Can you point out where in your link Haplorrhini is equated with Monkey? Or were you pointing out something else?consideringlily said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you point out where in your link Haplorrhini is equated with Monkey? Or were you pointing out something else?consideringlily said: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
I didn't realize you were trying to explain anything, it has appeared to me (and apparently not just me) that you have been trying to assert your personal take on classification as the best one.Aron-Ra said: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.
WOW! I never thought about it that way! Thanks for clearing that up for me.Try to understand this: Humans are apes, primates, and mammals, all at the same time, right?
SLP said:Can you point out where in your link Haplorrhini is equated with Monkey? Or were you pointing out something else?
SLP said:Can you point out where in your link Haplorrhini is equated with Monkey? Or were you pointing out something else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonkeyA monkey is any member of two of the three groupings of simian primates. These two groupings are the New World and Old World monkeys of which together there are 264 known extant species. Because of their similarity to monkeys, apes such as chimpanzees and gibbons are sometimes incorrectly called monkeys. Also, a few monkey species have the word "ape" in their common name. Because they are not a single coherent group, monkeys do not have any particular traits that they all share and are not shared with the remaining group of simians, the apes.
You are making some unwarranted assumptions here. But that is how discussion board debates often go.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.Originally Posted by: SLP
I don't recall that.
Yeah, see, now that is interesting. One of your earlier links says that Propliopithecoidea is a Family within the Cercopithecoidea (and in fact it is even referred to as Propilopithecidae). Now, I suppose that the reason you linked to that site was because of the title of the page infraorderFor 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.
No, you haven't, and I'm obviously not the only one here who's noticed that. [/quote]
Well, true, it shouldnt be.Not in this discussion.ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
I'd say def. 2 is relevant.
I am doing neither, but it appears that proving your point is of paramount importance to you. Differences of opinion are not to be tolerated.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.
Good for you. I guess I must not be open to reason, because thus far, ambivalent sources and personal websites and the like just arent changing my mind about much.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.
I dont recall any link to a paper by an anthropology student from the University of Michigan. There was a link to a lecture by a linguist that graduated from the UofM that studies primate social behavior is that the one you meant?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:
Ah yes, it was."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."
Yeah, I guess that is why I proposed putting chimps in genus Homo. Im such a traditionalist that way.Tradition. That's your only method.
No, but it is funny to watch this.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 do. What I think you did was confuse synonymous with connotes.Good for you. I just wish you knew what it means.I also know how to spell 'synonymous.'
Quite simple - it all depends on where you 'start'.
Well, it would appear that this discussion has moved beyond the creationist question if men evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? and its derivatives to whether or not humans are or should be considered monkeys.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.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.
I guess not.You mean you still don't understand this either?Choosing a different one - say, the stem anthropoid, will give a different outcome.
Um, no, I suggested that if one were to choose an alternative point at which to name a crown group, once could do that. I am not saying I would or that anybody does, in practice.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!
Unanimously? Well, I guess you picked your 3 or 4 sites well. By the way synonymous does not mean equivalent connotation. A synonym has a directly equivalent meaning, while a connotation has an implied, indirect association. And Anthropoid does not mean monkey, either. It means man like, and monkeys and apes are described in such a way. Which, by the way, is an arbitrary choice of yardstick by which to describe/classify them.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.
OK, lets take a look at one example. Take this one. You originally presented it to support your claim that Catarrhines are all monkeys. Yet, the phylogenetic tree they show, as I pointed out already, contradicts your other claim regarding the position of Propliopithecoidea. So, if you want to claim that you presented that particular link because the title of the page connotes that catarrhines are all monkeys, fine, but you cannot deny that it undermines one of the other issues that you have been hammering away at in this thread. Which is why I have written that at best, your links have provided ambivalent support.No they didn't, as I've already explained.None of which provided any support for your position that I could see, and a few of them, as I pointed out, actually contradict your taxonomy.
And yet he does not consider humans to be monkeys. Odd that. Must be one of those traditionalists.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.
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? [/quote] Yes you appear to recognize your tactics fairly well.Please do not engage in this little game. It reeks of the antics of the creationist.Then let me remind you of what you seem to be deliberately trying to forget
Sure. Obviously.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.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.
But even articles in the National Center for Biotechnology Information refer to humans as Old World monkeys.[/quote]Tradition. And that is all bad, remember?Indeed. As such, it is even less appropriate to use as a taxonomic delineator.As Cirbryn brought up also, 'monkey' is not a scientific term.
1. As I already explained, it was not my intent to do so. 2. It is not my position that Hominoids are to be or should be excluded from any more-inclusive clade. In terms of naming, it is my position that if we are to use cladistic methodology to name extant organisms, in this case humans, there are more recent, less-inclusive clades which could be used (or older, more inclusive ones). The stem leading to the split between humans and chimps, for example. This would exclude Gorillina (depending on which scheme you prefer) but would be neither humans nor chimps. One could then say that humans and chimps are ______ , whatever that group would be called.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.
No, actually I have documented what I wrote.Well then, you recall some other thread, because I didn't do that in this one.I recall no challenges, only assertions. Many supported with contradictory links.
Oh, you dare me, do you? WhateverI 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.
Cant? No, wont? Yes. It is true, I do not like to get bogged down in details on internet discussion boards in which the majority of participants are laymen. I find it too time consuming to be worthwhile. I used to, mind you, but my efforts were dismissed too often. I learned my lesson.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.I will do what I damn well please, thank you very much.
Yeah, I guess not. Funny thing I did some searches on variations of your name and I was unable to find any of your publications. I searched PubMed, Academic Search Premier, Biosis, and a couple others and darned if nothing came up. Google returned lots and lots of internet discussion board posts and the like, but nothing official or professional. Surely, I am missing something, for a scientist of your caliber must have many many publications on this topic But poor little me, I just a have a few, 2 of which have been cited by the Tree of Life project.But you won't make a very good scientist that way. You have to be systematic.
consideringlily said:Is Happlorrhini equivalent to monkey...
from the page when you click on monkey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
Cirbryn said:
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.
Apes are grouped in Old World Monkeys. Some of the species within OWM have the term monkey in their name. The term monkey predates the classification system and was liberally applied.A monkey is any member of two of the three groupings of simianprimates. These two groupings are the New World and Old World monkeys of which together there are 264 known extant species.
SLP said:Oh, that pesky wikipedia!
"Because of their similarity to monkeys, apes such as chimpanzees and gibbons are sometimes incorrectly called monkeys. Also, a few monkey species have the word "ape" in their common name. Because they are not a single coherent group, monkeys do not have any particular traits that they all share and are not shared with the remaining group of simians, the apes."
Better get Aron-Ra hot ont hem to striaghten things out!
consideringlily said:Apes are grouped in Old World Monkeys. Some of the species within OWM have the term monkey in their name. The term monkey predates the classification system and was liberally applied.
Rather than make this a personal thing. Can you see that there is disagreement in the scientific community on this issue compounded by how commonly monkey is used?
consideringlily said:I'd be delighted to clarify.
Cibryn was asking why bring up dogs in a discussion of primates. I responded the terms dog and monkey are rough equivalents in the number of taxa(for you Cibryn) they commonly describe. Actually they are roughly equivalent in ranking as well within classification.
You can make the same point about either.
Capiche?
I did not forget the rest of the definition, I pointed out the relevant part from my perspective. Of course Panda bears are part of the Carnivora, but this does not mean they eat meat.consideringlily said:Apes are grouped in Old World Monkeys. Some of the species within OWM have the term monkey in their name. The term monkey predates the classification system and was liberally applied.
Rather than make this a personal thing. Can you see that there is disagreement in the scientific community on this issue compounded by how commonly monkey is used?
Dont you think if that were true that there would be some apes in the family Cercopithecidae where all the living old-world monkeys are? Instead we have great apes in Hominidae, old-world monkeys in Cercopithecidae, and never the twain shall meet. (At least as things now stand; admitting that there are those who disagree with the current system).consideringlily said:Apes are grouped in Old World Monkeys.
ORDER PRIMATES
- Suborder Strepsirrhini: lemurs, lorises, etc.
- Suborder Haplorrhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes
- Infraorder Tarsiiformes
- Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers
- Infraorder Simiiformes
- Parvorder Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
- Family Cebidae: marmosets, tamarins, capuchins and squirrel monkeys
- Family Aotidae: night monkeys, owl monkeys, douroucoulis
- Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris
- Family Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys
- Parvorder Catarrhini: Old World monkeys, apes and humans
Cirbryn said:Don’t you think if that were true that there would be some apes in the family Cercopithecidae where all the living old-world monkeys are? Instead we have great apes in Hominidae, old-world monkeys in Cercopithecidae, and never the twain shall meet. (At least as things now stand; admitting that there are those who disagree with the current system).
I myself explained many times that I was NOT doing that. It is not my choice.caravelair said: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.SLP said: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.
You're so miserably mistaken. I honestly don't know how you could ever have gotten so confused. Cladists do claim that humans are Sarcopterygiian "fish". But that's because 'Sarcopterygii' has a meaning, while 'fish' defies definition so as to be inapplicable to the classification of life -unless of course, we use 'fish' as the colloquial term for chordates. Anything else would be paraphyletic and thus, unusable. Similarly, while humans are Sarcopterygii -whether you add the word, "fish" or not- we are monkeys also, as well as apes. This is not MY reference point. Just a couple years ago, I would have argued from your side of the fence. But the word, 'monkey' does have a meaning that is applicable in taxonomy much better than the word "fish" ever was. And I'm just trying to explain why.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.
No, you haven't. NONE of the definitions of that word are applicable here.That is, it is his arbitrary position. That is the point I have made and made pretty well.
I was convinced of this only after a very long discussion in which I was forced to accept cladistic logic.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
I was forced to adopt this position against my preference. Furthermore, this is NOT my choice of starting point. If the topic of discussion is whether apes arose from monkeys, then I have no other option, do I?2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
That is not what I would rather do, and it is not what I've ever done.Instead of recognizing that, however, he would rather redefine terms to suit his position accuse me of not knowing what words mean.
That's because your impressions of every aspect of my participation in this discussion so far are false.Pretty ironic, from where I sit.
If that were so, why then have you repeatedly ignored my simple challenge to point out one trait common to all monkeys that is not present in humans? Because, (as I explained to you before) you can describe the whole suite of characters indicative of primates in general, and then add those traits shared by all monkeys (anthropoidea), and then specify Old World monkeys (Catarrhini) in particular, and narrow that further to list the characters of apes (Hominoidea), and then those of Great apes (Hominidae) exclusively, -and at every level you will describe humans at the same time! And once you want to describe human traits alone, you'll have to add those to the traits of the apes, which were added to the traits of the monkeys and so on.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.
Well, its obviously confusing some people. But the old way doesn't really make sense.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!
As I said before, I can discuss the clades at any level you like. The topic happened to fall on whether apes are monkeys, and I'm simply defending my initial comments against criticism. I made no arbitrary choice. There was no choice to make.As Nelson wrote, he is 'concentrating' on a particular point of reference. One can just as justifiably, within reason, choose another point of reference.
Exactly! And since Old World monkeys and New World monkeys are all monkeys, as are all their common ancestors according to both the common impression of that word, and the definitions provided in dictionaries, and even the descriptions given by scientists, then monkey is evidently any member of the clade, Anthropidea. This is demonstrably the case, and not my decision. All I am doing is challenging the popular convention that apes (including humans) be excluded from that group.Consideringlily said:]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...SLP said:And that depends on what you define 'monkey' as being.
If you're going to use my analogy, do it correctly. French is a Latin language, yes. The point of my analogy was whether French could evolve independently from two different populations, neither of which ever spoke French before. You misunderstood that, like you've misunderstood everything else I've said so far.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?
Most people don't, except for a very few, like Douglas Adams and Bill Maher, who are able to embrace these concepts more easily. Most people consider every primate who ever lived to be some kind of monkey, everything but us. I don't think that's justified, and I've often corrected people on that by saying "Either chimpanzees aren't monkeys either, or we are monkeys too." But if either of us are not monkeys, I am at a loss to explain why, and you haven't been able to explain that either.Similarly, if humans evolved from 'monkeys', do we still consider them to be monkeys?
I'd like to know what you're talking about here.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!
I was trying to explain why I think it is. But that is an intellectual process, and you've refused to participate. Rather than be offended without warrant and insulting without reason, why not simply answer my precious few questions and put my claims to the test?Aron-Ra said: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.I didn't realize you were trying to explain anything, it has appeared to me (and apparently not just me) that you have been trying to assert your personal take on classification as the best one.
You're so condescending; quite ironic from where I sit.But thanks, really. I always know that the best source of information on technical science is from some internet discussion board dude.
You're welcome. Now you shouldn't misrepresent cladistics anymore by saying we should classify ourselves as fish "instead" of primates. That was a significant misunderstanding.Try to understand this: Humans are apes, primates, and mammals, all at the same time, right?WOW! I never thought about it that way! Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I suspected you'd say that about now.I suspect this will be my last reply to Nelson. It gets tiring trying to discuss things with Internet Discussion Board gurus, on any side of any debate.
With creationists, yes. But I never expected that from scientists. To my experience, the scientists at Talk.Origins. properly addressed every point or query even if that meant an uncomfortable concession.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.You are making some unwarranted assumptions here. But that is how discussion board debates often go.
Which was listed below two infraorders, not one. It was listed under Hominoidea as well, or didn't you notice? If you had followed the link for Cercopithecoidea, you would not have found Propliopithecines, because that site did not list them as part of that group.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.Yeah, see, now that is interesting.
One of your earlier links says that Propliopithecoidea is a Family within the Cercopithecoidea (and in fact it is even referred to as Propilopithecidae).
That, and because I'm trying to show that the term, "monkey" can be used monophyletically to equate to 'Anthropoidea'. This site supports that throughout, and you've apparently misread it.Now, I suppose that the reason you linked to that site was because of the title of the page infraorder
Old World monkeys
Catarrhini
And as I said, every website out there who admits that humans are apes -still list humans and apes. Even I still do that sometimes, if I'm not paying attention.Another one, chosen no doubt because of this statement, apes are just a subset of the old world monkeys in terms of evolution, is swell, but the author is a linguist, not a primatologist or related specialist. And the quote you provided from Encarta in post #91 makes a distinction between apes and monkeys.
And yet, even with this reference, you still accuse me of disallowing opposing opinion, and of asserting my own perspective as the only 'right' one. Amazing. Obviously, nothing I say to you could be accepted by you. You won't even admit that some scientists do perceive Hominoidea as being nested within Propliopithecoidea when you said before that they do not.The link to the PhyloCode meeting was interesting:
There is substantial debate about the nature of the Propliopithecoidea and the Pliopithecoidea- they have alternately been described as basal hominoids, basal cercopithecoids, basal catarrhines and sister taxa to the Catarrhini (Ross et al., 1998; Begun, 2002; Rasmussen, 2002). Either or both groups may be paraphyletic. We include these fossil taxa within the Catarrhini here, but more phylogenetic work needs to be done to determine their position within the group.
So at best, it would appear that some consider Propliopithecoidea as you do, and some do not. The links you provided, oddly, provide at best ambivalent support.
The person I was referring to didn't ask you anything. He simply said he sided with me, that I was not being arbitrary despite your many failed accusations.the person you are referring to asked me to explain my position, not that I was using the word incorrectly.
You are doing both. You still have yet to properly address the following questions even after I specifically asked you to several times.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.I am doing neither,
Well? Would that count as a monkey or not? And if not, why not?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. That would have made them Haplorhines, not Strepsirhines, and specifically anthropoids.Aron-Ra said:what would you call an ape's ancestor who still has a tail?SLP said:It would depend. Lemurids have tails. And lemurs and their kin are not monkeys.
You didn't.Obviously, I already know that. But the question referred you to describe a pre-hominoid Anthropoid who still possessed a tail that was prehensile. Would that be a monkey or not? And you should accompany your answer with a reasonable explanation why.Or an earlier ape-ancestor who's tail is still prehensile?Not all primate tails are prehensile.
But that's about you've given me so far.Or who still had claws instead of fingernails?I know that already too. But you just dodged another question which was simple and direct, and which I shouldn’t have to paraphrase for you. But – What would you call an anthropoid and potential Hominoid ancestor who still possessed claws instead of, (or in addition to) flat fingernails? Could that be considered a monkey? Don’t forget to explain your answer. And remember, “Because I’m a primatologist” will not be sufficient reason alone.Some primates have both.
This is an important point, and you ignored it.Or who yet lacked full brachiation? Because if you remove the traits that specify apes, what you have left is a monkey.No. If you strip apes of the characters that distinguish them from their pre-Hominoid ancestors, and also removed those characters which distinguish Old World “primates” from New World monkeys, and then removed the characters which distinguish basal “anthropoid primates” from tarsiers, in addition to those which distinguish Haprlorhines from Strepsirhines, then you might be left with a Lemuroid. But if you only take away those characteristics descriptive of Hominoids, then what you have left is the template they’re based on. That would be an Old World monkey, -excuse me; “Old World anthropoid primate”. That seems to translate as “monkey” to everyone but primatologists speaking in public forum. So I want to know what term you would use in place of that word.Or a lemuroid.
This was another critical point, and you tried to dismiss it by implying that my links contradicted my other points. Even if they did, they didn't contradict this one, but you ignored that too.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.Really? Which ones are or aren’t lemuroids? Because a quick search on the net implies that Amphipethecus is a potential link between Haplorhine prosimians and anthropoids. Parapithecus fraasi is described as a “Platyrrhine-like anthropoid”, and if that ain’t a monkey, what is? Its not just monkey-like, its most like a New World monkey specifically. And “the skeleton of Apidium phiomense is the most primitive anthropoid postcranial skeleton known.” “Apidium was a monkey, ... One of the earliest monkeys known.”Or lemuroids.
So we’ve established that “anthropoid” means ‘monkey’. Each of these are described as anthropoids / monkeys, and not a one among them could be considered lemuroids.
But answer came there none.This is a critical question. Please don’t ignore it.Aron-Ra said:
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 independently evolve into the same classification paraphyletically?SLP said:____
It is painfully obvious that you will not tolerate differences of opinion. I invite discussion with an open mind. How can you even accuse me of this after what I said next?it appears that “proving your point” is of paramount importance to you. Differences of opinion are not to be tolerated.
That's because the crux of my argument is in the conversation between us -in points and queries you've refused to address or consider. I never needed nor expected the links to do state my case for me.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.Good for you. I guess I must not be open to reason, because thus far, ambivalent sources and personal websites and the like just aren’t changing my mind about much.
OK, I took that to be a student's paper. And I suppose the fact that it was a linguist invalidates the point, is that it?Now, if you'll remember, one of the links I gave you was to a paper from an anthropology student at the University of Michigan.I don’t recall any link to a paper by an anthropology student from the University of Michigan. There was a link to a ‘lecture’ by a linguist that graduated from the UofM that studies primate social behavior – is that the one you meant?Ah yes, it was.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."
Yes, you are. You describe Platyrrhines as "an outgroup of Catarrhines", and your illustrated phylogeny seems to back that traditional interpretation. But that impression is changing, and that's what I was trying to share with you and everyone else here.Tradition. That's your only method.Yeah, I guess that is why I proposed putting chimps in genus Homo. I’m such a traditionalist that way.
Then you started out with a false assumption and built on that as you went on.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.No, but it is funny to watch this.
I did not set out to ‘prove my point’, I initially simply reacted to your condescending, matter of fact dismissal of a simple statement I had written.
Once again, my solid reasons were written in my own hand, and were ignored.Thus far, your ‘solid reasons’ have consisted entirely of at best equivocal support for your position, as indicated by slide titles, single sentences in lectures, and oddly, links to websites that contradict one of your claims while providing semantic support for another!
No it isn't, not in any respect according to any definition. And it doesn't matter how many times you repeat an accusation if you can never justify it.And no, I did not call YOU arbitrary, I called your insistence on using one particular stem lineage as the crown group delineator for extant humans and apes arbitrary, because it is.
That question was never a part of this thread.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.Well, it would appear that this discussion has moved beyond the creationist question “if men evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Yes. If "monkey" is to retain any meaning from an evolutionary perspective, it must have a consistent definition which parallels the general meaning already understood for that word. And oddly enough, there is no reason I have yet seen to exclude apes or humans, (oops, I did it again) -apes INCLUDING humans from a clade in which every other member, including our collective cousins and our direct ancestors are all commonly recognized as monkeys both by the laity and [some] scientists as well.and its derivatives to whether or not humans are or should be considered ‘monkeys.’
Um, that's exactly what I said you said; that homoines could be classified as lemuroids, and so could others in the anthropoid clade.You actually said (twice no less) that Amphipethecus, Parapithecus fraasi, Apidium phiomense, and Homoines could be classified as lemuroids!Um, no, I suggested that if one were to choose an alternative point at which to name a crown group, once could do that. I am not saying I would or that anybody does, in practice.
Apparently not.Yet all the sites I've shown you unanimously 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.Unanimously? Well, I guess you picked your 3 or 4 sites well.
According to Dictionary.com, 'synonymous' does mean "equivalent in connotation" and "having the same or a similar meaning" just like 'ape' and 'Hominoid', 'monkey' and 'anthropoid', or 'simiiform', 'simian', and 'anthropoid'.What I think you did was confuse ‘synonymous’ with ‘connotes.’
By the way – synonymous does not mean ‘equivalent connotation.’ A synonym has a directly equivalent meaning, while a connotation has an implied, indirect association.
That much is true. But once again, I remind you that you're still fixating on what the name of the clade means, and not what the clade itself has come to mean -in the cladistic sense. Don't forget that panda bears are part of the Carnivora, but this does not mean they eat meat.And Anthropoid does not mean monkey, either. It means “man like”, and monkeys and apes are described in such a way. Which, by the way, is an arbitrary choice of ‘yardstick’ by which to describe/classify them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?