Evolution from monkeys

[JimC]

I don't think I've ever seen XC get so cranky!

Clearly, it's monkey-business that gets him going!

[Blind groper]

Indeed. He also fails to see that this is about semantics. The word 'monkey' is not a scientific term. It predates modern primate taxonomy, and has been used as a common term for hairy primates with tails for centuries. It is like saying that 'rat' is a scientific term because there are now proper scientific terms for rodents, like Rattus rattus. Yet the word 'rat' served to describe Rattus rattus centuries before Linnean terminology was used.

The word 'monkey' is a word used in common language, not scientific language. Which is why, when I wanted a definition, I went to a normal dictionary, not a scientific one.

Apes are more closely related to old world monkeys than new world monkeys, which is a pretty strong clue that they evolved from an early member of the OWM's rather than the stem that gave rise to both. The scientific term 'catarrhini' refers to the old world monkeys (and their descendants, the apes), and they are definitely monkeys. The early catarrhini were also old world monkeys, and thus monkeys. If apes evolved from early catarrhini, then they evolved from monkeys.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

He also fails to see that this is about semantics.

Only on your side. No matter how you try to wheedle it so that monkey means what you want it to, it does have a precise zoological definition and, since we are discussing zoological evolution, that is the correct one to use.

Apes are more closely related to old world monkeys than new world monkeys,

true

which is a pretty strong clue that they evolved from an early member of the OWM's rather than the stem that gave rise to both.

Why is it? Humans are more closely related to rabbits than to lettuce. Is that a "pretty strong clue" that we evolved from rabbits?

The scientific term 'catarrhini' refers to the old world monkeys

Among others. It actually refers to any simians with nostrils that face downwards as opposed to forwards like the Platyrrhini. Cercopithecoidea, a distinct clade within catarrhini, refers to OWMs. You can't even look things up in Wikipedia without misquoting, can you?

(and their descendants, the apes),

Apes are not descended from OWMs! The two clades are as separate now as they were every time you have claimed this bullshit! Or are the terms "Old-World Monkey" and "Ape" as fluid as "Monkey"?

and they are definitely monkeys.

ex recto non sequitur

The early catarrhini were also old world monkeys, and thus monkeys.

No they weren't. Only some of them were - the descendants of a single species of Catarrhini.

If apes evolved from early catarrhini, then they evolved from monkeys.

Here is a simple diagram showing the relationships within Simiiformes. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that when a clade divides, all of its members are divided into one new group or another. This was once the way that taxonomy worked. Nowadays, however, every clade is monophyletic and arises from a single speciation event, including that species and all of its descendants only. Picture the ovals in the diagram as the tops of inverted cones with the tip resting on a single species within the one below it (all of these groups are monophyletic clades).

Apes did not evolve from either NWMs or OWMs. Your argument is ONLY valid if the term monkey includes the area beneath the red oval - which it does not unless you deliberately choose a non-zoologically recognised definition, which would make you argument totally semantic (not to mention more than likely trolling).

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I don't think I've ever seen XC get so cranky!

Clearly, it's monkey-business that gets him going!

I'm not that cranky really.

[Tyrannical]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it still isn't a duck unless it is genetically a duck.
With the invention of genetic sequencing, a lot of animals have moved around in the taxonomic tree as we found animals that may have looked similar are not actually closely related.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it still isn't a duck unless it is genetically a duck.
With the invention of genetic sequencing, a lot of animals have moved around in the taxonomic tree as we found animals that may have looked similar are not actually closely related.

True dat.

But, in this case, the distinction is less clear. Apes have most of the characteristics of monkeys and share the majority of their DNA. The most recent, non-ape ancestors of apes would have been extremely similar to the old-world monkeys and very close relatives of their most recent, non-monkey ancestors. But zoological convention splits Apes and Old-World Monkeys into two groups, distinct from the rest of the ancient Catarrhines - so the rest of the Catarrhines, however monkey-like they appear, are not Old-World Monkeys.

Ducks are interesting too. While the Anatidae family is a monophyletic clade, it also includes geese and swans. Removing these leaves ducks as a paraphyletic group. Basically, just like monkeys, ducks form a clearly-defined yet non-cladistic group.

[Blind groper]

Xamonas

If it looks like a monkey, is hairy like a monkey, has a tail like a monkey, lives in trees like a monkey, is a primate like a monkey, then it is a bloody monkey. Duh!

Incidentally, here is my personal definition of monkey.

A monkey is any primate, that lived in the past 38 million years, that is not a lemur, tarsier, loris, or ape.

And excluding apes from that is problematic.

[JimC]

Such an amount of heat for such a minor issue!

BG & Ani need to accept that the current zoological definitions technically preclude using "monkeys" in the inclusive way they would prefer; XC has already said that he sees such an inclusive definition as preferable, but, being a deeply conservative sort of bloke, prefers to wait until the men in suits make the change official...

[Animavore]

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.

No. I'm claiming the revision is already in usage/happening. Bit of a difference there. Whether you call our ancestors monkeys or not doesn't actually change any facts when you think about it. The fossils are still the same.

[Animavore]

Such an amount of heat for such a minor issue!

BG & Ani need to accept that the current zoological definitions technically preclude using "monkeys" in the inclusive way they would prefer; XC has already said that he sees such an inclusive definition as preferable, but, being a deeply conservative sort of bloke, prefers to wait until the men in suits make the change official...

I do accept what XC is saying. I'm just not waiting for the men in suits. When I saw Jurassic Park as a child it suggested birds were dinosaurs and I didn't wait for consensus then either. Now look.
If the argument is sound then why not go with that? This is the part that's being ignored. I mean, how does consensus happen in the first place only by sound argumentation slowly winning over? Why not be at the forefront instead of awaiting permission?

[mistermack]

The thing is, as an animal evolves, it doesn't STOP being what it was before. Hence a human IS an ape that evolved upright walking and large brains. Apes ARE monkeys that evolved a more upright posture, lost the tail and slightly enlarged the brain. Using that line of reasoning, humans ARE monkeys.
Just as, in the same way, we ARE amphibians, and fish, and worms.

I prefer to consider ALL these things as ancestral forms.

Actually, it just occurred to me, that we humans are genetically closer to the ancestral ''monkeys'' than modern monkeys are.
Because we live longer, and so do apes, so fewer generations have passed between them and us than between them and modern monkeys.

So we are more monkey, than a monkey.

[Hermit]

If it looks like a monkey, is hairy like a monkey, has a tail like a monkey, lives in trees like a monkey, is a primate like a monkey, then it is a bloody monkey. Duh!

If it looks like a bear, is hairy like a bear, has no tail like a bear, lives in trees like a bear then it is a bloody bear. Duh!



FFS, XC. How much can a Koala bear?

[Animavore]

If it looks like a monkey, is hairy like a monkey, has a tail like a monkey, lives in trees like a monkey, is a primate like a monkey, then it is a bloody monkey. Duh!

If it looks like a bear, is hairy like a bear, has no tail like a bear, lives in trees like a bear then it is a bloody bear. Duh!



FFS, XC. How much can a Koala bear?

It lacks lots of features that make a bear a bear. No where near equivalent to humans having all the same features which make a monkey a monkey. The funny part is you don't think we've taken this into consideration. Seriously, nice try.

[tattuchu]

Koalas are so goddamn cute Can you cuddle them? Would they let you? Or would they scratch you with those claws

[Animavore]

Koalas are rather docile. They evolved without any real natural predators. So they will let you cuddle them. Or, at least, they've no choice in the matter. What are they gonna do about it?