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

[Lilandra]

With the pretty pictures of girls here, that might be easier said than done.

/me runs far, far and still farther away.

 

[dad]

/me runs far, far and still farther away.

Relax, I'm married. How about you Aron?

 

[Lilandra]

Relax, I'm married. How about you Aron?

I couldn't be any more married even if I tried.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Relax, I'm married. How about you Aron?

I think everyone is running far far away from you.

 

[SLP]

Originally Posted by: SLP:

My position is that a descendant is not that from which it came, evolutionarily speaking.

I think his position is that each descendant is a modified version of its ancestor, evolutionary speaking.

And that differs from what I wrote how? Is something that is 'modified' not something other than from what it came?(please - no nitpickery about polyphyly and all that, it should be obvious that I am not making such an argument).

Which provides more specificity - Primate or monkey? Monkey or ape? Ape of hominid?

Specificity is useful but it is not always necessary. But, the chain of combined cladistic relationships is more specific than Homo sapien.

How so? If one writes or says “Homo sapien”, do you really think someone might have trouble understanding exactly what that refers to? Do you really think it more specific to rattle off a laundry list of hypothesized ancestral-descendant relationships to arrive at Homo sapiens? Will providing such a list really be more specific that saying Homo sapiens? Such specificity may not be necessary when chatting with the laity, but when attempting to argue a scientific position, it is all but required.

The claim that humans are monkeys is arbitrary. Yes, I know what that means. It does not mean pulled out of thin air, it means based on one's own notions or preferences. Some prefer the notion that humans are monkeys over the notion that humans are sarcopterygian fish. But cladisticaly, both are true, and thus both are limited in scientific value. It is just as cladistically correct to claim that humans are apes. Just as there are no characters that all monkeys possess that humans do not, there are no characters that all apes possess that humans do not.

This is what he has been arguing.

So why the protracted ego-fest about how humans are monkeys, not apes?

So why not say humans are apes?

No one says they aren't.

It is certainly implied:

“First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.”
“The word, Catarrhini, (which is the parent clade for all humans and other apes as well as Cercopithecids) means "Old World monkey"*. That is what we are.”

I have always simply considered humans to be apes. That our 'immediate' ancestor was ape-like. And this is true. It is also true that further back, our ancestors were monkey-like. So, yet again, why the insistence on claiming 'we are monkeys'?

*That is not what is means, as I have demonstrated. OWMs are Catarrhines, but catarrhine does not mean OWM.

If no one says we are not apes, why the insistence on this ‘we are monkeys’? Identifiying humans as apes is certainly more informative and precise than is saying we are monkeys.

You have joined the small choir that see some major scientific position being argued, and that Cir and I can't hack it. I can't speak for Cir, but my position is not altered by the 'belief' that humans are monkeys.

So now I am a cheerleader in the choir? It is not at all possible that people disagree with you and Cibryn.

Of course it is possible. But you, for example, have essentially AGREED with everything I have been saying, yet for reasons I cannot discern have decided to take a stand against my position.

You and Cibryn agree. What does that make you? Two people that agree? Huh? Just maybe?

What do we agree about, exactly? As Cir has pointed out, we are making two different statements. Your attempt at comparison would have merit for example if I rushed to Cir’s defense despite agreeing with/accepting what his opponent were saying.

From my position as a primatologist, that is simply too vague a statement to be of any relevance (humans are apes is only marginally better). You interpret my indifference (and disdain for being talked down to by one that is not in such a position) as inability or avoidance.

I am sorry if I have talked down to you. For my part I really don't have disdain for anyone.

I was not referring to you, and I do not ‘disdain’ anyone, either.

Though I have said I am done, I will try to get to Aron's post on page 6 (in my browser anyway) sometime tomorrow. And THEN I am done (yeah right).

And if I do not address each and every utterance, you can go on accusing me of avoiding things and ignoring things if it will make you feel special.

Funny thing is he was arguing with a professional creationist once and I told him, "Don't fire all your ammunition at once." He said, "You don't understand I got plenty more." He is sorta gunghoe about this stuff He overwhelms people sometimes.

That is funny. I am hardly overwhelmed, as far as evidence goes. In fact, I am a bit underwhelmed - using snippets form book reviews, titles of webpages, etc... Please... It is true that Aron is a prolific internet discussion board poster. Being overwhelmed by unimpressive and often contradictory volume is not the same as being unable to address issues.

 

[SLP]

Why aren't you getting this?

You already know you can't do it. And I think you know why you can't do it. But you can't admit it, and you're running out of excuses.

Maybe if you would read the posts all the way through the first time, and either aknowledge that or concoct some actual rebuttal for once, then I wouldn't have to explain the exact same things to you again and again and again.

SLP finally admitted he couldn't do it.

I did? Amazing...

Damn you are thick! You're thick, Thicky Thickman from Thicktown, Thickamia. Boy you know to miss a point!


You're not telling me anything I don't already know. You're telling me something I've already told you several times in this thread. But since you don't bother to read the whole post before you answer it, I'll repeat again.

You know, it is always the other guy, isn't it?

 

[SLP]

Not the post I was referring to, but I have to drop my car off in 15 minutes and only have time to reply to this.

My first post in this thread, in toto:

I suspect what you said was that evolution claims we evolved from monkeys.

Monkeys are not apes

Implying that we 'evolved from' apes. Oh, the horror! Monkeys ARE NOT apes. Correct? Yet for this terrible transgression, I was treated to a condescending quip by the local lore master:

First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

This wasn't meant to be condescending. I can't imagine how anyone cursed with any humility could think it was.

The irony is rich…

My position is that a descendant is not that from which it came, evolutionarily speaking.

But it is a modified version of that, just as I've been saying all along.

Indeed – so we agree! Yippee!

The ancestor of apes and humans was neither ape nor human. It certainly had more in common with apes as indicated by fossils, and we might call it an ape by virtue of various criteria, but it was not an ape as exists today.

It was an ape. We are apes today. Gorillas are apes today. Dryopithecus was an ape yesterday. And so are/were gibbons.

Please note “…as exists today.”

The ancestor of Hominoids and Cercopithecoids was neither. And so on.

That's right. It was a Propliopithecid, another kind of 'Old World monkey'.

That position is, at best, one of several possibilities, as has been pointed out.

That we want to append 'common' names to extinct ancestors is fine, and if these ancestors did not possess characters that we do not, they would not be ancestral, would they?

Of course.

Wow – twice in one post!

I was using descriptive language in my opening posts - monkeys are Primates but not all primates are monkeys. Is that true or not?

Yes. There are also tarsiers, lemurs and lorises.

Thrice.

Which provides more specificity - Primate or monkey?

Monkey, because it refers only to anthropoids.

Right.

Monkey or ape?

Ape, because it distinguishes Hominoidea from all the clades of other monkeys in the four groups discussed in this thread.

Very good…

Ape of hominid?

Hominid, because it refers only the 'great' apes.

Excellent.

The claim that humans are monkeys is arbitrary. Yes, I know what that means.

Evidently not.

Yeah, I guess I just don’t what them fancy college words mean. Perhaps, if I can be magnanimous, I can say that should have been more specific - The preferred claim that humans are monkeys, as opposed to humans are apes, is arbitrary.

It does not mean pulled out of thin air, it means based on one's own notions or preferences.

Yet I preferred to adhere to the notion of grades, just as Cirbryn still does. I was forced to discard that despite my preference. So it was not arbitrary.

Ummm… Please try not to jump around to disparate topics and ancient history. I am referring to the present. Clearly and obviously, I was referring to the present arbitrary nature of insisting that ‘humans are monkeys’ instead of ‘humans are apes’ (or ‘humans are mammals’ or ‘humans are Primates’ or whatever – all are correct, which one prefers to use is arbitrary, although some are certainly more precise and relevant than others, depending on the topic).

Some prefer the notion that humans are monkeys over the notion that humans are sarcopterygian fish. But cladisticaly, both are true, and thus both are limited in scientific value.

Wait, if something is true, then it is limited in scientific value?! Are you sure you want to say that?

Yes I am sure, oh Arbiter of all that is True and Scientific. Precision is important scientifically. If I were to submit a manuscript regarding the phylogenetic relationships within the Hominoidea, and every time I referred to non-human hominids as “monkeys” without saying which ones I was referring to, the paper would be, appropriately, rejected pending clarification. So, labels such as ‘Humans are monkeys’ or ‘humans are s. fish’ is thus of limited scientific value.

Besides, as a cladist, its awfully funny when creationists ask for transitional species in a system that can't have "gaps". Asking for a half-ape, half-human is exactly the same thing as asking for a half-mammal, half-human.

True. Who is doing that?

It is just as cladistically correct to claim that humans are apes. Just as there are no characters that all monkeys possess that humans do not, there are no characters that all apes possess that humans do not. So why not say humans are apes?

I do, and I have since I was a little boy, decades before any taxonomists begun to share that opinion, I knew we were apes, and I've said so all my life.

Wow, you’re a regular prodigy. So, why the big fixation on the ‘humans are monkeys’ preference?

Now, at last, the dominant scientific position is finally comfortable saying the same.

Wow, you were a real scientific pioneer…

After decades of saying "humand didn't evolve from apes" they're finally admitting that, well, yes we did.

Who did that?

We had to have, because we're still apes now! Admitting we're monkeys is just the next, (and last) step to accepting the whole phylogenetic scheme.

All you have to do now is find a few more webpage titles and book review snippets, and I am sure the scientific world will be eating out of your hand…

 

[Edx]

I have always simply considered humans to be apes. That our 'immediate' ancestor was ape-like. And this is true. It is also true that further back, our ancestors were monkey-like. So, yet again, why the insistence on claiming 'we are monkeys'?.

This is what I dont get. You say our immediate ancestors were "ape-like", fine, then you say if you go further back our ancestors are "monkey-like", but how do you distinguish between monkeys and us? If theres no trait that distinguishes us, how are we not still monkeys now? If we found a new ape/monkey like species, how would we determine if it was was a monkey or an ape, or if it was "monkey-like" or "ape-like"?

 

[Lilandra]

And that differs from what I wrote how? Is something that is 'modified' not something other than from what it came?(please - no nitpickery about polyphyly and all that, it should be obvious that I am not making such an argument).

First of all, the argument you were making is different from the one you are now. I will show you in a sec.

Second, modified does not mean a species does not have the same foundational traits that its ancestor had. It also, does not mean it can no longer be identified with its ancestor.

How so? If one writes or says “Homo sapien”, do you really think someone might have trouble understanding exactly what that refers to?

Depends on the purpose of what you are writing or even if you are writing in the first place. If you are identifying a primate in the field it will not immediately apparent that what you have is a Homo sapien. In which case the laundry list is necessary.

Do you really think it more specific to rattle off a laundry list of hypothesized ancestral-descendant relationships to arrive at Homo sapiens? Will providing such a list really be more specific that saying Homo sapiens?

Like I said, in some instances it is necessary.

Such specificity may not be necessary when chatting with the laity, but when attempting to argue a scientific position, it is all but required. So why the protracted ego-fest about how humans are monkeys, not apes?

We are talking about identifying characteristics of monkeys right? Do you work with living primates only? Perhaps that is why ya'll seem to be talking past one another.

I have always simply considered humans to be apes. That our 'immediate' ancestor was ape-like. And this is true. It is also true that further back, our ancestors were monkey-like. So, yet again, why the insistence on claiming 'we are monkeys'?

Now you are saying human ancestors were "monkey-like". Before you would not admit this.

Apes are not derived from monkeys, any more than ostriches are derived from sparrows..

to which Aron replied...

Well, ostriches certainly aren't sparrows. But what would you call an ape's ancestor who still has a tail? Or an earlier ape-ancestor who's tail is still prehensile? Or who still had claws instead of fingernails? Or who yet lacked full brachiation? Because if you remove the traits that specify apes, what you have left is a monkey.

*That is not what is means, as I have demonstrated. OWMs are Catarrhines, but catarrhine does not mean OWM.

Oh yeah, OWM are OWM and apes and humans while NWM are simply NWM not NWM and marmosets and tamarins. That makes a whole lot of sense.

If no one says we are not apes, why the insistence on this ‘we are monkeys’? Identifiying humans as apes is certainly more informative and precise than is saying we are monkeys.

How then would you classify a newly unearthed fossil? How would you know it is an ancestor of apes? The list of monkey characteristics would apply as well as a the more derived ape characteristics. In this case it is not more informative to stop at the ape clade, is it?

Of course it is possible. But you, for example, have essentially AGREED with everything I have been saying, yet for reasons I cannot discern have decided to take a stand against my position.

I did not agree with the position you started out with as I demonstrated. The last post had a few more reasonable points that Aron was saying this whole time already.

But you being a primatologist, you were never in error. That is impossible. Therefore because I am female , I must be some sort of paleo-groupie of Aron's. I cannot have any other reason to disagree with an expert.

Your attempt at comparison would have merit for example if I rushed to Cir’s defense despite agreeing with/accepting what his opponent were saying.I was not referring to you, and I do not ‘disdain’ anyone, either.

For the record I have several virtual friends on this board, who I will defend if I feel like it and if I agree with them. I have gotten in disagreements with some of them also, Aron included.

Some of them defend me if they feel like it. There is no rule against that.

I shouldn't have to defend this but I feel as though you are attempting to color my arguments as coming from a pie-eyed simpleton with no ability to think for herself.

That is funny. I am hardly overwhelmed, as far as evidence goes. In fact, I am a bit underwhelmed - using snippets form book reviews, titles of webpages, etc... Please... It is true that Aron is a prolific internet discussion board poster. Being overwhelmed by unimpressive and often contradictory volume is not the same as being unable to address issues.

Again, attempting to color the poster, not addressing the argument.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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?

It’s not wrong.

Its not wrong to teach college-level biology majors that humans are hominids, and apes are pongids, -according to the standard method of classification?! They're still teaching it that way right now all across the country!

Humans are apes but not monkeys because that’s how they’re classified under the Linnaean system.

Cirbryn wanna cracker? Learn a new phrase, because this one isn’t accurate, and there are other factors to consider.

And try to understand this too:
(1) Apes descended from monkeys.
(2) Monkeys are 'simians'.
(3) The Linnaean taxon for all of them together is "Simia" -which means monkeys.

Several sites we've already seen in this thread have labeled all apes and monkeys -as Old World monkeys collectively, and typically (though not always) use the word, ‘monkey’ in English only in relation to the extant non-human groups, ignoring fossil forms by necessity. But the implication is still there that we are monkeys, and when the fossil forms are incuded then there’s no doubt about it anymore. But even if it didn’t imply that, the Linnaean system is not sacred, and it is still not the final word here.

Previously other great apes were classified in their own family (Pongidae), but now they’re not.

That's right. Once people started using phylogenetics, then the Linnaean system had to be re-evaluated.

Before that the great apes and lesser apes (gibbons) were all classified in their own family (Simiidae), but now they’re not.

They're still classed as simians, and we’re now we're classified as simians too.

All that means is that the Linnaean system isn’t static as you claimed, but is instead responsive to new phylogenetic information (that being in this case the various genetic studies showing how closely we are related to chimpanzees).

That was phylogenetics, not Linnaean morphology! The Linnaean system has been revamped and duct-taped a lot as people try to jerry-rig it to keep it working. But it doesn’t work anymore, and ain't going forward anymore. That's why its static. It can't adequately account for new evolutionary events because it insists on pretending they have to be paraphyletic. It does not, cannot and will not accurately reflect or depict the evolution of new forms properly. When you permit paraphyly, you lose valuable information about species. I don’t know why you can’t see that you’re working against your own interests here and on more than one level.

The great apes are now classed with humans in Homicide, and the gibbons are classed in their own family of Hylobatidae. Nothing non-Linnaean about that.

There's nothing Linnaean about that -except the fact that Hylobatids and Hominids are now in separate boxes, each with an equal rank.

And if your anthro class is behind the times, that’s its problem.

It wasn't just my anthropology class. It was my cellular biology and historical geology classes as well. All of them were still teaching the Linnaean system as the standard.All of them taught that ‘apes’ were in the family, Pongidae. The historical geology class taught that australopithecines were hominids rather than apes. And they treated hominids as a paraphyletic group. Once you were human, you were no longer a hominid, and hominids were never apes. That’s the way its being taught in college level science classes right now. Does that make any sense to you?

And I don’t know what you mean by apes still being in Simia, the monkey clade. According to Simia was a Linnaean taxon set up by Linnaeus hundreds of years ago.

For monkeys only, hence the name.

It wasn’t a clade because it wasn’t monophyletic. It included monkeys and (presumably) apes other than humans and chimps.

Orangutans were classified as humans then too.

We currently have infraorder Simiiformes, which includes both monkeys and apes.

Both apes and other monkeys, and not just according to the name.

Also, I never claimed Cercopithecoidea was synonymous with monkeys, and in fact I specifically noted numerous times that there are monkeys in other families. As you’ll see if you re-read my quote above, I used Cercopithecidae (not Cercopithecoidea) as an example of a monkey family.

And you said Cercopithecidae was synonymous with Old World monkeys.

Secondly, I’m getting tired of your continually claiming to have shown me something again and again.

Then stop asking for things after I've already shown them.

If you want to refer me to a particular post then you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, save the condescending histrionics and use the extra time to actually read what I wrote.

Now that's classic irony!

The paraphyletic taxon is the old species, not the new one. A paraphyletic taxon is one that doesn’t include all descendants.

I obviously already knew that long before this discussion ever began.

The new species is a descendant, but it gets its own species designation in the genus as if it were a sister species to the original. It is not considered to be part of the parent species any more.

And that's why it doesn't work.

I didn’t argue that all old-world monkeys must be Cercopiths.

Yes you did, in post # 43 of this thread.

I don’t know how Cercopiths relate to new-world monkeys. I mentioned earlier in the thread that old and new world monkeys might have evolved separately to be monkeylike, which would make the term “monkey” polyphyletic (not paraphyletic – the difference is that paraphyletic groups include a single common ancestor but don’t include all the descendants, whereas polyphyletic groups don’t include the common ancestor).

Thanks for clarifying that for the audience.

Since “monkey” isn’t a Linnaean term, but is instead associated with several Linnaean families including the cercopiths in the old world and the Cebidae in the new, I don’t see what the problem is. I didn’t say “monkey” couldn’t be polyphyletic,

Yeah, that's the problem. You actually said it could be! How do you justify that? Don’t pretend that this is some off-topic side-track. It doesn’t get more relevant than this, so answer me, please.

I said Linnaean taxa aren’t polyphyletic (or at least that taxonomists try to avoid such polyphyly). The parapiths and propliopiths are extinct families of old-world monkeys. Based on morphological comparisons, the propliopiths may have given rise to both the Cercopiths and the apes. If so, then the propliopiths would be paraphyletic.

Nope, sorry. That's the whole point of this thread, I think. Paraphyly is not permitted, and it doesn't make any logical sense anyway. As I said yesterday, in yet another direct question you repeatedly ignored, at what point would does monkey descendant become not a monkey descendant anymore? If Proconsul is only, say, 90% ape, would he only be 10% monkey? Or is it only when he achieves 100% ape-hood that he ascends to some lofty position where he is no longer part of his parent's family?

It doesn’t make any sense that it would be otherwise about phylogentic clades, or about Linnaean taxa? If you meant the latter, are you disagreeing with me that such taxa can be paraphyletic, or are you just complaining about how you don’t like paraphyletic groups? If the latter, how would that be relevant to whether humans are monkeys?

Paraphyly doesn’t make any sense. Does it make sense that once you become a human, you’re not a hominid anymore? And if polyphyly were possible, then it would still be possible for a new set of hominids to evolve from chimpanzees. Now do you think that’s really possible?

Aron, I don’t think you’re taking enough time to read what I’ve written, or to write considered responses.

How ironic. But you’re wrong. I not only read each of your posts all the way through, I consider them objectively, to see if you actually have a valid point that I should concede. You, on the other hand, have admitted earlier in this thread that you don’t bother to read each post all the way through, and can’t be bothered to properly address every point or query in them the way I always do for you.

If you were making one statement repeatedly, then you wouldn’t have said both that humans are and are not monkeys under the Linnaean system.

But they are. Its an anthropomorphic system, and always has been. That’s why it only says “monkey” in English when it refers to non-humans and ‘monkey’ in Latin when it refers to the whole collective.

I provided the quotes, they were in the post to which you were responding above. I don’t refer to monkeys as Cercopiths, I refer to Cercopiths as monkeys. And I never said every single instance of evolution is paraphyletic. I said every instance of speciation produces a paraphyletic taxon.

What’s the difference? How do you not see the paradox here? Or are you separating microevolution from macroevolution “instances”?

Given your mangling of what I’ve actually written, I think I’m actually doing a pretty good job understanding you.

That’s funny. I think you’re mangling what I write in an attempt to deliberately misinterpret it. That’s the only reason I can see for why you refuse to consider any other fact other than where your Linnaean trees traditionally place the English word, “monkey”.

I’d appreciate it if you tried to give me similar consideration.

I’ve already given you more consideration than you’ve given me. But alright, explain this: If you’re not saying that every single instance of evolution is paraphyletic, but every instance of speciation is, then since every single instance of macroevolution has to be a speciation event, then when could there ever be a non-paraphyletic instance of evolution?

 

[Aron-Ra]

So why the protracted ego-fest about how humans are monkeys, not apes?

The only "protracted ego fest" in this thread was your own. My ego played no part in anything I've written here. Yours did because you felt slighted by someone you pre-judged to be inferior in every respect. However, you based your whole stance in this discussion on a series of false impressions and jumped to all the wrong conclusions. I never said we weren't apes. Neither did I imply it ever at any time in any capacity. In fact, I said we were apes, and I said it several times since I joined this thread.

So why not say humans are apes?

No one says they aren't.

It is certainly implied:

“First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.”

But all apes are monkeys, including humans, which "certainly implies" that humans must be apes. There is no other way to interpret that.

“The word, Catarrhini, (which is the parent clade for all humans and other apes as well as Cercopithecids) means "Old World monkey"*. That is what we are.”

Humans and other apes, besides humans, "certainly implying" that humans are apes. There is no other way to interpret that either.

I have always simply considered humans to be apes. That our 'immediate' ancestor was ape-like. And this is true. It is also true that further back, our ancestors were monkey-like. So, yet again, why the insistence on claiming 'we are monkeys'?

Because it is demonstrably true. Now, if you want to argue that humans aren't apes, then I'm game for that too, and you may then accuse me of arbitrarily choosing to call people apes. And if you want to argue that people aren't animals either, and I correct you there too, well then you can accuse me of insisting on calling people animals. Would you like to argue that we aren't eukaryotes either? Because I've "arbitrarily" "chosen" to "insist" that we are. Either that, or we really are Eukaryotes, animals, monkeys and apes, and I'm just revealing a simple (albeit unpopular) truth to someone outraged at being corrected by anyone, but especially someone so far below your pedestal.

If no one says we are not apes, why the insistence on this ‘we are monkeys’?

Because apes are a sub-set of monkeys. I have also said many times in the last few weeks that humans were a sub-set of apes as well. Its not my fault if you don't pay attention.

Identifiying humans as apes is certainly more informative and precise than is saying we are monkeys.

That depends on what you're talking about. In this case, we happen to be arguing whether apes descended from monkeys, in which case, my arguing that humans were apes would be irrelevant.

You interpret my indifference (and disdain for being talked down to by one that is not in such a position) as inability or avoidance.

I am sorry if I have talked down to you. For my part I really don't have disdain for anyone.

I was not referring to you, and I do not ‘disdain’ anyone, either.

And yet you just said you did. I didn't talk down to you either, at least not until you started doing your superiority dance.

Funny thing is he was arguing with a professional creationist once and I told him, "Don't fire all your ammunition at once." He said, "You don't understand I got plenty more." He is sorta gunghoe about this stuff He overwhelms people sometimes.

That is funny. I am hardly overwhelmed, as far as evidence goes. In fact, I am a bit underwhelmed - using snippets form book reviews, titles of webpages, etc... Please... It is true that Aron is a prolific internet discussion board poster. Being overwhelmed by unimpressive and often contradictory volume is not the same as being unable to address issues.

As I said before, several times, you've had to dodge all the real arguments and have to cling to your misrepresentations of them now. I wouldn't say I'm unimpressed with you. Worse, I'm disappointed in you, and I don't say this to taunt you either. I mean it sincerely. All you've done in this thread is vent your arrogance with stupid sarchastic attempted insults all because you so grossly misunderstood every part of the first thing I said to you.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Regarding finding characteristics shared by all monkeys; I don’t know if I can do that or not.

SLP finally admitted he couldn't do it. So what do you think your chances are?

I did? Amazing...

Sorry, you're right. Some clarification is needed here. Cirbryn forgot to complete the statement, but it made sense in context. It was supposed to be in answer to my earlier challenge that he produce some character shared by all monkeys ....that wasn't shared by any ape.

You know, it is always the other guy, isn't it?

It is this time anyway.

 

[Cirbryn]

Harshman, like you, was excessively condescending and rude. I am not that way. I am pleading with Cirbryn to look beyond the box, and I am doing that respectfully.

Pffftt!! Wow, good thing I wasn’t drinking milk. Aron, you’ve been condescending and rude throughout this discussion. It’s ranged from subtle assumptions that people who don’t agree with you must be mentally challenged (“Please try to understand …”, “I am pleading with Cirbryn to look beyond the box”) to outright insults (“Damn you are thick”). My personal favorite was the side-string from about post 165 to 196 wherein you kept putting words into my mouth regarding dogs and then insulted me for using them. (Cirbryn: “Whatever you’re talking about it’s not my logic.” Aron:“I freely confess I have no idea what your logic is.”) And looking back over some of your past arguments with John Harshman I can see you had the same problems then as well, and that he handled them with much more aplomb than I’ve managed. You can see him in this discussion responding calmly to numerous slights from you regarding his mental abilities. Having been on the receiving end of those slights as well, I suppose I should hold myself in good company. The most recent post from Harshman in the thread appears to be here, where he says “I think a pattern is emerging. Anyone who doesn’t agree with Aron-Ra is confused. After a couple of rounds of argument, anyone who doesn't agree is being stupid on purpose just to annoy him. I take this as a symptom of arrogance.” Spot on then, and still true over two and a half years later.

Interestingly, in the first cite above Harshman also points to some other difficulties I’ve had with our little discussion here. In the quoted bits he expresses concern that you are misrepresenting biological points to people without much background, which is what I started this discussion about in the first place. He also questions the relevance of some of your arguments, and complains on several occasions about your statements being confused or contradictory or your language getting in the way of what you are saying. My biggest complaint regarding this thread hasn’t so much been your arrogance, as it has been your fast and loose use of words, both in reading and in writing them. You’ve admitted the Linnaean system is the standard, and yet when pressed that this would lead to the conclusion that you’ve misrepresented that standard, suddenly it’s a standard on its way out, and then its one of two standards, and then (but only impliedly) its not the standard at all. You read something on a website about the Linnaean system using characters rather than phylogenetic information to establish paraphyletic breaks, and suddenly the Linnaean system doesn’t use phylogenetic information at all, and “phylogenetic” must involve genetic analysis rather than morphological characters, and anyone who disagrees with you must have a mental problem. But you won’t actually come out and say these things (except the mental problem part). You just make pronouncements based on these shifting meanings and leave me to try to figure out where the heck you’re coming from. So invariably, off we’ll go again on some side tangent with you flopping the meanings of the words around like dying fish (the colloquial kind) so as not to get pinned down, while the main point of the discussion gets further and further buried. I can’t help but think that just might be your intent. And if I ever do pin you down and make my point, such as I did when I showed that “Canis lupus familiaris dachshund” wouldn’t be a Linnaean taxon. You just ignore it and bring it up later as if we’d never gone down that road at all.

Do you remember this post from Cassandra (post 137)?:

Wow.

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

Kinda sad now, huh?

Nevertheless, as I’m sure you won’t be changing your ways now after so many years, I’ve managed to dig up something useful to talk about so this post won’t be a total loss. In the first cited post above, Harshman states the following: “Cladograms do not incorporate named ancestors. Names are given to internal nodes only when those names also include all the terminal taxa descending from those nodes. If we consider an ancestor as being a group that doesn't include its descendant, there are no named ancestors possible on a cladogram.” So that’s why cladistically we might say we are monkeys, but we wouldn’t say we are pelycosaurs. Cladistically there’s no such thing as pelycosaurs, because the commonly accepted characteristics of pelycosaurs don’t include all the descendants. In cladistic terms, the term pelycosaur is clearly paraphyletic, while the term monkey isn’t clearly paraphyletic (depending on the characteristics used to define it). The thing is, when you tell someone without much background about humans being monkeys, that person is assuming you mean “monkeys” in a paraphyletic sense, just like you would mean pelycosaurs. You have to make clear you don’t mean it that way or you will have misrepresented the relationships.

 

[dad]

I couldn't be any more married even if I tried.

Sounds like you think this may be less than a positive thing.

Inter species breeding, and super fast evolving were big factors in what went on in the past, I have to think. It explains so much, almost all evolution.

Today I thought about what kinds were in the past. I have a few thoughts.
In heaven we see lambs, wolves, lions, horses, and ox mentioned. I am sure there is more, but this is some of them. I would say they are kinds. As I see it all dogs could have come from wolves. All cats from lions, rams from lambs, etc etc .

It is possible that there were many more kinds, and the ones listed were just a sampling. But, with hyper evolution, I don't see why all dogs could not have come from the one kind in a short period of time!
The only question then becomes, what were Eden's kinds. Evolution becomes nothing more than a wonderful creation traiit of the past. Discrepancies like similarities in chimps explained by wicked pre flood men interbreeding with monkeys!
This means all speculation beyond Eden's creatures is false. There was no granny, no first lifeform.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Aron-Ra]

This wasn't meant to be condescending. I can't imagine how anyone cursed with any humility could think it was.

The irony is rich…

That is the truth whether you're able to accept that or not.

We are apes today. Gorillas are apes today. Dryopithecus was an ape yesterday. And so are/were gibbons.

Please note “…as exists today.”

OK. But the criteria for that clade never changed.

The ancestor of Hominoids and Cercopithecoids was neither.

That's right. It was a Propliopithecid, another kind of 'Old World monkey'.

That position is, at best, one of several possibilities, as has been pointed out.

That is the only option yet suggested or supported by the fossil record.

Yeah, I guess I just don’t what them fancy college words mean. Perhaps, if I can be magnanimous, I can say that should have been more specific - The preferred claim that humans are monkeys, as opposed to humans are apes, is arbitrary.

You may say so if you like, but I have no such preference.

I preferred to adhere to the notion of grades, just as Cirbryn still does. I was forced to discard that despite my preference. So it was not arbitrary.

Ummm… Please try not to jump around to disparate topics and ancient history. I am referring to the present. Clearly and obviously, I was referring to the present arbitrary nature of insisting that ‘humans are monkeys’ instead of ‘humans are apes’ (or ‘humans are mammals’ or ‘humans are Primates’ or whatever – all are correct, which one prefers to use is arbitrary, although some are certainly more precise and relevant than others, depending on the topic).

The fact that "all are correct" is the only "preference" I've shown thus far.

Wait, if something is true, then it is limited in scientific value?! Are you sure you want to say that?

Yes I am sure, oh Arbiter of all that is True and Scientific.

Another snide attempted insult. What a surprise.

Precision is important scientifically. If I were to submit a manuscript regarding the phylogenetic relationships within the Hominoidea, and every time I referred to non-human hominids as “monkeys” without saying which ones I was referring to, the paper would be, appropriately, rejected pending clarification. So, labels such as ‘Humans are monkeys’ or ‘humans are s. fish’ is thus of limited scientific value.

If you were to write such a paper, one that included mention of fossil forms as Delson's did, then you could say as Delson said. You shouldn't have to specify which subgroups you're talking about -if you're referring to all of them collectively. I say 'shouldn't' rather than 'wouldn't' because I know already the policy is that you must. I'm just pointing out that there is no need to specify which of two or three or four groups you're talking about if all of them count as one in that context.

Asking for a half-ape, half-human is exactly the same thing as asking for a half-mammal, half-human.

True. Who is doing that?

I was talking about creationists in general, but to be specific, microbiologist, Luke Randall Ph.D., Mark Cadwallader M.S., chemical engineer, and Jobe Martin Th.D. DDS, a self-professed expert on evolution, and Casey Luskin MS, founder of the IDEA center, and a geoscience authority with the Discovery Institute. These are a few who's requests I've answered with cladistics.

I got into these debates seriously concerned about the amount of influence people like this were having in our government and schools. Fortunately events of the last year have eased those concerns considerably. The Dover/Kitzimller decision came in the middle of my discussion with the Discover Institute, as did a couple other strategically advantageous advances in science who's timing made that debate much more amusing. I am glad to say I am no longer seriously concerned about evolution's departure from American science classrooms, and I've been told many times that I've played my small part in that well. But taxonomy is still being taught very very badly, and I think I can make a real positive difference there, but only as an actual scientist myself. As I said, I really don't have time for discussion boards anymore and only return when invited.

Wow, you’re a regular prodigy. So, why the big fixation on the ‘humans are monkeys’ preference?

There is no preference. As I said before, I'm just adhering to the topic put before me. You chose to contest me on the point that humans were monkeys rather than whether we were apes.

Wow, you were a real scientific pioneer…

Yet another cheap attempt at sarchasm and ridicule. I also realized at about twelve that birds had to be descended from dinosaurs, an idea the scientific community hadn't yet supported in anything I had ever read to that time. Got any snide comments for that too?

After decades of saying "humand didn't evolve from apes" they're finally admitting that, well, yes we did.

Who did that?

Well, Cirbryn for one, but a growing number of others including the folks at Wikipedia.

All you have to do now is find a few more webpage titles and book review snippets, and I am sure the scientific world will be eating out of your hand…

More sarchasm. I thought I had explained that I have a different agenda. I learned so much in my debates at Talk.Origins that it renewed my interests in science. So for the last couple/three years I've been back in school pursuing a bachelor of geoscience degree. I have lots of positive feedback from professional scientists on the web, as well as supportive comments in my inbox from folks like Jenny Clack at Cambridge, Richard and Meave Leakey, and "Dr. Bob" Bakker, who helped out with my debate against the Texas schoolboard evangelists last year. I'm happy to say that fortunately, I've encountered very few attitudes like yours and Harshman's so far.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Harshman, like you, was excessively condescending and rude. I am not that way. I am pleading with Cirbryn to look beyond the box, and I am doing that respectfully.

Pffftt!! Wow, good thing I wasn’t drinking milk. Aron, you’ve been condescending and rude throughout this discussion.

If you knew me, you'd say I was being kind.

I never implied that you were mentally challenged, only that you're dealing with a perceptive limitation which resulted from conditioning. In other words, the Linnaean system has imposed a perspective that makes it difficult to accept cladistic revisions. What's more, I have to plead with you to look beyond that box because rather than seriously consider my arguments, you took a different approach and tried to trap me with semantics. I have to say, when I joined this debate I rather enjoyed your attitude. But you immediately accused me of shifting my goal posts, of trying to trick you or trip you up with semantics, all the very things you then tried to do to me. None of that was accurate, much of it was condescending, and all of it was insulting. You were playing a game to win. That's why I had to plead with you to try and understand rather than compete.

Harshman, like SLP, was very condescending and deliberately insulting right out of the gate. Eventually, however, he finally calmed when he realized that his earlier accusations were based on false assumptions. In the end, we got on much better.

(Cirbryn: “Whatever you’re talking about it’s not my logic.” Aron:“I freely confess I have no idea what your logic is.&#8221

I don't. What do you want me to say? You didn't even try to explain whatever your logic was. All you would say is that "its defined how its defined, and that's all there is to it." Where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in saying that paraphyly is OK but refusing to support that claim? You never explained your logic is so I couldn't pretend to know what it was.

And looking back over some of your past arguments with John Harshman I can see you had the same problems then as well, and that he handled them with much more aplomb than I’ve managed. You can see him in this discussion responding calmly to numerous slights from you regarding his mental abilities.

He had already been insulting me harshly and for a long time by then. And like SLP, he kept trying to twist whatever I said into meaning something I never meant and never thought I implied.

Having been on the receiving end of those slights as well, I suppose I should hold myself in good company. The most recent post from Harshman in the thread appears to be here, where he says “I think a pattern is emerging. Anyone who doesn’t agree with Aron-Ra is confused.

The irony is that he was projecting his own fault onto me insisting on my confusion for several posts by then.

After a couple of rounds of argument, anyone who doesn't agree is being stupid on purpose just to annoy him. I take this as a symptom of arrogance.” Spot on then, and still true over two and a half years later.

It is true that I respond to insults with insults -when my opponent tries to project his own faults onto me. But only then.

Interestingly, in the first cite above Harshman also points to some other difficulties I’ve had with our little discussion here. In the quoted bits he expresses concern that you are misrepresenting biological points to people without much background, which is what I started this discussion about in the first place.

That accusation was also insulting, and I've explained why many times in this thread. I am not misrepresenting anything, and the way taxonomy is currently taught is grossly misrepresented. If you have a problem with my accuracy, I would expect you to challenge that. But you didn't even try. You attacked my motivation instead -implying some under-handed tactics and self-serving agenda. You and SLP even accused me of arguing like a creationist. Yet you pretend that I insulted you?!

You’ve admitted the Linnaean system is the standard, and yet when pressed that this would lead to the conclusion that you’ve misrepresented that standard, suddenly it’s a standard on its way out, and then its one of two standards, and then (but only impliedly) its not the standard at all.

I made all that clear in the very beginning; that the Linnaean system was still the popular standard, that it was being replaced for practical reasons, because it was inaccurate, and why. But you ignored everything else, and tactically seized my "addmission" that this was the standard; as if that meant nothing else I said even mattered. You were competing to win. I was challenging you to consider a very different perspective.

You read something on a website about the Linnaean system using characters rather than phylogenetic information to establish paraphyletic breaks, and suddenly the Linnaean system doesn’t use phylogenetic information at all, and “phylogenetic” must involve genetic analysis rather than morphological characters, and anyone who disagrees with you must have a mental problem.

I've been passionate about this topic for many years. I've invested a wholly unhealthy amount of my time to studying this. Yet you say I read "something on a web site"?! But that's insulting?? The Linnaean system is character-based! It admits phylogenetics when phylogenetics is incorporated with it. And I've told you several times already, right from the very beginning, that phylogenetics includes morphology, physiology, evo devo and genetics, not just genetics itself. Stop picking and choosing the few scant words you can isolate to make yourself look better.

But you won’t actually come out and say these things (except the mental problem part).

I never came out and said that either. I wonder why? I'm a very direct person. If I meant to say something, there will not be any doubt in anyone's mind whether I've actually said it.

You just make pronouncements based on these shifting meanings and leave me to try to figure out where the heck you’re coming from.

Have you never considered asking clarifying questions? Or did you figure I would just ignore them the way you've ignored almost all of mine?

So invariably, off we’ll go again on some side tangent with you flopping the meanings of the words around like dying fish (the colloquial kind) so as not to get pinned down,

Ahh yes, the "shifting goal posts accusation" again. Yeah, if you want me to be civil, accuse me of whatever I hate the most. Good strategy there.

Would it make things any easier if I wrote out definitions for all my terms? I will of course, because your accusation here could not be more wrong. I consider it now -as I did when you made it before- a deep and cutting attack against my personal honor. I admit, I will react accordingly every time you do that, and you've done it repeatedly. But I still haven't done any of the things you accuse me of.

while the main point of the discussion gets further and further buried.

By you! Answer my questions and properly address my arguments instead of ignoring them all to embrace your faulty preconceptions. Only then will you begin to understand what I'm trying to tell you.

I can’t help but think that just might be your intent. And if I ever do pin you down and make my point, such as I did when I showed that “Canis lupus familiaris dachshund” wouldn’t be a Linnaean taxon. You just ignore it and bring it up later as if we’d never gone down that road at all.

I didn't ignore it! I addressed it blatantly and directly, and explained repeatedly that I wasn't limiting myself to Linnaenan taxonomy; I was instead trying to explain the advantages of a much better system -one that allows a whole other dimension to evolutionary thought which Linnaean taxonomy doesn't permit.

Do you remember this post from Cassandra (post 137)?:

Kinda sad now, huh?

Yes, and I'm disappointed in your for making it turn out this way. According to you and SLP, I know no more than I read on some website once, and that I have to have these terms defined for me, because I'm just an ignorant, arrogant, egocentric internet dude, a svengali manipulating misinformation with malicious intent, a strange and dishonest priest, a deliberately deceptive double-talking charlatan with a choir of cheerleaders, who are all too lowly and unworthy to even present these arguments to my lofty superiors in science. And what did I do to deserve this? I told you I thought you would accept and adopt my arguments -if you would discuss each point systematically. Instead, you reacted with ridicule. I challenge you to find ANYTHING I've said to you that is as insulting as most of the things you've said about me.

Nevertheless, as I’m sure you won’t be changing your ways now after so many years,

Yeah, I still get angry when you insult my honor. I'm funny that way.

I’ve managed to dig up something useful to talk about so this post won’t be a total loss. In the first cited post above, Harshman states the following: “Cladograms do not incorporate named ancestors. Names are given to internal nodes only when those names also include all the terminal taxa descending from those nodes. If we consider an ancestor as being a group that doesn't include its descendant, there are no named ancestors possible on a cladogram.” So that’s why cladistically we might say we are monkeys, but we wouldn’t say we are pelycosaurs.

No sir. There are many species of Pelycosaurs. I've looked this up many times. It is uncertain whether we actually emerged from this group, and I am inclined to believe we did not. I feel we emerged from another, as-yet undiscovered sister group because there are elements of pelycosaurs that are inconsistent with the evolutionary trends we see up to and after their time.

Cladistically there’s no such thing as pelycosaurs, because the commonly accepted characteristics of pelycosaurs don’t include all the descendants. In cladistic terms, the term pelycosaur is clearly paraphyletic, while the term monkey isn’t clearly paraphyletic (depending on the characteristics used to define it).

Pelycosauria, to my understanding is an entirely extinct clade having never had any opportunity to be miscategorized as paraphyletic. But if it could be better-supported (or better explained to me) how we should have emerged from within that group rather than beside it, then I would have no problem considering myself a Pelycosaur. Although I would rather think of myself as a sphenoconodont.

The thing is, when you tell someone without much background about humans being monkeys, that person is assuming you mean “monkeys” in a paraphyletic sense, just like you would mean pelycosaurs. You have to make clear you don’t mean it that way or you will have misrepresented the relationships.

Have I really not made it clear by now that I don't mean monkey in the paraphyletic sense? The standard definition can be monophyletic just as easily as "animal" can be. Nor must it be polyphyletic the way the standard definition of "ape" is. How many more times must I explain all that before it finally becomes clear? Too many more times I fear than I have time to repeat for you anymore.

 

[Cirbryn]

Alright, I’ve been thinking about where to go from here now that I’ve vented my spleen and (as expected) it didn’t help. I have two requests:

First, try harder to be less condescending and rude. Here’s a quick example: I said

The thing is, when you tell someone without much background about humans being monkeys, that person is assuming you mean “monkeys” in a paraphyletic sense, just like you would mean pelycosaurs. You have to make clear you don’t mean it that way or you will have misrepresented the relationships.

To which you replied:

Have I really not made it clear by now that I don't mean monkey in the paraphyletic sense? The standard definition can be monophyletic just as easily as "animal" can be. Nor must it be polyphyletic the way the standard definition of "ape" is. How many more times must I explain all that before it finally becomes clear? Too many more times I fear than I have time to repeat for you anymore.”

Now if you’ll take another look at what I said, you’ll note that I wasn’t concerned about what you’ve made clear in this thread. I said “when you tell someone without much background about humans being monkeys”. I’m asking you to do something for someone else in the future, not to explain your position to me now. So all the attitude you just copped was unnecessary. That’s pretty much been the case the whole time. So instead of proceeding from the assumption that I’m being unreasonable, I’d like you to start from the assumption that I’m not. If you want to confirm that by asking me something nicely, that’s fine. But I’ve pretty much had my fill of the frustrated-teacher-attempting-to-educate-the-slow-student schtick, and if the situation doesn’t improve I’m going to stop talking to you.

Secondly, in keeping with the subject of the above quotes, here are the specifics regarding what I’m asking you to avoid conveying in the future on this subject to people who don’t know much biology: Do not imply that acceptance of evolution requires them to buy into cladistic definitions. That’s pretty much it. I have no problem with you giving cladistics your best pitch, but you need to let them know that a non-cladistic (paraphyletic) interpretation of the term “monkey” (or any other such term) is perfectly acceptable among biologists, and that evolutionary theory is compatible with either viewpoint. Got any problems with that? Because if not, maybe we could consider that settled and get on to some of these more intereting topics that you keep trying to bring up.

 

[Cirbryn]

Similarly, monkeylike characteristics (such as tails, four-cusped molars, chests that are flatter side to side, etc.) were present in several families of species living about 30 or 40 million years ago, one of which may have been our direct ancestor. If you would say we’re still monkeys, why wouldn’t you say we’re still pelycosaurs?

Because biologically there a lot of things that are taken for granted, that are not listed that we share with monkeys. The differences that are cited are overwhelmed by the similarities.

So we’re monkeys but not pelycosaurs because we look more like monkeys? It sounds like you think it’s a matter of degree then. Where would you draw the line as to what we are and are not, if it was up to you? Lemuroids? Tree shrews?

Example, lack of a tail. Is a manx cat not a cat because it has no tail?

A manx cat is a cat because the breed can and does interbreed with other cats. The defining characteristic of a species is gene flow. Getting at the idea behind the question though, when a particular species loses the defining characteristics of its taxon, under the Linnaean system you have the option of either redefining those characteristics or declaring the species to have evolved out of the taxon (thereby making that taxon paraphyletic). In a cladistic system the only option would be to redefine the characteristics of the clade. This can lead to tortured language. For instance, suppose the morganucodonts were indeed the first mammals (based on hair, middle ear bones, and mammary glands). Back when they were the only ones we could have listed lots of characteristics that described them quite specifically, under either the Linnaean or a cladistic system. But since they gave rise to so many successful mammalian lines, under a cladistic system we would have had to keep redefining the definitive characteristics to include all the descendants; until by now the only remaining characteristics left would be the three mentioned above for all mammals. Those are very poor descriptors of the original morganucodonts. If you want to just talk about the original animal, you can’t do it in a cladistic sense. You have to introduce a Linnaean concept like “family”.

 

[MattiSimonaho]

The ancient ruler of the Getae was Satan and Herr was his title. The people of Herr Satan was called PEROE in which the P is in latin language used abbrevation for "people". EROE in turn is "abnormal". PEROE in Suomi today is PIRU meaning Devil. Hell is the creation of Herr Satan: war and violence. Old pictures and descriptions of Hell actually describe how people was treated by Herr Satan's Peroe.

Later in the history, those pictures and description of Satan and Hell was used to fright people to turn over to christianity: "If you don't belive, you'll burn in Hell". In many cases, and the further back we go in time, people had no choise - they just got tortured and burnt alive and were eaten. Witches, pagans, people of wrong faith, people of wrong color or whatever excuse was used at the time for holocaust, they all felt the pain of Hell and saw the Devil(s) prior they were killed.

Many names like ROME, ATEN, JUDEA they all equal by history to The Mother. The early Gothic christian faith was aimed on killing all people of The Mother - and it all started by killing Jesus. The past few decades women has being accepted by the church, but still in 2006, she's not equal to Man. It's wrong to blame the Man for being abusive to Female, blame the teachings of Herr Satan. Because parts of it's heritage and teachings has being included in the Bible.

Herr Satan is the world famous "missing link". It was an ape-human and it's language mixed with the ancient human language. Most likely the HOMO is the Satan/Getae and SAMIENS is the Human: "The people of True Holy Heritage". The more animal-like sounds humans accept and use, the more stupid a human become. In ancient writings it is described as "The language of Satan eat the brain like Herr Satan himself". In short, if a child is raised by using monkey sounds, she/he certainly does not develope as a normal human being.

Matti E Simonaho, Suomalaiset.org

 

[Jet Black]

cladists are evil and eat babies.