My great great granfather was not a monkey!!!!!

[gluadys]

The use of the same genes in different species is more evidence of common structural design than of the shared common ancestry of two species which neo-Darwinists theorize.

And how do you distinguish between genes that were inherited and genes that were not?

 

[belladonic-haze]

People do descend from apes, and are in fact still apes right now. Apes and monkeys are not different categories. "Monkey" is the parent category, and "ape" is specific subset of that. So people are in fact monkeys right now too.

The descriptions you posted for prosimians, monkeys and apes are inaccurate, especially since there are many many more examples in the fossil record which you didn't account for. That would add another 50 species of ape, some of which had equal length arms and legs. Many new world monkeys have much longer arms than they have legs, and some old world monkeys other than apes also lack tails. Not all prosimians have a tooth comb. And of course chimpanzees and orangutans can both grow beards.

There is a critical flaw in how you're looking at all these groups. But that's understandable since even many primatology websites have conflicting errors in them too. So let me explain how it really is.

All primates are classified as Anthropoidea, a taxonomic order of hind-leg dominant Archontids with opposable thumbs, a shortened rostrum, and a large braincase. They have an unfused and highly mobile radius and ulna in the forelimb and tibia and fibula in the hindlimb.

This group includes both prosimians, (Strepsirrhini) and simians, AKA "monkeys", sub-order Haplorhini. Monkeys are primates with binocular vision, a pendulous penis, a well-developed caecum, a large brain, two pectoral mammae, and a tendancy toward bipedalism.

This group includes two major divisions of New World monkeys, (infraorder Platyrrhini) and Old World monkeys, (infraorder, Catarrhini). Compared to parent or sister groups, the Catarrhine subset have elevated intelligence, downturned nostrils, flat fingernails, and are without prehensile tails.

Catarrhini includes two primary subgroups; Cercopithecoidea and Propliopithecoidea. All of the latter group are now extinct except for one surviving subset, Hominoidea, commonly referred to as "apes". Apes are exclusively-tailless Old World monkeys with oversized brains, and individually-distinctive fingerprints on arms with a shoulder arc capable of brachiation and complete rotation.

Hominoidea includes two subgroups, Hylobatidae, the "lesser" apes, and Hominidae, the "great" apes. These have especially large, unusually intelligent brains capable of comprehending language, or of making and using simple tools. Compared to other primates, including lesser apes, Hominids have relatively sparse fur, and they all share a genetic mutation disabling their ability to synthesize vitamin C. As a result, they have to suppliment that in their diet or they'll succumb to scurvy. They are primarily identified by their unique dentition which includes 32 teeth consisting of incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, canines, and molars, the latter of which have four roots, and come to five points interrupted by a Y-shaped crevasse.

Exactly how great apes should be ordered taxonomically has been hotly disputed, and there have been many competing concepts, as illustrated here. But Hominidae has been substantially reclassified in light of recent revelations in molecular phylogeny, such that the genus, Pongo is now limited to Orangutans and their ancient ancestors, Sivapithecus and Gigantopithecus etc. The remaining hominids are divided between Homininae, (which includes knuckle-walking apes) and Hominini (also known as humanoids) which are exclusively bi-pedal great apes.

Hominini typically consists of Australopithecines, Paranthropines, and Homoines (humans) along with some satellite species, like Ardipithecus and Kenyanthropus, etc.

There. Does that clear it up for you at all?

Ahem.....I am talking about modern Apes not the whole road to today in evolution. If people say they decsend from Apes they think from Chimps and so on. But we have a common ancestor and that goes way more further back than the branch of primates, me dear.

You do not need to clear it up........I am a biologist...LOL......I am just a perfectionist. And I hate it when people think we descend from the modern Apes...

Primates are a group that excists of: Lemurs, Tarsiers, Monkeys, Apes and Humans...

If you say my great great grandfather was a primate, I agree with it. If you say we have the same ancestor, I agree with it...but we do not descend from the Apes. And believe me, people who have no idea about evolution have a chimpansee in their minds, and not a proconsul or another ancestor. The road to being Homo sapiens sapiens is a bit complicated than your grandfather being a monkey. My toes curl when I read things like this. And you and me know the difference. But we do not talk about Apes, but Primamates and Great Apes. It is very weird that Chimps are called Pan instead of Homo...because we have more incommon. But in the old days, whne we all got our latin names, they had NO idea how related we really are....and even more related to the Pan paniscus. And THAT name is completely wrong!!! LOL......

We are all homonoids...Gorilla, Chimp. Urang Utang, Bonobo, human.....Dang, when will we ever learn!

Does this clear it all up for you?

 

[belladonic-haze]

See link next post for the bigger picture!

Hope this clears up a lot....

 

[belladonic-haze]

Oops, filled up this page.....rolf....Let's make a link instead of this picture

http://http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue9/images/large/pq0990803001.jpeg

 

[MQTA]

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue9/images/medium/pq0990803001.gif ?

 

[belladonic-haze]

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue9/images/medium/pq0990803001.gif ?

Hey, your link works and mine not



Let me try it again!

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue9/images/medium/pq0990803001.gif

And now tell me, it is as easy as some claim it is....LOL

 

[MQTA]

just need a magnifying glass

 

[belladonic-haze]

just need a magnifying glass

It was huge when I opened it from the page.......

Let me try it again....

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue9/images/large/pq0990803001.jpeg

 

[Jet Black]

what are the numbers?

 

[belladonic-haze]

what are the numbers?

bootstrap values

 

[Jet Black]

bootstrap values

can you give a little more than that? at least a reference.

 

[belladonic-haze]

can you give a little more than that? at least a reference.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=24110

Felsenstein’s method

 

[MQTA]

It was huge when I opened it from the page.......

Let me try it again....

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue9/images/large/pq0990803001.jpeg

yeah, that's a much better version

 

[john crawford]

And how do you distinguish between genes that were inherited and genes that were not?

The only genes not inherited would be new genes which resulted from genetic mutations of those inherited.

 

[john crawford]

.. but we do not descend from the Apes.

You must tell the Smithsonian Institute that before some of their anthropolgists get accused of practicing Racial Darwinism.
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Early in their evolution, the large apes underwent several radiations, periods when species originated and became more diverse. After Proconsul had thrived for several million years, a group of apes from Africa and Arabia known as the afropithecines evolved around 18 million years ago and diversified into several species. By 15 million years ago, apes had migrated to Asia and Europe over a land bridge formed between the Africa-Arabian and Eurasian continents, which had previously been separated. Around this time, two other groups of apes had evolved – namely, the kenyapithecines of Africa and western Asia (first known about 15 million years ago) and the dryopithecines of Europe (first known about 12 million years ago). It is not yet clear, however, which of these groups of ape species may have given rise to the common ancestor of African apes and humans. [/font]


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The First Humans: The Early Australopiths [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By at least 4.4 million years ago in Africa, an apelike species had evolved that had two important traits, which distinguished it from other apes: (1) small canine (eye) teeth (next to the incisors, or front teeth) and (2) bipedalism--that is the ability to walk on two legs. Scientists commonly refer to these earliest human species as australopithecines, or australopiths for short. The earliest australopith species known today belongs to the genus Ardipithecus. Other species belong to the genus Australopithecus and, by some classifications, Paranthropus. The name australopithecine translates literally as "southern ape," in reference to South Africa, where the first known australopith fossils were found. [/font]http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/encarta.htm

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

We are all homonoids...Gorilla, Chimp. Urang Utang, Bonobo, human.....Dang, when will we ever learn!

Humans can only be classified as hominoids in terms of a shared common design in their physiological structure since there is no scientific evidence of humans and apes being biologically related in terms of evolution.

 

[TheInstant]

Humans can only be classified as hominoids in terms of a shared common design in their physiological structure since there is no scientific evidence of humans and apes being biologically related in terms of evolution.

You're joking, right? I've heard people say they don't find the evidence convincing, but you're saying there is no scientific evidence at all that supports common ancestry?

 

[belladonic-haze]

Humans can only be classified as hominoids in terms of a shared common design in their physiological structure since there is no scientific evidence of humans and apes being biologically related in terms of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

The only genes not inherited would be new genes which resulted from genetic mutations of those inherited.

Such new genes are also inherited. The gene with a mutation is a modification of an inherited gene. So it is still an indication of a relationship with the person or species it was inherited from.

And you have not answered the original question. How can you tell the difference between a gene that is inherited and one that is not?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Humans can only be classified as hominoids in terms of a shared common design in their physiological structure since there is no scientific evidence of humans and apes being biologically related in terms of evolution.

Excuse me, but "hominoid" = "ape" and "ape" = "hominoid".
--Word reference "hominoid"

The two words are synonemous; they mean exactly the same thing.
--University of Manitoba / Anthropology / Course 121 / Primatology / "hominoid"

 

[john crawford]

You're joking, right? I've heard people say they don't find the evidence convincing, but you're saying there is no scientific evidence at all that supports common ancestry?

That's right. It's all theory without any factual or demonstrable evidence to support it other than misinterpretions of observations of some shared common features in structural and organic design which are used to impute or infer the common descent and ancestry of chimps and humans. Misapplications of the concept of homologous designs are the basic common error Darwinism is founded on.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm