

Yes Cirbryn please answer this because I always felt this was one of the strongest cases Aron has made. SLP and you always skipped it, much like Ive seen Creationists do too I might add which never address this question. So, how can you say we arent monkeys if there isnt any other reason other than "linnean system says so!" which seems to be your one an only argument so far. I dont know if you care, but that doesnt persuade me.

Ed

 

[dawiyd]

For those who care the human / ape divergence.

 

[Aron-Ra]

For those who care the human / ape divergence.

I have three questions this chart doesn't answer. One, -the obvious- at what point did we diverge from apes?

Second, how is it even possible for us to diverge from apes?

Third, at one point did we diverge from mammals?

 

[Lilandra]

Cibryn

Are you saying that an organism can evolve to a point where it can no longer be identified with its ancestry?

Are humans/Apes no longer monkeys?

 

[Edx]

Cibryn

Are you saying that an organism can evolve to a point where it can no longer be identified with its ancestry?

Are humans/Apes no longer monkeys?

Are humans, no longer mammals?

 

[Pats]

Yes I find this question a bit confusing. If in fact we are all part of the ape lineage, and that is part of the monkey lineage, which is part of the primate lineage, within the archontids within the family of placental mammals etc., then how can that imply anything other than that we are all related?

Ok, your original statement, wich I found a bit confusing was,

they would then have to defend paraphyly by explaining how a population of monkeys could beget descendants who somehow weren't monkeys anymore.

If all mammals have a common ancestor, how is it that eventually we branched out into felines, canines, apes, homo-sapiens, etc...?

 

[Lilandra]

If all mammals have a common ancestor, how is it that eventually we branched out into felines, canines, apes, homo-sapiens, etc...?

You need to think of it frame by frame not at the final product. I think that is the mistake our ancestors made with the cattle after their kind etc.

This is what a common anestor of all placental carnivorous mammals (dogs, cats, seals, etc. Order Carnivora) would look like...

They lived under 60 million years ago.
However apes are not in miacis's line of descent. That divergence happened earlier.

The common ancestor of all primates(humans included) looked like this...

It possibly lived 80 MYA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1935558.stm

Please feel free to ask questions. A lot of people are quite happy to answer questions.