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

[Cirbryn]

cladists are evil and eat babies.

Well sure they eat babies. Otherwise they'd have to redefine themselves to include their children.

 

[Edx]

Well sure they eat babies. Otherwise they'd have to redefine themselves to include their children.

I dont get it

 

[arensb]

Did ducks evolve from birds? Or are they still birds now?

If ducks evolved from birds, why are there still birds?

<ducks!>

 

[arensb]

Lets stop the confusion and just say we belong to the primate family.

Are you calling me primative?

(Sorry, I'm also a grammar/spelling cop, as well as an invertebrate punster. So slug me.)

 

[Cirbryn]

I dont get it

Same reasoning as at the bottom of post 318. Cladists hate paraphyletic groups (a group that doesn't include all the descendants), so if a group with particular defining characteristics produces a daughter group that lacks those characteristics, the cladists have to redefine the characteristics of the first group so as to include the daughter. So applying that at the individual level (which is where the joke comes in), if I'm a male human cladist and I have a daughter, I'd have to determine new definitive characteristics for myself that would allow my daughter to still be classified as part of myself. So I'd have to dump the "male" characteristic, for instance.

Or I could just save myself the trouble and eat her instead.

 

[arensb]

Or I could just save myself the trouble and eat her instead.

Wouldn't work. An extinct clade is still a clade.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Alright, I&#8217;ve been thinking about where to go from here now that I&#8217;ve vented my spleen and (as expected) it didn&#8217;t help.

Give credit where credit is due. If you&#8217;re going to point the finger at me, point your thumb back at you.

I have two requests:
First, try harder to be less condescending and rude. Here&#8217;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 &#8220;monkeys&#8221; in a paraphyletic sense, just like you would mean pelycosaurs. You have to make clear you don&#8217;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.&#8221;

You thought that was condescending and rude?! I think you&#8217;d better develop some skin, because if you&#8217;re that sensative, it will not be possible for me to say anything that you won&#8217;t consider rude, whether I meant it to be or not, and I would rather not. I mean, I&#8217;ve kept my usual jovial attitude throughout most of this discussion. The absolute worst thing I said to you was the Thicky Thickman from Thicktown comment, which I heard once from Edmund Blackadder, and once from Doctor Who, when he was drunk. If I meant to insult you, I wouldn&#8217;t be citing British comedies to do it &#8230;you vaccuus, coffee-nosed, maloderous pervert.

I came here for an argument!

Now if you&#8217;ll take another look at what I said, you&#8217;ll note that I wasn&#8217;t concerned about what you&#8217;ve made clear in this thread. I said &#8220;when you tell someone without much background about humans being monkeys&#8221;. I&#8217;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.

What attitude? I&#8217;m just a bit irritated because I had already explained to you several times in this thread &#8211;as I do in each of my less formal conversations with the laity you describe- that I do not ever mean anything in the paraphyletic sense, and that includes pelycosaurs. I don&#8217;t because it is paraphyly that misrepresents these relationships. Seriously, if your method can&#8217;t adequately indicate phylogeny, then it is pointless. If it conceals phylogeny via polyphyly and paraphyly, then (to put it politely) it is deliberately pointless.

That&#8217;s pretty much been the case the whole time. So instead of proceeding from the assumption that I&#8217;m being unreasonable, I&#8217;d like you to start from the assumption that I&#8217;m not.

Alright, I&#8217;ll go back to my original assumption. But how long I can maintain that perspective this time will still be up to you, just as it was last time too. Because you&#8217;re still ignoring every single question I ask you, and you&#8217;re still dismissing every pertinent argument and all relevant evidence as if none of it were even related to this topic.

If you want to confirm that by asking me something nicely, that&#8217;s fine. But I&#8217;ve pretty much had my fill of the frustrated-teacher-attempting-to-educate-the-slow-student schtick, and if the situation doesn&#8217;t improve I&#8217;m going to stop talking to you.

Yes, dad. What do you think you&#8217;re doing now? You were the first to weild accusations of deliberate dishonesty, and you were the first to use a condescending attitude. I will stop, but you&#8217;re still doing it, and apparently nothing I say will ever be delicate enough. So I&#8217;m not going to worry about walking on eggshells.

Secondly, in keeping with the subject of the above quotes, here are the specifics regarding what I&#8217;m asking you to avoid conveying in the future on this subject to people who don&#8217;t know much biology: Do not imply that acceptance of evolution requires them to buy into cladistic definitions. That&#8217;s pretty much it.

And why should I do that?

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 &#8220;monkey&#8221; (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.

Yes, I have an enormous problem with that, and I&#8217;ve yet to bring anything else up but that. So I don&#8217;t know what &#8220;other interesting topics&#8221; you&#8217;re talking about. I&#8217;ve only been concentrating on this one to the exclusion of all else since this conversation began.

Being as polite as I can be, I can only say that paraphyly is not acceptible in taxonomy anymore, and the reason it is not is because it is inappropriate, inapplicable, deceptive, and evidently indefensible, -since I&#8217;ve challenged you to defend it many times, and you&#8217;ve always refused. Unless you can explain why we should keep it, then every comparison I&#8217;ve ever seen for both these methods so far says there&#8217;s no reason to permit paraphyly, and lots of good reasons not to.

My 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&#8217;s the way its still being taught in college level science classes right now. Does that make any sense to you? Because, if every single instance of evolution is paraphyletic, as you said it was, then once you&#8217;re human, you&#8217;re no longer humanoid.

My anthropology class asked me what the difference was between apes and hominids. How would you answer that question? The correct answer on the final exam required a distinction between Hominidae and Pongidae, making the word, &#8216;ape&#8217; both paraphyletic and polyphyletic at the same time &#8211;since the common ancestor between great apes and lesser apes was said to be &#8216;ape-like&#8217;, but not an ape, and once our ancestors were hominids then they weren&#8217;t apes anymore. Am I correct in my understanding of your position, that you no longer accept this description, and now consider &#8216;apes&#8217; to include both Hominidae and Pongidae as well as Hylobatidae, and that you consider the common ancestors of each to be an ape itself?

If the answer is yes, then what I&#8217;m trying to explain is no different. Claiming that New World monkeys and Old World monkeys each became monkeys separately because their common ancestor was not a monkey &#8211; is exactly no different than claiming lesser apes and great apes each became apes separately, because their common ancestor was not an ape. How is any of this paraphyly or polyphyly justifiable in your perspective?

If polyphyly is permissible, then another set of humans might evolve from existing chimpanzees. Is that possible? If there is any way you can think of to defend polyphyly, now is the time, and I&#8217;m all ears.

While you&#8217;re at it, explain to me how a descendant group can suddenly not be part of the parent category anymore. And of what use is paraphyly in the identification of newly-discovered species whether extant or extinct? Because as far as I can see, the Linnaean use of uneven ranks, arbitrary nomenclature, and inconsistent fluctuation between monophyly and nonsense alternatives all inevitably deny phylogeny and grossly misrepresent evolutionary relationships as an inevitable consequence, especially when you demand a separate box for every new species. I don&#8217;t think you can defend any part of this practice and I doubt you&#8217;ll even try.

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.

And all of which were described as monkeys, apes, monkey-like apes, ape-like monkeys, and/or &#8220;ape-like hominids&#8221;, both by the common laity, and by scientists in that field.

If you would say we&#8217;re still monkeys, why wouldn&#8217;t you say we&#8217;re still pelycosahhhurs?

I already explained this. The only descriptive character I can find for &#8220;Pelycosaur&#8221; appears to be the possession of the earliest mammalian skeletal features and the first hints of homeothermy, and if that is the case, and if our ancestors emerged from within this group, then I have no problem calling myself a pelycosaur.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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.

So a lion is not a cat then, because it cannot breed with other cats, right? What about a margay?

Is this a cat? And if so, why is it a cat?

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.

Wrong, that wouldn't be an option, because in a cladistic system, the classification isn’t determined by the characters. The physical characteristics do define the phylogeny, but it is the phylogeny that determines the classification. That’s the only way that makes sense. Since it is impossible to evolve out of one’s ancestry, and a bit ridiculous for a change in descendants to redefine the parents, then it only makes sense to categorize the new example as adhering to all the fundamental descriptives of the parent clade –but with the additional alteration being used to further define the subset. For example, snakes can be said adhere to the total description of tetrapods (four-limbed stegocephalians) –in addition to the loss of limbs.

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”.

No sir. Linnaean ranks like 'family' have no value in classificaion because they are meaningless and arbitrary, and not at all realistic. The reality is that there are many many more determinants for every clade than Linnaean taxonomy permits, and these all exist in the absence of imagined ‘gaps’ between the parent category and the daughter group. In the Linnaean system, you have apes and humans and then have to find something half-way between them But systematic phylogenetics matches reality in that asking for a half-monkey, half-man is exactly no different than asking for a half-mammal, half-man, or a half-duck, half-bird, -and the same thing applies at every level including basal therapsids. That’s how easy it is to identify the original animal, the primal stem of any clade. In commmon useage, the context of conversation flows easily enough to determine whether we’re talking about projenitors of any decendant group and/or their contemporaries vs the whole collective as would be implied each time one mentions the “family”, phylum, genus, or whatever. When we talk about “apes”, we often limit that to non-human hominids as a natural tendancy of comparison between ourselves and everything else But it doesn’t just happen with us. When we talk about “dinosaurs”, and we say only that, its still easy enough to tell whether we’re referring only to extinct non-avian Mesozoans, or if we’re including birds in that discussion. Similarly, if I say only “synapsids”, with no further qualifiers, it is usually going to be in a context that refers to the stem groups, and easy to understand if I’m referring to all modern mammalia as well. And if there were any potential for confusion, I could clarify that as simply as saying “basal” therapsids, “primitive” mammals, “early” hominids, or “non-avian” dinosaurs. Its much simpler than the Linnaean system where you actually have to know the names of the collectives before you can ask about them.

There isn’t any “tortured language” unless you take advantage of the many weaknesses of the Linnaean system and all its improperly-imagined and inapplicable ranks like ‘family’, ‘sub-family’, ‘superfamily’, ‘infrafamily’ and all that nonsense, which all pretend to be on equal levels somehow, yet demonstrably aren’t, and have to be revised continuously to conceal that. That “system” is so bewilderingly befuddled because polyphyly and paraphyly are wholly unrealistic, yet still subjectively asserted according to personal bias, and the names applied may also be entirely arbitrary. The Linnaean perspective is by its very nature incapable of accurately depicting evolutionary relationships because its construct is such that daughter groups aren’t part of their parent’s families, and siblings may not even be related. Consequently, the Linnaean construct conceals a lot of important information by simply (and deliberately) “failing to reflect it”. And this is even true when we get to subspecies classifications.

Phylogenetics ain’t like that. It doesn’t excuse, exclude or omit anything, especially on any criteria so squishy as “people don’t wanna believe they’re apes.” Systematic classification doesn’t care what you’d rather believe. Clades are objectively verifiable, accurate renderings of real evolutionary relationships, free from the gobbledegook of nonsensical transitions and character limitations, and this is due to one critical observation of derived inheritance which Linnaean taxonomists have to ignore: In real life, sisters tend to share the same last name, because descendant families emerge from within parental families, which emerge within ancestral classes, and do not appear next to them as independent entities poofing out of nothing. Evolutionary phylogeny is –and can only ever be- monophyletic. Nothing else can be realistic or make any sense.

 

[Lilandra]

Cibryn, It seems as though you are taking issue with how classification is presented to nonscientists. My disagreement with you is that you are arguing that even if something is misclassified that it must be presented the way it is classified. Like what you are saying here.

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 hear a similar argument from authority from Creationists "the Bible says so" in lieu of a competing explanation based on observation. Humans are not monkeys because they are not classed as monkeys, It is a circular argument not a reality based argument.

 

[dad]

....

I hear a similar argument from authority from Creationists "the Bible says so" in lieu of a competing explanation based on observation.

There are good explanations based on observations. Creationists can speak from Authority.

Humans are not monkeys because they are not classed as monkeys, It is a circular argument not a reality based argument.

Any traits or similarities with monkeys or apes is strictly due to hyper evolution in the past, and/or cross breeding barriers that were not there. Simple, really. That pretty well neuters all evolutionary old agism right there. No, it does not work that way now, yes it used to.

 

[Lilandra]

There are good explanations based on observations. Creationists can speak from Authority.


Any traits or similarities with monkeys or apes is strictly due to hyper evolution in the past, and/or cross breeding barriers that were not there. Simple, really. That pretty well neuters all evolutionary old agism right there. No, it does not work that way now, yes it used to.

Yeah, great example of a circular argument with a dash of ad hoc assertions.

 

[Ead]

So... Creationists will accept a fragment of Evolution (Or a deformed piece) In order to satisfy what pure Creationism cant explain? =P

 

[dad]

Yeah, great example of a circular argument with a dash of ad hoc assertions.

No, not at all. Taking evolution beyond the original creation is more like that. I think bible believers would agree, by and large, that the genetics of the past, according to the bible was different. Living a 9 centuries and change, a serpent changing to a very different creature and going on it's belly, an ark, that held all kinds on earth of animals, etc. Now, you could say that the bible is a bunch of fairy tales, that you are a Christian, and you find it is irelevant, etc. But I say to you, why would I then take your word for anything? What makes you more relevant and authoritive than God's book? Because you are a true believer in a same past that saw all things continue as they are now? No, because that is not science.
Being a beleiver in Jesus does not give one the right to toss out His words, like about Noah, and Heaven, etc. That comes with the territory.



Any traits or similarities with monkeys or apes is strictly due to hyper evolution in the past, and/or cross breeding barriers that were not there. Simple, really.

The bible clearly teaches we are not animals. We are a seperate creation. If there is some things that are similar, some dna, etc, we need to ask ourselves why? That asking cannot be limited to the present UNLESS it is proved that the present was the same as the past, which can never be done. Limiting all possible answers to the constrictions of how this temporary world now works is a cop out.
The bride of Christ that loves Him, ought not to despise His words by assuming He was wrong and all things were like the present, and always will be, unless there was very very very good reasons to so belittle, and mock His words.

 

[Cirbryn]

Give credit where credit is due. If you’re going to point the finger at me, point your thumb back at you.

As far as I know I haven’t been particularly condescending or rude, except possibly when reacting to the same from you. I have accused you of things you don’t like. I thought, and still think, those accusations were factually based. If you can show a factual basis for the idea that you are inherently better than most everyone you talk to, and thus deserve to be condescending and rude, then I’ll retract my complaint.

You thought that was condescending and rude?! I think you’d better develop some skin, because if you’re that sensative, it will not be possible for me to say anything that you won’t consider rude, whether I meant it to be or not, and I would rather not. …

I came here for an argument!

Yes I thought that was condescending and rude. Harshman complained five or six times in the post I cited about your condescending attitude. SLP has made it clear he’s pretty sick of it. Now I’m telling you. I came here for an argument too, not for getting hit on the head lessons.

What attitude? I’m just a bit irritated because I had already explained to you several times in this thread –as I do in each of my less formal conversations with the laity you describe- that I do not ever mean anything in the paraphyletic sense, and that includes pelycosaurs.

You hadn’t “explained” that you always make clear to others that you are speaking non-paraphyletically. That’s what I was expressing concern about – that others would be mislead by your unusual definitions. I’m glad to hear that you do typically clarify that. The only remaining point, discussed below, is the extent to which you imply that scientists in general only use such non-paraphyletic definitions.

Alright, I’ll go back to my original assumption. But how long I can maintain that perspective this time will still be up to you, just as it was last time too. Because you’re still ignoring every single question I ask you, and you’re still dismissing every pertinent argument and all relevant evidence as if none of it were even related to this topic.

I’m not particularly interested in discussing with you what the best taxonomic system is. I think it would be a waste of time, since your mind appears to be made up beyond anything I could say to change it. I’m concerned that you are damaging the general acceptance of evolution by suggesting there is a scientific consensus that humans are monkeys, when in fact there isn’t. Accordingly, pertinent arguments will regard what the scientific concensus on the matter is, not what what the best taxonomic system might be.

Do not imply that acceptance of evolution requires them to buy into cladistic definitions. That’s pretty much it.

And why should I do that?

Why should you so imply or why should you avoid so implying? You should avoid so implying because it isn’t true.

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?

Yes, I have an enormous problem with that, and I’ve yet to bring anything else up but that.

Alright, I’m game. Here’s my list from post 203. Why don’t you tell me how any of the following topics you’ve brought up are germane to the question of whether a paraphyletic interpretation of the term “monkey” is acceptable among biologists:

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

Being as polite as I can be, I can only say that paraphyly is not acceptible in taxonomy anymore, and the reason it is not is because it is inappropriate, inapplicable, deceptive, and evidently indefensible, -since I’ve challenged you to defend it many times, and you’ve always refused. Unless you can explain why we should keep it, then every comparison I’ve ever seen for both these methods so far says there’s no reason to permit paraphyly, and lots of good reasons not to.

I realize you are of the opinion that paraphyly is inappropriate, etc. However, for it to be unacceptable in taxonomy generally, the vast majority of taxonomists and biologists would have to share your opinion. That is what you need to demonstrate to make your point, not the supposed innapropriateness or whatever of paraphyly itself. Unless you think the two of us are so very important that, once you’ve convinced me paraphyly is a bad idea, we can issue some kind of proclamation to bring the taxonomic community into line.

My 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 still being taught in college level science classes right now. Does that make any sense to you? Because, if every single instance of evolution is paraphyletic, as you said it was, then once you’re human, you’re no longer humanoid.

Does it make sense to me? Do you mean do I think it’s internally consistent, or did you have some other qualification for “sense”? Presumably they think “human” applies to genus Homo and that there are characteristics of “hominids” that would set them apart from “apes”. Such characteristics might include upright stance, unapposable big toe, concealed ovulation and menopause. Nothing inherently wrong with that, it’s just contrary to the current scientific concensus, as indicated by the fact that the Linnaean system no longer recognizes those distinctions as important enough to take us out of the ape family. The problem I have with what your class was teaching is that it egregiously misrepresents what the current concensus is. That’s the same problem I have with you telling people that humans are monkeys.

 

[Cirbryn]

My anthropology class asked me what the difference was between apes and hominids. How would you answer that question? The correct answer on the final exam required a distinction between Hominidae and Pongidae, making the word, ‘ape’ both paraphyletic and polyphyletic at the same time –since the common ancestor between great apes and lesser apes was said to be ‘ape-like’, but not an ape, and once our ancestors were hominids then they weren’t apes anymore. Am I correct in my understanding of your position, that you no longer accept this description, and now consider ‘apes’ to include both Hominidae and Pongidae as well as Hylobatidae, and that you consider the common ancestors of each to be an ape itself?

If they asked me about the difference between apes and hominids, and my grade wasn’t affected by my answer, I’d probably mention that great apes and hominids (family Hominidae) are the same thing under the currently accepted system, but that the difference between the subtribe Hominina (which previously was termed “hominids”) and other apes includes upright stance and an unapposable big toe.

My position is that “apes” includes Hominidae (which includes the species previously assigned to Pongidae) and Hylobatidae. I presume the last common ancestor of Hominidae and Hylobatidae would be considered an ape, but I don’t really know for sure. Polyphyly is avoided in the Linnaean system, but the term “ape” isn’t Linnaean. It’s just associated with two separate Linnaean families. Accordingly the term “ape” might possibly be polyphyletic.

If the answer is yes, then what I’m trying to explain is no different. Claiming that New World monkeys and Old World monkeys each became monkeys separately because their common ancestor was not a monkey – is exactly no different than claiming lesser apes and great apes each became apes separately, because their common ancestor was not an ape. How is any of this paraphyly or polyphyly justifiable in your perspective?

I agree the situations would be equivalent. As with my answer to apes, I don’t know that old and new world monkeys evolved separately from a non-monkey. I’m just saying that as far as I know it’s a possibility. I “justify” the resulting possibility of polyphyly in the term “monkey” or “ape” by noting that those aren’t Linnaean terms. I don’t consider the English language in general to have any restrictions on polyphyly.

If polyphyly is permissible, then another set of humans might evolve from existing chimpanzees. Is that possible? If there is any way you can think of to defend polyphyly, now is the time, and I’m all ears.

If a species that looked human evolved from existing chimpanzees, I expect it would be given separate genus and species names rather than being placed within Homo sapiens. To place it within Homo sapiens would imply we could interbreed with them, which would be extremely unlikely. They might still be referred to as “humans” though. There aren’t any nomenclature cops for non-Linnaean categorizations.

While you’re at it, explain to me how a descendant group can suddenly not be part of the parent category anymore. And of what use is paraphyly in the identification of newly-discovered species whether extant or extinct? Because as far as I can see, the Linnaean use of uneven ranks, arbitrary nomenclature, and inconsistent fluctuation between monophyly and nonsense alternatives all inevitably deny phylogeny and grossly misrepresent evolutionary relationships as an inevitable consequence, especially when you demand a separate box for every new species. I don’t think you can defend any part of this practice and I doubt you’ll even try.

If you’d like I can provide a short “defense”, but I’m not going to go off on a tangent regarding it because it’s not germane to the question of what the scientific consensus actually is. A descendant group can evolve out of the parent category by losing the defining characteristics of that category. By recognizing that a newly evolved species is no longer part of the old species, we acknowledge it has lost the defining characteristic of the old species – that being open gene flow. There is no denial of phylogeny in such a practice – nothing to say species B didn’t evolve from species A – just a lack of information one way or the other within the taxonomic system. By demanding a “separate box for every new species” we identify groups that are separated by gene flow from all other groups. This is phylogenetically important because it means those groups are evolving separately from all other groups.

Regarding “uneven ranks”; there is admittedly a lot of subjectivity regarding (for instance) what constitutes a class versus an order versus a family in different lineages. I don’t see that as a major problem, however, since they constrain each other within each lineage such that the class must be more inclusive than the order, which must be more inclusive than the family. Additionally, the species rank is not uneven, since all species have the same defining characteristic. This helps provide a sort of ground floor against which the differences of genus, family, etc, can be measured in each lineage. Balancing the drawbacks to the subjectivity of ranks above the species level, we get the advantage of being able to give a particular name to the progenators of a particular clade that all share certain characteristics (rather than having to refer to them as the proginators of a particular clade that all share certain characteristics). Under the Linnaean system we can refer to the morganucodontids, for instance, or the cynodonts, or the pelycosaurs.

The pelycosaurs may have been a worse example than I’d intended, however, since apparently they now include pretty much everything in the synapsid clade other than the therapsid clade. (Several sites talked about similar skull characteristics among the pelycosaurs, but I couldn’t tell to what exent the early Therapsids shared those characteristics). On the other hand, maybe it was an unconsciously good example, since (assuming apes and present-day monkeys all form a single clade), this would put the pelycosaurs in a similar position to the monkeys. Pelycosaurs would be non-therapsid synapsids, just like monkeys would be non-hominoid anthropoids. Even from a cladistic point of view that should be pretty straightforward. Just start with the larger clade and subtract out the smaller one.

I also found some discussion directly on the topic of how the consensus has been shifting around regarding the synapsids. The synapsids are a confusing group, because the name could refer either to the synapsid clade (of which we are members) or to the paraphyletic Linnaean order Synapsida (of which we aren’t). The above link to the wiki article has the following to say:

“The traditional classification continued through to the late 1980s (see e.g. Carroll 1988). In the 1990s this approached was replaced by a cladistic one, according to which the only valid groups are those that include common ancestors and all their descendants. Because Synapsids evolved into mammals, the mammals therefore are included under the Clade Synapsida.

A recent, compromise position (see Benton 2004) has the class Synapsida as intentionally paraphyletic, constituting a grade of animals from the earliest split with sauropsids to the arbitrary division with its daughter class, Mammalia.”

So you’re correct that there has been significant movement away from the Linnaean system in certain areas. I don’t consider that to indicate a general shift to a purely cladistic system, because such a system would include a cladistic definition of species, and although such a definition does exist, it doesn’t seem to have claimed many adherants (with possibly the most notable and passionate exception being Joel Cracraft). I expect that’s the main reason why the PhyloCode doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

But if revisionists don’t put forth an alternative system, but instead just redefine an existing Linnaean group to be monophyletic, how does that constitute a movement away from Linnaean taxonomy? The only way it would is if they advocate calling it a clade without assigning it a Linnaean rank. That’s what the above quote indicates was done during the ‘90s with class Synapsida. Even then, the quote indicates they were avoiding confusion by calling it Clade Synapsida. Now with Benton the momentum seems to be shifting back towards class Synapsida. Under such circumstances, you have to identify whether you’re talking about the class or the clade.

As far as I know, there has not been a similarly well-embraced movement towards doing away entirely with the Linnaean ranks applicable to monkeys and apes. The great apes were placed in family Hominidae, not taken out of all Linnaean families and referred to simply as the ape clade. Accordingly, that change is within the Linnaean system. With the exception of moving the tamarins and marmosets from family Callitrichidae to family Cebidae (which I’m not sure has been generally accepted - for instance see here) there doesn’t seem to be much call for shaking up the monkey classifications. Accordingly, it looks clear to me that the consensus taxonomy for monkeys and apes is Linnaean. And I’ve seen nothing from you to contest that. Additionally, you would only be justified in implying that paraphyletic groups are unacceptable among biologists if the consensus had swung completely over to the cladistic side. If the consensus were up in the air (much less on the Linnaean side), then it would be a lie to tell people the “scientific viewpoint” is to avoid paraphyly.

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.

And all of which were described as monkeys, apes, monkey-like apes, ape-like monkeys, and/or “ape-like hominids”, both by the common laity, and by scientists in that field.

I’d be interested in any examples you might have of a current scientific consensus that an animal possessing all of the above monkeylike characteristics is an ape.

 

[Cirbryn]

Are you calling me primative?

(Sorry, I'm also a grammar/spelling cop, as well as an invertebrate punster. So slug me.)

Wait, what am I laughing for? Underneath that amicable shell this guy could be some kind of slimey child mollusker. Or a mugger trying to mussel in and conch me on the head - or the foot, or both! Maybe I should clam up and cowrie in fear.

 

[Cirbryn]

Cibryn, It seems as though you are taking issue with how classification is presented to nonscientists. My disagreement with you is that you are arguing that even if something is misclassified that it must be presented the way it is classified. Like what you are saying here.

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 hear a similar argument from authority from Creationists "the Bible says so" in lieu of a competing explanation based on observation. Humans are not monkeys because they are not classed as monkeys, It is a circular argument not a reality based argument.

"Even if something is misclassified" according to what classification system? If it were misclassified according to the system it supposedly represents, that would be one thing, but Aron isn't claiming that by the Linnaean system humans should be monkeys. He's claiming humans are monkeys according to an entirely different system. Fine, then who uses that system? Is it generally accepted in the scientific community or not? Aron is implying to people that if they don't accept this alterative system they'll be unscientific. Is that true or not? To answer those questions you have to look at which system is generally used in the scientific community.

 

[Cirbryn]

So a lion is not a cat then, because it cannot breed with other cats, right? What about a margay?

Is this a cat? And if so, why is it a cat?

Oy veh! Not this again! OK I'm going to answer this because it's quick and then try to get to the rest later. I typically interpret "cat" and "dog" to mean the domestic species or subspecies. I realize some people mean the cat or dog families, and so long as they make that clear I'm fine with that. Left to my own devices I generally refer to members of the cat or dog families as felids or canids. I'd call the above margay a felid but not a cat. OK?

 

[Aron-Ra]

As far as I know I haven&#8217;t been particularly condescending or rude, except possibly when reacting to the same from you.

In my own defense, I would say the same.

I have accused you of things you don&#8217;t like. I thought, and still think, those accusations were factually based.

So when I said I thought you would consider my argument compelling, were you to discuss it point-by-point, you somehow translated that into a challenge to "pin me down", and followed that with your gross accusation that I am somehow shifting my goal posts. There is no way I can conceive how you could have drawn such a conclusion, but at least you admit that your ongoing rudeness is based on the fact that you still actually believe I'm trying to be deliberately deceptive. You called me a liar again and again, and I'm not supposed to consider that rude? I do in fact consider that accusation to be much more rude than anything I've said to you thus far.

If you can show a factual basis for the idea that you are inherently better than most everyone you talk to, and thus deserve to be condescending and rude, then I&#8217;ll retract my complaint.

This statement from you was also more rude than anything I've said to you thus far. I have not been knowingly rude, certainly not in the context you're talking about. Nor did I ever consider myself better than you. I think you're reading a whole lot more out of my writing than I ever put into it. And if I did believe I was better than you, that still wouldn't justify stating as much -the way SLP did so many times.

Yes I thought that was condescending and rude. Harshman complained five or six times in the post I cited about your condescending attitude. SLP has made it clear he&#8217;s pretty sick of it. Now I&#8217;m telling you. I came here for an argument too, not for getting hit on the head lessons.

Even though you're still making accusations that are deeply insulting, your behavior was still markedly better than either of theirs. Harshman and SLP both chose to be complete SOBs, and were each among the worst mannered evolutionists I've ever talked to in any of these debates. And that's saying something because I've been doing this far too often for far too long.

You hadn&#8217;t &#8220;explained&#8221; that you always make clear to others that you are speaking non-paraphyletically.

Yes I did -frequently.

That&#8217;s what I was expressing concern about &#8211; that others would be mislead by your unusual definitions.

There's nothing 'unusual' about my definitions -except of course for the single difference that paraphyly is what is misleading.

I&#8217;m glad to hear that you do typically clarify that. The only remaining point, discussed below, is the extent to which you imply that scientists in general only use such non-paraphyletic definitions.

I cited numerous examples where this is not the case, and that it is indeed sad that it is not.

I&#8217;m not particularly interested in discussing with you what the best taxonomic system is. I think it would be a waste of time, since your mind appears to be made up beyond anything I could say to change it.

I suppose that wasn't supposed to sound rude either, right?

I&#8217;m concerned that you are damaging the general acceptance of evolution by suggesting there is a scientific consensus that humans are monkeys, when in fact there isn&#8217;t.

I have never made that argument. I've never argued for a consensus of any kind. But my arguments add much more strength to evolutionary study than yours ever possibly could.

Accordingly, pertinent arguments will regard what the scientific concensus on the matter is, not what what the best taxonomic system might be.

My argument is, -and has always been- just what Consideringlily said it was; reality-based, not dependant on any majority of authority opinion. I believe I have that, but my argument doesn't depend on it.

Why should you so imply or why should you avoid so implying? You should avoid so implying because it isn&#8217;t true.

Being a reality-based argument, even if I were in a distinct minority, I would still be able to demonstrate the validity of my claim regardless what the majority perspective is, or what the authorities prefer to teach.

Let me explain something about my own iconoclast perspective, and how I see that relating to this conversation. A few months ago, I went the Buddhist temple here in Dallas. I both love and loath Buddhist philosophy. One of my problems with it is that he temple's teacher, (pictured with me below) taught us that Buddhism is atheist -even though he admitted that tens of millions of Buddhists do worship Shakyamuni as a god, and even those who don't still consider him an immortal being with miraculous powers who hears our prayers, and isn't that what a god is? He also said Buddhists had no faith, but he admitted they believe what they do in lieu of any demonstrable evidence. Isn't that what faith is?

Then he said that Buddhism isn't really a religion either, and many Buddhist teachers say the same, enough to make a concensus. But religion, it seems, is most accurately defined as the rituals, traditions, doctrine and dogma associated with faith-based beliefs in supernatural entities -including an element of consciousness which is somehow able to continue beyond the boundaries of physical existence. The monks at the temple denied this last tenet, insisting they did not believe in any aspect of 'self'. One of the main tenets of Buddhism seems to be that there is no self, and no belief in reincarnation because no one is ever really born. But they did say that "you" may be a ghost for a while before you exist again in the physical world. I pointed out to them that all of them had birth certificates, and that despite the consensus of all the authorities of Buddhist teaching, they still admitted that Buddha was a god, and was worshipped as a god, that Buddhism did meet all the criteria of a religion, that people really are born, and even reborn, and that they did in fact believe that some element of their consciousness made that jump from one life to the next. Frustrated, they replied that I "think too much."

The point is, authority opinion can be wrong -even if there is a universally-held concensus. Whatever is really true is not determined by popular vote; it is determined by analysis of the facts. And that's where I'm coming from when I say that humans are monkeys. I don't mean humans are monkeys according to ...anyone. I mean humans are demonstrably monkeys whether anyone wants to admit that or not. It appears to be, regardless whether you're referring to the Linnaean or phylogenetic systems, that humans are monkeys by definition. But more importantly, they are monkeys by derivation -regardless what system you use or what the "accepted standard" is, or what the 'authority consensus" happens to be.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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?

Yes, I have an enormous problem with that, and I’ve yet to bring anything else up but that.

Alright, I’m game. Here’s my list from post 203. Why don’t you tell me how any of the following topics you’ve brought up are germane to the question of whether a paraphyletic interpretation of the term “monkey” is acceptable among biologists:

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

OK. Point six is just to point out that referring to apes as monkeys, and even referring to humans as monkeys is permission from the layman's perspective. Point five reveals that the layman and scientific perspectives intermittently agree on this point. Point one is the critical one determining whether that name is applicable to subsequent clades, and points 2 thru 4 only reinforce that. That's all one topic, not several different ones. My problem with this is that we are monkeys whether that is the popular opinion or not.

I realize you are of the opinion that paraphyly is inappropriate, etc. However, for it to be unacceptable in taxonomy generally, the vast majority of taxonomists and biologists would have to share your opinion. That is what you need to demonstrate to make your point, not the supposed innapropriateness or whatever of paraphyly itself. Unless you think the two of us are so very important that, once you’ve convinced me paraphyly is a bad idea, we can issue some kind of proclamation to bring the taxonomic community into line.

The taxonomic community is already falling into line because, (as I've already shown you in post #201) the vast majority of biologists working specifically with taxonomy already share that opinion. But as I said, that's not really what's important. What is important is why they do; is it justified? To determine that, you need to ignore what other people think and look at the substance behind it.

Does it make sense to me? Do you mean do I think it’s internally consistent, or did you have some other qualification for “sense”? Presumably they think “human” applies to genus Homo and that there are characteristics of “hominids” that would set them apart from “apes”. Such characteristics might include upright stance, unapposable big toe, concealed ovulation and menopause. Nothing inherently wrong with that, it’s just contrary to the current scientific concensus, as indicated by the fact that the Linnaean system no longer recognizes those distinctions as important enough to take us out of the ape family.

There is no criteria that can remove us from our ancestry. You can invent conventions that do so on paper, but it is an illusion. You can distinguish humans among apes, but you can't distinguish humans from apes because we are apes. The fact that we are monkeys also is just an extension of that same reality.

The problem I have with what your class was teaching is that it egregiously misrepresents what the current concensus is. That’s the same problem I have with you telling people that humans are monkeys.

A great scientist, one of the greatest ever, once said; "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")." You and SLP have both already admitted in your own ways that we can be accurately classified as monkeys for a number of reasons. If your collective professors are teaching something contrary to the facts, then they are wrong whether the authorities agree with them or not.