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

[Aron-Ra]

No, I've been around these debates for many years. That's why I was surprised. I've seen it used by Creationists many times but never by an evolutionist. It's a very poor argument because it depends entirely on moving goalposts.

Agreed.

Now wait a minute. I just showed how traditional taxonomists will pretend basal monkeys aren't really monkeys, and they'll pretend that only some of the Old World monkeys count as such, or they'll say that New World monkeys aren't really monkeys either, and are only called that out of "convenient traidition", and that they try to strategically replace the word, 'monkey' with 'primate' wherever that word is inconvenient for them. And you accuse cladists of moving goalposts?! I demand that you both explain your agreement here, because I know my goalposts are steadfast!

 

[SLP]

Unwavering, absolute insistence of correctness is a sign of...

Yes, I know what "arbitrary" means.

So do the folks involved with Phylocode.

Note 9.4.1. The following are examples of phylogenetic definitions (this list is not exhaustive):
v A node-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of A and B" (and C, D, etc., as needed) or "the least inclusive clade containing A and B" (and C, D, etc.), where A-D are specifiers (see Art. 11.1). A node-based definition may be abbreviated "clade (A and B)".
· A stem-based definition may take the form "the clade consisting of A and all organisms or species that share a more recent common ancestor with A than with Z" (and Y and X, etc., as needed) or "the most inclusive clade containing A but not Z" (and Y and X, etc.). A stem-based definition may be abbreviated "clade (A not Z)".
· An apomorphy-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the first organism or species to possess apomorphy M as inherited by A" or "the most inclusive clade exhibiting character (state) M synapomorphic with that in A." An apomorphy-based definition may be abbreviated "clade (M in A)".
· A stem-modified node-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of A and all extant organisms or species that share a more recent common ancestor with A than with Z" (and Y and X, etc., as needed) " or "the most inclusive crown clade containing A but not Z" (and Y, X, etc.). This kind of definition may be abbreviated "crown clade (A and [A not Z])". If this kind of definition is used, the author should specify the meaning of "extant" in the first wording and of "crown clade" in the second wording and in the abbreviation—e.g., at the time the definition was published, at a particular time in human history, etc.
· An apomorphy-modified node-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of A and all extant organisms or species that possess apomorphy M as inherited by A" or "the most inclusive crown clade exhibiting character (state) M synapomorphic with that in A." This kind of definition may be abbreviated "crown clade (A and [M in A])". If this kind of definition is used, the author should specify the meaning of "extant" in the first wording and of "crown clade" in the second wording and in the abbreviation—e.g., at the time the definition was published, at a particular time in human history, etc.

Insisting that humans are monkeys is an arbitrary position, and one that, besides that computer programmer fellow on T.O., I have not seen presented on any "professional" website or course except for here and on Aron's personal website.

As such, I see little reason to give it so much consideration and effort.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Unwavering, absolute insistence of correctness is a sign of...

Neither of us have done that here. I've admitted a couple mistakes of my own during this discussion with you. But I defended myself when you accused me of being wrong about something else when I wasn't.

Yes, I know what "arbitrary" means.

Then demonstrate that, and start using the word correctly.

So do the folks involved with Phylocode.

Note 9.4.1. The following are examples of phylogenetic definitions (this list is not exhaustive):
v A node-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of A and B" (and C, D, etc., as needed) or "the least inclusive clade containing A and B" (and C, D, etc.), where A-D are specifiers (see Art. 11.1). A node-based definition may be abbreviated "clade (A and B)".
· A stem-based definition may take the form "the clade consisting of A and all organisms or species that share a more recent common ancestor with A than with Z" (and Y and X, etc., as needed) or "the most inclusive clade containing A but not Z" (and Y and X, etc.). A stem-based definition may be abbreviated "clade (A not Z)".
· An apomorphy-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the first organism or species to possess apomorphy M as inherited by A" or "the most inclusive clade exhibiting character (state) M synapomorphic with that in A." An apomorphy-based definition may be abbreviated "clade (M in A)".
· A stem-modified node-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of A and all extant organisms or species that share a more recent common ancestor with A than with Z" (and Y and X, etc., as needed) " or "the most inclusive crown clade containing A but not Z" (and Y, X, etc.). This kind of definition may be abbreviated "crown clade (A and [A not Z])". If this kind of definition is used, the author should specify the meaning of "extant" in the first wording and of "crown clade" in the second wording and in the abbreviation—e.g., at the time the definition was published, at a particular time in human history, etc.
· An apomorphy-modified node-based definition may take the form "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of A and all extant organisms or species that possess apomorphy M as inherited by A" or "the most inclusive crown clade exhibiting character (state) M synapomorphic with that in A." This kind of definition may be abbreviated "crown clade (A and [M in A])". If this kind of definition is used, the author should specify the meaning of "extant" in the first wording and of "crown clade" in the second wording and in the abbreviation—e.g., at the time the definition was published, at a particular time in human history, etc.

Help me out here. What point did you think you were making with this?

Insisting that humans are monkeys is an arbitrary position,

No it is not, as I have already shown and will continue to do.

and one that, besides that computer programmer fellow on T.O.,

He's not a computer programmer. He's an ornithologist, and a professional systematist; that's the cladistic version of a taxonomist. His speciality is the phylogenetic classification of birds.

I have not seen presented on any "professional" website or course except for here and on Aron's personal website.

And many of those other sites I linked for you.

As such, I see little reason to give it so much consideration and effort.

Then let me remind you of what you seem to be deliberately trying to forget: If the word, 'monkey' has any meaning at all, (and I think common words should) then New World monkeys and Old World monkeys are all undeniably universally recognized as monkeys even by primatologists. I didn't arbitrarily cite that word, the common public did. When they say that "evolution teaches that men came from monkeys", they're right! As Cirbryn brought up also, 'monkey' is not a scientific term. It has a common meaning, and that meaning includes paraphiths and pliopiths, if not everything else within Anthropoidea, -everything except humans. What I did was to challenge you several times to show some way to defend that exclusion. But you have ignored or refused to answer any of those challenges, and have only become more caustic with each failure to do so. I suggest you go back to post # 90 and stop dodging the questions I asked you there.

 

[The Story Teller]

How about this??

 

[caravelair]

i've been lurking on this discussion, and so far i've gotta side with Aron. at least his method of classification is systematic, not essentially arbitrary.

 

[Cirbryn]

Now wait a minute. I just showed how traditional taxonomists will pretend basal monkeys aren't really monkeys, and they'll pretend that only some of the Old World monkeys count as such, or they'll say that New World monkeys aren't really monkeys either, and are only called that out of "convenient traidition", and that they try to strategically replace the word, 'monkey' with 'primate' wherever that word is inconvenient for them. And you accuse cladists of moving goalposts?! I demand that you both explain your agreement here, because I know my goalposts are steadfast!

Aron-Ra (Post 89) [In the course of explaining what constitutes a species]: But when these two groups diverge so much that they either cannot or will not interbreed anymore, (under natural circumstances) then they are declared to have become two different species.

Note that whenever this happens, both groups are still whatever they were before.

Cirbryn (Post 96): No, that's the point. They used to be the same species, but now they are different species. Ergo one or both is no longer the species it was before.

[FONT=&quot]Aron-Ra (Post 97): But a new species of dog is still a dog.

So you started out talking about species. When I pointed out that a group that beomes a new species is no longer part of its old species, suddenly you switched to talking about colloquial terms. The point is that an erstwhile group of Canis lupus familiaris that is no longer able to interbreed with other Canis lupus members would become a new species and would no longer be Canis lupus. It doesn't matter whether colloquially it would still be called a "dog".
[/FONT]

 

[SLP]

Neither of us have done that here. I've admitted a couple mistakes of my own during this discussion with you. But I defended myself when you accused me of being wrong about something else when I wasn't.

I don't recall that.

Then demonstrate that, and start using the word correctly.

I have been all along.

ar·bi·trar·y https://secure.reference.com/premiu...//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

I'd say def. 2 is relevant.
I also know how to spell 'synonymous.'

Help me out here. What point did you think you were making with this?

Quite simple - it all depends on where you 'start'.
You want to confine the 'acceptable' definition/taxonomy of human such that we should be considered monkeys. You do this by arbitrarily choosing
a 'starting point' to support this position. Choosing a different one - say, the stem anthropoid, will give a different outcome.

No it is not, as I have already shown and will continue to do.

See above.

He's not a computer programmer. He's an ornithologist, and a professional systematist; that's the cladistic version of a taxonomist. His speciality is the phylogenetic classification of birds.

I stand corrected.

And many of those other sites I linked for you.

None of which provided any support for your position that I could see, and a feww of them, as I pointed out, actually contradict your taxonomy.

Then let me remind you of what you seem to be deliberately trying to forget

Please do not engage in this little game. It reeks of the antics of the creationist.

: If the word, 'monkey' has any meaning at all, (and I think common words should) then New World monkeys and Old World monkeys are all undeniably universally recognized as monkeys even by primatologists. I didn't arbitrarily cite that word, the common public did.

And yet the common public can tell the difference between a 'monkey' and an 'ape', most of them anyway. Of course, there is 'meaning' and then there is connotation. Not all terms possess identical meanings and connotations.

When they say that "evolution teaches that men came from monkeys", they're right!

As Cirbryn brought up also, 'monkey' is not a scientific term.[/quote] Indeed. As such, it is even less appropriate to use as a taxonomic delineator.

It has a common meaning, and that meaning includes paraphiths and pliopiths, if not everything else within Anthropoidea, -everything except humans. What I did was to challenge you several times to show some way to defend that exclusion. But you have ignored or refused to answer any of those challenges, and have only become more caustic with each failure to do so.

I recall no challenges, only assertions. Many supported with contradictory links.

I suggest you go back to post # 90 and stop dodging the questions I asked you there.

I will do what I damn well please, thank you very much.

 

[SLP]

Aron-Ra (Post 89) [In the course of explaining what constitutes a species]: But when these two groups diverge so much that they either cannot or will not interbreed anymore, (under natural circumstances) then they are declared to have become two different species.

Note that whenever this happens, both groups are still whatever they were before.

Cirbryn (Post 96): No, that's the point. They used to be the same species, but now they are different species. Ergo one or both is no longer the species it was before.

[FONT=&quot]Aron-Ra (Post 97): But a new species of dog is still a dog.

So you started out talking about species. When I pointed out that a group that beomes a new species is no longer part of its old species, suddenly you switched to talking about colloquial terms. The point is that an erstwhile group of Canis lupus familiaris that is no longer able to interbreed with other Canis lupus members would become a new species and would no longer be Canis lupus. It doesn't matter whether colloquially it would still be called a "dog".
[/FONT]

I agree. It is fairly silly to consider humans and apes to be sarcopterygian fish just because we can trace our ancestry to that group (or, we are an extant part of a very large clade whose stem group consisted of sarcopterygian fishes). Yet a pure cladist could declare such to be the case. It does not mean that we should not be considered primates and instead we should classify ourselves as fish. This is one of the pitfalls of strict cladistic taxonomy. It can produce some fairly silly classifications. Common names, common as in general public, should be at the bottom of the heap in terms of considering how to classify something, regardless of the scheme.
Circa 1999 and thereafter, the group I was working with proposed a taxonomic system premised on estimated dates of divergence (with an implied acceptence of cladistic branching). This would have at least made the arbitrary nature of naming things more consistent. Many voiced their support; many, especially entomologists, did not like it. But we certainly recognized the general nature of the names of the more inclusive taxonomic groups. If, for example, one accepts the grouping of bats, tree shrews, flying lemurs and primates together in the Archonta, I seriously doubt one would suggest that we are all tree shrews, for the basal group of the Archonta was certainly more shrew-like than Anthropoid.

 

[SLP]

I thought I had specified that I’m concentrating on the ape ancestors living at or after the point where New World monkeys diverged, and prior to when the Old World monkeys emerged.

ar·bi·trar·y adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

 

[Lilandra]

Can you pleae explain why what he said was arbitrary rather than label it so?

It would help everyone to understand why you think it is to everyone else.

I thought I had specified that I’m concentrating on the ape ancestors living at or after the point where New World monkeys diverged, and prior to when the Old World monkeys emerged.

It would seem as though the ancestor of primates (New World and Old World Monkeys) is relevant to the discussion of what is and what is not a monkey.

If the ancestor is a monkey...

ar·bi·trar·y adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I agree. It is fairly silly to consider humans and apes to be sarcopterygian fish just because we can trace our ancestry to that group (or, we are an extant part of a very large clade whose stem group consisted of sarcopterygian fishes). Yet a pure cladist could declare such to be the case.

And more and more leading scientists are, Dr. Jennifer Clack of Cambridge, the "Deva of the Devonian" and foremost authority on Sarcopterygiian proto tetrapods for example.

It does not mean that we should not be considered primates and instead we should classify ourselves as fish.

Wow! If this is the kind of misconception you've been going by its no wonder you haven't understood anything I've tried to explain to you yet.

Try to understand this: Humans are apes, primates, and mammals, all at the same time, right? Now add Sarcopterygii because we are that too. You're right about the word, "fish" being useless, and that's why this all sounds so silly to you. Cladists are deliberately using that word to show how impractical, and meaningless traditional paraphyletic classification is.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I've admitted a couple mistakes of my own during this discussion with you. But I defended myself when you accused me of being wrong about something else when I wasn't.

I don't recall that.

Of course not. One of the disadvantages to being systematic is that one can't answer a post in peices, skipping the bits you can't deal with and then blotting them from your mind. For example, you said I was "quite wrong" about Hominoidea being nested within Propliopithecoidea, and you claimed I hadn't shown you any scientific sources to back my claim. But I had in fact already shown you articles written by paleoanthropolists, albeit for Encarta and Wikipedia, which both said exactly that, in addition to the link from the Phylocode meeting, and other sources I'll mention again in a moment. This you falsely dismissed as being no more than an assertion of my own personal opinion.

start using the word correctly.

I have been all along.

No, you haven't, and I'm obviously not the only one here who's noticed that.

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

I'd say def. 2 is relevant.

Not in this discussion. Remember, I said I could prove my point to you, and I can -if (as I said before) you wouldn't dodge critical questions and ignore important points. It doesn't matter what your individual preference is. If you're open to reason, I'm betting I can change your mind. And I make that bet because my mind was changed against my preference, and I've already shown you documentation of that.

Now, if you'll remember, one of the links I gave you was to a paper from an anthropology student at the University of Michegan. This was one of those sources describing Catarrhini simply as "Old World monkeys". It makes a relevant point on the differences between Cercopithecoids and Hominoids:

"These aren't phyletic groups; apes are just a subset of the old world monkeys in terms of evolution. However, they're traditionally classified as a parallel family."

Tradition. That's your only method. When your peers come to accept it, so will you. You've consistently failed to show any reason to support your position other than subjective definitions according to your tradition, your indevidual preference. But I have shown you solid reasons that forced me to change my mind, and which I'm still sure will change yours. And you call me arbitrary?! I think this is another case of the pot calling the silverware black.

I also know how to spell 'synonymous.'

Good for you. I just wish you knew what it means.

Quite simple - it all depends on where you 'start'.
You want to confine the 'acceptable' definition/taxonomy of human such that we should be considered monkeys. You do this by arbitrarily choosing a 'starting point' to support this position.

No, I do it for a reason, and not one of my choosing. If we are to argue whether men evolved from monkeys, then I have no choice but to concentrate on the origin of monkeys and its relation to the origin of man. There ain't nuthin' arbitrary about that.

Choosing a different one - say, the stem anthropoid, will give a different outcome.

You mean you still don't understand this either? They are the same! That was the point of this whole discussion! You actually said (twice no less) that Amphipethecus, Parapithecus fraasi, Apidium phiomense, and Homoines could be classified as lemuroids! Yet all the sites I've shown you unanemously proved you wrong about that, and simultaneously established that 'anthropoid' and 'monkey' have equivalent connotation. That's what 'synonymous' means. Anthropoid = monkey, even according to your own sources.

And many of those other sites I linked for you.

None of which provided any support for your position that I could see, and a feww of them, as I pointed out, actually contradict your taxonomy.

No they didn't, as I've already explained. But you contradict yourself. You said your position in this debate would be wrong if the ancestor of Hominoidea turned out to be a monkey, and you told me you would accept the word of J.G. Fleagle over mine. Yet you didn't notice that he wrote one of the papers I cited which clarified that basal anthropoids -living prior to the divergence of Hominoids were most like specific species within New World monkeys.

Then let me remind you of what you seem to be deliberately trying to forget

Please do not engage in this little game. It reeks of the antics of the creationist.

Yes it does; your selective responses, dodging questions, accusing your opponant of your own faults when he doesn't share them, ignoring whatever you don't like, and immediately stooping to hostility when intellectual discourse fails you, -yes it seems very like the tactics of creationists doesn't it?

And yet the common public can tell the difference between a 'monkey' and an 'ape', most of them anyway. Of course, there is 'meaning' and then there is connotation. Not all terms possess identical meanings and connotations.

And yet we know what the common meaning for 'monkey' is. So when John Q. Public says "evolution teaches that men come from monkeys", we can translate that easily to understand him as saying Homonines descend from anthropoids, because that's obviously what he means.

As Cirbryn brought up also, 'monkey' is not a scientific term.

Indeed. As such, it is even less appropriate to use as a taxonomic delineator.

But even articles in the National Center for Biotechnology Information refer to humans as Old World monkeys.

You see, here's the challenge: Force the laymen to use that word in practical application and they'll not only understand the word better, they'll understand the method better too. But so far, you have utterly refused to defend the exlusion of Hominoids from the clade of monkeys.

I recall no challenges, only assertions. Many supported with contradictory links.

Well then, you recall some other thread, because I didn't do that in this one. I dare you to go back through the past posts (particularly #90 & 91) to remind yourself of all the points and queries you refused to address.

I will do what I damn well please, thank you very much.

Can't do it, huh? I'm not surprised since you already said you don't like to get bogged down in the "boring" details. But you won't make a very good scientist that way. You have to be systematic.

 

[Aron-Ra]

They used to be the same species, but now they are different species. Ergo one or both is no longer the species it was before.

[FONT=&quot]Aron-Ra (Post 97): But a new species of dog is still a dog.

So you started out talking about species. When I pointed out that a group that beomes a new species is no longer part of its old species, suddenly you switched to talking about colloquial terms. The point is that an erstwhile group of Canis lupus familiaris that is no longer able to interbreed with other Canis lupus members would become a new species and would no longer be Canis lupus. It doesn't matter whether colloquially it would still be called a "dog".
[/FONT]

I think you're missing the point here. Understand there are at least three applicable meanings for the word, "dog", (1) Canus lupus familiaris, (2) any of the wild canids who did not descend from Asiatic wolves. Both of these definitions are paraphyletic. The monophyletic definition could either depict just the emergence of domestic dogs from Asiatic wolves, or it could refer to the emergence of all dog genera within Canidae, a clade which includes the fox-like fossil form, Hesperocyon. Regardless which definition you use, even if you're only talking about Canus lupus familiaris, the next species in that group (cladistically) would be Canus lupus familiaris _____. Yes, it would be a different species, but, (unless you can explain otherwise) it would still be a dog. It would still be Canus lupus familiaris ...something.

Edit: You could take the traditional approach, and call a dachshund a dachshund and decide that its not a dog anymore. But the only reason you could or would do this is to preserve convention. Its ancestry is still dog, a word which commonly does cover more than one species anyway. Its like when people used to tell me that baboons weren't monkeys. That used to be a common notion. As long as I accepted that, fine. But when I started asking how we know this, all conversation was suspended.

Read Berkley's explanation of Evolution 101 and its description of clades. Then try to understand once again that it isn't the characters that define the clade, it is the ancestry, all of it stemming from the emergence of a trait or the divergence from another line indicated by the emergence of its traits.

For each clade, the determinant is clear, and stems from one source to go on forever. For example, in the simple cladogram above, 'hair' is one of those emerging traits. Yet dolphins don't have any hair anymore at all. So why are they still mammals? You can't have a new line emerge that isn't still part of the line it branches from. That's why everything still is whatever it was. The more you study this, the more you'll see that cladistics really is the only consistent way to classify life, and that the arbitrary colloquial names of traditional taxonomy must be either be discarded or much more rigidly defined, and can only be monophyletic.

 

[Cirbryn]

I think you're missing the point here. Understand there are at least three applicable meanings for the word, "dog", (1) Canus lupus familiaris, (2) any of the wild canids who did not descend from Asiatic wolves. Both of these definitions are paraphyletic. The monophyletic definition could either depict just the emergence of domestic dogs from Asiatic wolves, or it could refer to the emergence of all dog genera within Canidae, a clade which includes the fox-like fossil form, Hesperocyon.

This is pretty confused. First off that’s two meanings, not three. Secondly, you call domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) paraphyletic in your third sentence and monophyletic in your fourth. (So far as I know they’re monophyletic). Third, according to your second definition, domestic dogs aren’t dogs. Finally, all the discussion of “dogs” outside of Canis lupus merely supports the charge of goalpost shifting. I didn’t bring in the term “dog”, you did. Up to that point we were talking about species in general. If I claim a new species is different from the species from which it evolved, you don’t get to counter that claim by pointing out that a particular new species would still be in the same Family. That’s a common creationist trick, and it doesn’t work for them either.

Regardless which definition you use, even if you're only talking about Canus lupus familiaris, the next species in that group (cladistically) would be Canus lupus familiaris _____. Yes, it would be a different species, but, (unless you can explain otherwise) it would still be a dog. It would still be Canus lupus familiaris ...something.

I think you have a difficult time distinguishing between how things are and how you’d like them to be. Under the generally accepted nomenclature, it would be Canis something, not Canis lupus familiaris something. I don’t care that you think your nomenclature is better. What I care about is that you’re misleading people (particularly people without much biological background) by telling them things that are incorrect according to standard definitions, and by not bothering to explain that you aren’t using standard definitions.

I’ll be happy to debate the relative values of cladistic vs Linnaean classification schemes once you agree to stop doing that. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to say “clade” when you mean clade. It’s as if you’re trying to mislead, or else trying to make evolution look ridiculous. If you’re going to play that game at least get Hovind to send you some kind of stipend for doing his work for him.

 

[Lilandra]

of those of us lacking a strong biological background.

Can you clarify a few things?

This is pretty confused. First off that’s two meanings, not three. Secondly, you call domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) paraphyletic in your third sentence and monophyletic in your fourth. (So far as I know they’re monophyletic). Third, according to your second definition, domestic dogs aren’t dogs.

This seems as though it is a critique of style over substance. My understanding is there are 3 possible ways to group canids. He explained 3 but the third group with the extinct dog like species he didn't number.

The groupings are going to differ in how canids are grouped because there are 3 different approaches.

Finally, all the discussion of “dogs” outside of Canis lupus merely supports the charge of goalpost shifting. I didn’t bring in the term “dog”, you did. Up to that point we were talking about species in general.

Here is a clarification point. Monkey and dog are roughly equivalent generas of animals within the families of Primates and Canids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplorrhini
If you restrict a discussion of dogs to one species of dog (canis lupus) when in fact there are more than one genera, that are not directly descended from the gray wolf, it seems myopic. Especially when you are asking what a dog is.

If I claim a new species is different from the species from which it evolved, you don’t get to counter that claim by pointing out that a particular new species would still be in the same Family. That’s a common creationist trick, and it doesn’t work for them either.

But if you'll notice the human genus homo is still nested within the haplorrhini suborder within the primate family. Just as the genus of canis is still within the canidae family.

I think you have a difficult time distinguishing between how things are and how you’d like them to be. Under the generally accepted nomenclature, it would be Canis something, not Canis lupus familiaris something. I don’t care that you think your nomenclature is better.

But in the case of the dingo this is exactly what is happening.

It is alternatively called canis dingo, canis lupus dingo, and canis familiarus dingo.

So it is not anyone's personal preference. It is a discussion of the topic at hand- Classification.

What I care about is that you’re misleading people (particularly people without much biological background) by telling them things that are incorrect according to standard definitions, and by not bothering to explain that you aren’t using standard definitions.

This came off kinda snobby. I don't know if that was your intent.

I’ll be happy to debate the relative values of cladistic vs Linnaean classification schemes once you agree to stop doing that. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to say “clade” when you mean clade. It’s as if you’re trying to mislead, or else trying to make evolution look ridiculous. If you’re going to play that game at least get Hovind to send you some kind of stipend for doing his work for him.

ad hovind?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Understand there are at least three applicable meanings for the word, "dog", (1) Canus lupus familiaris, (2) any of the wild canids who did not descend from Asiatic wolves. Both of these definitions are paraphyletic. The monophyletic definition could either depict just the emergence of domestic dogs from Asiatic wolves, or it could refer to the emergence of all dog genera within Canidae, a clade which includes the fox-like fossil form, Hesperocyon.

This is pretty confused. First off that’s two meanings, not three.

You're right. I was thinking of the two paraphyletic meanings and one monophyletic meaning, and I mis-stated that.

Secondly, you call domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) paraphyletic in your third sentence and monophyletic in your fourth. (So far as I know they’re monophyletic).

The one species is monophyletic, but only if its determined by phylogeny rather than subjective impressions of character traits that can come and go.

Third, according to your second definition, domestic dogs aren’t dogs.

Well, that would actually be by your definition, and that was my point, because the various forms of wild dogs aren't descended from the same lineage as are domestic dogs. There are no wolves or jackals in the cape dog or bush dog family trees. What I was trying to show you is the only way domestic dogs and wild dogs can both be "dogs" is if the word 'dog' also includes wolves and jackals and fossil canids to the stem of that whole clade. I expect you to clarify your stance accordingly. The reason I do this is that paraphyletic terminology frequently (if not usually) presents paradoxes when you start looking at all the details. And that fact is important to my argument.

Finally, all the discussion of “dogs” outside of Canis lupus merely supports the charge of goalpost shifting.

No it doesn't. I'm just reminding you of the colloquial nature of these names, expecting you to explain how you expect us to treat wild dogs in your chosen nomenclature. In other words, I want to make sure where your goal posts are.

I stated my position up-front, and I have stood by that stoically. I said I could convince you of the validity of my position, and prove that humans are monkeys. I expect to do that by your own honest admission. If by the end, you still think I'm trying to deceive you or trip you up with semantics, then I will have failed. So my goal posts can't move.

I didn’t bring in the term “dog”, you did. Up to that point we were talking about species in general. If I claim a new species is different from the species from which it evolved, you don’t get to counter that claim by pointing out that a particular new species would still be in the same Family. That’s a common creationist trick, and it doesn’t work for them
either.

Then you really don't understand what I'm saying at all. First of all, I'm not using any "tricks". Unlike any creationist who ever lived, I properly address every evidentiary challenge and answer every direct question systematically. In my mind, to do otherwise would be rude at the very least. But you've just sort of snipped and skipped over nearly all of my points and queries to make this accusation -which isn't going to stick. Snipping and ignoring every challenge you can neither concede nor consider is the staple tactic of creationists. So step out of your glass house before casting stones at me.

I think you have a difficult time distinguishing between how things are and how you’d like them to be.

Thank you for being so polite about that. Allow me to return the sentiment in-kind.

Under the generally accepted nomenclature, it would be Canis something, not Canis lupus familiaris something.

I don't think so. Homo sapiens sapiens was accepted nomenclature long before the influence of cladistics. So was Homo sapiens neandertalensis, and we've known for a long time now that domestic dogs are descended from wolves. So whether you're cladist or not, that would still be popularly-accepted term.

I don’t care that you think your nomenclature is better. What I care about is that you’re misleading people (particularly people without much biological background) by telling them things that are incorrect according to standard definitions, and by not bothering to explain that you aren’t using standard definitions.

But I have since the very beginning! I have repeatedly stated (1) that traditional Linnaean terminology is still the more popurlar, (2) that cladistic terminology is gaining acceptance, (3) that the phylocode of cladistic terminology is still being determined.

Don't you remember when I cited the following as proof of that?

"(1) Because of the many documented problems with instability and lack of comparability of ranks in the formal Linnaean system, we need to move to a rank-free phylogenetic classification system at all levels; (2) In such a system, not all hypothesized monophyletic groups need be named, but those that are named formally should be given unranked (but hierarchically nested) uninomials; (3) The least inclusive taxon, formally known as "species," should be treated in the same unranked manner. ...Biological classification should be a set of nested, named groups for internested clades at all levels. Not all clades need be named, but those that are should be named on the basis of evidence for monophyly."
--First Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Paris, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, July 6-9, 2004, Académie des Sciences de Paris.

I’ll be happy to debate the relative values of cladistic vs Linnaean classification schemes once you agree to stop doing that.

I've never done it to begin with.

I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to say “clade” when you mean clade.

I don't know what you're talking about here, because its not difficult in the least. But its a good idea to illustrate the parallel between 'clade' and 'lineage' because that is the easiest way to introduce that concept to those unfamiliar with it.

It’s as if you’re trying to mislead, or else trying to make evolution look ridiculous. If you’re going to play that game at least get Hovind to send you some kind of stipend for doing his work for him.

You have no idea who you're playing with, and could not have misjudged me more if you tried. Or did you actually try? Because these harsh judgements seem ...labored?

Now, if you're through with the playground posturing, we'll continue. And remember one thing, science is often dependant on arguing. It really is, and that's what I like about it. Blind acceptance of anything is discouraged. Remember too that I'm not pleading with you simply to believe me. I'm honestly challenging you to pit your position against mine logically, and (please) systematically.

Now back to the point. So far, I have shown substantial backing for the idea that simiiforms, simians, and anthropoids are all synonemous with 'monkeys'. Further, I have shown that basal anthropoids prior to the divergence of Cercopiths, prior to the emergence of Hominoids, and even prior to the divergence of Platyrrhines -are all considered monkeys both in the public eye and according to the descriptions of scientists. If you're still not adequately convinced of this, let me know. I have also challenged you repeatedly to explain to me how "prohylobates", pre-hominoid monkeys such a Aegyptopithecus -would cease to be monkeys as they adopt more of the traits indicative of apes? And I have asked you several times to explain how you would identify a hypothetical maybe monkey if you discovered some seeminly primate species as-yet-unknown?

 

[Cassandra]

Wow.

I feel bad for not having something substantial to contribute to this debate. I just had to post and state the obvious: There's an actual intelligent debate going on. None of the usual: State claim 'A'. Refute claim 'a'. restate claim 'a'. refute claim 'a' again. repeat a billion times. Or: state claim 'a'. Refute claim 'a'. Stick out tongue and call refuter a godless nincompoop.

 

[Cirbryn]

This seems as though it is a critique of style over substance. My understanding is there are 3 possible ways to group canids. He explained 3 but the third group with the extinct dog like species he didn't number.

Extinct dog-like species would fall into his second grouping ("any of the wild canids who did not descend from Asiatic wolves"). My new theory, after reviewing Aron's response farther down, is that he was thinking 1) domestic dogs; 2) any member of the "dog family" (Canidae); or 3) any member of the dog family excluding wolves (and possibly foxes). These are two monophyletic meanings (1 and 2) and one polyphyletic meaning (3). Aron said he was thinking of two paraphyletic meanings and one monophyletic, so I could still be wrong.

Here is a clarification point. Monkey and dog are roughly equivalent generas of animals within the families of Primates and Canids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplorrhini

Well, "true dogs" (as the term is used by your first cite) would be a genus (Canis) in the Canid Family, but Aron's second definition of "dog" includes things in the dog family outside of the Canis genus (such as the list he gives in post 120 of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), dholes (Cuon alpinus), raccoon dogs (Nictereutes procyonoides) and bush dogs (Speothos venaticus)).
Actually, sorry, it's just occurred to me that you probably meant "taxa" (plural of taxon - any taxonomic grouping) instead of "genera" (plural of genus). Anyway, the difference between "dog", used in that sense, and "monkey", is that "dog" refers to a single monophyletic family, whereas "monkey" refers to several different families that together form a group that is either paraphyletic (assuming apes evolved from something we'd call monkeys), or polyphyletic (assuming old-world monkeys and new-world monkeys evolved separately from something we might call lemuroids). Haplorrini is a monophyletic suborder, but it includes apes and tarsiers as well as monkeys. I could sum up this entire discussion by saying that Aron wants various colloquial terms like "monkey" and "fish" to be monophyletic, and they aren't.

Actually that's a good question: How would you sum up the discussion so far Aron?

If you restrict a discussion of dogs to one species of dog (canis lupus) when in fact there are more than one genera, that are not directly descended from the gray wolf, it seems myopic. Especially when you are asking what a dog is.

Agreed. But the context wasn't a discussion about dogs. It was about what constitutes a species, and whether a new species should still be considered "part of" the species from which it evolved. I said it shouldn't since species are defined as being genetically isolated from each other. To which Aron responded "But a new species of dog is still a dog". (See posts 89, 96 and 97). See the problem?

But if you'll notice the human genus homo is still nested within the haplorrhini suborder within the primate family. Just as the genus of canis is still within the canidae family.

Right, and no one denies that monkeys and apes (including humans) are both haplorrhini. But you'll notice (at the bottom of your haplorrhini cite) that the family Hominidae (including humans) is not nested in the family Cercopithecidae (old-world monkeys). Aron has been doing a lot of arguing to the effect that they ought to be so nested, but the fact remains that they aren't. The ape family is separate from all the monkey families, so humans aren't monkeys according to the Linnaean system. When someone like Aron tells people that humans are monkeys, that's the system people are going to assume he's using unless he specifies otherwise.

But in the case of the dingo this is exactly what is happening.

It is alternatively called canis dingo, canis lupus dingo, and canis familiarus dingo.

That's because of differences over whether a dingos, domestic dogs and wolves are separate species. Back in the early 80's, prior to precise methods of genetic testing, domestic dogs were considered a separate species from wolves (so Canis familiaris and Canis lupus), and dingoes (which evolved from domestic dogs) were thought to be either their own species or else a subspecies of domestic dog (so Canis dingo or Canis familiaris dingo). After more definitive genetic tests were conducted (I think in the late 90s) domestic dogs were determined to be a subspecies of wolf (so Canis lupus familiaris). I'll have to look into whether there's been genetic comparisons of dingoes and wolves, but presumably from your inclusion of "Canis lupus dingo" there has been and they were determined to be a separate subspecies from domestic dogs, but not yet a species of their own.

This came off kinda snobby. I don't know if that was your intent.

I suppose it may have. It's honest though. When I say "I don't care that you think your nomenclature is better", I'm not trying to say you have to impress me with your nomenclature, I'm saying I think it's off point. Aron keeps trying to make this an argument about whether cladistics is a better system, but this isn't about that. It's about whether it's reasonable or correct, given the system we have, to tell people that humans are monkeys or that humans are fish. You summed it up earlier yourself; it's about semantics.

 

[SLP]

i've been lurking on this discussion, and so far i've gotta side with Aron. at least his method of classification is systematic, not essentially arbitrary.

Actually, it is, at least as far as his choice of reference points goes.
He insists on calling humans monkeys because of his arbitrarily chosen reference point - as he himself declared he was doing. But it is cladistically acceptable, as best I can tell, to use other reference points in your grouping. So, as I mentioned, I have read that some cladists consider humans a sarcopterygian fish. Their reference point is just much further back then is Nelson's.
The issue here is that Nelson inists that his chosen reference point is THE reference point.

That is, it is his arbitrary position. That is the point I have made and made pretty well.

Instead of recognizing that, however, he would rather redefine terms to suit his position accuse me of not knowing what words mean.

Pretty ironic, from where I sit.

The terms 'monky' and 'fish' denote a specific suite of characteristics unique to those being called monkey or fish. Monkey and fish are vertebrates, but 'vertebrate' refers to possessing a vertebral column or the equivalent, not to an all-encompassing suite of charateristics. Calling a human, or a monkey, or a fish a vertebrate is fine because humans, monkeys and fish all possess a vertebral column. Calling a human and a monkey a mammal is fine for similar reasons. But calling a human a monkey, saying a human IS a monkey, is questionable, in my view, because it denotes the possession of an entire suite of characteristics that the organisms we call 'monkeys' possess. We do not possess all such characteristics.

Frankly, I don't care what humans are called, since naming schemes are ultimately arbitrary human constructs. Cladism implies a 'simpler' means of nomenclature, yet even the PhyloCode group provides for multiple means by which to name things!

 

[SLP]

Can you pleae explain why what he said was arbitrary rather than label it so?

I think the quote I provided explains it pretty clearly.

It would help everyone to understand why you think it is to everyone else.

As Nelson wrote, he is 'concentrating' on a particular point of reference. One can just as justifiably, within reason, choose another point of reference.

It would seem as though the ancestor of primates (New World and Old World Monkeys) is relevant to the discussion of what is and what is not a monkey.

If the ancestor is a monkey...

And that depends on what you define 'monkey' as being.
We can use Nelson's own 'analogy' to prove the point - if we start with a population that speaks Latin, and a subpopulation goes off by itself and eventually speaks French, do we still consider their language to be Latin?

Similarly, if humans evolved from 'monkeys', do we still consider them to be monkeys?

The cladistic concept of evolution, i.e., that all species (or groups, whatever you want to call them) came to be via a series of bifurcations of previous groups, as far as I am concerned, is beyond reproach. Naming those groups that are the result of the bifurcations is what the issue is here, and that process is not nearly as cut and dried as some are trying to make it out to be. As I demonstrated with the snippet from the Phylocode group (a collection of systematists and taxonomists that have proposed naming or renaming organisms using a cladistic (phylogenetic) approach), even employing 'rigid' rules for naming things produces several possible variations in how one classifies/names things!