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

[Aron-Ra]

The technical term is the cladistic one. The Linnaean term is just the old standard. Its still dominant, but it was officially overturned only a decade or so ago, and the new arrangement is definitely not a popular one, so it will take a while longer before cladistics become the norm.

Please support your claim that the Linnaean system was “officially overturned” in favor of the cladisitc system.

You already did that yourself, and even admitted that the only explanation you’ve ever seen for the elimination of Pongidae was cladistic.

I think you’re still seeing it this way:

CATARHINNI
._
|_| Propliopithecoidea
._
|_| Hominoidea
._
|_| Cercopithecoidea

That’s the way it is under the Linnaean system, as presented by your own cited web page. You haven’t provided anything that suggests otherwise.

Yes I have, lots of things in fact, and so have you. For example, its listed this way on your own cited web page.

You can argue all you want that Hominoidea evolved from Propliopithecoidea, and that the Propliopiths were "monkeys". All it would mean if you’re correct is that Hominoidea evolved out of Propliopithecoidea and established its own superfamily.

Well, "superfamily" doesn't really mean anything. But that would mean that they were descended from monkeys, and are monkeys still.

And what do you mean, "if I am correct"? Your own citations say I am, and nothing you've posted yet says otherwise.

As things currently stand under the Linnaean system, no Hominoids are Propliopiths, nor are they Cercopiths. So show how the Linnaean system is no longer the standard taxonomic system, or give it up.

Give it up? You’re giving me an ultimatum?! You act as though you’ve countered or at least adequately addressed my points in this discussion. I wonder why?

Currently, under the Linnaean system, no humans are in Pongidae either, or vice versa. And perhaps I should clarify that the Linnaean system is still the standard at this moment, but isn't going to be the standard much longer, now that cladistics is gaining acceptance. I don't want to get tripped up in your word-games again. But otherwise, your request is fair enough. At a glance, I found these:

"A recent trend in biology since the 1960s, called cladism or cladistic taxonomy, requires taxa to be clades. …cladists argue that paraphyly is as harmful as polyphyly. The idea is that monophyletic groups can be defined objectively, in terms of common ancestors or the presence of synapomorphies. In contrast, paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups are both defined based on key characters, and the decision of which characters are of taxonomic import is inherently subjective. Many argue that they lead to "gradistic" thinking, where groups advance from "lowly" grades to "advanced" grades, which can in turn lead to teleology. In Evolutionary studies, Teleology is usually avoided because it implies a plan that cannot be empirically demonstrated.
Going further, some cladists argue that ranks for groups above species are too subjective to present any meaningful information, and so argue that they should be abandoned. Thus they have moved away from Linnaean taxonomy towards a simple hierarchy of clades."
--Wikipedia; Cladistics

"The Linnaean hierarchy is under fire these days by a group of taxonomists (people who specialize in classifying organisms) who are developing an even more explicitly genetic classification approach: Cladistics or phylogenetic classification. Their premise is that the only solidly defensible classification in the Linnaean system is the species. Every other taxon (level in the Linnaean hierarchy) is kind of subjective, depending a lot on the judgment of taxonomists who specialize in one group or another of organisms."
--Dr. Christine M. Rodrigue, Department of Geography, California State University

“Linnaean definitions have important nomenclatural consequences. Because Linnaean definitions are based on the Linnaean categories, categorical assignment plays an important role in the application of taxon names. …For the modern biologist, however, association with one of the Linnaean taxonomic categories is not the most relevant aspect of meaning. As a result of the intellectual revolution brought about by the acceptance of an evolutionary world view, taxon names now have at least implicit evolutionary meanings. In other words, a taxon name has an association not only with one of the Linnaean categories, but also with a particular part of the evolutionary history of life. …For anyone who thinks that taxonomy ought to represent something about evolutionary history, this second aspect of meaning is not trivial. This situation explains why biologists often express annoyance about proposals that would change the implicit phylogenetic meanings of taxon names.”
--Kevin de Queiroz; Consequences of (Problems with) Linnaean Definitions, Biological Nomenclature in the 21st Century

“For a long time biologists classified organisms into what seemed like natural groups using a system devised in the 18th century by the naturalist Linneaus. This is referred to as the Linnaean system of classification (or as Linnaean taxonomy), and is the source of such familiar categories as kingdom, phylum, and class, (though not genus and species). In the Linnaean system organisms that share certain key features are classified together into groups. These groups are in turn defined according to the features of the organisms they contain. For example, in the Linnaean system birds are placed in Class Aves. All birds, and as far as is known nothing else, have feathers, so in the Linnaean system Class Aves could be defined as all organisms with feathers, and any organism with feathers would be, by definition, a bird.
The Linnaean system is still used in some branches of biology. But in other branches, and particularly in vertebrate paleontology, it is rapidly being replaced by a system referred to as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics.”
--University of Wisconsin Department of Geology & Geophysics

“Mammal classification has been through several iterations since Carolus Linnaeus initially defined the class. Many earlier ideas have been completely abandoned by modern taxonomists, among these are the idea that bats are related to birds or that humans represent a completely distinct group. Competing ideas about the relationships of mammal orders do persist and are currently in development. Most significantly in recent years, cladistic thinking has led to an effort to ensure that all taxonomic designations represent monophyletic groups. The field has also seen a recent surge in interest and modification due to the results of molecular phylogenetics.”
--Nationmaster Encyclopedia

"In 1983, as University of California – Berkeley graduate students, they developed the idea while analyzing data on lizard phylogeny. Their work dispensed with Linnaean ranks and defined their named lizard groups to be explicitly equated with the clades indicated by their phylogenies. Several years later, de Queiroz and Gauthier published a series of papers introducing a framework for a system of phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature. Since then, a number of authors have used phylogenetic nomenclature and rank-free classifications. In vertebrate systematics, for instance, evolutionarily meaningful clades such as “Tetrapoda,” “Amniota,” and “Archosauria” are replacing the traditional ranked groups (such as the non-monophyletic “Class Reptilia”) in textbooks, classrooms, museums,and the scientific literature.
Few dispute that the Linnaean system has worked admirably for 250 years. The question is whether it can continue its successful run much longer. In his 1758 edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus listed 4400 species known to science. As the number of known species grew over the years, it became harder to accommodate them with the standard seven categorical ranks, and taxonomists had to invent new ones, like subfamily, superorder, and tribe. Today there are 1.5 million described species, perhaps millions more undescribed , and still more extinct taxa being discovered by paleontologists. The limited number of ranks of the Linnaean system, Yale University’s Michael Donoghue says, “is just not going to cut it....We’re not able to do justice to our current knowledge of phylogeny with the present system.” In addition, the molecular revolution of recent years has given systematists enormous new datasets of genetic information. To morphological characters from bones, skin, organs, and limbs, today’s systematists have added the As,Ts,Gs, and Cs of DNA sequence data. Sophisticated computer programs that crunch the molecular data have produced a flood of phylogenies, many showing novel relationships and prompting reevaluation of traditional classifications."
--Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; University of Connecticut

“Say hello to the cladist. Monkeys are a paraphyletic taxon. Old world monkeys and new world monkeys are monophyletic. If people are going to keep using the term monkeys (without the qualifiers old world and new world), then we need to include apes in the taxon monkey.”
--Anthropology, Evolution and Science blog

I didn't have much time to look for these, being very busy today. So I hope this will suffice at least for the moment.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Cirbryn,
I know that you want to argue as you were trained to: You want to say that apes did not evolve from monkeys. But I am not able to say that, because I know it is false, and that's not just a matter of opinion either. The ancestors of apes were definitely monkeys, and not only according to all the common laity who happen know anything about them. They’re also recognized as such by scientists, including some of the very ones still trying to deny that. Eosimias means “dawn-monkey”. It is believed to be the origin of all Simiiforms, (which taxonomists agree we are) and ‘simian’ is Latin for ‘monkey’. And as we've already noted, prosimians are defined by taxonomists as "half-monkeys", implying of course that full-simians would be fully-monkeys. And as I’ve already shown you, “anthropoidea”, “simiiforms”, and “monkeys” are synonymous and used interchangeably in much of the literature already cited in this thread.

Apidium was described in our earlier references as a ‘monkey’ (using that word) and so it must have reached your enigmatic “monkey level” right out of the gate, since it is one of the most primitive primates in all anthropoidea. Aegyptopithecus also was a monkey, and its clade is the stem of both Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea, -even according to your own sources! Although we've seen some deliberate word-play trying to conceal or deny this, some scientists still contrast New World monkeys with Old World monkeys without the addendum of "and apes and humans". Catarrhines and Platyrrhines are not unrelated polyphyletic groups as you suggest, and the common ancestor of both was most definitely a monkey too. Some anthropology sites even say that ancestor may have been parapithecid, which (thanks to your citation) we also now know are considered "monkeys" even according to Eric Delson, another of SLP's preferred authorities. So the word ‘monkey’ can be monophyletic easily!



"Anyone interested in the history of the science of where we evolved from will appreciate and learn from The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey."
--Bernard Wood, Geotimes

"Beard's book is the Lucy of anthropoid origins--an adventure story of scientific discovery in exotic places that introduces the reader to some interesting personalities of primate paleontology."
--John G. Fleagle, author of Primate Adaptation and Evolution

I haven't read this myself. But judging by the reviews, it seems that J. G. Fleagle (another one of SLP’s chosen authorities) agrees that monkeys, apes, and ‘ultimately’ humans all descend from what is only described here as a monkey. I believe SLP stated that this fact alone would be sufficient to prove him wrong.

The undefined "monkey level" introduced in your cited article was an attempt to exclude basal forms into ridiculous polyphyly based on inconsistent, subjective criteria, and it still failed in its purpose; because I’ve already provided criteria far superior to that site's without getting into any depth. Neither did they. But cladistics is based on a much more detailed character analysis of derived synapomorphies –including genetics- to establish a phylogeny which can be objectively confirmed. The characters identified by that method define what a monkey is much more concisely and precisely than your 18th century creationist’s concept ever could have.

You have failed to provide any means of separating men from monkeys, certainly not in terms of either their collective kin or their derived traits, nothing to reveal when a monkey descendant isn’t a monkey anymore, (or how that can be confirmed) and nothing to indicate that we are not just a bigger, smarter version of the same thing the rest of them are. You may have been conditioned to think that describing humans as highly-specialized monkeys is absurd. But the fact remains that there is not one character shared by all of them that isn’t also shared by us. You certainly couldn’t produce any, nor will you ever be able to.

If you want your dictionary definition to simply say that a monkey is “any anthropoid except humans”, or “all anthropoids except apes”, and exclude us for no other reason than because you just don’t want to be a monkey, that’s fine; but only until you attempt to implement that definition the way science must. Whenever I ask creationists what a monkey is, the best answer I ever get is “A monkey is an animal, not a human.” But such meaningless paraphyletic exclusions are useless when attempting to classify any newly-discovered species. There still remains only one way to do that, and that is (as I said) to examine that find against the whole list of every character trait common to all known monkeys without exception. It doesn’t matter what type of things you’re trying to classify, -be it devices, systems, religion, rocks, or vehicles, you still have to list all the characters present in every member of the subject category and exclude those traits which exclude certain members. For example, you couldn’t say that cars have four wheels or that they run on internal combustion engines, because there are several examples of ground-driven passenger transport vehicles which are universally-accepted as “cars” but which don’t meet either or both of those criteria. Neither could you say they “usually” do, nor that only "some" do, because these too would be meaningless in determining whether the subject was a car or not. When you’re trying to classify living things, evolving things, then phylogeny is the sole criteria, because it’s the only one which even can remain consistent, and (more importantly) verifiable. Despite all your weird allegations about polyphyly, and all your evasion of this simple truth, one can't change their ancestry no matter how much thier descendants may change, and one cannot switch from one lineage to another. Its impossible for any living thing to do so ever, and yet Linnaean taxonomy requires it in every case at every imagined “grade”!

Since life is an evolving process, then you have to determine the evolutionary relationship indicated by the characters (or loss of them) in whatever organism you examine. I think I have already shown that you can’t do that with monkeys without describing humans and all other apes at the same time. If you try to be more precise, and only describe Old World monkeys specifically, you will describe humans and all other apes then too.

If you still think I’m misrepresenting evolution, or creating some parody of it detrimental to its image, fear not. Evolutionary theory will easily survive me. And remember this, you can’t say you didn’t come from apes if you’re still an ape right now, and you can’t say you didn’t come from monkeys if every ancestor you ever knew is still a monkey right now. And as more and more “acknowledged leaders” in the analysis of the human fossil record adopt the cladistic perspective, and the reality of your monkeydom becomes more widely-accepted, this concept will seem less and less ridiculous to you.



“I think God designed us in his image, but I also think God is a monkey!”
......................................................................................--Bill Maher

 

[Cirbryn]

Please support your claim that the Linnaean system was “officially overturned” in favor of the cladisitc system.

You already did that yourself, and even admitted that the only explanation you’ve ever seen for the elimination of Pongidae was cladistic.

Alright then, since as it turns out, the Linnaean system has in fact not been overturned, we return now to our regularly scheduled program:

The Linnaean system is currently the standard for technical classification of lifeforms. Under that system, humans are members of the ape family (Hominidae), and monkeys are members of several other families including Cercopithecidae and Cebidae, but not including Hominidae. Accordingly, by the accepted technical standard of classification, humans are apes but not monkeys.

Things that don’t matter to the above analysis include 1) whether Hominidae might have evolved from something that would be considered a monkey; 2) whether the elimination of Pongidae was for cladistic reasons; 3) whether the Linnaean system might someday be replaced by a cladistic one; 4) whether a cladistic system is or is not better than the Linnaean system; 5) how apes, monkeys or humans might have been classified in the past; and 6) the fact that colloquially the term “monkey” has been applied to non-human apes.

The one thing that might matter to the argument is the fact that “monkey” and “ape” are not themselves Linnaean terms, but rather are associated with such terms. If you could show that biologists commonly use the term “monkey” to include humans (preferably when discussing other things than how the standard ought to be changed so that “monkey” would include humans), then you might have yourself an argument. Just to show you how it’s done, here’s a quick list of biological sources that differentiate between “monkey” and “ape” in the manner discussed above.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html
Apes are not monkeys, and monkeys are not apes (even if chimps often get called 'monkeys' in popular usage). The term 'ape' applies only to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans, and gibbons.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/M/monkey.html
The term monkey includes all primates that do not belong to the categories human, ape, or prosimian

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/A/ape.html
The term ape was formerly and incorrectly applied to certain tailless monkeys.

http://www.nycep.org/ed/download/pdf/2002i%20Monkey--McGraw-Hill%202002.pdf
The term monkey is not indicative of taxonomic or phylogenetic relationship: the closest relatives of the cercopithecoids are not the ateloid monkeys but the Old World apes and humans.

Encyclopedia of Mammals, David Macdonald (1987)
Monkeys: 3 families – Cercopithecidae, Cebidae, Callitrichidae (p 340)
Apes: families Hylobatidae, Pongidae (p 412)

Harper Collins Dictionary of Biology. 1991. Ape: “Any tailless primate of the family Simiidae, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons.”

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Hominidae.html
Describes Hominidae as including humans and other great apes. No mention of monkeys.

The Ape and the Sushi Master. Frans DeWaal. 2001. p 59.
“Like most other animals, a monkey reacts to its reflection as if it were a friend or enemy, whereas an ape appears to realize that the image in the mirror is itself.”

Peacemaking Among Primates. Frans DeWaal. 1989. p 17
The only study of crowding in apes indicates that they go one step further than the monkeys; they actively reduce social tensions.

The Third Chimpanzee. Jared Diamond. 1992. p 20
Their study was based on DNA from humans and from all of our closest relatives: the common chimpanzee, pygmy chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, two species of gibbons, and seven species of Old World monkeys.

That’s the way it is under the Linnaean system, as presented by your own cited web page. You haven’t provided anything that suggests otherwise.

Yes I have, lots of things in fact, and so have you. For example, its listed this way on yourown cited web page.

See point 1) above. The Linnaean classification of both humans and monkeys is provided on the left hand side of the first page. A cladogram showing both known and presumed lineages is on the right. Despite the presumed lineage in the cladogram leading from propliopiths to hominoids, the two do not overlap in the Linnaean classification.

Well, "superfamily" doesn't really mean anything. But that would mean that they were descended from monkeys, and are monkeys still.

And what do you mean, "if I am correct"? Your own citations say I am, and nothing you've posted yet says otherwise.

See point 1) above. I said “if” because I only had one cite calling propliopiths ancestral to hominids, and that site specifically indicates that the ancestry is presumed.

As things currently stand under the Linnaean system, no Hominoids are Propliopiths, nor are they Cercopiths. So show how the Linnaean system is no longer the standard taxonomic system, or give it up.

Give it up? You’re giving me an ultimatum?! You act as though you’ve countered or at least adequately addressed my points in this discussion. I wonder why?

See points 1) through 6) above.

Currently, under the Linnaean system, no humans are in Pongidae either, or vice versa. And perhaps I should clarify that the Linnaean system is still the standard at this moment, but isn't going to be the standard much longer, now that cladistics is gaining acceptance.

See points 3) and 5) above.

 

[Cirbryn]

Alright, it’s late, and I’m leaving on vacation tomorrow morning. Don’t know to what extent I’ll be able or inclined to keep up with the thread, and I probably won’t get to all of this post. But I’ll see what I can do.

I know that you want to argue as you were trained to: You want to say that apes did not evolve from monkeys. But I am not able to say that, because I know it is false, and that's not just a matter of opinion either. The ancestors of apes were definitely monkeys, and not only according to all the common laity who happen know anything about them. They’re also recognized as such by scientists, including some of the very ones still trying to deny that. Eosimias means “dawn-monkey”. It is believed to be the origin of all Simiiforms, (which taxonomists agree we are) and ‘simian’ is Latin for ‘monkey’. And as we've already noted, prosimians are defined by taxonomists as "half-monkeys", implying of course that full-simians would be fully-monkeys. And as I’ve already shown you, “anthropoidea”, “simiiforms”, and “monkeys” are synonymous and used interchangeably in much of the literature already cited in this thread.

I’m not arguing as I was trained to. SLP is the primatologist. I’m an unpublished peon (excuse me – member of the “common laity”) like you. (Except that I’ve got an MS in wildlife ecology and work as a listing biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service). I don’t actually care that much what Hominids evolved from. I care that they aren’t classified as monkeys under the accepted system.

Regarding the rest, weren’t you the one arguing to SLP earlier that the etymological derivation of a word won’t always tell you what it’s come to represent? I also seem to recall you arguing with SLP about whether “anthropoidea” or “simiiform” means “monkey”, but I can’t quite remember the place where you demonstrated your point. Could you show me that again? Thanks.

OK, scanning down I see a whole lot of arguing about whether the ancestors of hominids were “monkeys”. Gonna skip that part. There’s some stuff on how you think cladistics is better than Linnaean classification. Skipping that too. Stuff about how there have to be derived traits separating men from monkeys and how we’d recognize a new monkey species and how you’d do the classifying if you were king of the world. Actually I did address some of that earlier, but I didn’t have to because monkeys and humans remain classified as they’re classified, whether you or I agree with it or not. Moving right along (how DO you manage go on for so long about off-topic points?) we get to Linnaean taxonomy requiring lifeforms to change their lineage repeatedly. Not sure where you got that from, but I really think you need to read up on how Linnaean taxonomy works before you go around attacking it too much more.

Ah, last paragraph looks interesting:

If you still think I’m misrepresenting evolution, or creating some parody of it detrimental to its image, fear not. Evolutionary theory will easily survive me. And remember this, you can’t say you didn’t come from apes if you’re still an ape right now, and you can’t say you didn’t come from monkeys if every ancestor you ever knew is still a monkey right now. And as more and more “acknowledged leaders” in the analysis of the human fossil record adopt the cladistic perspective, and the reality of your monkeydom becomes more widely-accepted, this concept will seem less and less ridiculous to you.

Actually I think you’re misrepresenting the accepted classification system, but I think a lot of folks will misunderstand that and think evolution has something to do with it. You could say “humans evolved indirectly from monkeys” or “humans are in the monkey clade” and I wouldn’t have much of an objection. I’d still disagree that such was established, but neither of those statements is nearly so on-its-face wrong as “humans are monkeys”. That’s why I keep pulling you back from these long spirally dissertations you try to go off into. It’s not that difficult a question. Humans aren’t monkeys because we aren’t classified that way under the accepted system. If you don’t like it then go argue to the folks who can change the system. That wouldn’t be me.

 

[Edx]

As someone that doesnt know much about this subject, I cant help but notice how Cirbryn and SLP ignore the really important points that the entire discussion seems to hinge upon just like Ive seen Creationists do.

 

[Cirbryn]

As someone that doesnt know much about this subject, I cant help but notice how Cirbryn and SLP ignore the really important points that the entire discussion seems to hinge upon just like Ive seen Creationists do.

Oh good. Someone else up there we can talk to. I was wondering how all this was coming across.

What points do you think we're ignoring that are relevant to the question of whether humans are technically monkeys? Don't you think the only really relevant points would be the technical definitions of the terms?

 

[Edx]

Oh good. Someone else up there we can talk to. I was wondering how all this was coming across.

What points do you think we're ignoring that are relevant to the question of whether humans are technically monkeys? Don't you think the only really relevant points would be the technical definitions of the terms?

Well its like I was saying to Aron, by colloquial definiton we arent monkeys because you can define something however way you like. So when someone says "fish", we basically know what they mean. But there are lots of kinds of fish, and so people that use the word "fish" in the colloquial sence would have a hard time trying to say what is and isnt a fish when looking at certian species. That is because colloquial meanings are arbitary.

When I said that technically, we are monkeys, what I meant wasnt that we are technically according to linnean classification. Aron is saying the linnean is wrong, and inadequate. Yet you dont seem to be answering his questions as to why he thinks cladists is a more accurate way to classify life, and so why we are "technically" still monkeys. You seem to be instead just be holding to the argument that linnean classification is what it is and thats the end of it. In short, when I said "technically we are monkeys", I meant "in reality", not "by linnean classification".

Did that make sence?

Ed

 

[Lilandra]

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

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

 

[Aron-Ra]

Please support your claim that the Linnaean system was “officially overturned” in favor of the cladisitc system.

You already did that yourself, and even admitted that the only explanation you’ve ever seen for the elimination of Pongidae was cladistic.

Alright then, since as it turns out, the Linnaean system has in fact not been overturned, we return now to our regularly scheduled program:

The Linnaean system is currently the standard for technical classification of lifeforms. Under that system, humans are members of the ape family (Hominidae), and monkeys are members of several other families including Cercopithecidae and Cebidae, but not including Hominidae. Accordingly, by the accepted technical standard of classification, humans are apes but not monkeys.

As I have also already shown you with all my previous citations, that system of determination is presently being replaced “in textbooks, classrooms, museums,and the scientific literature.” You yourself said the determination to eliminate Pongidae was made with phylogenetics, not traditional Linnaean taxonomy, which is limited to character-based morphology. You even said the only reason you’ve seen for that change was cladistic. So you've just contradicted yourself. Under the Linnaean system, (as I have already shown you with my reference to a current college-level biology textbook for science majors) non-human apes are still listed in Pongidae because it takes time for whole systems to change.

Things that don’t matter to the above analysis include 1) whether Hominidae might have evolved from something that would be considered a monkey;

I’m sorry, I thought that was the central point as it related to the title of this thread, and to JohnR7’s recent thread, “made in the image of a monkey.” What could possibly be more relevant to either of these than the key elements of our evolutionary ancestry?

2) whether the elimination of Pongidae was for cladistic reasons;

I see. If it supports my point, then it doesn’t matter, but if it supports your point, then it does. Nice. Why didn’t you tell me up front that any evidence I show would be dismissed as irrelevent without consideration, no matter how pivotal it may be?

3) whether the Linnaean system might someday be replaced by a cladistic one;

Not even if “someday” is today?

4) whether a cladistic system is or is not better than the Linnaean system;

You’re the one saying humans are apes, and that apes aren’t pongids after all.

5) how apes, monkeys or humans might have been classified in the past

I suppose this would be a good time to point out that when Linnaeus originally conceived of the taxon, Simia, it included only non-hominoid anthropoids, (monkeys). We and the other apes were added to that taxon much later on.

and 6 the fact that colloquially the term “monkey” has been applied to non-human apes.

Funny that you want to project this image that monkeys have to be small -even when you know the populace referred to King Kong as a monkey. Better let me decide what's relevant to the points I'm trying to make.

The one thing that might matter to the argument is the fact that “monkey” and “ape” are not themselves Linnaean terms, but rather are associated with such terms.

Wrong. In Latin, 'monkey' is a Linnaean term. As I have already shown you, when someone like JohnR7 says evolution implies that apes evolved from monkeys, it is incorrect to tell them they’re wrong about that -no matter how you define monkeys the Linnaean construct- because however you slice it, the ancestors of apes were definitely monkeys even according to your own authority sources. What matters to this conversation is not what the authorities say; its how we can tell if they're right.

If you could show that biologists commonly use the term “monkey” to include humans (preferably when discussing other things than how the standard ought to be changed so that “monkey” would include humans), then you might have yourself an argument.

Of course! Since we lack any ability to think for ourselves, we must therefore only trust authority opinion to tell us what to believe, right? But since I’ve already provided exactly that repeatedly, -then my earlier citations from ornithological systematist John Harshman, vertebrate paleontologist Chris Beard, and renowned paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall don’t count because…..?

Just to show you how it’s done, here’s a quick list of biological sources that differentiate between “monkey” and “ape” in the manner discussed above.

I’ve already addressed all these, but you decided that didn’t matter. So I guess I’ll have to do it again. This would be so much easier for me if you would converse one-on-one, and not ignore every point or query. I’m tired of repeating myself, especially now that I know you don’t even read my posts anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html
Apes are not monkeys, and monkeys are not apes (even if chimps often get called 'monkeys' in popular usage). The term 'ape' applies only to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans, and gibbons.

And, as I mentioned before (several times) this definition can neither account for extant pongids relationship to “lesser apes”, nor can it include intermediate examples from the fossil record, and it is even inconsistent with the character-based classification as well.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../M/monkey.html
The term monkey includes all primates that do not belong to the categories human, ape, or prosimian

Yes, I’ve already said that paraphyly is still very popular, but that its popularity is waning because it is indefensible, as you yourself have demonstrated in this thread.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/A/ape.html
The term ape was formerly and incorrectly applied to certain tailless monkeys.

This is relevant to my point only, and doesn't help yours in any way that I can see.

http://www.nycep.org/ed/download/pdf...ill%202002.pdf
The term monkey is not indicative of taxonomic or phylogenetic relationship: the closest relatives of the cercopithecoids are not the ateloid monkeys but the Old World apes and humans.

…and the propliopith monkeys which this same site admits are not only intermediate between Hominoids and Cercopiths, but also intermediate between them and the stem of Platyrrhines as well; another contradiction.

Encyclopedia of Mammals, David Macdonald (1987) Monkeys: 3 families – Cercopithecidae, Cebidae, Callitrichidae (p 340)
Apes: families Hylobatidae, Pongidae (p 412)

I guess you've already forgotten that Paraphiths don't belong to either of those groups, and so you've contradicted yourself again.

Harper Collins Dictionary of Biology. 1991. Ape: “Any tailless primate of the family Simiidae, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons.”

Which family does this site say apes belong to? Simiidae? That’s Latin, right? What is the literal translation of that word? Oh yes, “simian” means “monkey”, doesn't it? So an ape is “any tailless primate of the MONKEY family”!

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.ed...Hominidae.html
Describes Hominidae as including humans and other great apes. No mention of monkeys.

Yeah, weird. They didn’t mention mammals either, and I could have sworn all hominids were mammals. They are, -all of them- mammals, aren't they? I'll bet every last one of them is a vertebrate too, and yet why don't they say so? I guess they can't really be vertebrate mammals then.

The Ape and the Sushi Master. Frans DeWaal. 2001. p 59.
“Like most other animals, a monkey reacts to its reflection as if it were a friend or enemy, whereas an ape appears to realize that the image in the mirror is itself.”

I can’t believe any primatologist would say something like this, because this was just a boner. A number of Old World monkeys, and even some New World monkeys have been confirmed to use mirrors in recognition of their own reflections. I’ve even seen a baboon use a mirror to examine his own mouth, holding the mirror in one hand, with his other fingers picking at his teeth. This is common knowledge, especially in this field! Seeing such stupid oversights as this are causing me to lose my respect for primatologists. You'd better hunt down some better authority references.

Peacemaking Among Primates. Frans DeWaal. 1989. p 17
The only study of crowding in apes indicates that they go one step further than the monkeys; they actively reduce social tensions.

This is nothing more than an example of the same thing you yourself did earlier, and I occasionally do too. If we talk about “animal” behavior, we know we’re not talking about humans, even though we know that humans are animals. Similarly, even I will talk about monkeys in direct comparison to apes, I am referring of course to non-Hominoid anthropoids, and I know I can be still be accurately understood even if I don't clarify that. The same thing applies when I talk about birds and dinosaurs. We all now know that birds themselves are dinosaurs, but if you compare them, it isn't always necessary to specify when you're only talking about non-avian dinosaurs.

The Third Chimpanzee. Jared Diamond. 1992. p 20
Their study was based on DNA from humans and from all of our closest relatives: the common chimpanzee, pygmy chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, two species of gibbons, and seven species of Old World monkeys.

Well, that helps me. Don't know what good it could do for you though.

That’s the way it is under the Linnaean system, as presented by your own cited web page. You haven’t provided anything that suggests otherwise.

Yes I have, lots of things in fact, and so have you. For example, its listed this way on your own cited web page.

See point 1) above.

I did. Did you forget what the topic was? Because you have both missed the point, and made my point for me at the same time, but evidently don’t understand that yet.

The Linnaean classification of both humans and monkeys is provided on the left hand side of the first page. A cladogram showing both known and presumed lineages is on the right. Despite the presumed lineage in the cladogram leading from propliopiths to hominoids, the two do not overlap in the Linnaean classification.

Thus plainly illustrating the inability of the Linnaean system to adequately compare with the cladistic phylogeny on the right.

Well, "superfamily" doesn't really mean anything. But that would mean that they were descended from monkeys, and are monkeys still.
And what do you mean, "if I am correct"? Your own citations say I am, and nothing you've posted yet says otherwise.

See point 1) above. I said “if” because I only had one cite calling propliopiths ancestral to hominids, and that site specifically indicates that the ancestry is presumed.

And I joined that with several citations all saying the same thing, except that ancestry is not presumed but is genetically determined in an objectively-verifiable fashion. Evolution is no presumption, and it can be genetically traced, and your own citations (then and now) still say I am correct on each of the points I intended to make in this thread.

As things currently stand under the Linnaean system, no Hominoids are Propliopiths, nor are they Cercopiths. So show how the Linnaean system is no longer the standard taxonomic system, or give it up.

Give it up? You’re giving me an ultimatum?! You act as though you’ve countered or at least adequately addressed my points in this discussion. I wonder why?

See points 1) through 6) above.

I did. As you still have neither countered my points nor adequately addressed them, but have instead dismissed and ignored them, then my question stands.

Currently, under the Linnaean system, no humans are in Pongidae either, or vice versa. And perhaps I should clarify that the Linnaean system is still the standard at this moment, but isn't going to be the standard much longer, now that cladistics is gaining acceptance.

See points 3) and 5) above.

I did. Now in reference to that, maybe you should follow your own advice, (and SLP’s since he said scientists are supposed to pay attention to detail). Go back to the previous post, and read the references you asked for therein, and And this time, read them rather than just skimming over, or skipping over them again.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Alright, it’s late, and I’m leaving on vacation tomorrow morning. Don’t know to what extent I’ll be able or inclined to keep up with the thread, and I probably won’t get to all of this post. But I’ll see what I can do.

Honestly, you would have left a better impression if you hadn’t posted this last reply at all. And since you now admit that you don’t even bother to read what I write, and would just automatically dismiss as irrelevent or otherwise ignore all my arguments and evidence anyway, then I guess you have no reason to post to this thread anymore.

I know that you want to argue as you were trained to: You want to say that apes did not evolve from monkeys. But I am not able to say that, because I know it is false, and that's not just a matter of opinion either. The ancestors of apes were definitely monkeys, and not only according to all the common laity who happen know anything about them. They’re also recognized as such by scientists, including some of the very ones still trying to deny that. Eosimias means “dawn-monkey”. It is believed to be the origin of all Simiiforms, (which taxonomists agree we are) and ‘simian’ is Latin for ‘monkey’. And as we've already noted, prosimians are defined by taxonomists as "half-monkeys", implying of course that full-simians would be fully-monkeys. And as I’ve already shown you, “anthropoidea”, “simiiforms”, and “monkeys” are synonymous and used interchangeably in much of the literature already cited in this thread.

I’m not arguing as I was trained to. SLP is the primatologist. I’m an unpublished peon (excuse me – member of the “common laity&#8221 like you. (Except that I’ve got an MS in wildlife ecology and work as a listing biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service). I don’t actually care that much what Hominids evolved from. I care that they aren’t classified as monkeys under the accepted system.

Then you are arguing as you were trained, and now admit you’re doing so from an arbitrary bias as well. Predetermined conclusions aren't good things in science.

However, since you are a scientist with a Masters in biology, I would hardly consider you a layman, and certainly not a “peon.” Nor would I consider myself “common” laity since I’m sure I know more about this than anyone you’ll ever likely meet on the street.

Regarding the rest, weren’t you the one arguing to SLP earlier that the etymological derivation of a word won’t always tell you what it’s come to represent?

That is correct. Unlike the Linnaean interpretation, the phylogenetic interpretation of ‘Hominoidea’ is synonymous with ‘ape’, and ‘hominidae’ is synonymous with ‘great ape’ in exactly the same way that ‘anthropoidea’ means “monkey”.

I also seem to recall you arguing with SLP about whether “anthropoidea” or “simiiform” means “monkey”, but I can’t quite remember the place where you demonstrated your point. Could you show me that again? Thanks.

I already did. Next time “scan” more slowly, and try to actually consider what you’re reading.

OK, scanning down I see a whole lot of arguing about whether the ancestors of hominids were “monkeys”. Gonna skip that part. There’s some stuff on how you think cladistics is better than Linnaean classification. Skipping that too. Stuff about how there have to be derived traits separating men from monkeys and how we’d recognize a new monkey species and how you’d do the classifying if you were king of the world.

This sort of nonsense is not helping your image any. I never said or implied anything like that, and don't deserve the mockery. I did however issue a challenge to you or anyone else who thought they knew a better way. No one can meet that challenge.

Actually I did address some of that earlier, but I didn’t have to because monkeys and humans remain classified as they’re classified, whether you or I agree with it or not.

Yes they do, even when your own sources state that they already know that classification is wrong and needs to be changed.

Moving right along (how DO you manage go on for so long about off-topic points?)

You apparently haven’t been following along enough to know what the point is and always was since I started participating on this board. Because you said everything that was ever critical to that point didn't matter.

we get to Linnaean taxonomy requiring lifeforms to change their lineage repeatedly. Not sure where you got that from, but I really think you need to read up on how Linnaean taxonomy works before you go around attacking it too much more.

I got that from reading up on how Linnaean taxonomy works. Remember, you're the one who said that one phylum could emerge from another phylum to become two different ones. You yourself said Linnaean archetecture requires this, but evolutionary phylogeny doesn't permit it.

Ah, last paragraph looks interesting:

If you still think I’m misrepresenting evolution, or creating some parody of it detrimental to its image, fear not. Evolutionary theory will easily survive me. And remember this, you can’t say you didn’t come from apes if you’re still an ape right now, and you can’t say you didn’t come from monkeys if every ancestor you ever knew is still a monkey right now. And as more and more “acknowledged leaders” in the analysis of the human fossil record adopt the cladistic perspective, and the reality of your monkeydom becomes more widely-accepted, this concept will seem less and less ridiculous to you.

Actually I think you’re misrepresenting the accepted classification system, but I think a lot of folks will misunderstand that and think evolution has something to do with it.

It does. That’s the reason why your classification system is being replaced by one that doesn’t misrepresent evolution.

“Part of the reason that taxon names currently seem so arbitrary is that we still have not granted the principle of evolution the role of a central tenet in nomenclature. Therefore,names like Hominidae, Pongidae, and Homininae change their meaning not only as the result of changes in ideas about evolutionary relationships, but also as the result of arbitrary decisions related to the assignment of taxa to the Linnean categories of family and subfamily. The problem with your statement that a universally accepted Linnean taxonomy would be as useful as a phylogenetic taxonomy is that there is no universally accepted taxonomy (Linnean or phylogenetic), and a basic tenet of the current codes of nomenclature is to oppose the intellectual tyranny that would be needed to achieve one. As evolutionary biologists, what we want is a system that allows disagreements about relationships but promotes stability with regard to the evolutionary meanings of taxon names when there are no such disagreements. The Linnean system does not accomplish this goal, but a system based on phylogenetic principles would.”
--Kevin de Queiroz, zoologist, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

You could say “humans evolved indirectly from monkeys” or “humans are in the monkey clade” and I wouldn’t have much of an objection. I’d still disagree that such was established,

My word, man! What more do you need? What did you ever have to imply otherwise? Of course, in scientific literature, I would of course still use the term, “anthropoid”, but it still means exactly the same thing. To prove that, let's exclude apes for the moment. Is there any other grouping in the clade of Anthropoidea that is not recognized as a lineage of 'monkeys'?

but neither of those statements is nearly so on-its-face wrong as “humans are monkeys”.

As I’ve already shown you, there are a growing number of taxonomists, (including paleoanthropologists) who would agree with me over you. So why don’t you tell Harshman, Beard, Tattersall, or de Queiroz how “on its face wrong” that is?

That’s why I keep pulling you back from these long spirally dissertations you try to go off into. It’s not that difficult a question. Humans aren’t monkeys because we aren’t classified that way under the accepted system. If you don’t like it then go argue to the folks who can change the system. That wouldn’t be me.

I have already a few times over the last few years. And we are defined as monkeys, in the family, Simiidae, remember? And anthropoidea means the same thing too. Are you only capable of believing what the standard doctrine tells you to? Are you at least able to think outside of that enough to give me some reason why humans can’t be considered a subset of monkeys? Because as I said, you’ve so far failed to separate men from monkeys in any sense -except of course for your unquestioned (but highly-questionable) tradition, and even that plays against you. So I'm sorry but, "because Carl Linn said so" is not going to be satisfactory by itself.

 

[dad]

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

They weren't, actually at all. Is that hard to grasp? I guess where a lot of the confusion comes is the fantastic hyper evolution rates of the past, combined with wicked pre flood men sexually mixing with some ape like things!

 

[steen]

They weren't, actually at all. Is that hard to grasp?

Given that the scientific evidence disagrees with your "just because I say so" claim, yes it is.

I guess where a lot of the confusion comes is the fantastic hyper evolution rates of the past, combined with wicked pre flood men sexually mixing with some ape like things!

And you have evidence of this? Or is this more self-serving dreamed up sophistry?

 

[dad]

Given that the scientific evidence disagrees with your "just because I say so" claim, yes it is.

Oh, but it doesn't that is the beauty of it all. If so, where and how?

And you have evidence of this? Or is this more self-serving dreamed up sophistry?

Recently they found theat there was, if I read it right, evidence of chimps having interbred with men, no? What more do you need?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Hoo boy...
Oh, well, since I did not address each and every statement written by you, it clearly means that I cannot do so and that you are absolutelty right about everything, just like you were in the 2003 200-odd TO thread.

No, I'm not right about everything, but I am right about what I first said to you: Not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

Just a student with no degrees yet, remember?

And no publications. Which makes it doubly odd that you would comment on things you have no experience in doing.

That doesn't mean I can't read. I saw some contradiction between your phylogeny and those of your peers, and asked you to explain that. Your only response was to try to insult me again.

My problem with it is that your phylogeny depicts New World monkeys and Old World monkeys sharing a common ancestor that was not a monkey itself (as if that were possible) and also is not a common ancestor with apes either. Since every analysis I've yet read for any pre-Catarrine anthropoid describes its morphology as similar to Platyrrhine monkeys, then I don't see how any phylogenies I've seen from your perspective can claim what they do.

Clearly, you did not read/understand either what was in the paper or what I wrote in response to your uninformed commentary

Evidently not. Did you do any analysis on New World monkeys too?

(let me guess - you *know* that. you *knew* that). Perhaps I overestimated you. I shall not do that anymore.

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

When I debate a scientist, I learn more than I ever would debating any number of religious zealots. Against a scientist, I can reasonably expect to be proven wrong about something. Most of the time, scientists have no contest with anything I write. But on the odd occasion that one does, I figure he can probably back that up -though that hasn't always been the case. Every time my argument couldn't withstand theirs, I would come out the wiser, so of course I'm OK with that. I would rather be proven wrong than continue to be wrong and never know it. Don't misunderstand me, [again]. This discourse has corrected a couple misconceptions for me and I'm grateful for that. But you've still failed to support your main contention, or any of your petty accusations thereafter, and you have instead allowed yourself to be completely side-tracked by emotional indignation and a whole plethora of false assumptions. I wouldn't have thought scientists could be so reactionary!

You're arguing that apes aren't monkeys but that chimpanzees are human, and I'm arguing that chimpanzees aren't human but that people are monkeys. The subject alone promised to be a very rewarding discussion, and certainly a challenge to some people's current notions! But you just couldn't deal with that properly, and have consequently been a big disappointment to me.

AGAIN, an actual scientist, one that pays attention to DETAIL and uses actual data in analyses, does not include taxa in a phylogenetic analysis for which he/she does not actually have data for. The phylogenetic trees can only contain the taxa for which the algorithm received data for. Armchair experts need to understand the analytical techniques they are criticizing BEFORE they criticize them. I cannot understand why that simple fact keeps eluding you.

Maybe its because Eric Delson, one of your own cited authorities, produced his own phylogenetic analysis which included Propliopithecid and Parapithecid monkeys which he had no data for.

If you had bothered to read the paper for something other than 'damning quotes', you might have noticed that.

I wasn't looking for damning quotes. I sincerely wanted to know what your impression of anthropoid phylogeny was because your arguments just don't make any sense. For example, your paper is entirely cladistic, but in this forum, you demonstrate no understanding of that at all. You said that if the cladistic perspective of 'fish' applied, that we should call ourselves fish "instead of" primates; or alternately that calling men apes was no different than calling apes men. This misrepresentation is inexcuseable for one in your position. But just in case you really think that way, all ducks are birds but not birds are ducks. Likewise, all primates are chordates, but not all chordates are primates, and all humans are apes but not all apes are human. All apes are monkeys too, but not all monkeys are apes.

As I said before, if you follow the link they provide for Cercopithecoidea, you will not find Propliopithecoidea listed within that group.

And so it must be ancestral? Harshman was right.

You misunderstood me again. I did not imply that Propliopithecoidea should be ancestral just because it wasn't listed within Cercopithecidae.

And if you refer to your preferred authority, John G. Fleagle's taxonomy of extinct primates, you will again see that Propliopithecoidea is not any subset of Cercopithecids, but is rather another superfamily all its own.

Which means, clearly, that it is not considered to be an ancestor! Superfamilies do not nest within each other.

And yet, despite the fact that Fleagle calls them a superfamily, Delson still nested both of the latter superfamilies within that one. Why don't you tell Delson what an uninformed armchair expert he is?

In this one discussion with you, I have conceded a handful of errors at least. I was wrong about Tarsiers being reclassified as Haplorhines for example. I was wrong about the class paper being written by a student rather than a lecturer. There were at least a couple other errors I had conceded to you which I don't remember right now. But how many points have you conceded?

None, as I have not been making errors.

Not even the one about scientists nesting Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea within Propliopithecoidea? You actually conceded that error too back in post #145, and still continued to make the same error again later in the same post. You were also wrong about French and Spanish being Latin languages. You were wrong about the fact that you were dodging critical questions and ignoring important points. You were wrong about me redefining terms. You were definitely in the wrong when you accused me of using creationist tactics! And this discussion never involved the creationist question “if men evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” But somehow you thought that was the topic!

I have been pointing out the the same facts that Harshman was 3 years ago - that you do not seem to know how to read a cladogram. My opinion differs from Harshman's, yet we have been making many of the same arguments - and enduring much of the same unwarranted condescension, to boot. Funny, that.

Yeah, in all my other debates with scientists, only you and he tried to play the superiority card -relying on condescension and false assumptions, one of them being that I can't read a cladogram. I've dealt with one or two other scientists who also misperceived my position from the start as well. But fortunately, now that I've learned to make my points more clearly, that hasn't happened in a long time, and follow-up debates usually run much smoother once they stop underestimating me. In the last of my discussion with Harshman, (in my contest against the accepted taxonomy of eurypterids) he dropped most of the rude posturing and even admitted politely that I had made my point. A modicum of civility will go a long way, and I wasn't being condescending. You just took offense when none was offered.

Because there were several times I noted when you were obviously, blatantly, and demonstrably wrong and would not yeild anything.

Such as?

Well, let's see: First you said that apes couldn't be monkeys because monkeys were primates by definition. Except that apes "by definition" are also primates. More specifically, (according to Harper Collins Dictionary of Biology. 1991) "apes" are “any tailless primate of the family Simiidae." Since the word, 'simian' is Latin for 'monkey', and Linnaeus chose it for that reason, then apes are tailless primates of the 'monkey' family -by both definition and derivation, just like I said.

You were also wrong about there being any anatomical features which distinguish apes from all monkeys collectively. And you also said that "apes are not derived from monkeys, any more than ostriches are derived from sparrows." and "We are not monkeys because 'monkeys' are not the stem of our clade." Except of course that your man Delson has them emerging from Propliopithecoidea, -listed as the common ancestor of apes and modern Old World monkeys. And you said no one accepted that! Its funny that your own sources say that Propliopiths also shared a common ancestor with New World monkeys. According to some anthropology sites, that ancestor may have been parapithecid. You actually said your whole argument hinged on whether the stem of our clade was a monkey or not, and you cited Delson as one of the sources you would respect on that point. Thanks to him, we now know that parapiths are also recognized as monkeys, as are all the basal members of Anthropoidea. Yet you still won't admit any error on any point, will you?

You also said, "Catarrhines are not correctly referred to as monkeys since not all Catarrhines are monkeys." But as we established in post #90 that "anthrpoid", "simiiforms" and "monkeys" are all synonymous and may be used interchangibly. This of course meant you were also wrong when you tried to say that none of the New World monkeys were really monkeys either. They still descend from "one of the earliest monkeys known," and they always were recognized as monkeys by everyone in the English-speaking world for hundreds of years, so you can't decide that everyone else is wrong just because your definition depends on being able to pretend that apes didn't really descend from monkeys.

So yeah, you've made a lot of errors in this thread, including some really stupid ones. Don't sweat it, we all do. But if we're not complete jerks about it, we'll probably be forgiven.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Differences of opinion are not errors (you had that problem in the TO thread, too).

Then I did. But that's not the case in this thread. I don't use the same tactics you do. When you told me 'synonymous' didn't mean "equivalent connotation", I used a dictionary to prove the point objectively. When you asserted your opinion that Hominoidea wasn't considered by anyone to be nested within Propliopithecoidea, I again presented objectively-verifiable evidence that it is. I don't argue from opinion anymore.

And I'm not making any arbitrary choices either. This was your single biggest error in the whole thread. But referring to humans as monkeys definitely isn't an arbitrary choice! If anything, I'm trying to establish a position against the sort of thing that you do when you redefine terms like New World "primate" to mean something people only call 'monkey's because of 'tradition'. Your terms are definitely arbitrary, but mine are not.

"I believe that several of the important stages in the Darwinian Revolution in taxonomy resulted from abandoning the perspective that you describe, in which taxa are viewed as arbitrary groups of organisms. First, during the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, biologists accepted population or population-lineage concepts of species, which implied that species taxa are not arbitrary groups of organisms. Next, during the cladistic movement, biologists accepted a concept that equated higher taxa with clades (systems of species related by common descent), which implied that higher taxa are not arbitrary groups of species. Both of these advances resulted from granting the principle of evolution a more important role in taxonomy--specifically, the role of a central tenet underlying the concepts of species and higher taxa (clades). Part of the reason that taxon names currently seem so arbitrary is that we still have not granted the principle of evolution the role of a central tenet in nomenclature. Therefore, names like Hominidae, Pongidae, and Homininae change their meaning not only as the result of changes in ideas about evolutionary relationships, but also as the result of arbitrary decisions related to the assignment of taxa to the Linnean categories of family and subfamily. The problem with your statement that a universally accepted Linnean taxonomy would be as useful as a phylogenetic taxonomy is that there is nouniversally accepted taxonomy (Linnean or phylogenetic), and a basic tenet of the current codes of nomenclature is to oppose the intellectual tyranny that would be needed to achieve one. As evolutionary biologists, what we want is a system that allows disagreements about relationships but promotes stability with regard to the evolutionary meanings of taxon names when there are no such disagreements. The Linnean system does not accomplish this goal, but a system based on phylogenetic principles would."
--Kevin de Queiroz, zoologist, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

Citing a web site because the title of a page is "Catarrhines Old World monkeys" despite the fact that it lists your fixated "ancestral" taxon as a sister group is an error of interpretation and an example of not paying attention to details..

The detail you're not paying attention to, (even after I've explained it twice) was that the site in question also described prosimians as "half-monkeys", implying of course that any full simian would be a "full-monkey". So everything in Anthropoidea descended from a full-monkey and is a monkey by descent. That, and (as I said the last time you tried to whine about this) my arguments are all based on reason written in my own hand. But you chose to ignore all those.

The one and only exception was when you admitted to calling John Harshman a "computer guy" just because you didn't know what a systematist was.

LOL!
Yeah, I did not know that. Wait - I *know* what a systematist is. I *knew* what a systematist is. You are merely jumping to conclusions again.

No sir, I am not. I told you Harshman was a systematist, and you then called him a "computer programmer fellow". When I told you what he really does, you said, "I stand corrected." If I accept your admission, how is that jumping to a conclusion?

Ironic.

Got to get back to actual work. Wish I had the free time to sit around and pump my ego by writing thousands of internet discussion board posts, but such luxuries are out of my sphere of reality.

Nor are they in mine being a single parent and a full-time science student pulling overtime all at the same time, especially when I'm only being ridiculed and insulted. I've been away from this board for months while studying, and was invited back by some of the old regulars specifically to participate in this thread. But since you haven't the time for anyone less lofty than you, then ride off on your high horse and don't fret with me anymore.

 

[dad]

No, I'm not right about everything, but I am right about what I first said to you: Not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

No, you are dead wrong there. Any link you could establish can be explained in a way other than man is some kind of beast! I kid you not.

 

[Aron-Ra]

No, you are dead wrong there. Any link you could establish can be explained in a way other than man is some kind of beast! I kid you not.

But by the very definition of the word, -even according to Ecclesiastes, man is "some kind of beast".

 

[dad]

But by the very definition of the word, -even according to Ecclesiastes, man is "some kind of beast".

Overall, the bible makes it clear this is not the case. If some passage likens us to beasts, why, is this a strange thing? I do the same at times! Let us not be close minded and childish here, and suggest God created us as beasts. Don't cherry pick the bible, we need to look at the overall drift, and weight of concecutive verses on a topic. We are the highest creation. The beasts were brought to us to name, and own.
If man's wickedness of the past mixed up some genes, and blurred the line that God made, it does not mean man is a beast!

 

[Aron-Ra]

Overall, the bible makes it clear this is not the case. If some passage likens us to beasts, why, is this a strange thing? I do the same at times! Let us not be close minded and childish here, and suggest God created us as beasts. Don't cherry pick the bible, we need to look at the overall drift, and weight of concecutive verses on a topic. We are the highest creation. The beasts were brought to us to name, and own.
If man's wickedness of the past mixed up some genes, and blurred the line that God made, it does not mean man is a beast!

It is not worth anyone's time to type out reasoned replies to you, so don't expect me to do it again. But as the Bible is only a compilation of largely-unrelated and impossibly silly fables all concocted by men confused by superstition, then it doesn't matter what the overall impression of it is. But that overall impression still consistently places us as animals, as does every other definition of that word too.

 

[Cirbryn]

Aron is saying the linnean is wrong, and inadequate. Yet you dont seem to be answering his questions as to why he thinks cladists is a more accurate way to classify life, and so why we are "technically" still monkeys. You seem to be instead just be holding to the argument that linnean classification is what it is and thats the end of it. In short, when I said "technically we are monkeys", I meant "in reality", not "by linnean classification".

Did that make sence?

Ed

It did, thanks. Aron is saying the Linnaean system ought to be scrapped, but he's admitted at least twice that it is still the current standard. So suppose we hash it out and he makes his case that a cladistic system would be better. How would that change whether it's technically correct to tell people "humans are monkeys"? When you tell people something like that you're implying that you mean "according to the accepted technical standard" unless you say otherwise. I might similarly convince you that a different taxation rate would be a good idea, but that doesn't mean either of us get to use that rate to compute our taxes unless the standard tax rate actually gets changed.

I've offered several times to discuss whether a cladistic approach would be better than the Linnaean; but only after settling this first point of whether humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard. To my mind, now that we've agreed on what the standard is that ought to be pretty cut and dried. Aron being the reasonable man he is, I'm sure we'll be able to get on to the more interesting questions any minute now.