Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[AV1611VET]

Sure it did. The boys were raised to be productive and responsible members of society and instead they shot a bunch of people. Their upbringing did not accomplish the desired result. Something went wrong.

Fair enough.

I'll go get me a pit bull and raise it to love children.

If he ever happens to bite one, I'll just claim "something went wrong" in court.

Leash laws can take a hike.

 

[AdamSK]

I'll go get me a pit bull and raise it to love children.
If he ever happens to bite one, I'll just claim "something went wrong" in court.

I'm not understanding your point. My "something went wrong" comment wasn't intended as a justification for what happened. It was a negation to your claim that "nothing went wrong."

 

[AV1611VET]

Difficult to see why this is so ... difficult. You ask if Jesus is a monkey. I reply that it depends on whether he is alive or dead.

If he is dead, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Resurrection did not happen and he is not divine, that he is a dead human, and in the terms of this thread a dead monkey.

If he is alive, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Resurrection did happen and he is divine, and therefore is not a monkey.

(I am assuming that, like me, you have no truck with divine monkeys. Theology may hold divinity and immortality to be characteristics of a god; science does not, I think, hold them to be characteristics of a monkey.)

You evidentially don't realize that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not understanding your point. My "something went wrong" comment wasn't intended as a justification for what happened. It was a negation to your claim that "nothing went wrong."

Are we animals, or aren't we?

If so, do we have animal instincts?

If so, are they naturally benign or malignant?

If they are naturally benign, can't some have recessive traits?

Do all blonde parents ALWAYS give birth to blondes?

Or does a redhead show up every now and then?

Wondering why Klebold & Harris went ape is like wondering how a blonde sired a redhead.

 

[Picky Picky]

You evidentially don't realize that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, do you?

Well, I don't "realise" it, of course, but I do know that he is defined thus by the Church. That of course is a paradox, and not susceptible to logical analysis; and a mystery, and not susceptible to scientific analysis. Surprising, then, really, that you asked the question (unless, perhaps, it was designed to be a puzzlement?).

 

[AV1611VET]

That of course is a paradox, and not susceptible to logical analysis; and a mystery, and not susceptible to scientific analysis.

Not susceptible to scientific analysis?

That doesn't stop scientific methodists around here when it comes to the creation week.

Maybe they haven't gotten the memo yet?

 

[Picky Picky]

Not susceptible to scientific analysis?

That doesn't stop scientific methodists around here when it comes to the creation week.

Maybe they haven't gotten the memo yet?

Well, of course the mystery of how Jesus can be 100% God and 100% human is not available to science – surely you don't disagree with that? Whereas mortal earthly biology obviously is susceptible of scientific inquiry – surely you don't disagree with that, even if you disagree with what science comes up with?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whereas mortal earthly biology obviously is susceptible of scientific inquiry – surely you don't disagree with that, even if you disagree with what science comes up with?

Actually I do disagree with that.

What does the earth have to do with biology on Day One of the creation week, when it first came into existence ex nihilo?

 

[AdamSK]

Are we animals, or aren't we?

If so, do we have animal instincts?

If so, are they naturally benign or malignant?

If they are naturally benign, can't some have recessive traits?

Do all blonde parents ALWAYS give birth to blondes?

Or does a redhead show up every now and then?

Wondering why Klebold & Harris went ape is like wondering how a blonde sired a redhead.

Most human behavior has to do with learning, not instinct. The boys chose their behavior, they learned their attitudes. Maybe there was natural psychopathy there that contributed, but the "something" that people are asking about is primarily culture and education.

 

[Picky Picky]

Actually I do disagree with that.

What does the earth have to do with biology on Day One of the creation week, when it first came into existence ex nihilo?

Whatever was the situation on Day One of the creation week, and however biology came into existence, it exists today, in year 6020 or whatever it is of Ussher's universe, as part of the physical world, the sphere where science operates. Doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever was the situation on Day One of the creation week, and however biology came into existence, it exists today, in year 6020 or whatever it is of Ussher's universe, as part of the physical world, the sphere where science operates. Doesn't it?

Is this conversation going anywhere?

You sound like a bona fide scientist.

Am I wrong?

 

[Picky Picky]

You are wrong, and no, this conversation is going nowhere. But then you specialise in oblique comments not designed to lead anywhere directly — that's not intended to be a complaint, by the way, it's just as interesting as it is irritating! — and I've followed you along and played your game with you. Game over?

 

[Loudmouth]

Mammal and ape are both Monophyletic clades.

Ape isn't monophyletic because it excludes humans. We share the same ancestor that chimps, gorillas, and orangutans share. We are a descendant of that common ancestor as much as apes are.

"Monkey" just means non-ape simian, and "reptile" just means non-bird sauropsids.

Then what would we call the species that branched off from the closest relatives to the monkeys?

What would we call the species that form the root of the mammal-reptile clade?

 

[AV1611VET]

Game over?

Yup.

 

[AdamSK]

Ape includes human.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ape includes human.

The colloquial term does not include humans, hence the confusion between common terms and scientific terms.

 

[AdamSK]

Then what would we call the species that branched off from the closest relatives to the monkeys?

Tarsiers I believe.

What would we call the species that form the root of the mammal-reptile clade?

Basal amniotes.
Also mammals are not sauropsids so reptiles would just be non-avian sauropsids.
I guess we could say reptiles are non-avian, non-mammal amniotes if we want to include the non-mammal synapsids in the definition, since they and the basal amniotes are very lizard-like.

 

[Loudmouth]

Tarsiers I believe.

What would we call the common ancestor of tarsiers and monkeys? If that species were alive today, would we call it a monkey?

Basal amniotes.

I have a feeling that if those speices were alive today, we would most likely call them reptiles. This is what causes the confusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

... hence the confusion between common terms and scientific terms.

This is what causes the confusion.

It's certainly confusing to me.

 

[loveofourlord]

What would we call the common ancestor of tarsiers and monkeys? If that species were alive today, would we call it a monkey?


I have a feeling that if those speices were alive today, we would most likely call them reptiles. This is what causes the confusion.

yeah, it's one thing about cladistics I don't like, this sort of refusal to call them by what they are, like monkeys and primates and such, it ignores things like old world/new world monkeys and such in some ways, but still wants to call birds dinosaurs, no real consistency.