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

[I_Love_Cheese]

Ok, your original statement, wich I found a bit confusing was,



If all mammals have a common ancestor, how is it that eventually we branched out into felines, canines, apes, homo-sapiens, etc...?

Check out The Ancestors Tale by Dawkins, It is very good on just this subject, just ignore, if you wish the few pages of non science that he is famous for.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Ok, your original statement, wich I found a bit confusing was,

they would then have to defend paraphyly by explaining how a population of monkeys could beget descendants who somehow weren't monkeys anymore.

If all mammals have a common ancestor, how is it that eventually we branched out into felines, canines, apes, homo-sapiens, etc...?

We are Homo sapiens, just one of several members of the ape family. We are literally that, a family. Similarly, felines and canines are still members of another biological family called Carnivora, and Carnivores are still placental mammals as are we also.

If you take a cat and a dog, and trace both thier ancestors back far enough, you'll eventually get something that looks a lot like a raccoon, complete with those little hands that raccoons have. Raccoons make a nice familiar archetype for the father of all Carnivores. If you trace the ancestors of all apes, and of all monkeys, all primates, and all archontids (etc.) to the right point, you'll again find something that looks a bit like a raccoon complete with clawed fingers on its hands. These two could be brothers. One of them has several sons who develop a culture based on claws. Some of them even take that to extremes and fashion their claws into thick heavy hooves. But the descendants of the other brother follow a different tradition, improving the dexterity of thier fingers until some of them eventually lose thier claws altogether, and never miss them. But even though all these new tribes now seem different from the races of their kin, they're all still placental mammals. None of them ever stopped being whatever their ancestors were. They only defined their descent further and further with every generation, just like we do when we do a geneology. Understand?

 

[Cirbryn]

Alright, I’m back from vacation.

If you still doubt that I’ve adequately made my case, (I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t answer) what more do you need?

If you’re still trying to claim that humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard classification system you’d need to show evidence that humans are a subset of a Linnaean taxon considered by scientists to be equivalent in its entirety to the term “monkeys” (or to a subset of that term, such as “old-world monkeys&#8221. This is exactly equivalent to showing that humans are apes by showing that humans are members of the family Hominidae. It’s quite basic, but so far for all your talking you’ve provided nothing along these lines.

Secondly, you are not “challenging those authorities and their strategically-erected standard.” You are misrepresenting the accepted standard to a bunch of people on an internet discussion board; many of whom aren’t likely to know any better.

Think about that for a moment. “Many of whom aren’t likely to know any better” is the very reason the Linnaean system is still popular even though its already been overturned a decade ago. I’m not misrepresenting anything. All I’m doing is helping to spread the word that Linnaean system is no longer in vogue –and for good reason.

If it had been overturned a decade ago then it wouldn’t be the accepted standard system now would it? And if you’re talking about moving non-human great apes from family Pongidae to family Hominidae, that hardly amounts to an overturn of the Linnaean system. “Family” is a Linnaean taxon. If we’re moving things into “families” rather than clades, then we’re using the Linnaean system. If you don’t think you’re misrepresenting anything then show how humans are monkeys according to the standard system. Stop throwing up all this off-topic flack.

By claiming humans are monkeys in this venue, you knowingly imply we are monkeys according to the accepted scientific classification system. That isn’t true.

Yes it is true, as I have already shown you, and will continue to –indefinitely it seems.

If it were true that humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard, then you wouldn’t be “challenging” that standard, now would you?

Because while we’re discussing the dentistry of debate, its been like pulling teeth to get you to properly address any of the points or queries I’ve brought forth. You still to date have adamantly refused to produce any generic character, nor any other reason or method by which we could separate men from monkeys. You apparently never had anything to base that on -other than an inapplicable layman’s definition which refuses to use that particular word in its proper [monophyletic] context. In another language, I’m sure you would concede the point without contest. In Russian, for example, “обезьяна” means both “monkey” and “ape” just like “simian” does. Would you agree that humans are обезьяны?

I’m not objecting to your telling people that humans are “обезьяна”. I’m objecting to your telling people that humans are monkeys when the accepted system says they aren’t. I actually have provided characteristics of apes (and therefore humans) that aren’t shared by monkeys, but I don’t need to because even if there were none, humans remain classified as they are classified. If and when that changes you can truthfully tell people that humans are monkeys. Until then, all you can say is that you think they ought to be considered monkeys.

All I’m asking you to do is to tell people you’re using a non-standard system, or that this is your opinion rather than something that’s generally accepted. You can do that and still carry on your campaign against the powers that be.

But I can’t say that if it isn’t true! I’m not using either opinion or any “non-standard system”, I’m using the very same “standard” you did when you said people were apes. And I did clarify many times that it isn’t “generally-accepted” …yet; -but that it inevitably will be!
Remember, you yourself said the “accepted standard” taxonomy was the phylogenetic reclassification of chimpanzees and gorillas out of Pongidae and into Hominidae. You admitted this was entirely cladist rather than Linnaean, but you still said it was the accepted standard anyway. I granted that the Linnaean system is still the most popular, because it is still popularly taught even in most college science classes. But that system is being rapidly replaced for the very reasons you yourself cited. As even SLP’s work will attest, taxonomy beyond the college student level is already almost entirely Phylogenetic. Systematics have overturned Linneaus’ strictly-character-based traditional system, but hasn’t gained full acceptance yet. This has permitted you to flip-flop as to which system is the “accepted standard”; Its whichever one seems to agree with your position.

The standard is the Linnaean system as a whole, not the way a particular taxon was delineated. Under the Linnaean system, humans are classified in the ape family (Hominidae), but are not in any monkey family (such as Cercopithecidae). That’s what makes humans apes but not monkeys. That’s all there is to it. My personal opinion that the refiguring of Hominidae was based on cladistic reasoning (a desire to avoid paraphyly) doesn’t change anything. Just because one taxon in the Linnaean system was reconfigured to avoid paraphyly doesn’t mean all must be (or have been). Every single instance of a new species evolving from an old one adds another paraphyletic taxon.

And it’s not like the Linnaean system is opposed to phylogenetic information. Linnaean taxa are configured to avoid polyphyly just as any purely cladistic system would be. They differ in that Linnaean taxa may be paraphyletic, while a clade must be monophyletic.

And yes, you did finally clarify in this thread that humans aren’t classified as monkeys by the generally accepted system. You then contracticted that clarification in the above quotes where you claim it’s true we are monkeys according to the accepted system, and that it isn’t true that you’re using a non-standard system. In post 27 you make the nonsensical claim we are monkeys regardless of the system. You are all over the board.

 

[Cirbryn]

My next question for you would have to be, what did you think the topic was? I thought that topic was whether it is defensibly accurate to describe humans as a highly-derived subset of monkeys. You seem to agree with that topic only as long as you can confine our measure of ‘accuracy’ to mean ‘only according to your interpretation of the antiquated and biased Linnaean system.’

The topic is whether humans are monkeys. By asking that question without further qualifiers we imply that the classification system we’ll use to answer that question is the generally accepted standard. The question is not whether humans ought to be classified as monkeys, or whether a cladistic system would be better than the accepted standard, or whether we might describe humans as highly-derived monkeys, or any number of other possible questions you’ve been trying to throw in. I’m willing to go over those questions, but only after we answer the topic on the table.

SLP said his position, (which he shared with you) would be wrong -if the stem of Hominoidea was an animal that would be recognized as a monkey by scientists. To that end, I have shown (1) that Propliopiths and Parapiths are both outside of, and basal to, extant monkey groups, yet they are still considered ‘monkeys’ even by specialists in this field. This justifies the more inclusive monophyletic grouping to account for all monkeys, Old World and New, living or dead, -and it nullifies your earlier contention for paraphyly. (2) I have shown that both of these basal monkey groups are indeed considered ancestral to Hominoids as well, and that stem species of all anthropoids (like Apidium phiomense) are also recognized as monkeys even in the realm of science. (3) I have shown that cladistics has already replaced Linnaean taxonomy at the forefront of this field, and I can continue to show as much proof of that as you will ever need.

SLP and I had completely separate points. I’ve already said that I didn’t know enough about primate evolution to have a strong opinion regarding whether the common ancestor of apes would be considered a monkey or not. I’ve offered a few comments on the subject, but my overall argument has very little to do with what apes evolved from, and I’ve said so. Suppose SLP or someone else came along and showed that the apes’ common ancestor was a tarsier (such as is depicted on the cover of the “Dawn Monkey” book you haven’t read) rather than a monkey. You’d just turn around and start claiming that humans are tarsiers, and I’d have to point out that by the standard classification system, no they are not. The substance of the argument wouldn’t change. I don’t think you’ve shown what you claim to have shown regarding propliopiths and parapiths, but it’s possible I missed something. I’d be happy to discuss it with you further after we finish the topic at hand.

You have not shown that cladistics has replaced Linnaean taxonomy. The Linnaean taxonomic system incorporates cladistic information to avoid polyphyly and in some instances to avoid paraphyly as well. It remains, as you’ve admitted, the standard taxonomic system, and thus the system that must be consulted to answer a question such as whether humans are monkeys.

You asked for citations from scientists in this field, authorities who describe humans as “monkeys” in a literal matter-of-fact sense, and I have given you that repeatedly.

You did? Where? Did they perchance make clear they were using a non-standard classification system, as I’ve asked you to do?

And you asked for verification that systematics is in fact replacing Linnaean taxonomy, and I have given that repeatedly too.

No, I asked for verification that a cladistic system had replaced the Linnaean one. You have shown no such thing, and if you had shown that then you wouldn’t be admitting now that the Linnaean system is the standard.

I have shown that university level education is also beginning to accept these terms as the new standard system of classification. For example, North Carolina State University actually does define the words “anthropoid” and “simian” both as “monkeys”, and they further define humans and other apes as “monkeys” also, again using that very word. For another example, the neighboring University of North Carolina at Wilmington teaches that Cercopithecoidea includes baboons, macaques, etc. Hominoidea includes “lesser apes” and “great apes”. But Catarrhini includes all “Old World monkeys” in either superfamily! They’re so specific about that that they actually say “Old World monkeys” is the infraorder classification, and the word, “monkey” is only used in a context that includes apes.

Your first cite makes clear it is not using the word “anthropoid” (or “simian”) in a Linnaean sense. It calls them a “phylogenetic group”. Why this particular professor (not necessarily the university, so far as I can tell) would mix the Linnaean taxa of class and order with “phylogenetic groups” isn’t clear. I seriously doubt she intends such a hodge-podge to replace Linnaean taxonomy. She also hasn’t done what I object to you doing – that being leaving the clear implication that humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard.

As for your second cite, all it says is that Catarrhini includes old-world monkeys. It doesn’t say anything about such monkeys being in either superfamily. It also doesn’t say “old world monkeys” is the name of the infraorder. It says “Catarrhines include Old World Monkeys. This infraorder may be divided …” “This infraorder” refers to “Catarrhines”, not to “Old World Monkeys”. And the word monkey is never used in a context that includes apes. It is in fact only used twice on the page, once to refer to new world monkeys and once as quoted above.

So if you enroll in North Carolina, you’ll learn the new standard, one which admits that humans are monkeys in the literal sense. But if you go to school here in Texas, they’ll still say tell you that Chimpanzees belong to the Pongo family -even though this was shown to be false better than ten years ago. That’s how it is that the Linnaean system hasn’t been disposed of yet. Information is slow to be adopted, and not enough of us even realize any change is under way.

I’ve been using the term “standard” to mean the system widely used and accepted. Even if your NC State professor wanted her hodge podge system to replace the Linnaean, it is hardly the “new standard”. Possibly someday a purely phylogenetic system actually will be adopted as the new standard. If and when that day comes, then if you can show apes evolved from monkeys I won’t have any complaint about you calling humans monkeys. Until then, I do.

But on another level, there are many taxonomists who realize that humans are monkeys, but they won’t admit it, insisting instead on referring to monkeys only in the paraphyletic sense. However, even when this happens, there is an admission that it is paraphyletic, and sometimes they’ll even admit that the monophyletic option would include humans, implying that this may be the only reason the monophyletic usage is discouraged among traditional Linnaean taxonomists.

It’s not a question of “realizing” that humans are monkeys, as if the point were independent of what people decide the words ought to mean. There may be taxonomists who think humans ought to be considered monkeys. So far I haven’t seen any of them suggesting to non-biologists that humans are currently considered such except by non-standard classification systems. I’d be happy to discuss your conspiracy claims after we’ve resolved the current topic.

So the question is, (yes or no) do respected scientific authorities in relevant fields consider humans to be derived from monkeys, and consider us to be technically monkeys still- according to both ancestral origin and the suite of morphological characters in common?

The question is whether humans are monkeys. All you have to do to answer that question is look at how we’re classified according to the standard taxonomic system.

That answer is yes. Do taxonomists, -both cladistic and Linnaean- understand that the monophyletic application of that word certainly would include humans? Again, the answer is yes, though that certainly doesn’t account for everyone’s opinions in either case, and depends largely on the extent of one’s knowledge of fossil forms.

You’re claiming that it is generally understood that apes evolved from monkeys. I don’t think you’ve shown that at all, and I don’t think your personal knowledge of fossil forms is necessarily greater than SLP’s or the various other sources that disagree with you. If you’d like to finish up with the current topic I’d be happy to discuss what apes may or may not have evolved from.

So what it really boils down to is this; are we really monkeys in reality regardless what the opinions of others may be? I’ve offered a way to determine that for certain, and you’ve refused to even consider it, choosing instead to accuse me of something that is not even close to the truth of the matter. Because I’m not misrepresenting anything, nor am I misleading anyone. But Linnaean taxonomy is, and always did, ever since Hominidae was first separated from Pongidae for no other reason than for men to pretend they weren’t really simians.

There is no way to determine if we are monkeys “in reality” regardless of how we are currently classified (which is what I gather you to mean by “regardless of what the opinions of others may be”). Whether humans are monkeys in a scientific sense depends entirely on the definitions of those terms as they are used by scientists. You are misrepresenting those definitions and thereby potentially misleading quite a few people. It’s just like telling someone she owes a particular amount of taxes, without telling her you figured that out according to a non-standard rate that you happen to like better. As for your final sentence, I’d be happy to discuss your off-topic accusations regarding the motivations of people you don’t even know once we’ve dealt with the matter at hand.

 

[Cirbryn]

Well, Cirbryn? Why don't you explain to her which classification system you used to determine that?

Why certainly sir. I used the Linnaean classification system. The same one I used to determine that humans aren't monkeys. The same one that is the acknowledged standard.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Cirbryn]

Yes Cirbryn please answer this because I always felt this was one of the strongest cases Aron has made. SLP and you always skipped it, much like Ive seen Creationists do too I might add which never address this question. So, how can you say we arent monkeys if there isnt any other reason other than "linnean system says so!" which seems to be your one an only argument so far. I dont know if you care, but that doesnt persuade me.

Well sure I care, but I don't know why it doesn't persuade you. It's a case of figuring out what two words (humans and monkeys) mean in a taxonomic sense. When you want to figure out what a word means you look it up. You don't sit there and try to assign it a meaning based on what you think it ought to mean. No one cares what you think it ought to mean. The only difference between looking up any old word and looking up the taxonomic meaning of a word is that when you do the former you use a standard dictionary and when you do the latter you use a standard taxonomic system. The Linnaean system is the current standard taxonomic system.

 

[Cirbryn]

Cibryn

Are you saying that an organism can evolve to a point where it can no longer be identified with its ancestry?

Are humans/Apes no longer monkeys?

A lineage of organisms can evolve to a point where the current representatives of the lineage are no longer identified as what their ancestors were. That's what evolution's all about. It doesn't mean they lose their ancestry, just that they have changed. For example, when a new species evolves from an old one, it is no longer identified as the old species. To identify it so would imply it freely exchanged genes with the old species, which would mean it wasn't a new species after all.

I don't know if apes evolved directly from what would be called monkeys, but I do know they aren't monkeys now.

 

[Cirbryn]

Are humans, no longer mammals?

Humans are still mammals because we're classified in the class Mammalia.

 

[Edx]

Humans are still mammals because we're classified in the class Mammalia.

"Because" we are in class mammalia, or because we are STILL mammals? In the same way as we are STILL apes? Like, biologically, not "becuase the linnean system says so".

 

[Edx]

Well sure I care, but I don't know why it doesn't persuade you. It's a case of figuring out what two words (humans and monkeys) mean in a taxonomic sense. When you want to figure out what a word means you look it up. You don't sit there and try to assign it a meaning based on what you think it ought to mean. No one cares what you think it ought to mean. The only difference between looking up any old word and looking up the taxonomic meaning of a word is that when you do the former you use a standard dictionary and when you do the latter you use a standard taxonomic system. The Linnaean system is the current standard taxonomic system.

Well okay, so answer the question.

 

[Lilandra]

A lineage of organisms can evolve to a point where the current representatives of the lineage are no longer identified as what their ancestors were. That's what evolution's all about. It doesn't mean they lose their ancestry, just that they have changed. For example, when a new species evolves from an old one, it is no longer identified as the old species. To identify it so would imply it freely exchanged genes with the old species, which would mean it wasn't a new species after all.

But in reverse, a species is classified within a larger group because it has shared characteristics with that group. Alll species within a group like Mammalia can be traced to a single common mammalian ancestor. That(of course) is the reason they share characteristics.

I don't know if apes evolved directly from what would be called monkeys, but I do know they aren't monkeys now.

The picture of the "Dawn Monkey", that is based on the fossil, certainly looked enough like a monkey for the fossil to be named a monkey. The fossil was certainly not examined and named by laypeople.

 

[Cirbryn]

"Because" we are in class mammalia, or because we are STILL mammals? In the same way as we are STILL apes? Like, biologically, not "becuase the linnean system says so".

Humans are mammals because we are in the class Mammalia. Obviously, that raises the question of why we are in that class, and the answer might be something with which you or I disagree. If we do disagree we'd be justified in arguing that humans ought not to be classified as mammals, but we would be lying if we told people that humans aren't mammals. Get it? If something is classed as a mammal, it's a mammal until it gets classed as something else.

There are 3 common characteristics indicative of mammal species: hair, 3 middle ear bones, and mammary glands. Humans have all those, so there shouldn't be much doubt that we're mammals. Cetacea have small amounts of hair at some point in their development (see here) so they’re mammals too. Presumably there are also people who think humans are mammals solely because we evolved from mammals, and for all I know that’s what all those taxonomists were really thinking when they classed humans as mammals in the first place, but I don’t see that way of looking at things as particularly useful. It only works if you pick a characteristic of the ancestral species that is still shared by most of the descendants. So you could note that our ancestors were synapsid reptiles, with a single hole in the skull behind each eye, and say “Hey, we’re all synapsids” and no one would look at you too funny because we also have a single hole in our skull behind each eye. But if you noted that our ancestors all had sail fins on their backs and declared that since we evolved from them we must be pelycosaurs too, you’d get some deservedly funny looks.

 

[Cirbryn]

Well okay, so answer the question.

Alright. The question (from post 231) was "You still to date have adamantly refused to produce any generic character, nor any other reason or method by which we could separate men from monkeys."

I actually did provide generic characters common to apes but not monkeys in post 166, where I said: "As for how monkeys could evolve into apes (if that’s what happened), I expect they simply picked up ape characteristics (no tail, chests that are wider side to side, 5 cusps on their molars, etc) over the course of evolution. Some monkeys have picked up some, but not all, of these characteristics as well." As I hope I've made clear, however, even if you don't like those characteristics for some reason, you're still stuck with the fact that apes aren't monkeys, because that's how they're classified.

 

[Lilandra]

If we do disagree we'd be justified in arguing that humans ought not to be classified as mammals, but we would be lying if we told people that humans aren't mammals. Get it? If something is classed as a mammal, it's a mammal until it gets classed as something else.

I don't get it. The Linnean Classification system is a symbolic means to classify nature. Basic language is a set of symbols to signify something else. It has its limitations. Like when you are trying to describe something and you just can't get that perfect contextual meaning.

The relevance is this biological relationships exist independently of the classification system. Even if there never was a human monkey to catalogue that tree, fallimg quietly in the wilderness, the tree would still have biological relationships with other trees.

So no if something is misclassified, it is not what it is classified until further notice. Example there is talk I am sure of sinking birds into the dinosaur clade as avian dinosaurs. Are birds not avian dinosaurs because this isn't fully instituted? Heck no!

Presumably there are also people who think humans are mammals solely because we evolved from mammals, and for all I know that’s what all those taxonomists were really thinking when they classed humans as mammals in the first place, but I don’t see that way of looking at things as particularly useful. It only works if you pick a characteristic of the ancestral species that is still shared by most of the descendants.

You can pick several characteristics of monkeys that are present in apes.

So you could note that our ancestors were synapsid reptiles, with a single hole in the skull behind each eye, and say “Hey, we’re all synapsids” and no one would look at you too funny because we also have a single hole in our skull behind each eye.

But we are modified synapsids. Regardless of who looks at you funny. That is not a really good gauge of what is true anyways. How many people looked at Darwin funny?

But if you noted that our ancestors all had sail fins on their backs and declared that since we evolved from them we must be pelycosaurs too, you’d get some deservedly funny looks.

The sail fins were charcteristic of their species. No one says that species don't have derived characteristics. The characteristics we still possess from synapsids are ancestral.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If you still doubt that I’ve adequately made my case, (I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t answer) what more do you need?

If you’re still trying to claim that humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard classification system you’d need to show evidence that humans are a subset of a Linnaean taxon considered by scientists to be equivalent in its entirety to the term “monkeys” (or to a subset of that term, such as “old-world monkeys”). This is exactly equivalent to showing that humans are apes by showing that humans are members of the family Hominidae. It’s quite basic, but so far for all your talking you’ve provided nothing along these lines.

Yes I have –again and again and again. I have shown that all members of the family, Hominidae are a subset of Hominoidea, which is a subset of Catarrhini, a collective of “Old World monkeys”. I grant that most sites don’t list them that way, but as I said, those sites that don’t also don’t list fossil forms. If they’re only talking about extant fauna, then they’ll usually do what you yourself did earlier in this thread; list them as humans and apes even though you/they also say that humans are apes. When they include Propliopithecoidea, then the term, “Old World monkeys” is broadened to accomidate them, and us.

I’m not misrepresenting anything. All I’m doing is helping to spread the word that Linnaean system is no longer in vogue –and for good reason.

If it had been overturned a decade ago then it wouldn’t be the accepted standard system now would it?

That is correct. But once the truth was discovered, how long did it take for everyone to stop teaching that the earth was the center of the universe? The same thing is happening with taxonomy. As I said, virtually all the scientific work is Cladistic these days. The Linnaean tradition is still popularly taught because old traditions are hard to change. But once you get beyond the layman and scholastics levels, taxonomic determinations are no longer just character-based, and the Linnaean groupings are often not even used anymore.

And if you’re talking about moving non-human great apes from family Pongidae to family Hominidae, that hardly amounts to an overturn of the Linnaean system. “Family” is a Linnaean taxon. If we’re moving things into “families” rather than clades, then we’re using the Linnaean system.

The names of some of the clades remain the same. Hominoidea is a cladistic name as well as Linnaean. Simia is Linnaean only and Anthropoidea is typically cladistic. But they both mean the same thing, “monkeys”.

If you don’t think you’re misrepresenting anything then show how humans are monkeys according to the standard system. Stop throwing up all this off-topic flack.

I already did –in all my previous posts. You’re determined to make me repeat myself indefinitely.

If it were true that humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard, then you wouldn’t be “challenging” that standard, now would you?

Why haven’t you realized this yet? There is not just one "accepted standard"; there are two. The traditional Linnaean character-based system which is static, and the evolving phylogenetic system which is challenging that.

I’m not objecting to your telling people that humans are “обезьяна”. I’m objecting to your telling people that humans are monkeys when the accepted system says they aren’t.

But both of the accepted systems say we are. Linnaeaus once classified humans and great apes as Hominids. Non-hominiod monkeys were placed in their own little box which he named after them. Later on, at the insistence of his contemporaries, the other great apes were also added to the “monkey” class, -to keep them separate from humans. But eventually phylogentics put us humans there anyway, in the monkey clade along with the rest of the humanoids. As we’ve already seen in this thread again and again, ‘Anthropoid’ and ‘simian’ both mean “monkey”, because all three words may be used interchangeably. Both ‘Simia’ and ‘обезьяна‘ mean “monkey” quite literally -in the same context that the common laity use that word- in that it includes apes; chimpanzees, gorillas, King Kong –all are monkeys; all of them обезьяны.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I actually have provided characteristics of apes (and therefore humans) that aren’t shared by monkeys, but I don’t need to because even if there were none, humans remain classified as they are classified. If and when that changes you can truthfully tell people that humans are monkeys. Until then, all you can say is that you think they ought to be considered monkeys.

It hasn’t changed. For more than 100 years, apes have been classified as anthropoid simians, and they still are. In other words, they’re still monkeys. But you’re working backwards. I can find characteristics of any sub-group that aren’t shared by every member of the parent classification. Even by your preferred classification system, apes are a subset of monkeys, not the other way around. So to counter that, you'd need to produce some character shared by all monkeys that isn't shared by any ape. You already know you can't do it. You just don't want to admit why you can't.

Systematics have overturned Linneaus’ strictly-character-based traditional system, but hasn’t gained full acceptance yet. This has permitted you to flip-flop as to which system is the “accepted standard”; Its whichever one seems to agree with your position.

The standard is the Linnaean system as a whole, not the way a particular taxon was delineated.

But I’ll bet you can’t cite any taxonomic work since 1990 that relies on character-based classifications over phylogenetics. No –wait. I take that back. I have seen some traditional taxonomists trying to argue that genetics could be wrong if it conflicted with their personal interpretation of morphology. But this is unrealistic, as one of the sites I cited earlier said also.

"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. ...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

Under the Linnaean system, humans are classified in the ape family (Hominidae), but are not in any monkey family (such as Cercopithecidae). That’s what makes humans apes but not monkeys. That’s all there is to it.

Wrong. Fortunately my perspective is not so limited. The Linnaean system –which is popularly taught in college as the current standard even though it is known to be wrong- still says all "apes" as Pongids, remember? My own class in anthropology (barely two years ago) included a test question requiring us to describe the differences between apes and hominids! Even though they're still teaching that nonsense as the standard, all that was changed –for purely phylogenetic reasons, a decade before, as you already admitted.

But either way, apes are still part of Simia, the monkey clade. As I have shown you before again and again, Cercopithecoidea is not synonymous with “monkey” nor even “Old World monkeys”, regardless of what I know you've read elsewhere. Because there are monkeys, and even Old World monkeys that are recognized as such -even by primatologists- but which aren’t in that group.

My personal opinion that the refiguring of Hominidae was based on cladistic reasoning (a desire to avoid paraphyly) doesn’t change anything. Just because one taxon in the Linnaean system was reconfigured to avoid paraphyly doesn’t mean all must be (or have been). Every single instance of a new species evolving from an old one adds another paraphyletic taxon.

No sir, not in any case, not even in the Linnaean system. When a new species emerges, then it is a just a new kind of whatever its ancestors were. This is true in every single instance.

And it’s not like the Linnaean system is opposed to phylogenetic information. Linnaean taxa are configured to avoid polyphyly just as any purely cladistic system would be.

Then explain why you insist that all the “Old World monkeys” must be Cercopiths? And how they relate to New World monkeys? You yourself tried to argue for paraphyly earlier in this thread! How then do you account for Parapith monkeys, and Propliopiths?

They differ in that Linnaean taxa may be paraphyletic, while a clade must be monophyletic.

While it is true that phylogenetic clades must be monophyletic, it doesn’t make any sense that it would ever be otherwise, because, (as I said) the suite of characters describing any taxon still must be read as it relates to the ancestral descent. Otherwise, these are arbitrary classifications with little or no other meaning.

And yes, you did finally clarify in this thread that humans aren’t classified as monkeys by the generally accepted system. You then contracticted that clarification in the above quotes where you claim it’s true we are monkeys according to the accepted system, and that it isn’t true that you’re using a non-standard system. In post 27 you make the nonsensical claim we are monkeys regardless of the system. You are all over the board.

I’m making one statement repeatedly. You don’t understand it obviously, as indicated by the fact that you still refer to monkeys are Cercopiths, and because you somehow believe that “every single instance” of evolution is paraphyletic, -which just isn’t true even according to your antiquated "standard". I’m not contradicting myself. But you are, and I think its just that you’re perspective is still confined to little taxonomic boxes determined by unquestioned authority opinion, rather than the iconoclast vision of growing and branching limbs. That's why you’re having difficulty understanding me.

 

[Aron-Ra]

My next question for you would have to be, what did you think the topic was? I thought that topic was whether it is defensibly accurate to describe humans as a highly-derived subset of monkeys. You seem to agree with that topic only as long as you can confine our measure of ‘accuracy’ to mean ‘only according to your interpretation of the antiquated and biased Linnaean system.’

The topic is whether humans are monkeys. By asking that question without further qualifiers we imply that the classification system we’ll use to answer that question is the generally accepted standard.

Actually, no. The way the question is phrased, it does not depend on any one criteria to the exclusion of all else. I guess Edx and I were right about the restriction of your argument. Its as if Systema Naturae were your holy inerrent dogma.

The question is not whether humans ought to be classified as monkeys, or whether a cladistic system would be better than the accepted standard, or whether we might describe humans as highly-derived monkeys, or any number of other possible questions you’ve been trying to throw in. I’m willing to go over those questions, but only after we answer the topic on the table.

I’m sorry, but that IS the topic on the table, and has been since this discussion began.

SLP said his position, (which he shared with you) would be wrong -if the stem of Hominoidea was an animal that would be recognized as a monkey by scientists. To that end, I have shown (1) that Propliopiths and Parapiths are both outside of, and basal to, extant monkey groups, yet they are still considered ‘monkeys’ even by specialists in this field. This justifies the more inclusive monophyletic grouping to account for all monkeys, Old World and New, living or dead, -and it nullifies your earlier contention for paraphyly. (2) I have shown that both of these basal monkey groups are indeed considered ancestral to Hominoids as well, and that stem species of all anthropoids (like Apidium phiomense) are also recognized as monkeys even in the realm of science. (3) I have shown that cladistics has already replaced Linnaean taxonomy at the forefront of this field, and I can continue to show as much proof of that as you will ever need.

SLP and I had completely separate points. I’ve already said that I didn’t know enough about primate evolution to have a strong opinion regarding whether the common ancestor of apes would be considered a monkey or not.

Did you learn nothing from that discussion? Surely you’ve been able to form an opinion by now?

I’ve offered a few comments on the subject, but my overall argument has very little to do with what apes evolved from, and I’ve said so. Suppose SLP or someone else came along and showed that the apes’ common ancestor was a tarsier (such as is depicted on the cover of the “Dawn Monkey” book you haven’t read) rather than a monkey. You’d just turn around and start claiming that humans are tarsiers, and I’d have to point out that by the standard classification system, no they are not.

If that were so, then I doubt the classification system would have been completely ignorant of this. So you probably wouldn’t have been able to make that argument. And even if you could, that still wouldn’t satisfy the point of this discussion –which is not “Did Linnaeus think we were monkeys/tarsiers?” but “are we really monkeys/tarsiers whether he thought so or not?”

The substance of the argument wouldn’t change. I don’t think you’ve shown what you claim to have shown regarding propliopiths and parapiths, but it’s possible I missed something. I’d be happy to discuss it with you further after we finish the topic at hand.

But since that is central to the topic at-hand, and the topic at-hand pivots on that, then we’ll have to determine the status of parapiths and propliopiths before that topic can be finished.

You have not shown that cladistics has replaced Linnaean taxonomy.

Yes I did. In post #201 I’ve shown several university sites that said so directly, and SLP showed it again with his own research which demonstrates that as well. So why don’t you cough up some recent research which still allows Linnaean morphology to trump phylogenetics? If you look hard enough, you’ll find there are still a few of them out there. But they’re losing credibility fast.

The Linnaean taxonomic system incorporates cladistic information to avoid polyphyly and in some instances to avoid paraphyly as well. It remains, as you’ve admitted, the standard taxonomic system, and thus the system that must be consulted to answer a question such as whether humans are monkeys.

We are in that period between the election and the inauguration, in which the incumbent is still recognized, but only to a degree. But it wouldn’t matter anyway, because this never relied on arguments from authority. And even if it did, both of the “accepted standards” still agree with me.

You asked for citations from scientists in this field, authorities who describe humans as “monkeys” in a literal matter-of-fact sense, and I have given you that repeatedly.

You did? Where?

In post #202 I listed ornithological systematist John Harshman, vertebrate paleontologist Chris Beard, and renowned paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall. You already knew that of course, and are now trying to find some way to ignore them.

Did they perchance make clear they were using a non-standard classification system, as I’ve asked you to do?

How would a lie like that serve to clarify anything?

And you asked for verification that systematics is in fact replacing Linnaean taxonomy, and I have given that repeatedly too.

No, I asked for verification that a cladistic system had replaced the Linnaean one. You have shown no such thing, and if you had shown that then you wouldn’t be admitting now that the Linnaean system is the standard.

I “admitted” -many many times- that the Linnaean classification of apes as pongids is still the one most often taught in college, making that the “standard” (in popular opinion) even though you yourself admit that its wrong. But as we’ve seen all through this thread, advanced scientific research in this field is almost entirely cladistic now.

"Virtually all texts differentiate between nonhuman apes (“pongids&#8221 and human apes (“hominids&#8221. Cladistically speaking this is incorrect."
--Student presentation, University of California at Santa Barbara

 

[Aron-Ra]

Your first cite makes clear it is not using the word “anthropoid” (or “simian”) in a Linnaean sense. It calls them a “phylogenetic group”. Why this particular professor (not necessarily the university, so far as I can tell) would mix the Linnaean taxa of class and order with “phylogenetic groups” isn’t clear. I seriously doubt she intends such a hodge-podge to replace Linnaean taxonomy. She also hasn’t done what I object to you doing – that being leaving the clear implication that humans are monkeys according to the accepted standard.

This really should be clear to you by now. Because (as one of my citations have already tried to explain) most researchers are trying to accomidate both systems as much as they can. "You don't draw borders that aren't there, or give precise limits to things that don't have them. Real taxonomy often uses a blend of Linnaean and cladistic ideals.” “Simian”, (the Latin word for “monkey”) is the Linnaean classification. “Anthropoid” is the phylogenetic equivilent of that.

As for your second cite, all it says is that Catarrhini includes old-world monkeys. It doesn’t say anything about such monkeys being in either superfamily. It also doesn’t say “old world monkeys” is the name of the infraorder. It says “Catarrhines include Old World Monkeys. This infraorder may be divided …” “This infraorder” refers to “Catarrhines”, not to “Old World Monkeys”.

Taken in context, it can only imply that both sub-groups are part of the parent classification.

And the word monkey is never used in a context that includes apes. It is in fact only used twice on the page, once to refer to new world monkeys and once as quoted above.

Let’s look at that, shall we?
Catarrhines include Old World monkeys. This infraorder may be divided into two superfamilies: 1. Cercopithecoidea and 2. Hominoidea.

In this context, the “Old World monkeys” includes Hominoidea, the apes. In the prior one, “Platyrrhines include the New World monkeys.” there is a choice between two divisions of Haplorhini, which ‘kind’ of monkeys they’re talking about. There is no option but that apes that are considered monkeys by this site.

So if you enroll in North Carolina, you’ll learn the new standard, one which admits that humans are monkeys in the literal sense. But if you go to school here in Texas, they’ll still say tell you that Chimpanzees belong to the Pongo family -even though this was shown to be false better than ten years ago. That’s how it is that the Linnaean system hasn’t been disposed of yet. Information is slow to be adopted, and not enough of us even realize any change is under way.

I’ve been using the term “standard” to mean the system widely used and accepted.

Then some redefinition is required. Because only in the classroom is there ever any choice between these two. Beyond that there is only Linnaean taxonomy enhanced by phylogenetics, or there is cladistics alone with none of the flawed Linnaean construct included anymore.

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

Even if your NC State professor wanted her hodge podge system to replace the Linnaean, it is hardly the “new standard”. Possibly someday a purely phylogenetic system actually will be adopted as the new standard. If and when that day comes, then if you can show apes evolved from monkeys I won’t have any complaint about you calling humans monkeys. Until then, I do.

I’m stunned that your whole argument really is limited only to authority opinion, and an antiquated traditional authority at that. Are you seriously unable to question that?

It’s not a question of “realizing” that humans are monkeys, as if the point were independent of what people decide the words ought to mean.

As a scientist, what do you think the word, “monkey” means?

There may be taxonomists who think humans ought to be considered monkeys. So far I haven’t seen any of them suggesting to non-biologists that humans are currently considered such except by non-standard classification systems.

I haven’t seen that either I’ve only seen them using the modern classification system, the one now adopted by by virtually everyone involved in taxonomy anymore.

I’d be happy to discuss your conspiracy claims after we’ve resolved the current topic.

Its funny that you prefer to do the first thing last and the last thing first. But OK. Do you also go through a door and then open it?

 

[Aron-Ra]

So the question is, (yes or no) do respected scientific authorities in relevant fields consider humans to be derived from monkeys, and consider us to be technically monkeys still- according to both ancestral origin and the suite of morphological characters in common? That answer is yes.

The question is whether humans are monkeys. All you have to do to answer that question is look at how we’re classified according to the standard taxonomic system.

Alright then. Having already done that several times, I guess I’ll have to repeat myself for you again. Ignoring for the moment that there is no one standard classification system, and the one you’re arguing for is wrong, and that we should be looking at why we're classified any particular way, -even your own system lists lists apes as simians. Of course your system also says that humans are not apes. So you have a problem there.

Since you disagree with your own system, the enhanced synthesis of phylogenetics incorporating Linnaean categories variously sub-divided –does indeed list humans as apes, and apes as anthropoids, specifically within the category of Old World monkeys –when that category admits fossil groups. The same is true in straight-up cladistics -except that the clades have discarded those inapplicable and restrictive ranks which Linnaean taxonomy was based on.

“Most biologists use the Linnaean system for constructing classifications of the organic world. The Linnaean system, however, has lost its theoretical basis due to the shift in biology from creationist and essentialist tenets to evolutionary theory. As a result, the Linnaean system is both cumbersome and ontologically vacuous. This paper illustrates the problems facing the Linnaean system, and ends with a brief introduction to an alternative approach to biological classification.”
--Marc Ereshefsky Ph.D. U. of Calgary

Do taxonomists, -both cladistic and Linnaean- understand that the monophyletic application of that word certainly would include humans? Again, the answer is yes, though that certainly doesn’t account for everyone’s opinions in either case, and depends largely on the extent of one’s knowledge of fossil forms.

You’re claiming that it is generally understood that apes evolved from monkeys. I don’t think you’ve shown that at all, and I don’t think your personal knowledge of fossil forms is necessarily greater than SLP’s or the various other sources that disagree with you. If you’d like to finish up with the current topic I’d be happy to discuss what apes may or may not have evolved from.

But we have to open the door before we can walk through it. I haven’t seen any sites listed yet that disagreed with me, although you seem to interpret things that way. And SLP admitted early on that he had little or no knowledge of fossil forms, which were an area of particular interest to me most of my life. I am studying to become a paleontologist, so I think it can be safely said that I know more about that particular subject than he does.

There is no way to determine if we are monkeys “in reality” regardless of how we are currently classified (which is what I gather you to mean by “regardless of what the opinions of others may be”).

No sir. Phylogenetics differs from your system for the very reason Linnaean taxonomy is being replaced. Clades are objectively-verifiable and reliable according to methods commonly accepted as solitary evidence even in a court of law.

Whether humans are monkeys in a scientific sense depends entirely on the definitions of those terms as they are used by scientists.

Like Harshman, Beard, and Tattersall.

You are misrepresenting those definitions and thereby potentially misleading quite a few people.

I am doing niether. I have given every definition available and compared them to every other fact relevant to this issue. I am misleading no one about anything, and have given you more than ample opportunity to contest me on that. Yet you refuse. If you can only say “we aren't monkeys [only] because the authorities say so” that’s not enough. You have to do better than that. Show me why your unquestioned authorities say so, and let's see if that's justified.

It’s just like telling someone she owes a particular amount of taxes, without telling her you figured that out according to a non-standard rate that you happen to like better.

No, its not like that in any sense.

As for your final sentence, I’d be happy to discuss your off-topic accusations regarding the motivations of people you don’t even know once we’ve dealt with the matter at hand.

Ahh, you must be talking about my immediately relevant reference to documented history. I sure would like to know how you get the impressions you do.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Well, Cirbryn? Why don't you explain to her which classification system you used to determine that?

Why certainly sir. I used the Linnaean classification system. The same one I used to determine that humans aren't monkeys. The same one that is the acknowledged standard.

That's not true. The "accepted standard" you so dogmatically praise describes all apes as pongids where hominidae is reserved for humans who are distinguished from apes.

"Ape: a member of the Pongidae family of ape species. Depending on the classification system used, pongids include only orangutans or orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos."
--Palomar College, San Diego

As I said, the Linnaean system is still popular even among some research biologists, but even they claim hominids and pongids as distinctly separate groups, hence the title of this thread, and the argument among evolutionists themselves who began that. Remember how they said creationists were misrepresenting evolution by claiming that humans evolved from apes?

6. If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes?
Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today.
--PBS evolution FAQ

That is the Linnaean perspective, one that describes our simian ancestors as "ape-like", (whatever that means) but not-apes, (however they define that) and definitely not hominids. You did not use their system, sir. By your own admission, you relied wholly and exclusively on objectively demonstrable and verifiable phylogenetics.