Does learning about evolution make you uncomfortable?

[loveofourlord]

Thanks for pointing this out as I was literally going to say something like this.

though I would be curious if wolves can mate with coyotes, and foxes and such.

 

[loveofourlord]

Also humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

well humans ARE monkeys, or old world and new world monkeys wouldn't be monkeys.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

well humans ARE monkeys, or old world and new world monkeys wouldn't be monkeys.

Apes. Humans are apes.
Monkeys are different to apes in that they have tails, while apes do not. Human would have evolved from monkey-like creatures, but not monkeys.

 

[April_Rose]

though I would be curious if wolves can mate with coyotes, and foxes and such.

I don't see why they couldn't.

 

[loveofourlord]

Apes. Humans are apes.
Monkeys are different to apes in that they have tails, while apes do not. Human would have evolved from monkey-like creatures, but not monkeys.

Sorry thats impossible, humans split off from old world monkeys after they split from new world monkey hence they are still monkeys, and we still have a tail, it just doesn't extend past the body.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry thats impossible, humans split off from old world monkeys after they split from new world monkey hence they are still monkeys, and we still have a tail, it just doesn't extend past the body.

A lot of Old World Monkeys are incredibly recent species, and no, we didn't evolve from the Old World Monkeys. We came from the apes, which is a sister group of the Old World Monkeys. A very different thing.
Again: humans didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a monkey-like animal, but not from monkeys as we know them today.

 

[loveofourlord]

A lot of Old World Monkeys are incredibly recent species, and no, we didn't evolve from the Old World Monkeys. We came from the apes, which is a sister group of the Old World Monkeys. A very different thing.
Again: humans didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a monkey-like animal, but not from monkeys as we know them today.

heh I got them backwards sorry I keep mixing up old world and new world but no, we split off from old world monkeys AFTER they split from new world, hence, if new world monkeys are monkeys then so are we it's phyolgetnics 101. You never escape your ancestry. the ancestor of old world monkeys and apes WAS A MONKEY, not a modern one, but by all definitions would have been one.

https://dr282zn36sxxg.cloudfront.ne...UMB_POSTCARD_TINY+IMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY.1

In order for new world monkeys to be monkeys we have to have evolved from monkeys. It's basic science. Birds are still dinosaurs, were still monkeys.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

heh I got them backwards sorry I keep mixing up old world and new world but no, we split off from old world monkeys AFTER they split from new world, hence, if new world monkeys are monkeys then so are we it's phyolgetnics 101. You never escape your ancestry. the ancestor of old world monkeys and apes WAS A MONKEY, not a modern one, but by all definitions would have been one.

https://dr282zn36sxxg.cloudfront.net/datastreams/f-d:2d95fa07fab295b4594d72b3c2377d183f73b2d6f43742529a801310+IMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY+IMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY.1

In order for new world monkeys to be monkeys we have to have evolved from monkeys. It's basic science. Birds are still dinosaurs, were still monkeys.

Except that animal that would have become both Old and New World Monkeys wouldn't have been identifiable as a monkey.
In fact, if anything else... it would have been something closer to a lemur, the prosimians, than what we identify as a monkey. So, technically... we're lemurs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

given that dogs can breed with wolves, it's a given they have some kind of common ancestry most likly with each other.

Much too long ago to matter.

Wolves are more likely to kill dogs than breed with them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Too late. I already did pray for you.

"That's just theory...I am not claiming anything...It seems plausible...." That is exactly how evolution works. Ignore the real data, even defy it, and give a bunch of logical fallacies and data-free theories to replace the actual facts with "plausible...maybe....probably....could be....we infer....millions and millions of data free and totally unverifiable years ago....."

Again, there actually is real, observable, data. Bacteria stay bacteria in their bacterial domain. There is no evidence whatsoever that, as Dawkins claims, they turned into you. Friend, it is his religion that is based on the "magical". And notice how often, how very, very often, his and others' theories are presented not as theories but as scientific fact!

If you don't see what I have already said, then at least for now nothing else I say to you will be accepted, so why waste anymore of your time and mine?

Relatively recent discoveries suggest that eukaryotes have some similarities with bacteria and some similarities with archaea, so the ancestral domain from which humans evolved is uncertain.

Regardless of your scepticism, even today, the boundary between single-celled organisms and multi-celled organisms is blurred; there are many creatures that live most of the time as single cells but come together and cooperate with specialisation in difficult times, others live mostly as large groups of cells but can separate into single independent cells that can reassemble into groups, and some live as groups of specialised and unspecialised cells that can be broken up and reassemble again.

To anyone with some knowledge of modern biota and basic evolutionary principles, it is not in the least surprising that 2½ billion years of evolution of unicellular life could result in obligate multicellular life.

 

[loveofourlord]

Except that animal that would have become both Old and New World Monkeys wouldn't have been identifiable as a monkey.
In fact, if anything else... it would have been something closer to a lemur, the prosimians, than what we identify as a monkey. So, technically... we're lemurs.

heh maybe, it's just a small pet peeve :> The way that some phylogenics works seems a bit arbitrary, even if the ancestors of monkeys and humans was 100% monkey looking, they will refuse to call it that, and put primate, I really don't like the modern centric look of phylogenics that attributes things based upon modern things and keep ancestral different heh. if the new wold monkeys are monkeys so would the ancestor, if that makes sense. I get what your saying, I just don't quiet see how new world can be called monkeys if they didn't have a ancestor that was a monkey that linked to old world..bahh :>

Sorry to ramble :>

 

[loveofourlord]

Wolves are more likely to kill dogs than breed with them.

Funny...I know quiet a few wolf dogs around my town.

 

[loveofourlord]

Relatively recent discoveries suggest that eukaryotes have some similarities with bacteria and some similarities with archaea, so the ancestral domain from which humans evolved is uncertain.

Regardless of your scepticism, even today, the boundary between single-celled organisms and multi-celled organisms is blurred; there are many creatures that live most of the time as single cells but come together and cooperate with specialisation in difficult times, others live mostly as large groups of cells but can separate into single independent cells that can reassemble into groups, and some live as groups of specialised and unspecialised cells that can be broken up and reassemble again.

To anyone with some knowledge of modern biota and basic evolutionary principles, it is not in the least surprising that 2½ billion years of evolution of unicellular life could result in obligate multicellular life.

Plus when you get that far back it's more the web of life then tree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

heh maybe, it's just a small pet peeve :> The way that some phylogenics works seems a bit arbitrary, even if the ancestors of monkeys and humans was 100% monkey looking, they will refuse to call it that, and put primate, I really don't like the modern centric look of phylogenics that attributes things based upon modern things and keep ancestral different heh. if the new wold monkeys are monkeys so would the ancestor, if that makes sense. I get what your saying, I just don't quiet see how new world can be called monkeys if they didn't have a ancestor that was a monkey that linked to old world..bahh :>

Sorry to ramble :>

Well, monkeys as we know them are a very recent thing, so it doesn't wholly seem correct to call something that is not a modern monkey a monkey.
I mean, it would be like calling an allosaurus a bird when it's not really a bird.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Funny...I know quiet a few wolf dogs around my town.

Likely bred in captivity. My ex-wife had one. It developed lots of physical problems.

 

[April_Rose]

Funny...I know quiet a few wolf dogs around my town.

Yeah, but I also heard that they don't make the greatest pets,.. however,.. wolves can also do things that ordinary dogs can't. (Sorry, love this movie lol even though Balto wasn't really part wolf.)

 

[loveofourlord]

Well, monkeys as we know them are a very recent thing, so it doesn't wholly seem correct to call something that is not a modern monkey a monkey.
I mean, it would be like calling an allosaurus a bird when it's not really a bird.

Well no, it be more like arguing the ancestor of allosaurus isn't a reptile if say dinosaurs split off from crocodiles, after crocodiles split off from other reptiles.

The common ancestor of old world and new world monkeys would have to be monkeys or one or the other aren't monkeys. It's not that monkey is a new name for them, it's that they can't both be monkeys unless the ancestor was. Otherwise your just calling one of them monkey and the other faux monkey.

 

[Speedwell]

Plus when you get that far back it's more the web of life then tree.

It's awesome. Another declaration of the glory of God. Why creationists put so much stock in literalism instead is beyond my comprehension.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yeah, but I also heard that they don't make the greatest pets,.. however,.. wolves can also do things that ordinary dogs can't. (Sorry, love this movie lol even though Balto wasn't really part wolf.)

Me too, well they are better pets for you then other people. They tend to be VERY protective of their family, but outsiders not so much. heh one wolf dog I knew, think was 1/4 would growl any time I went by, never attacked by really REALLY had to build the courage to let me pet her heh, at the same time, anyone that even thought of hurting the owners wife of the dog it would destroy even the owner heh.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well no, it be more like arguing the ancestor of allosaurus isn't a reptile if say dinosaurs split off from crocodiles, after crocodiles split off from other reptiles.

The common ancestor of old world and new world monkeys would have to be monkeys or one or the other aren't monkeys. It's not that monkey is a new name for them, it's that they can't both be monkeys unless the ancestor was. Otherwise your just calling one of them monkey and the other faux monkey.

Proto-monkey works better, I think. Since it's a phrase that means it is a monkey, but is also the first group of monkeys, sort of.
Although I still maintain we should accept we're lemurs and go around bouncing sideways.