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

[Loudmouth]

I made it pretty clear that I was talking about the concept of a species is a man made concept.

Species are an objective fact within reality. Man did not make up the concept. Man discovered an aspect of nature and gave a name to it. Species is no more a man made concept than gravity or light.

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?

I already spoke about this in the other thread.

 

[JohnR7]

Species are an objective fact within reality. Man did not make up the concept. Man discovered an aspect of nature and gave a name to it. Species is no more a man made concept than gravity or light.

Ok, have it your way, define it anyway that you want to define it.

 

[JGG]

Ok, have it your way, define it anyway that you want to define it.

Well you can define it any way you want, but understand that you're not speaking the same language. How's that word redefinition project coming anyway?

 

[JohnR7]

How's that word redefinition project coming anyway?

Well, Creationists have their dictionary and Evolutionists have theirs. There is no question that during the 1000 years reign of christ God will provide the definition for every word.

 

[Edx]

Well, Creationists have their dictionary and Evolutionists have theirs. There is no question that during the 1000 years reign of christ God will provide the definition for every word.

What would you rather call what we see in "speciation", then? Whats your workable definition of species? If you cant do any of this then you can define words however you like but they are now all meaningless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, have it your way, define it anyway that you want to define it.[/quote]

Is your head stuck that far in the sand? Did you read anything I have written?

I am not defining the word "species". I am describing an objective fact that has been observed in nature. You can call non-interbreeding populations and the production of new non-interbreeding populations anything you want, but they still exist. It is fact first, name second. Language is abstract, but facts are not. Using language to obfuscate fact is a dirty tactic, John.

 

[Cirbryn]

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.

Trace our phylum (Chordata) back to its beginnings in the early Cambrian. Did it evolve from non-chordate ancestors or was it specially created? If you chose the former, then you must agree with me that evolution does produce new phyla. The difference between evolution of phyla and evolution of species is that new species are easier to recognize as such shortly after they evolve. We can talk about “speciation events” in a fairly meaningful way, but not “phylation events”. The first chordate wouldn’t have seemed much different from its parent species. Had we been there at the time we would have had no reason to suspect that the slightly modified structure in the animal’s back would eventually become the definitive structure of an entire phylum. Even if we knew what to look for it would have been difficult for us to identify a specific “first” chordate because the modification of the pre-existing structure would have been such an incremental process. With so many steps it would be difficult to say that this or that particular one was the essential change that produced a notochord.

We have much the same difficulty identifying the first members of new species, even though in that case we do know what to look for. The problem is that, again, the development of reproductive isolating mechanisms is incremental. Currently we call dogs and wolves the same species and coyotes a separate species. They all can interbreed, but dogs and wolves interbreed more and produce more hybrids and backcrosses than either does with coyotes. Dogs have also been separated from wolves (to the extent they have) for a shorter time. The reproductive isolating mechanisms between wolves and coyotes are behavioral, and may occasionally break down, particularly under pressure from extensive hunting or habitat destruction. Even so, they break down less often than those between dogs and wolves. So it becomes a judgment call to identify the point at which one species becomes two, even though the separation between species is real (depending on gene flow) while the separation between phyla is conceptual (depending on whatever seems like an important difference to us).

 

[Loudmouth]

Trace our phylum (Chordata) back to its beginnings in the early Cambrian. Did it evolve from non-chordate ancestors or was it specially created? If you chose the former, then you must agree with me that evolution does produce new phyla.

Chordates and humans are both eukaryotes. Chordates evolved from other eukaryotes, and chordates continue to be eukaryotes.

Taxonomists are the ones producing new phyla, not nature nor evolution.

The difference between evolution of phyla and evolution of species is that new species are easier to recognize as such shortly after they evolve.

They are easy to recognize because their classification (for living species) is objective. It is based on gene flow, not divergence of morphology. As an analogy, at what wavelength of light does turn from orange to red? It's a total judgement call and based on subjective criteria.

The first chordate wouldn’t have seemed much different from its parent species. Had we been there at the time we would have had no reason to suspect that the slightly modified structure in the animal’s back would eventually become the definitive structure of an entire phylum. Even if we knew what to look for it would have been difficult for us to identify a specific “first” chordate because the modification of the pre-existing structure would have been such an incremental process. With so many steps it would be difficult to say that this or that particular one was the essential change that produced a notochord.

Exactly. So at what point is a new phyla created? It's not a sharp line and a somewhat arbitrary one at that. There wasn't a chordate phyla until Linnaeus created it, there was just populations of interbreeding organisms. A phyla is just a successful lineage that survived long enough to make a significant contribution to the current biodiversity and the fossil record.

So it becomes a judgment call to identify the point at which one species becomes two, even though the separation between species is real (depending on gene flow) while the separation between phyla is conceptual (depending on whatever seems like an important difference to us).

Complete speciation does occur and is not arbitrary. There are in between stages which are often labelled as incomplete speciation, cryptic speciation, or "in the process of". Ring species are also a good example of an in between stage.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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.

Wait a minute. I thought this thread was about whether evolution taught that humans had evolved from apes, and that you wanted to argue whether whether humans are monkeys. That’s the way you explained it when you conjured me.

Would you admit that new species and new phyla have evolved from old ones?

Species? Yes. Phyla? No.

If so, then why not new families or orders?

We have a means for determining the evolution of a new species. For those readers who have no idea what a species is, I will explain:

Biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Every isolated population diverges in unique ways. The longer they are isolated, the more divergent they will become. In sexually-reproductive animals, when two closely-related populations become distinguishable by some trait which is now consistently present in every member of one group but not present in any member of the sister group, then you have a subspecies or “breed”. 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. Evolution never proposes that anything ever evolved into another, fundamentally different thing. Everything that ever evolved is just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were. Every new species, genus, family, etc. is just the result of incremental superficial porportional changes slowly compiled onto layered teirs of fundamental similarities. These successive levels of commonality represent the templates of taxonomic clades which forever encompass all the descendants of that clade. For example, amphibians are still stegocephalian [fish], birds are still dinosaurs, and humans are still apes. At the same time, we are also still monkeys, still primates, still mammals, and tetrapod vertebrate animals, etc. etc.

Getting back to the topic at-hand, we have no means of determining the evolution of a new phyla. The traditional notions of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species are part of an 18th century construct attempting to explain biodiversity, initially from a creationist perspective. Further investigation enhanced by increasing understanding of fossil forms, evolution, and genetic orthologues have resulted in divisions within these divisions at every level; subspecies, infraorder, superfamily, etc. There are three important problems with this: (1) The Linnaean system of nomenclature can’t bare the strain of restructuring for all these disproportional divisions, (2) the nomenclature is often inappropriate or arbitrary, and rarely reflects evolutionary phylogenies properly. Phylogeny is the only consistent way to categorize evolutionary biodiversity. And (3) –the topic you just introduced- there is the notion that more new phyla could evolve in the future, and the Linnaean system is unable to account for that if it did. Carl Linn made profound observations, and did contribute a valuable system to explain them. But nature is just too complex, too messy to fit into the poetic box he constructed for it.

This is a more accurate way to depict evolutionary taxonomy –in clades rather than a heirarchy of uniform levels.

So instead of naming your kingdom, phylum, class, etc., we would instead name the clades only by their lineage. For example:

Biota
.Eukarya
..Opisthokonta
...Animalia
....Eumetazoa
.....Bilateria
......Coelemata
.......Deuterostomata
........Chordata
.........Craniata
..........Vertebrata
...........Gnathostomata
............Osteichthyes
.............Sarcopterygii
..............Stegocephali
...............Tetrapoda
................Anthracosauria
.................Amniota
..................Synapsida
...................Therapsidae
....................Cynodonta
.....................Theria (mammal)
......................Eutheria (placental mammal)
.......................Euarchontoglire
........................Archonta
.........................Primate
..........................Haplorhini
...........................Anthropoid (monkey)
............................Catarrhini (Old World monkey)
.............................Hominoidea (ape)
..............................Hominidae (great ape)
...............................Hominini (humanoid)
................................Homo (human)
.................................Homo sapiens (you)

This list assumes that “anthropoid” means ‘monkey’ rather than ‘primate’. That seems to be the trend now that tarsiers are no longer classed as prosimians. Also, if ‘Hominini’ could alternately be taken to mean ‘human’ (rather than humanoid) then ‘Homo’ would mean ‘man’. These are examples of some of the trivial details still being worked out. Otherwise, this list isn’t just the things you evolved from; this is a list of things you still are!

 

[Aron-Ra]

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.

No, they’re trying very hard to use preferred terminology, which isn’t always appropriate. For example, one source says Platyrrhini = New World monkeys & Catarrhini = Old World monkeys. The next source strategically changes that to compare New World monkeys to Old world “primates”. Why? No reason is implied other than they prefer that apes not be considered monkeys.

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.

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.

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

Not all primate tails are prehensile.

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 who still had claws instead of fingernails?

Some primates have both.

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.

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.

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.

all apes are still monkeys both by definition and derivation.

Not true.

Yes it is true -on both counts.

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.

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.”

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.

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

Nor did I either imply or believe that it did.

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.

I am wrong if one arbitrarily chooses that group. But it is an arbitrary choice.

No it isn’t. I selected that image from a site trying to represent your position.

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.

I’m not doing that, nor anything like that, and I’m not doing anything arbitrarily either. After what you just said, I’m stunned. I can’t figure out how you drew the conclusion you did, and wonder now if you’ll ever understand what I really am doing.

You could only do as you say if you were being arbitrary. But everything I do is for a defensible reason. Of course, what I could say in reference to your chart is that given the choice between lemuroids, tarsiers, and anthropoids, since the human lineage links to the word meaning a specific sort of ‘monkey’, then we must be descended from monkeys just as I 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?

.

This is a critical question. Please don’t ignore it.

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 independently 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’.

And we know that it was.

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.

Then let me help you with that. The “convenient tradition” is that mandrills and marmosets, capuchins and colobines are all undeniably universally recognized as monkeys. Even primatology sites, -all of them- recognize the terminal species of those two groups by that name! You’re saddled with that fact, and can’t change it no matter how much you wish the common ancestor between them wasn’t a monkey itself.

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,

I corrected you yesterday, but I don’t mind doing it again today.

“Propliopithecus - A primate group known as Propliopithecus, one lineage of which is sometimes called Aegyptopithecus, had primitive catarrhine features—that is, it had many of the basic features that Old World monkeys, apes, and humans share today. Scientists believe, therefore, that Propliopithecus resembles the common ancestor of all later Old World monkeys and apes. Thus, Propliopithecus may also be considered an ancestor or a close relative of an ancestor of humans.”
--Encarta - Human Evolution

Propliopithecoidea has yet to be recognized as a human ancestral clade despite this position, and I think because of it –because these Old World monkeys were undeniably monkeys.

and that is the http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Primates/Anthropoidea.htm ] only arrangement that I have come across..

Don’t trust that site. It’s a nice attempt. I like it a lot. But its not peer-reviewed, and is consequently rife with errors on nearly every page. The author admirably admits as much on his home page –warning readers not to rely on his work as a scientific resource. This one shouldn't be either. But it is more accurate.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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

I’ve already shown you a couple sources saying they are. But I can always show you more.

B.2. Anthropoids
“The anthropoid primates are divided into New World (South America, Central America, and the Caribbean Islands) and Old World (Africa and Asia) groups. New World monkeys—such as marmosets, capuchins, and spider monkeys—belong to the infraorder of platyrrhine (broad-nosed) anthropoids. Old World monkeys and apes belong to the infraorder of catarrhine (downward-nosed) anthropoids. Since humans and apes together make up the hominoids, humans are also catarrhine anthropoids.”
--Encarta – Human Evolution

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?

The question is not only relevant, its critical, almost pivotal. Now please answer it.

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

You will when you stop dodging important questions. And it is not only my taxonomy.
http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~wenzel/cladistics.htm

"Since the 1960s a trend called cladistic taxonomy or cladism has emerged as a rival to more traditional phylogenetic classification. In this approach taxa are identified with clades, i.e. they can only be monophyletic. In these approaches, the ranking system in Linnaean taxonomy is often not used. A new formal code of nomenclature, the PhyloCode is currently under development, but many of its rules are in conflict with established codes of nomenclature (both for plants and animals), and it is unclear how the different codes will coexist."
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc1/scientific_classification

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..

Yes, exactly! Propliopithecoidea is a sister clade of Old World monkeys –which are commonly recognized as such- and which are entirely extinct except for apes. So, even if you adhere only to the traditional definition of ‘monkey’, apes still evolved from them.

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.

That wasn’t the source I was talking about. I can’t find that anymore. I just used this site because it also came from a university, and said the same thing.

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.

Again, it is not. And it doesn’t need to list all of the characters I mentioned, does it? I mean, if I’m more detailed than the site wishes to be, that shouldn’t disqualify it, should it?

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.

Nearly all of these sites do, just as they all distinguish between apes and humans too –even when they describe the latter as one of the former.

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.

I didn’t ask the general public, did I?

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.

Again, no it is not. And again, you dodged the question. Why do you keep doing this?

Let me share with you what my definition for “monkey” is. This is a composite of all the available definitions I’ve come across over the years, and recently updated.

As with all taxons, start with a description of the parent clade as a template, and add the distinguishing features:

Anthropoidea (monkeys) a subset of Haplorhini, have only two actual breasts, pectoral mammae, unlike those of any other mammal. And unlike lemurs, monkeys have lost or severely reduced their ability to move their ears. Only a few individuals remain who can even wiggle them anymore. Monkeys also lack the specialized sensory whiskers and the wet nose that lemurs and so many "lesser" animals have. Among the other obvious external differences are that male monkeys' genetalia are naked and pendulous in that they're not thethered to their abdomens anymore, as they are on most other eutherians. And their lips are quite mobile and expressive, as they're no longer tethered to the underlying gum. Unlike lemuroids, monkeys generally have a flatter face, and all monkeys have completely forward-facing binocular eyes and trichromatic vision, meaning that monkeys can see in color where lemurs, and most other "lesser" mammals can't. All monkeys have other internal distinctions from prosimians too. They all have a well-developed caecum, which is a sort of distension in the digestive tract that is mildly advantageous. But they have detrimental mutations too. All anthropoids have lost the ability to synthesize either vitamin D3 or vitamin C, and need to supplement both of these in their diet or they'll succumb to a condition of malnutrition commonly known as scurvy.

Now, if you want to get specific, start with Anthropoidea as the next template, and add to that the traits for either of its daughter clades. That’s how systematic classification works, and it is replacing your out-moded traditional method.

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.

Our parable for ‘anthropoids’, got it.

Early on, one group runs off and over time, their language evolves into Spanish.

That accounts for the divergence of Platyrrhines. OK, still with ya.

Later on, some of the remaining Latin speakers run off and evolve their language into French.

That would be the apes in this parable. OK.

Neither Spanish nor French ARE Latin.

Neither the Platyrrhines nor the Hominoids are Anthropoids?

The Latin speakers die out over tiome, or undergo further migrations and adopt other new languages.

Leading to Cercopiths, just as I said. OK.

The original Latin speaking population is ‘extinct.’

Anthropoids are extinct?

What you want us to believe is that it is proper to consider the French and Spanish speaking populations to be speaking Latin.

Wait a minute. (translating into the parable) What I want you to believe is that it is proper to consider the apes and New World monkeys to be anthropoids?! Well, yes I do. But, just as Spanish and French are both Latin-based, (modified from the Latin template) I say that each of these groups are modified anthropoids, modified monkeys, if you will. Because what you somehow completely missed was the point that Spanish [monkeys] could not have evolved twice independently. It had to be monophyletic, one original Spanish monkey which then diverged to beget the latter Spanish/monkey group as well.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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.

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 there is still more to it than that. As I said, starting with the definition of ‘monkey’, we can add each of the following criteria to describe your “simple-nosed primates.”

Infra-order, Catarrhini: (Old World monkeys) A subset of Anthropoidea. Catarrhines are a specific simian group recognizable in fossils by the fact that they have only two premolars (cuspids & bicuspids) while New World monkeys (of the order, Platyrrhini) have three. Old World monkeys are actually "newer" in some respects than the 'New World monkeys. New World monkeys actually have more "primtive" features than Old World monkeys do. One of these are the splayed position of the nostrils. Old World monkeys have downward turned nostrils, and most of them have a recognizable nose. Flat fingernails take the place of claws on every species. For grasping, they instead rely on sensitive fingertips, baring uniquely distinctive fingerprints, particularly in certain subgroups. Catarrhine tails are no longer prehensile, are often dramatically reduced in size. Some Catarrhines have weak, wispy tails, some have short stubs for a tail, and many don't have any tail at all, that appendage being effectively useless since these primates tend to live more on the ground.

Now, if you want to get even more specific, use Catarrhini as the next template, and add to that the traits descriptive of either of its daughter clades. Or you could move on to apes. But when you talk about relative traits like a larger brain or broader chest, the template you’re relating to must be the parent clade of Old World monkeys, be they Cercopithecids or Propliopithecids.

But still, everything in this group descended from a form universally recognizable 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.

This debate occurred several years ago -when tarsiers were still popularly classified as prosimians. I myself wasn’t aware that had had changed until just recently.

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 know that, I knew that. But I’m not just talking about what the word means; I’m talking about what the whole clade means, because that involves an awful lot more than a single criteria.

As a primatologist, you should know that it means a good deal more than that.

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 not to the exclusion of humans, I must add. Take a look at this article, posted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information on Absolute auditory thresholds in three Old World monkey species (Cercopithecus aethiops, C. neglectus, Macaca fuscata) and humans (Homo sapiens).

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

It shouldn’t.

In the traditional scheme of Carolus Linnaeus, it wouldn’t. But against the modern backdrop of genetic orthologues indicating evolutionary phylogenies, it does. It has to –if the word, “monkey” can retain any meaning at all. You can do away with that word altogether, if you want. But you can’t claim that our ancestors lead to New World monkeys and that our descendants lead to Old World monkeys unless you concede that we in the middle are monkeys as well.

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.

As I said before, no it is not arbitrary, and I just explained why for the Nth time!

”You keep on using that word. I don’t think you know what it means.”

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

This isn’t nit-picking. This is central to the crevo debate. Because, as I just said to Cirbryn, the Cladist perspective is the more accurate, and a much better method to quell creationist claims, because there is no point at which anything evolves into something different than its parents were. There are no insurmountable macroevolutionary leaps between us and apes or monkeys because we are apes and monkeys right now, just like we are still members of every clade any of our ancestors ever were.

It describes Catarrhini collectively as synonymous with "Old World monkeys" and then specifies that Cercopithecidae is also synonymous 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 never implied that it was. But you missed the point that all these sites distinguish people from apes and monkeys, just as they distinguish them from animals, (and sometimes even hominids!) even when they mean to associate them. It was difficult practice even for me to break that habit.

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.

Less and less with every post! Everyone who admits on their sites to even knowing about these stem ancestors accepts that. Even Wikipedia accepts that!

“Aegyptopithecus, also called the Dawn Ape, is an early fossil catarrhine that predates the divergence between hominoids (apes) and Old World monkeys. It is known from a single species Aegyptopithecus zeuxis and lived some 35-33 million years ago in the early part of the Oligocene epoch. It likely resembled modern-day New World monkeys (it is about the same size as a modern howler monkey). Aegyptopithecus fossils have been found primarily in modern-day Egypt. Aegyptopithecus is a crucial link between Eocene fossil and Miocene hominoids.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptopithecus

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.

I’m not ignoring anything! I’ll never need to. The “issue” is whether humans can be considered a subset of the clade of monkeys. That means I must discuss only that part of our ancestry that lies between anthropoids and anthropologists. If you want to take it further, I’ve already demonstrated that I can go further than you.

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?

I have already demonstrated repeatedly that I was right about that, and continue to do so –having “dropped” nothing of the sort.

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.

Your centuries-old traditional terminology is still the more popular, I grant you, for the reasons I explain below. But in the growing influence of systematics, Catarrhini is synonemous with Old World monkeys -as I have already shown you again and again and again.

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.

Theria means ‘mammal’, Eutheria means ‘placental mammal’. Well, they don’t ‘mean’ that. But the one word is taken to mean the other nonetheless. I never saw ‘Primata’ appear in any phylogenetic tree, and was taught (by an archeologist teaching anthropology) that Anthropoidea was the Latin term equivalent to Primates.

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

Monkeys and apes.

Is that like birds and ducks? Cars and Camaros? What is there to prevent apes from being a subset of anthropoids/monkeys?

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.

That’s very like what I said at that time too. Except that the guy talking to me really was condescending.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Well, Creationists have their dictionary and Evolutionists have theirs. There is no question that during the 1000 years reign of christ God will provide the definition for every word.

The problem with that is that creationists redefine theirs to suit them on a whim and “evolutionists” get saddled with using the correct definitions no matter how inconvenient. its all a bit one sided. Besides I should imagine in the 1000s years God will be busy slapping Ken Ham, Jack Chick and Hovind about for bringing him into disrepute rather than re-drafting the Oxford English.

Ghost

 

[Mocca]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Aron-Ra again.

 

[Cirbryn]

Exactly. So at what point is a new phyla created? It's not a sharp line and a somewhat arbitrary one at that.

Complete speciation does occur and is not arbitrary. There are in between stages which are often labelled as incomplete speciation, cryptic speciation, or "in the process of". Ring species are also a good example of an in between stage.

You seem to be arguing that phyla don't evolve because we can't identify the point at which a new phylum is created, but that species do evolve even though we can't identify the point at which a new species is created.

Taxonomists are the ones producing new phyla, not nature nor evolution.

This is a word game. Taxonomists do not produce new phyla. They identify characteristics they consider indicative of phyla. The characteristics, the species carrying them, and the relationship those species have to each other were all produced by evolution, not by taxonomists.

 

[Cirbryn]

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.

Wait a minute. I thought this thread was about whether evolution taught that humans had evolved from apes, and that you wanted to argue whether whether humans are monkeys. That’s the way you explained it when you conjured me.

That's roughly correct. Are you saying "monkey" isn't a Linnaean taxon so it shouldn't matter whether descendants can evolve out of the Linnaean taxa of their ancestors? For one thing it does matter to the discussion of whether cetatcea are artiodactyls. I'll grant though that if you could show it was impossible to evolve out of a colloquially defined group such as "monkeys" that would make your case also. Does that help?

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.

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.

Every new species, genus, family, etc. is just the result of incremental superficial porportional changes slowly compiled onto layered teirs of fundamental similarities.

Except that defining characteristics can be lost with evolution as well as gained. The defining characteristic of artiodactyls is that they are even-toed hoofed mammals. Extant cetacean species are not even-toed hoofed mammals. Therefore extant cetacean species are not artiodactyls. They have evolved out of the order and established their own order with their own set of defining characteristics. They are still in the artiodactyl clade, because the clade is defined as artiodactyls and all things that evolved from them. But they are not in the artiodactyl Linnaean order.

The rest of your post looks like an attempt to extoll the virtues of cladistic taxonomy as opposed to Linnaean. I personally think both systems have strengths and drawbacks, but I'd like to save discussion of which might be better until we get on the same page regarding whether cetaceans are artiodactyls or whether humans are "monkeys". If you're of the opinion that cladistics is such a swell system that "cetacean" and "monkey" should be treated as if they were cladistic terms, I don't agree. The terms mean what they mean. It doesn't matter how worthy the cladistic system may or may not be.

 

[Aron-Ra]

That's roughly correct. Are you saying "monkey" isn't a Linnaean taxon so it shouldn't matter whether descendants can evolve out of the Linnaean taxa of their ancestors?

No. I'm not saying anything like that. That word is meant to describe a certain group of animals. But it fails in that capacity if it has no consistent definition. I've read several stories lately of new species of monkeys being discovered in the remote places of the world. Well, how can anyone tell if they are monkeys or not? The only way is if the definition of that word is invariably consistent. Cladist classification is systematic. That's the only way we can be when classifying life-forms. Whenever we categorize anything, living or not, we have to account for all the characters it has which are common of every part of that category. We have to list everything that it is, and not what it is not. Listing what it is not will never reveal what it is, and will usually only reveal what we want it not to be.

For one thing it does matter to the discussion of whether cetatcea are artiodactyls. I'll grant though that if you could show it was impossible to evolve out of a colloquially defined group such as "monkeys" that would make your case also. Does that help?

Yes. The best way to illustrate how impossible that is would be to have you give me a hypethetical explanation of that. Explain to me how a lineage of monkeys could beget descendants who aren't monkeys anymore.

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.

But a new species of dog is still a dog. New species of mice or fruit flies are still mice and fruit flies -and they always will be no matter what bizarre sizes, shapes, and atributes their descendants may adopt millions of years from now. Systematic classification can accomidate this. Linaean taxonomy can't.

The point is, as I said before, there is never any point at which one line begets another, fundamentally different thing. Creationists want to insist that evolution requires such things. But everything that ever evolved is just a slightly-modified version of its ancestors, and thus creationists will always be able to say "but its 'still' (whatever its parents are). But that's the way evolution works. Superficial differences being slowly added to fundamental similarities. Even if the ancestors of monkeys were once fish, they are "still" stegocephalian, sarcopterygii, Osteichthys, Gnathostome vertebrate craniate chordates. In short, they're still 'fish', because at exactly what point is a fish's young not fish anymore? Can you answer that with a definition consistently applicable to all fish?

Except that defining characteristics can be lost with evolution as
well as gained.

This is true. For example, if you start with a Parapithecine monkey as a template, and add to that the traits specifically descriptive of Catarrhines and Hominoids, one of the traits you would add is the loss of a tail. Similarly, if you start with a generalized lizard as a template, a loss of legs would one of many traits you would add to that to get a snake.

At some point in the evolution of snakes, did they stop being lizards? Do they not still belong in the order, Squamata?

The defining characteristic of artiodactyls is that they are even-toed hoofed mammals. Extant cetacean species are not even-toed hoofed mammals. Therefore extant cetacean species are not artiodactyls.

On that criteria, I would have to agree.

They have evolved out of the order and established their own order with their own set of defining characteristics. They are still in the artiodactyl clade, because the clade is defined as artiodactyls and all things that evolved from them. But they are not in the artiodactyl Linnaean order.

This couldn't happen. Pentedactyl digits are retained. A reduction in digits is common, particularly among hooved mammals. But there is no case in which formerly lost digits or limbs returned. Ambulocetus, for example, clearly was never descended from any four-toed animal. But a generalized, characteristically basal animal like Pakicetus could have lead to the rise of both cetaceans and artiodactyles at the same time.

The rest of your post looks like an attempt to extoll the virtues of cladistic taxonomy as opposed to Linnaean. I personally think both systems have strengths and drawbacks, but I'd like to save discussion of which might be better until we get on the same page regarding whether cetaceans are artiodactyls or whether humans are "monkeys". If you're of the opinion that cladistics is such a swell system that "cetacean" and "monkey" should be treated as if they were cladistic terms, I don't agree. The terms mean what they mean. It doesn't matter how worthy the cladistic system may or may not be.

You have to understand that morphological, physiological, genetic and developmental character analyses are only necessary to determine phylogeny, and that phylogeny is the only consistent criteria for classifying diverse forms stemming from an evolutionary lineage.

 

[michabo]

The defining characteristic of artiodactyls is that they are even-toed hoofed mammals. Extant cetacean species are not even-toed hoofed mammals. Therefore extant cetacean species are not artiodactyls.

On that criteria, I would have to agree.

I'm confused by this whole discussion between the two of you on cetaceans and artiodactys. From what I've read, artiodactyls and cetaceans don't share a common ancestor, but cetaceans are deeply nested within artiodactyls. This is to the point that hippos are more closely related to whales than they are to any other artiodactyls.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/24_hippos.shtml

A Royal Society's report (http://phylo.gen.lu.se/Research/PRSLB98_265p2251-2255.pdf ) places the cetaceans well within the artiodactyls, so the common ancestor of hippos and whales would definately have been an artiodactyl.

Are you agreeing with Cibryn on this point, that whales are not artiodactyls? How do you mesh this with Royal Society paper?


And while I have read the paper but I'm not familliar with many of the terms and so I may have missed some of the points. I apologize in advance if I've missed something which has been explained in the paper but I didn't understand.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm confused by this whole discussion between the two of you on cetaceans and artiodactyls. From what I've read, artiodactyls and cetaceans don't share a common ancestor, but cetaceans are deeply nested within artiodactyls. This is to the point that hippos are more closely related to whales than they are to any other artiodactyls.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/24_hippos.shtml

I mentioned this a year or so ago following my debate with Mark Ramsey of strengthsandweaknesses.org, and on my page on cetacean evolution, (which needs updating) in which I said;

“Morphologically, the evolution of whales was determined to have begun within an extinct group of carnivorous hooved animals called Mesonychids. These include the fossils like Sinonyx, Andrewsarchus, and Pakicetus, which is generally considered to be ancestral to whales. Mesonychids are just one of several whole lines of early mammals which are now completely extinct, and have never been seen alive by modern man. So we don't have their DNA on file. Genetically, the closest living terrestrial relative to whales is the hippopotamus, another hoofed mammal which has been known to eat meat on occasion. …Taxonomically, hippos and pigs (Suiformes) are a sister taxon to whales, both of which descend from the same line which also lead to Mesonychids. So the genetic confirmation still makes sense.”

A Royal Society's report (http://phylo.gen.lu.se/Research/PRSLB98_265p2251-2255.pdf ) places the cetaceans well within the artiodactyls, so the common ancestor of hippos and whales would definitely have been an artiodactyl. Are you agreeing with Cibryn on this point, that whales are not artiodactyls?

Not quite. I’m one of the “morphologists” your first article mentions, and as such my concession was only based on the criteria that membership in Artiodactyla required an even number of toes, and modern whales don’t have that. Were it really as black & white as Cirbryn says, I would say that clade should not apply. But of course this isn’t really the case because there other circumstances here not yet mentioned.

How do you mesh this with Royal Society paper?

In their illustration, (in your link) they show Cetacea emerging from the very base of Artiodactyla. Pakicetus is considered basal (one of the most ‘primitive’ example archetypes) in relation to both clades. Its important to remember that primitive forms are more general (and versatile) where Advanced forms are more specialized.

The Royal Society’s report says: “The artiodactyls are a well-defined group, with the most pronounced characteristic being the paraxonic foot, the axis of which passes between the third and fourth digits, irrespective of the number of digits retained. The first digits are almost always absent, even in the most primitive artiodactyls, and among the most specialized goups the second and fifth digits are also rudimentary or absent.” So not all artiodactyls have the same digits missing, and indeed a very few of them aren’t missing any. In other words, not all even-toed ungulates are actually have an even number of toes. Those who are still technically pentadactyl have one digit that is only “rudimentary”, and that is what we see in modern whale fins.

Now if you compare that to the foot of Diacodexis, the earliest known ‘true’ artiodactyl, you’ll see that the fifth digit is entirely absent.

Now let’s look at the feet of Ambulocetus, the “walking whale”.

As you can see, the front feet (which are still retained in modern whales) still have five digits. But look at the hind limbs, (which were eventually almost completely lost in modern whales) we see an even number of toes without even a vestigial fifth digit. So as I said, Ambulocetus has retained a dramatically reduced fifth toe on the front limb, and it did not grow that limb from ancestors with only four toes on the front foot, so it could not have evolved out of the Artiodactyla as Cirbryn suggests. Yet it is still based on the body template of animals who did have (1) a significantly-reduced fifth digit on the front foot, and (2) an even number of toes with no fifth digit at all on the rear foot. Therefore, Ambulocetus is ‘still’ an Artiodactyl, and so are modern whales since they’re just modifications of the same structure. If they still had hind legs, those limbs would have an even number of toes.

And it isn’t just that the number and style of toes match. Everything else does too.

“Artiocetus clavis and Rodhocetus balochistanensis, are among the oldest known protocetid archaeocetes. … Both have an astragalus and cuboid in the ankle with characteristics diagnostic of artiodactyls;”
--Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan

And while I have read the paper but I'm not familiar with many of the terms and so I may have missed some of the points. I apologize in advance if I've missed something which has been explained in the paper but I didn't understand.

This would be the phylogeny you and Cirbryn are talking about.

UNGULATOMORPHA (hooved animals)
.|--Mesonychia (Mesonychids)
.`-Artiodactyla ("even-toed" hooved animals)
...|-Cetacea (whales)
...|.|--Pakicetidae
...|.`--+--Ambulocetidae
...|....`--+--Remingtonocetidae
...|.......`--Autoceta
...|--Suina
...|..|--Hippopotamidae
...|..`--Suoidea
...`--Selenodontia
......|--Camelidae
......`--Ruminantia
.........|--Giraffoidea
.........`--+--Bovoidea
............`--Cervoidea

As you can see here, Suina, the lineage which includes hippos and pigs, is right at the root of Artiodactyla, just as Pakicetus is right at the root of Cetacea. One way of interpreting this is to realize that the stem species of two closely-related trees will resemble each other more than the end nodes of either clade. And as you can see below, Diacodexis, the earliest known artiodactyl, does rather closely-resemble Pakicetus, the earliest known archecete (whale).

So yes, it seems that Cetaceans were (and still are) Artiodactyls. A better question from Cirbryn’s perspective would be whether Cetaceans are also Mesonychids.

But none of this is as universally accepted as you might think. For one thing, this site says whales and hippos should be in one clade, and that ith should classed together with ruminants in a sister clade apart from other ungulates. The Taxonomicon also lists cetaceans and artiodactyls as sister groups, and also separates them from Condylarths and Mesonychids which it also sees as separate groups. Of course, the Taxonomicon also classifies chimpanzees as a human subspecies and considers humans to be Old World monkeys in the most literal possible sense, categorizing all humans in the clade of Cercopithecoidea. I’m sure SLP would be delighted with them!

 

[Cirbryn]

No. I'm not saying anything like that.

Then I have no idea what you were talking about in your first paragraph of post 89. I had said your argument depends on whether you can show that descendants are incapable of evolving to become other than the Linnaean taxa of their ancestors. You responded in post 89 “I thought this thread was about whether evolution taught that humans had evolved from apes, and that you wanted to argue whether humans are monkeys.” That looks like a complete non-sequitur to me unless you were trying to argue that “monkey” isn’t a Linnaean term.

That word is meant to describe a certain group of animals. But it fails in that capacity if it has no consistent definition. I've read several stories lately of new species of monkeys being discovered in the remote places of the world. Well, how can anyone tell if they are monkeys or not? The only way is if the definition of that word is invariably consistent. Cladist classification is systematic. That's the only way we can be when classifying life-forms.

You seem to be arguing that cladistics is a really swell system; so all life-form classifications ought to be cladistic; so all such classifications are in fact cladistic; so “monkey” is cladistic; so when I say “humans aren’t monkeys” I actually mean “the human clade isn’t part of the monkey clade”; so I’m wrong because the human clade really is part of the monkey clade. Does that sound like a fair summary to you? If not, please explain how your argument differs.

Yes. The best way to illustrate how impossible that is would be to have you give me a hypethetical explanation of that. Explain to me how a lineage of monkeys could beget descendants who aren't monkeys anymore.

We could define monkeys as possessing a particular characteristic, and a lineage of monkeys could beget eventual descendants that didn’t have that characteristic.

But a new species of dog is still a dog. New species of mice or fruit flies are still mice and fruit flies.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a non-Creationist use the “but it’s still a dog” argument. The point is that after evolving enough it wouldn’t still be a dog, unless you defined “dog” to include everything that evolves from dogs no matter what they look like. Most people don’t define dogs that way. And you weren’t talking about dogs or mice or fruit flies, anyway. You were talking (in post 89) about species and how they form. “Species” is a Linnaean taxon. If two populations of the same species evolve so they are no longer the same species, then one or both has evolved out of its taxon. Since we agree this is possible for at least one taxon, I’m asking why you don’t think it’s possible for other taxa.

The point is, as I said before, there is never any point at which one line begets another, fundamentally different thing. Creationists want to insist that evolution requires such things. But everything that ever evolved is just a slightly-modified version of its ancestors, and thus creationists will always be able to say "but its 'still' (whatever its parents are). But that's the way evolution works. Superficial differences being slowly added to fundamental similarities. Even if the ancestors of monkeys were once fish, they are "still" stegocephalian, sarcopterygii, Osteichthys, Gnathostome vertebrate craniate chordates. In short, they're still 'fish', because at exactly what point is a fish's young not fish anymore? Can you answer that with a definition consistently applicable to all fish?

Creationists often argue that evolution requires “fundamental differences” (whatever that means) to evolve in a generation or two, such as the dog that gives birth to a cat. The fact that evolution doesn’t generally produce such “fundamental differences” so quickly doesn’t mean it doesn’t produce them at all. Our ancestors in the Devonian breathed through gills; we breathe through lungs. I’d call that a fundamental difference.

We are neither Stegocephalians (an order of amphibians) nor Osteichthyans (a class of fish, now redefined as Actinopterygii). The term “fish” is colloquial, so it need not have sharply defined bounds. That doesn’t mean that every chordate is a fish. People are similarly unlikely to agree on the specific wavelength at which red becomes orange, but that doesn’t mean that red and orange are the same thing. FWIW, if it were up to me I’d probably define fish as vertebrates, the adults of which breathe primarily using internal gills. That would leave out the hagfish, so if you want them you can have them.

This is true. For example, if you start with a Parapithecine monkey as a template, and add to that the traits specifically descriptive of Catarrhines and Hominoids, one of the traits you would add is the loss of a tail. Similarly, if you start with a generalized lizard as a template, a loss of legs would one of many traits you would add to that to get a snake.

At some point in the evolution of snakes, did they stop being lizards? Do they not still belong in the order, Squamata?

And if tails were definitive characteristics of Parapithecines, then their loss in parapithecine descendants would mean those descendants were no longer Parapithecines. I’m not sure why you threw in Catarrhines, since most of them have tails. Also, FWIW this site indicates the parapithecines probably went extinct without descendants.

Regarding snakes, yes they still belong in the order Squamata. Yes at some point they stopped being lizards. That’s why Squamata includes both lizards and snakes.

This couldn't happen. Pentedactyl digits are retained. A reduction in digits is common, particularly among hooved mammals. But there is no case in which formerly lost digits or limbs returned. Ambulocetus, for example, clearly was never descended from any four-toed animal. But a generalized, characteristically basal animal like Pakicetus could have lead to the rise of both cetaceans and artiodactyles at the same time.

I’m not worried so much about whether very early “whales” would have been better classified as artiodactyls. From what I gather they have some characteristics from both orders, as well as of the mesonychids, as one might expect. What I’m saying is that at some point between then and now the whale line evolved out of the artiodactyl order and established the cetacea order. Otherwise there wouldn’t be two separate orders. Presumably they did this by dropping some or all of the artiodactyl defining characteristics and establishing definitive cetacean characteristics.

You have to understand that morphological, physiological, genetic and developmental character analyses are only necessary to determine phylogeny, and that phylogeny is the only consistent criteria for classifying diverse forms stemming from an evolutionary lineage.

[FONT=&quot]Please refer to my response above beginning: “You seem to be arguing …”[/FONT]