Evolution from monkeys

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's not because "ex recto". It's because I find the argument sound.
I'm not claiming to be "more right" than anyone. No need to get snippy with me because I favour one emerging veiw over the old one.

Some people prefer the emerging view that the world is only 6000 years old over that old evolution bollocks. They too are welcome to their onions. But they have no right to claim that their view is equally valid to anyone but them.

[Animavore]

It's not because "ex recto". It's because I find the argument sound.
I'm not claiming to be "more right" than anyone. No need to get snippy with me because I favour one emerging veiw over the old one.

Some people prefer the emerging view that the world is only 6000 years old over that old evolution bollocks. They too are welcome to their onions. But they have no right to claim that their view is equally valid to anyone but them.

Lol! Now you're trying to claim that my view is comparable to creationism? Seriously, that's hitting a new low. You even admitted yourself that -

The definition is a bullshit distinction contrived to elevate apes to a non-monkey, superior status,

So obviously you think yourself that the old definition to include them but not us is bullshit and inconsistent, but when I agree and go with the view (one shared by at least three primatologists/anthropologists mentioned in the video, Chris Beard, Greg Gunnell and Kaira Folinsbee) that it should be changed I'm comparable to a creationist? Un-fucking-believable.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's not because "ex recto". It's because I find the argument sound.
I'm not claiming to be "more right" than anyone. No need to get snippy with me because I favour one emerging veiw over the old one.

Some people prefer the emerging view that the world is only 6000 years old over that old evolution bollocks. They too are welcome to their onions. But they have no right to claim that their view is equally valid to anyone but them.

Lol! Now you're trying to claim that my view is comparable to creationism? Seriously, that's hitting a new low. You even admitted yourself that -

The definition is a bullshit distinction contrived to elevate apes to a non-monkey, superior status,

So obviously you think yourself that the old definition to include them but not us is bullshit and inconsistent, but when I agree and go with the view (one shared by at least three primatologists/anthropologists mentioned in the video, Chris Beard, Greg Gunnell and Kaira Folinsbee) that it should be changed I'm comparable to a creationist? Un-fucking-believable.

I am saying that, until the scientific definition of monkey is revised, we did not evolve from them. To claim otherwise is to dismiss parts of scientific theory that one personally does not agree with - exactly like creationists!

The scientific method insists upon gathering evidence, performing experiments, publishing your findings and peer review to update such things. I daresay that there are moves afoot to do so in this case and I applaud them. What you cannot do (and maintain any scientific integrity) is to unilaterally adopt an alternative POV and claim that it is equally valid. It may prove to be equally valid but it requires more than your onion, or anybody else's to make it so. It requires people to do proper science!

[Animavore]

It's not because "ex recto". It's because I find the argument sound.
I'm not claiming to be "more right" than anyone. No need to get snippy with me because I favour one emerging veiw over the old one.

Some people prefer the emerging view that the world is only 6000 years old over that old evolution bollocks. They too are welcome to their onions. But they have no right to claim that their view is equally valid to anyone but them.

Lol! Now you're trying to claim that my view is comparable to creationism? Seriously, that's hitting a new low. You even admitted yourself that -

The definition is a bullshit distinction contrived to elevate apes to a non-monkey, superior status,

So obviously you think yourself that the old definition to include them but not us is bullshit and inconsistent, but when I agree and go with the view (one shared by at least three primatologists/anthropologists mentioned in the video, Chris Beard, Greg Gunnell and Kaira Folinsbee) that it should be changed I'm comparable to a creationist? Un-fucking-believable.

I am saying that, until the scientific definition of monkey is revised, we did not evolve from them. To claim otherwise is to dismiss parts of scientific theory that one personally does not agree with - exactly like creationists!

The scientific method insists upon gathering evidence, performing experiments, publishing your findings and peer review to update such things. I daresay that there are moves afoot to do so in this case and I applaud them. What you cannot do (and maintain any scientific integrity) is to unilaterally adopt an alternative POV and claim that it is equally valid. It may prove to be equally valid but it requires more than your onion, or anybody else's to make it so. It requires people to do proper science!

It's not exactly like creationists at all. Creationists dismiss parts that don't agree with their beliefs. I'm not even dismissing anything or any part of any theory. I'm advocating revision of exiting theory.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's not exactly like creationists at all. Creationists dismiss parts that don't agree with their beliefs. I'm not even dismissing anything or any part of any theory. I'm advocating revision of exiting theory.

No. You're claiming that the revision is already fact! If you were merely advocating changing the definition of "monkey", I would agree with you. But you are claiming that the revised definition is already valid. That's the distinction I am making.

[Blind groper]

The biggest flaw in Xamonas argument is the ridiculous idea that the word 'monkey' is a scientific term. It is used by scientists, of course, but so is the word 'the', and I doubt anyone would claim that 'the' is a scientific term.

The word 'simiiformes' is a scientific term, but not the word 'monkey'.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The biggest flaw in Xamonas argument is the ridiculous idea that the word 'monkey' is a scientific term. It is used by scientists, of course, but so is the word 'the', and I doubt anyone would claim that 'the' is a scientific term.

The word 'simiiformes' is a scientific term, but not the word 'monkey'.

Oh, you've found another bullshit, semantic argument, have you? Well you're wrong again. Read back through the thread to see where I have countered that already.

[Blind groper]

Let me tell you about primate evolution, using the scientific terms. I will reserve the unscientific term 'monkey' for explanatory notes.

The early primates evolved two groups.

1. Streptsirrhini. The damp nosed group, including lemurs and lorises. Obviously, modern versions of this group arose more recently.

2. Haplorrhini. The dry nosed primates. This further evolved into two sub groups, the tarsiformes (tarsiers) and the simiiformes (those that look like monkeys.)

The Simiiformes had all the characteristics of monkeys, and to argue they were not monkeys is like arguing that a primitive fish with gills, and a backbone, was not a fish.

The simiiformes evolved into two more sub groups. The catarrhini, or new world monkeys, and the platyrrhini, which includes old world monkeys, apes and that hairless ape known as human.

Since the apes are much more closely related genetically to old world monkeys than new world, and since fossils of old world monkeys predate the earliest ape fossils, it is pretty damn clear that apes evolved from an ancient (relatively speaking) old world monkey. Aegyptopithecus is clearly a candidate, and if it is not Aegyptopithecus, it is an old world monkey closely related to Aegyptopithecus.

There is, as always, only one conclusion. Apes evolved from monkeys, and therefore so did humans. Arguing otherwise is playing silly games with semantics.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Let me tell you about primate evolution, using the scientific terms. I will reserve the unscientific term 'monkey' for explanatory notes.

The early primates evolved two groups.

1. Streptsirrhini. The damp nosed group, including lemurs and lorises. Obviously, modern versions of this group arose more recently.

2. Haplorrhini. The dry nosed primates. This further evolved into two sub groups, the tarsiformes (tarsiers) and the simiiformes (those that look like monkeys.)

The Simiiformes had all the characteristics of monkeys, and to argue they were not monkeys is like arguing that a primitive fish with gills, and a backbone, was not a fish.

The simiiformes evolved into two more sub groups. The catarrhini, or new world monkeys, and the platyrrhini, which includes old world monkeys, apes and that hairless ape known as human.

Since the apes are much more closely related genetically to old world monkeys than new world, and since fossils of old world monkeys predate the earliest ape fossils, it is pretty damn clear that apes evolved from an ancient (relatively speaking) old world monkey. Aegyptopithecus is clearly a candidate, and if it is not Aegyptopithecus, it is an old world monkey closely related to Aegyptopithecus.

There is, as always, only one conclusion. Apes evolved from monkeys, and therefore so did humans. Arguing otherwise is playing silly games with semantics.

I will give you the same response that I have given ever since this thread started.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT THE TERM "MONKEY" TO INCLUDE ANIMALS OTHER THAN THE CEBOIDEA AND THE CERCOPITHICIDAE AND NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY YOU SHOUT THAT MONKEY IS NOT A WELL-DEFINED SCIENTIFIC TERM, IT FUICKING WELL IS AND IT INCLUDES THOSE TWO CLADES AND NO OTHERS.

By all means, argue that it should be extended to include the entire Simiiformes. I will wholeheartedly agree with you. But the fact remains that it does not and you are wrong and will remain wrong until either the zoological definition is changed or you stop trying to make monkey mean something that, scientifically speaking, it does not.

[Blind groper]

Xamonas
Putting your claims into capitals does not give them any extra credence.

For those who do not know, the ceboidea is a group of new world monkeys and the cercopithidae are the old world monkeys. It is nonsense to claim these are the only monkeys. For example, it leaves out the callitrichidae, which are also called new world monkeys. It also leaves out the entire lineage leading to apes.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Xamonas
Putting your claims into capitals does not give them any extra credence.

That was for your benefit. The fact that I have made these points many times before but you do not appear to have been able to read or process them led me to believe you must be either visually or mentally impaired - I acted to address the former.

For those who do not know, the ceboidea is a group of new world monkeys and the cercopithidae are the old world monkeys. It is nonsense to claim these are the only monkeys. For example, it leaves out the callitrichidae, which are also called new world monkeys.

That is bollocks.

"New World monkeys are the five families of primates that are found in Central and South America and portions of Mexico: Callitrichidae, Cebidae, Aotidae, Pitheciidae, and Atelidae. The five families are ranked together as the Platyrrhini parvorder and the Ceboidea superfamily, which are essentially synonymous since Ceboidea is the only living platyrrhine superfamily." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_monkey

As you see, all five families of NWMs are included in Ceboidea.

It also leaves out the entire lineage leading to apes.

Precisely! Because the lineage of Simiiformes leading to apes is expressly excluded from both Old-World and New-World Monkeys! I believe I have mentioned this once or twice...

[Blind groper]

Xamonas

The genetic and fossil evidence for the lineage leading to apes is for an offshoot from the old world monkeys. Genetically, apes are closer to old world monkeys than old world monkeys are to new world monkeys (in fact, some primatologists would prefer apes to be seen as an old world monkey, rather than a separate taxonomic group).

The ape lineage is younger than the old world monkey lineage. The best fossil evidence for ape lineage is Aegyptopithecus, which is an old world monkey, but with some ape features, and which is found in strata older than the first ape fossils.

The total evidence is that apes evolved from an earlier old world monkey, probably very like Aegyptopithecus. Arguing semantics does not change that.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Same old story.

I am not arguing semantics. That is your trick. I have never once deviated from the definition of Monkey recognised by zoologists worldwide. You, on the other hand, have thrown up definition after definition from any source that appears to support your assertion.

Here's what the Wikipedia article on Aegyptopithecus says: -

Aegyptopithecus, which means "Egyptian Monkey", from Greek Αίγυπτος (Egypt) and πίθηκος (ape or monkey), is an early fossil anthropoid that predates the divergence between hominoids (apes and humans) and cercopithecids (Old World monkeys). It is known from a single species, Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, which lived some 35-33 million years ago in the early part of the Oligocene epoch. It likely resembled modern-day New World monkeys (it is about the same size as a modern howler monkey, which is about 56 to 92 cm (22 to 36 in) long). Aegyptopithecus fossils have been found primarily in modern-day Egypt. Aegyptopithecus is believed to be a stem-catarrhine, a crucial link between Eocene and Miocene fossils.

Note that nowhere in this does it say that Aegyptopithecus was a monkey. Its name has been translated to mean "Egyptian Monkey" but it could just as easily be called "Egyptian Ape", as πίθηκος can mean either. It predates the divergence between apes and OWMs - so it is not an OWM. It resembled NWMs - but is not one, as it is a catarrhine. It is believed to be a stem-catarrhine, ie. a catarrhine from before the differentiation of the clade into OWMs and Apes.

[Blind groper]

A stem catarrhine is still a catarrhine. ie a monkey.

Pre-dating the differentiation into OWM's and apes is just what I said. The point is that apes came from the OWM line. Hence they evolved from monkeys.

Surely you can see that?
If Aegyptopithecus was a stem catarrhine - that is, an old world monkey, and the apes came from old world monkeys at a later date, then apes came from monkeys.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A stem catarrhine is still a catarrhine. ie a monkey.

Not according to the scientific definition of a monkey! How many fucking times do I need to point that out?

Pre-dating the differentiation into OWM's and apes is just what I said. The point is that apes came from the OWM line. Hence they evolved from monkeys.

Again, wrong. Catarrhines do not divide neatly into OWMs and Apes. Some are neither - core catarrhines. However wrong YOU think this is, this is the case. All OWMs have a common, catarrhine ancestor, as do all apes. But there were other catarrhines, including the Propliopithecoidea, the Saadanioidea and some not assigned to any superfamily.

Surely you can see that?

I can see that you are wrong. You are assuming that because the OWMs predate the Apes, everything in the Catarrhini was an OWM from the point at which the OWMs emerged. This is bollocks. It is equivalent to saying that all theropod dinosaurs became birds when the first bird ancestor was born - not so!

There were many species of catarrhines when the first Cercopithecoidea ancestor was born but only the descendants of that individual are OWMs!

If Aegyptopithecus was a stem catarrhine - that is, an old world monkey,

that is NOT an OWM - see above

and the apes came from old world monkeys at a later date,

The Apes NEVER came from OWMs. Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea are mutually exclusive, monophyletic (in the very strictest sense) clades. There can be no overlap between them.
Even if the definition of monkey is redrawn, apes will NEVER have evolved from Cercopithecoidea.

then apes came from monkeys.

You really don't understand this at all, do you? You just think that your reading of a definition in a dictionary, combined with your conviction that you are RIGHT GODDAMMIT is equally valid to proper science.