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

[Aron-Ra]

Wow, that “ollie ollie” incantation works better than I thought. Summoned up this big scary bounty-hunter looking guy issuing challenges and deriding the foolish mortals still clinging to their outmoded Linnaean system. Hope I drew that pentagram right.

Anyway, umm Mr. Ra, sir, it seems to me that your argument depends on the idea that colloquial terms like “fish” or “monkey” are defined according to whatever characteristics are common to all members, and that if the only such characteristics are also common to non-members then those non-members must really be members after all. But who says all “fish” must share the same unique characteristics? Not even big bounty-hunter guys such as yourself get to make decisions like that. Maybe “fish” refers to a few specific Linnaean classes. Maybe a “fish” must have at least four characteristics from a list of six. Maybe the term is somewhat imprecise, as colloquial terms often are, but still clearly leaves out mammals. Maybe it’s any of these things, depending on whom you ask. You’ll have to rule out all those possibilities before you’re in a position to tell folks that you know better than they what they mean by a colloquial term.

But we're not talking about colloquial terms. We're talking about evolutionary phylogenies. Cladistic terminology must be monophyletic! So you can't have multiple Linnaean classes. Instead, you're limited to derived synapomorphies. That means the only way you can define anything is by a complete character analysis; characters common to every member without exception.

The idea makes more sense when applied to Linnaean taxa, which is odd because you’ve made clear you don’t agree with Linnaean reasoning. At any rate, you haven’t shown any Linnaean taxa that can’t be identified according to shared unique characteristics. You make the claim that “morphologically, cetaceans may be artiodactyls”, but you never compare morphological features. Instead you bring in Pakicetus as if its relationship to artiodactyls would dictate the relationship of all its descendants. That is cladistic thinking, not Linnaean. It is possible, indeed common, for descendants to evolve out of the Linnaean taxa of their ancestors. Your unsupported statement that “you will always be whatever your ancestors were” is simply incorrect under the Linnaean system. To suggest otherwise is to claim a new species can not evolve from an old one.

I didn't realize your mission was to defend 18th century practice against the new way.

As for the Linnaean system not being universally accepted, every idea has its detractors. Can we at least agree that taxonomic statements involving Linnaean taxa, such as Artiodactyls and Cetacea, should be assumed to apply to the Linnaean system barring evidence to the contrary?

Fine. The only thing wrong with the Linnaean system is that it isn't structured to accomidate evolutionary phylogenies because the system was devised with no knowledge of evolution or palaeontology. Cladistics is just Linnaean taxonomy reconfigured to take inheritence from fossil forms into account.

You’ve claimed “we can prove that humans are monkeys”, but I don’t see any such proof. You’ve mentioned the Propliopithecids as if that mattered. I’m quite curious to see why you think it should.

Earlier, you said the Linnaean system categorized humans as Hominids and Old World monkeys as Cercopithecidae, a separate group. But they are not. Hominidae is nested within Propliopithecoidea, which is also nested alongside Cercopicidae within Catarrhini; both groups are within the clade of Old World monkeys.

You’ve also asked me to point out differences between humans and other great apes. Since I’ve consistently claimed humans are apes, I really don’t see the point. I also don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself on this issue - perhaps you could be a little more specific?

My mistake. I misread where you accused Edx of trivializing the similarities between us and apes, monkeys and fish. However, if you define each class precisely, you'll also describe humans every time.

I did find the bit about Linnaeus’ initial “Homo troglodytes” classification of chimps interesting however. “Pan trogolodytes” always did seem an odd name to me – as if chimps were some kind of Neanderthal faun, complete with the pixie dust wafting gently from the tops of their big wooden clubs. “Homo troglodytes” would have been a species of human, however, not a subspecies.

True. The subspecies he described were limited to
Homo sapiens Africanus nigrus (black African human being),
Homo sapiens Americanus rubescens (red American human being),
Homo sapiens Asiaticus fuscusens (brownish Asian human being), and
Homo sapiens Europaeus albescens (white European human being)

And how he described each group leaves an awful lot to be desired too.

But when talking about the inclusion of other apes, his system was inconsistent. Homo troglodytes weren't only such species. He also classified orangutans as humans, Homo nocturnis, and changed his description of us as needed, occasionally describing sapiens as Homo diurnis, or "man of the day".

And that goes back to the real problem with Linnaean taxonomy; its subjective. Its sometimes based on morphological similarity, and sometimes based only on opinion, and often loathsome ones at that. There's no way to prove whether he classified anything incorrectly because he didn't do so according to a rigid set of rules such as the Cladist system has.

Regarding the definitions in your final paragraph, haplorrhini is a suborder of primates that includes monkeys, apes and tarsiers. The name means “simple nosed”. Catarrhini is a parvorder (a sub-sub-order) of primates that includes old-world monkeys and apes. The name means “narrow nosed”. Accordingly, we are haplorrhini and catarrhini, but we aren’t monkeys.

It seems that my real fight here is with Wikipedia. But I've already been round and round with them over this. I've corrected both of these terms at least twice, with substantial backing to prove the point each time. But where this subject is concerned, they've rejected peer-review without discussion. Each time I post a correction, they just press a button to revert to their original idea with no further comment. Getting onto their discussion boards is just a matter of butting heads. I know because I've already tried that too. But their definitions here are wrong and they're simply not ready to admit that.

Haplorhini is more accurately defined thus: Starting with the template structure of the parent clade, Anthropoidea (primates), the basic division is between the wet-nosed set, Strepsirrhini, and the dry-nosed set, Haplorhini. The latter being further "characterized by a loss of rhinarium, closed orbit, simplex uterus, spatulate incisors, and no tapetum lucidum (reflective layer of retina).

Haplorhini is synonemous with "monkey" because it consists of only tarsiers and all other monkeys, further divided into two different sub-classifications. If tarsiers are themselves not universally considered to be monkeys, then this may be why the Arizona Tree of Life project recognizes their sister clade, Strepsirhini, but does not mention Haplorhini at all. Sadly, they don't take Propliopithecoidea into consideration either, and consequently still categorize Old World monkeys as Cercopithecids exclusively. Had they included Propliopithecids, then they would be forced to catergorize humans within "Old World monkeys", and accidentally insult any readers who misinterpret that. Doubtless, that is Wikipedia's problem too since they adamantly refused to permit any mention of Propliopithecids in any of their phylogentic trees.

Now, getting back to the point: Whether tarsiers can be considered monkeys, or if Tarsii should be considered a separate clade from monkeys, either way, our ancestors weren't from the Tarsii lineage. And there is no other option but that we descended from creatures who would have been recognized as monkeys both cladistically and traditionally.

Drawing on the synapomorphies of Strepsirhines and Platyrrhines, we see that the New World monkeys are actually representative of the more primitive of our own ancestors, who once looked very much like them. We are all primates with a dry nose, binocular vision, a pendulous penis, a well-developed caecum, only two pectoral mammae, a tendancy toward bipedalism, and a larger brain than our parent or sister clades. All taxonomic traits are in relation to the parent or sister clades. They have to be. There's no other way to do it.

Propliopithecids were also very similar to Cercopithecids. Both were/are "weak-tailed" (non-prehensile), snub-tailed, or entirely tailless Old World monkeys -just like us. Where mention of Propliopithecids is tolerated, there is no debate over thier classification as Catarrhines. Like us, they fit all the criteria to be a generalized monkey (Haplorhini) and they bare the additional traits of downturned nostrils and flat fingernails instead of claws and other traits exclusive of all Old World monkeys, rather than just Cercopithecids. And, lest we forget, the template onto which we list the characters of all apes is that of Old World monkeys.

Like I said, if you can show me another system of classification that can take everything into account instead of ignoring evolutionary phylogeny and whole taxonomic superfamilies, then I'm anxious to see it. But I'm betting you can't disassociate humans from their monkey ancestry, and that you're already beginning to realize that.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I don't look like that.

Yes you do. Look at the scruffy beard, the naked face, the shape of the eyes, the free-moving lips that aren't tethered like they are on everything but monkeys. And the ears, (if you could see them behind that hair) are very much like yours -but not like the ears of any other animal in the world. Our ears are uniquely monkey.

Can you trace your family tree down to this? Can anyone?

Yes, both genetically and morphologically. When you study paleontology, things like this become inescapably obvious.

Can we breed with these creatures and beget ape-man? Well, the answer is a BIG NO!

You're right, but that's because this animal is not an ape. Its much more distantly-related than that. Now, can we breed with other non-human apes? Probably!

The DNA of the ape and Human are too different and such a result would have to happen in order for evolutionist to make any claim like you have.

Humans are apes, so your point is already moot. But the DNA of chimpanzees is already close enough for potential interbreeding. But the genetics of Australopithes was even closer.

Evolution theory is all about sex; and when it boils down to the nearest axiom of logical understanding we see no sexual evidence for such a crazy story.

Well, its not just about sex, but as long as you keep the eyes of your mind tightly shut, you'll never see what is already obvious to anyone who will look.

Even the scientist know this cannot be proven! Its all nothing more than a big quess!

I can prove it. Want to take me up on that?

God created my family tree!

Now its your turn. I'll prove you're an ape. You prove there's a god.

Are not fish and monkeys two different species?

No. The term "monkey" alone encompasses hundreds of species. Even the traditional meaning of the word, "fish" is more inclusive by several orders of magnitude. But the cladistic meaning of the word, "fish" includes monkeys!

Are they not still fish and monkeys? Use the common sense that God gave you.

Common sense dictates that if "fish" is synonemous with "chordate", and "monkey" is synonemous with "Haplorhini", then that means that you and I are also "still" just humanized monkey-fish.

Now you try. Give me an exact definition for either monkeys or fish -one which covers every member of either group consistently and exclusively- so that if we ever found a new species of either one, we'd be able to say for sure whether it was a fish or a monkey, or whether it was neither one.

 

[SLP]

First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

Not at all. Monkeys, by definition, are a group of Primates. Apes are not derived from monkeys, any more than ostriches are derived from sparrows. Monkeys and apes are primates, but not all primates are monkeys.

But we are still monkeys right now.

Wrong. See above.

Yes Cirbryn, even by Linnaean thinking, we are monkeys. And not just in the sense that whales and snakes are still tetrapods. Every morphological, physiological, genetic, or developmental character trait indicative of all monkeys collectively -still applies to humans, just as every character trait of primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc, also still apply to us. There are no exceptions. I challenge you to find one. You think it "straightforward and correct" to say that we aren't monkeys. But it doesn't matter whether you're cladist, or whether you still cling to Linnaeus' out-moded system. We can prove that humans are monkeys regardless how "correct" you may claim to be about that now.

Quite wrong. We are not monkeys because 'monkeys' are not the stem of our clade. If anything, it would be more accurate to claim we are all lemuroids.

For one thing, you're forgetting (as many do) about a second category of Catarrhine monkeys,

Catarrhines are not correctly referred to as monkeys since not all Catarrhines are monkeys. Old World monkeys are part of the Catarrhini, but in a branch distinct from the Old World apes.

The word, "monkey" may be accurately translated as "Haplorhini".

Not at all. It means 'simple nosed', as in simple-nosed primates, those that lack a rhinarium.*

The word, Catarrhini, (which is the parent clade for all humans and other apes as well as Cercopithecids) means "Old World monkey".

No, it means downward-pointing nose (nostrils).*

*I see that Cirbryn had already pointed this out. In addition, I agree with what Cirbryn wrote regarding colloquialisms and taxonomy and the like.

In the end, however, it is just semantics, at least as far as this [cre v. evo] "debate" goes.

 

[SLP]

Earlier, you said the Linnaean system categorized humans as Hominids and Old World monkeys as Cercopithecidae, a separate group. But they are not. Hominidae is nested within Propliopithecoidea, which is also nested alongside Cercopicidae within Catarrhini; False. Catarrhini are an Infraorder, with Propliopithecoidea forming a superfamily alongside Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea (or as a subfamily distinct from the others).

It seems that my real fight here is with Wikipedia. But I've already been round and round with them over this. I've corrected both of these terms at least twice, with substantial backing to prove the point each time.

I'd be interested in seeing this substantial backing.

Haplorhini is more accurately defined thus: Starting with the template structure of the parent clade, Anthropoidea (primates), the basic division is between the wet-nosed set, Strepsirrhini, and the dry-nosed set, Haplorhini. The latter being further "characterized by a loss of rhinarium, closed orbit, simplex uterus, spatulate incisors, and no tapetum lucidum (reflective layer of retina).

Haplorhini is synonemous with "monkey" because it consists of only tarsiers and all other monkeys, further divided into two different sub-classifications.

Yet even your link makes a distinction between monkeys and apes (and Tarsiers):

"Includes: tarsiers, New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and apes"

If tarsiers are themselves not universally considered to be monkeys, then this may be why the Arizona Tree of Life project recognizes their sister clade, Strepsirhini, but does not mention Haplorhini at all. Sadly, they don't take Propliopithecoidea into consideration either, and consequently still categorize Old World monkeys as Cercopithecids exclusively. Had they included Propliopithecids, then they would be forced to catergorize humans within "Old World monkeys", and accidentally insult any readers who misinterpret that. Doubtless, that is Wikipedia's problem too since they adamantly refused to permit any mention of Propliopithecids in any of their phylogentic trees.

I'm not convinced of the rationale for using extinct groups as the basis for cladistic taxonomy. I understand you are a student of paleontology, so this probably colors your position.

Now, getting back to the point: Whether tarsiers can be considered monkeys, or if Tarsii should be considered a separate clade from monkeys, either way, our ancestors weren't from the Tarsii lineage. And there is no other option but that we descended from creatures who would have been recognized as monkeys both cladistically and traditionally.

Unless, of cours,e you go back to the stem of the clade. It seems that you are arbitrarily picking a particular point at which to declare our basal ancestry. Why not go back further? Or ahead?

Like I said, if you can show me another system of classification that can take everything into account instead of ignoring evolutionary phylogeny and whole taxonomic superfamilies, then I'm anxious to see it. But I'm betting you can't disassociate humans from their monkey ancestry, and that you're already beginning to realize that.

 

[SLP]

Common sense dictates that if "fish" is synonemous with "chordate", and "monkey" is synonemous with "Haplorhini", then that means that you and I are also "still" just humanized monkey-fish.

As a primatologist, I do not agree that haplorrhine is synonymous with monkey.

 

[Aron-Ra]

not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

Not at all. Monkeys, by definition, are a group of Primates.

Which include monkeys, which include apes, which include humans. I've noticed lately that taxonomic traditionalists try very hard to use the word, 'primate', when they can only mean 'monkey' but don't want to be caught saying 'monkey'.

Apes are not derived from monkeys, any more than ostriches are derived from sparrows.

Well, ostriches certainly aren't sparrows. But what would you call an ape's ancestor who still has a tail? Or an earlier ape-ancestor who's tail is still prehensile? Or who still had claws instead of fingernails? Or who yet lacked full brachiation? Because if you remove the traits that specify apes, what you have left is a monkey.

Monkeys and apes are primates, but not all primates are monkeys.

That's true, but all apes are still monkeys both by definition and derivation. Morotopithecus, Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Catopithecus browni, Pliopithecus, Propliopithecus, Apidium phiomense, Parapithecus fraasi, and Amphipithecus are all considered to be basal to Hominoids, (IIRC) if not basal to Catarrhini as well. None of them are Cercopithecids or Platyrrhines, and yet all of them are definitely monkeys.

We are not monkeys because 'monkeys' are not the stem of our clade. If anything, it would be more accurate to claim we are all lemuroids.

Wrong. Look at your own sources for the proof of that.

Note that New World "primates" (everyone knows they mean 'monkeys' here) derived before the common ancestor of apes and Cercopithecid Old World monkeys. Oh, excuse me; Old World "primates". Or is it safe for you to call them monkeys at that point? Now try to be logical and answer this with a simple yes or no: Can two different lines independantly evolve into the same classification paraphyletically? Because what you have here are primates we can safely call monkeys -descending from tailed primates who are exactly like monkeys, but we don't want to call them monkeys, -who in turn descended from earlier monkeys whom everyone knows are monkeys no matter what we decide to call them here. This can't be. You can't have two different sets of monkeys independantly evolving unrelated to each other. If Old World monkeys share a common ancestor with apes, and that common ancestor shared another common ancestor with New World monkeys, then apes have to be monkeys of some sort themselves. And we know that they were because they're nested in Propliopithecoidea which is also nested within Catarrhini, AKA "Old World monkeys".

Catarrhines are not correctly referred to as monkeys since not all Catarrhines are monkeys.

I can see how we might say that some ancient prosimian might not be considered a monkey "yet", but how do you determine when a Pliopithecine has evolved to the point that it isn't a monkey anymore? Is that even possible?

Old World monkeys are part of the Catarrhini, but in a branch distinct from the Old World apes.

And where does Propliopithecoidea fit into this scheme of yours? Because I've seen articles from university level primatology studies that lump apes and Old World monkeys together, and distinguish them both -collectively- from the alternate group of New World monkeys. They do this even if they've already classified the whole lot under the heading of monkeys. The implication is inescapable even when there is a concentrated effort not to use the word "monkey" in a context which includes apes. And that's especially odd since the general public commonly recognizes chimpanzees and gorillas as "monkeys". If they are not monkeys, then what is the difference between them?

Because what the chart above is showing me is something like this: Imagine a Latin-speaking country. Early on, one group runs off and over time, their language evolves into Spanish. Later on, some of the remaining Latin speakers run off and evolve thier language into French. OK, I can accept that so far. But then you want me to believe that, at some point after both of these divisions, the remaining Latin tongue also evolves into Spanish, so that the Spanish language erupted twice and not as a result of any co-mingling, and without any of the French speakers already having spoken Spanish at some point. This is why paraphyletic origins don't happen in evolutionary phylogenies.

The word, "monkey" may be accurately translated as "Haplorhini".

Not at all. It means 'simple nosed', as in simple-nosed primates, those that lack a rhinarium.*

There's a bit more to it than that, of course. But still, everything in this group descended from a form universally recognizeable as a monkey, and thus are descended from monkeys; and since one cannot grow out of one's heritage, being descended from monkeys (cladistically or traditionally) means you're still a monkey, especially if you still meet all the criteria of that clade simultaneously without exception.

The word, Catarrhini, (which is the parent clade for all humans and other apes as well as Cercopithecids) means "Old World monkey".

No, it means downward-pointing nose (nostrils).*

As a primatologist, you should know that it means a good deal more than that. But it also means "Old World monkeys" to a lot of other primatologists.

*I see that Cirbryn had already pointed this out.

Why didn't you see that I already did too?

In addition, I agree with what Cirbryn wrote regarding colloquialisms and taxonomy and the like.
In the end, however, it is just semantics, at least as far as this [cre v. evo] "debate" goes.

No its not. Because as I said to Fezzilla, if we found some new species of something remotely monkey-like, there is only one way to say for sure whether it was a monkey or not, and that would be to provide a precise definition which covers every member of that group, without making special exceptions for the ones you would rather exclude. The point is that you can't do that without describing people at the same time. You certainly couldn't view the ancestors of both Hominoids and Cercopithecids, -living at or after the derivation of Platyrrhini- and describe them as anything other than monkeys.

I'd be interested in seeing this substantial backing.

You've just seen some of it, and are about to see more. But as a primatologist, shouldn't you have already known about all of this?

Yet even your link makes a distinction between monkeys and apes (and Tarsiers):
"Includes: tarsiers, New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and apes"

They also distinguish between humans and apes, which they simultaneously agree are one and the same. This site does that too. It describes Catarrhini collectively as synonemous with "Old World monkeys" and then specifies that Cercopithecidae is also synonemous with that same term at the same time. I see a lot of that in primatology. They commonly list apes and humans separately, and then describe humans as a subset of apes on the next page.

I'm not convinced of the rationale for using extinct groups as the basis for cladistic taxonomy. I understand you are a student of paleontology, so this probably colors your position.

As you are not as familiar with palaeontology, it is easy to see why your position is lacking this important dimension.

Now, getting back to the point: Whether tarsiers can be considered monkeys, or if Tarsii should be considered a separate clade from monkeys, either way, our ancestors weren't from the Tarsii lineage. And there is no other option but that we descended from creatures who would have been recognized as monkeys both cladistically and traditionally.

Unless, of cours,e you go back to the stem of the clade.

No. That was one of the points I was talking about.

It seems that you are arbitrarily picking a particular point at which to declare our basal ancestry. Why not go back further? Or ahead?

Because I wish to stay on-topic since I have only a single point to make.

Like I said, if you can show me another system of classification that can take everything into account instead of ignoring evolutionary phylogeny and whole taxonomic superfamilies, then I'm anxious to see it. But I'm betting you can't disassociate humans from their monkey ancestry, and that you're already beginning to realize that.

If you can't do it, and won't admit why, pretend its beneath you to try. Typical!

As a primatologist, I do not agree that haplorrhine is synonymous with monkey.

That doesn't matter. I've read at least a couple articles by primatologists who consider "anthropoid" synonemous with "monkey". I was lead to believe that Anthropoidea meant "primates". But if you want, we can say that Haplorhini means, "lorises and anthropoids". Then "anthropoids" will be synonemous with "monkey", since that's all that would be left in that clade. That works fine for me, because it wouldn't detract from my point one iota, and there is significant backing for that.

And of course I had one very long and heated argument with a professional systematist arguing that Haplorhini is synonemous with monkey, and that we are definitely monkeys. I was still trying to argue from your position. I already accepted that men were apes. I even got a Post Of The Month at Talk.Origins for my article about that. But I couldn't yet accept that we were monkeys also, not anymore anyway. At the end of that debate, I even convinced myself I had won! It took months for me to accept that I was wrong about that. I'm sure it will be the same for you, and that this is why I've encountered so much resistance from others like Wikipedia. After you've repeated so many times "men didn't evolve from monkeys", its very hard to admit that we did after all, and even harder to admit that we're still monkeys now.

 

[Cirbryn]

It’s late, so I’m just going to address what I consider to be the heart of the debate:

It is possible, indeed common, for descendants to evolve out of the Linnaean taxa of their ancestors. Your unsupported statement that “you will always be whatever your ancestors were” is simply incorrect under the Linnaean system. To suggest otherwise is to claim a new species can not evolve from an old one.

I didn't realize your mission was to defend 18th century practice against the new way.

I didn’t either, although it’s a nice change from defending a 19th century idea against the old way. At any rate, if you can’t show that descendants can’t evolve to become other than the Linnaean taxa of their ancestors, you have no argument. Would you admit that new species and new phyla have evolved from old ones? If so, then why not new families or orders?

 

[AtheistPerson]

Let me summarize. Some Christians believe evolution is a theory that claims humans transformed from monkeys over a period of time. Evolution actually states that both monkeys and humans came from a completely different species (NOT APE or HUMAN).

 

[Goatboy]

Got to say, this thread is a really nice demonstration of what Richard Dawkins meant when he said taxonomy was probably the most argued over area of biology.

 

[Edx]

Evolution actually states that both monkeys and humans came from a completely different species (NOT APE or HUMAN).

 

[h2whoa]

IN fact, I was flat out MOCKED on this board for saying that was taught. Told I didn't have any idea what WAS taught about evolution if I thought that was.

Actually, I very specifically remember you claiming that evolution taught that we'd evolved from birds of all things. That is what you were mocked for, unless memory deceives me.

 

[Edx]

Actually, I very specifically remember you claiming that evolution taught that we'd evolved from birds of all things. .

Yes, I wish I could find that quote again. TexasSky has a selective memory.

 

[SLP]

not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

Not at all. Monkeys, by definition, are a group of Primates

Which include monkeys, which include apes, which include humans. I've noticed lately that taxonomic traditionalists try very hard to use the word, 'primate', when they can only mean 'monkey' but don't want to be caught saying 'monkey'.

Yes, that must be what you are seeing. I don't suppose it could be that they are using appropriate terminology as opposed to a personal preference.

Apes are not derived from monkeys, any more than ostriches are derived from sparrows.

Well, ostriches certainly aren't sparrows. But what would you call an ape's ancestor who still has a tail?

It would depend. Lemurids have tails. And lemurs and their kin are not monkeys.

Or an earlier ape-ancestor who's tail is still prehensile?

Not all primate tails are prehensile.

Or who still had claws instead of fingernails?

Some primates have both.

Or who yet lacked full brachiation? Because if you remove the traits that specify apes, what you have left is a monkey.

Or a lemuroid.

Monkeys and apes are primates, but not all primates are monkeys.

That's true, but all apes are still monkeys both by definition and derivation.

Not true.

Morotopithecus, Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Catopithecus browni, Pliopithecus, Propliopithecus, Apidium phiomense, Parapithecus fraasi, and Amphipithecus are all considered to be basal to Hominoids, (IIRC) if not basal to Catarrhini as well. None of them are Cercopithecids or Platyrrhines, and yet all of them are definitely monkeys.

Or lemuroids.Of course, 'basal' does not in this respect mean ancestral. Finding a fossil does not mean automatically that it a direct ancestor.

We are not monkeys because 'monkeys' are not the stem of our clade. If anything, it would be more accurate to claim we are all lemuroids.

Wrong. Look at your own sources for the proof of that.[/quote]
I am wrong if one arbitrarily chooses that group. But it is an arbitrary choice. One can just as easily pick this arrangement:

And declare us to be Strepsirrhines, which are not monkeys. You are picking an arbitrary set of derived characters and declaring them to be most important in classifying us as monkeys.

Note that New World "primates" (everyone knows they mean 'monkeys' here) derived before the common ancestor of apes and Cercopithecid Old World monkeys. Oh, excuse me; Old World "primates". Or is it safe for you to call them monkeys at that point? Now try to be logical and answer this with a simple yes or no: Can two different lines independantly evolve into the same classification paraphyletically? Because what you have here are primates we can safely call monkeys -descending from tailed primates who are exactly like monkeys, but we don't want to call them monkeys, -who in turn descended from earlier monkeys whom everyone knows are monkeys no matter what we decide to call them here. This can't be. You can't have two different sets of monkeys independantly evolving unrelated to each other. If Old World monkeys share a common ancestor with apes, and that common ancestor shared another common ancestor with New World monkeys, then apes have to be monkeys of some sort themselves.

If, and only if, the stem ancestor was a ‘monkey’. Since that ancestral population split from non-monkeys, and New World monkeys and Old World monkeys differ in many significant respects and are called ‘monkeys’ out of convenience and tradition more than anything else, I don’t see what the big deal is.

And we know that they were because they're nested in Propliopithecoidea which is also nested within Catarrhini, AKA "Old World monkeys".

No, they are not. They are a sister group as I showed yesterday, and that is the [URL="http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Primates/Anthropoidea.htm only"]http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Primates/Anthropoidea.htm ] only arrangement[/URL] that I have come across..

Catarrhines are not correctly referred to as monkeys since not all Catarrhines are monkeys.

I can see how we might say that some ancient prosimian might not be considered a monkey "yet", but how do you determine when a Pliopithecine has evolved to the point that it isn't a monkey anymore? Is that even possible?

Is it even relevant? You seem to be assuming that your preferred taxonomy is THE taxonomy, and I have yet to see that this is the case.

Old World monkeys are part of the Catarrhini, but in a branch distinct from the Old World apes.

And where does Propliopithecoidea fit into this scheme of yours?

As a sister group as I have supported a couple of times now and as is shown even in the links you have provided..

Because I've seen articles from university level primatology studies that lump apes and Old World monkeys together, and distinguish them both -collectively- from the alternate group of New World monkeys.They do this even if they've already classified the whole lot under the heading of monkeys.

That was not a university level primate study, for one thing, it is a companion website for a college course. But nonetheless, that site also provides a series of general primate features which do not include the derived chartacters you mention. So again, it is an arbitrary classification. In addition, simply looking at the “heading” (really, the title of a slide) is hardly the best way to interpret taxonomy. Even under that “heading” of monkey, the author clearly makes a distinction between apes and monkeys.

The implication is inescapable even when there is a concentrated effort not to use the word "monkey" in a context which includes apes. And that's especially odd since the general public commonly recognizes chimpanzees and gorillas as "monkeys". If they are not monkeys, then what is the difference between them?

Frankly, I could not care less what the general public thinks. Much of the general public believes that the sun moves around the earth. There are a number of anatomical features that distinguish apes from monkeys, and the ancestors of both were neither. Again, wanting to call humans monkeys is an arbitrary decision.

Because what the chart above is showing me is something like this: Imagine a Latin-speaking country. Early on, one group runs off and over time, their language evolves into Spanish. Later on, some of the remaining Latin speakers run off and evolve thier language into French. OK, I can accept that so far. But then you want me to believe that, at some point after both of these divisions, the remaining Latin tongue also evolves into Spanish, so that the Spanish language erupted twice and not as a result of any co-mingling, and without any of the French speakers already having spoken Spanish at some point. This is why paraphyletic origins don't happen in evolutionary phylogenies.

Um, no, that is not what I want you to believe.
Imagine a Latin-speaking country. Early on, one group runs off and over time, their language evolves into Spanish. Later on, some of the remaining Latin speakers run off and evolve their language into French. Neither Spanish nor French ARE Latin. The Latin speakers die out over tiome, or undergo further migrations and adopt other new languages. The original Latin speaking population is ‘extinct.’ What you want us to believe is that it is proper to consider the French and Spanish speaking populations to be speaking Latin.

The word, "monkey" may be accurately translated as "Haplorhini".

Not at all. It means 'simple nosed', as in simple-nosed primates, those that lack a rhinarium.*

There's a bit more to it than that, of course.[/quote]No, there is not. What I wrote (and I believe Cir wrote it as well) IS what the term translates as. It describes a particular feature possessed by all in that group.

But still, everything in this group descended from a form universally recognizeable as a monkey, and thus are descended from monkeys; and since one cannot grow out of one's heritage, being descended from monkeys (cladistically or traditionally) means you're still a monkey, especially if you still meet all the criteria of that clade simultaneously without exception.

Really? I was not aware that Tarsiers were considered monkeys. News to me.

The word, Catarrhini, (which is the parent clade for all humans and other apes as well as Cercopithecids) means "Old World monkey".

No, it means downward-pointing nose (nostrils).*

As a primatologist, you should know that it means a good deal more than that.[/quote] As a primatologist, I know exactly what it means, and it does not mean Old World monkey. It means downward pointing nose, a derived character possessed by all in the clade (to the exclusion of the plattyrhines, the New World monkeys, I might add).

But it also means "Old World monkeys" to a lot of other primatologists.

It shouldn’t.

In addition, I agree with what Cirbryn wrote regarding colloquialisms and taxonomy and the like.

In the end, however, it is just semantics, at least as far as this [cre v. evo] "debate" goes.

No its not. Because as I said to Fezzilla, if we found some new species of something remotely monkey-like, there is only one way to say for sure whether it was a monkey or not, and that would be to provide a precise definition which covers every member of that group, without making special exceptions for the ones you would rather exclude. The point is that you can't do that without describing people at the same time. You certainly couldn't view the ancestors of both Hominoids and Cercopithecids, -living at or after the derivation of Platyrrhini- and describe them as anything other than monkeys.

Of course you can. As I said before, it is an arbitrary line of reasoning.

end part 1 - forgive the odd formatting, I could not figger' out how to fix it.

 

[SLP]

.

I'd be interested in seeing this substantial backing.

You've just seen some of it, and are about to see more. But as a primatologist, shouldn't you have already known about all of this?

I tend not to get bogged down in semantical nitpicks and the like. I find it all too boring and inconsequential.

Yet even your link makes a distinction between monkeys and apes (and Tarsiers):

"Includes: tarsiers, New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and apes"

They also distinguish between humans and apes, which they simultaneously agree are one and the same. This site does that too. It describes Catarrhini collectively as synonemous with "Old World monkeys" and then specifies that Cercopithecidae is also synonemous with that same term at the same time. I see a lot of that in primatology. They commonly list apes and humans separately, and then describe humans as a subset of apes on the next page.

And so using the “heading” of a slide which lists apes as ‘Monkeys’ isn’t really a great determinant, is it?

I'm not convinced of the rationale for using extinct groups as the basis for cladistic taxonomy. I understand you are a student of paleontology, so this probably colors your position.

As you are not as familiar with palaeontology, it is easy to see why your position is lacking this important dimension.

Yes, I suppose so. I suppose it is important to insist that an extinct sister grouping be considered the stem ancestor even when nobody seems to accept that. But what do I know.

It seems that you are arbitrarily picking a particular point at which to declare our basal ancestry. Why not go back further? Or ahead?

Because I wish to stay on-topic since I have only a single point to make.

But that issue is part of that. If you want to ignore it, go ahead.

Like I said, if you can show me another system of classification that can take everything into account instead of ignoring evolutionary phylogeny and whole taxonomic superfamilies, then I'm anxious to see it. But I'm betting you can't disassociate humans from their monkey ancestry, and that you're already beginning to realize that…If you can't do it, and won't admit why, pretend its beneath you to try. Typical!

Yeah, typical not to address something that is non-exisitent. You’ve been quite wrong (and have oddly just sort of dropped it) about the nesting within Propliopithecoidea, so whats the point?

As a primatologist, I do not agree that haplorrhine is synonymous with monkey.

That doesn't matter. I've read at least a couple articles by primatologists who consider "anthropoid" synonemous with "monkey".

That doesn’t matter. A couple of articles does not a consensus make.

I was lead to believe that Anthropoidea meant "primates".

Primate means primate. Anthropoidea refers to apes and monkeys, and so if anything, it would be ‘synonymous’ with that.

.But if you want, we can say that Haplorhini means, "lorises and anthropoids". Then "anthropoids" will be synonemous with "monkey", since that's all that would be left in that clade.

Monkeys and apes.

And of course I had one very long and heated argument with a professional systematist arguing that Haplorhini is synonemous with monkey, and that we are definitely monkeys. I was still trying to argue from your position. I already accepted that men were apes. I even got a Post Of The Month at Talk.Origins for my article about that. But I couldn't yet accept that we were monkeys also, not anymore anyway. At the end of that debate, I even convinced myself I had won! It took months for me to accept that I was wrong about that. I'm sure it will be the same for you, and that this is why I've encountered so much resistance from others like Wikipedia. After you've repeated so many times "men didn't evolve from monkeys", its very hard to admit that we did after all, and even harder to admit that we're still monkeys now.

Oh, thank you thank you for condescending from on high to show me the way! 'Admitting' has nothing to do with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Would you admit that new species and new phyla have evolved from old ones? If so, then why not new families or orders?

This is a common and understandable mistake. Evolution only produces new species. I repeat (this is important), Evolution only produces new species. The species level is the only true biological level. Every other level (eg family, order, phyla, kingdom) is completely man made. What taxonomists have done is group species after the fact. So no, new phyla have not evolved since evolution can not produce phyla, only species. What can happen is that taxonomists can create new phyla to group newly discovered species or species that do not fit into other phyla. It is taxonomists that produce new phyla, orders, and families, not evolution.

 

[JohnR7]

Evolution only produces new species. The species level is the only true biological level. Every other level (eg family, order, phyla, kingdom) is completely man made.

The idea of a species is just as man made as the rest of it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea of a species is just as man made as the rest of it.

No it's not. Speciation has been observed. It is the production of two non-interbreeding populations from a previously interbreeding population.

 

[JohnR7]

No it's not.

Your going to disagree with everything you think I am saying.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your going to disagree with everything you think I am saying.

If you think that species are arbitrary and man made, then yes I will disagree.

 

[JohnR7]

If you think that species are arbitrary and man made, then yes I will disagree.

I made it pretty clear that I was talking about the concept of a species is a man made concept. Even the word itself has a man made definition. The point is that in another thread you disagreed with something you thought I had said and it turns out I did not say it Bryan Sykes said it. So do you disagree with him or not?

Bryan Sykes is Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford. He published the first report on retrieving DNA from archaeological remains (Nature, 1989), and has been involved in high-profile cases dealing with ancient DNA, such as those of Ötzi the Iceman and Cheddar Man, as well as those people claiming to be members of the Romanovs—the Russian royal family. Professor Sykes is best known for his popular science books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes