Evolution from monkeys

[mistermack]

On a slightly different topic, are webbed toes and fingers on some people a throw-back to our fish days, or just a fuck up of genetics?

I would say both. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Every bit of dna that we have comes from our fish days, but a lot of mutations happened along the way. A mutated fish gene is still a throwback to our fish days.

Edit : Except for old bits of virus,, I guess.

[pErvinalia]

But the question really is: Is that a bit of fish gene, or is it a random mutation that looks like fish gene. I.e. related to the concept of convergent evolution. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably a throw-back. But that's a long way to throw back. We haven't been sea creatures for a LONG time.

[mistermack]

But the question really is: Is that a bit of fish gene, or is it a random mutation that looks like fish gene. I.e. related to the concept of convergent evolution. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably a throw-back. But that's a long way to throw back. We haven't been sea creatures for a LONG time.

Not true.
We are evolved from an aquatic ape. Some loony once said.
It's just that webbed fingers don't fossilise well.

I would say that, with the sheer quantity of unused dna that we have, webbing of the digits is probably down to old stuff that re-activates once every 10,000 times. Which now and again could prove beneficial.

[JimC]

Has there ever been an Olympic swimmer with webbed fingers, I wonder?

[pErvinalia]

Thorpey had flippers, didn't he??

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Thorpey had flippers, didn't he??

That's just a vicious rumour. Flipper denies everything. They're just good friends with a shared interest in watersports.

[Blind groper]

On definitions

There is no exact scientific definition for the word 'monkey' because it is not a scientific term.

You can find exact scientific definitions for proper scientific terms such as simiiformes or catarrhine, but not for 'monkey'. To get a definition for 'monkey' you look in a standard English dictionary, and I have posted several such definitions.

Once you get past the bullshit idea that 'monkey' is scientific, you can realise the reality, that the common ancestor of old world and new world monkeys is, in fact, a monkey. At least according to the definitions for 'monkey' that you actually can get.

Of course, this whole issue is about as mind deadeningly trivial as it is possible to get. But I am finding it fascinating to see how long otherwise intelligent and educated people will cling to a fallacy, once they have already made a stand.

As Dale Carnegie said : "A man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still."

Xamonas shows this perfectly. I think Xamonas is probably a smart and well educated fellow, but he took a stand early in this thread which was fallaceous. He probably now realises how fallaceous that was, but refuses to back down. Human nature is weird!

[pErvinalia]

the thing is, your point is still boring and pointless. So what if a loose definition of monkey applies the ancestor of NWM and OWM?? Who cares? What amazing point are you actually making? That a non-scientific term can be applied differently than a scientific term?? Wow. Amazing point, that..

[Hermit]

As Dale Carnegie said : "A man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still."

Xamonas shows this perfectly. I think Xamonas is probably a smart and well educated fellow, but he took a stand early in this thread which was fallaceous. He probably now realises how fallaceous that was, but refuses to back down. Human nature is weird!

XC is not convinced by your argument, nor you by his, so I don't know why you brought the Carnegie quote to the discussion.

What are you arguing anyway? That when the term "monkey" is used colloquially - that is to say unscientifically - we can assert that homo sapiens evolved from monkeys? Well, duh! And what is XC arguing? When the term monkey is used in the (currently) scientific context Homo sapiens did not evolve from monkeys? Well, duh again!

I think you are talking past each other.

[Blind groper]

Hermit

There is no scientific context for the word 'monkey'. If a primatologist is publishing a paper in a reputable peer reviewed journal, he or she is not going to talk about 'monkeys' as some kind of descriptive term for a group of primate species.

[pErvinalia]

Answer our question: What amazing point are you actually making?

[Hermit]

There is no scientific context for the word 'monkey'.

If that's the case, there are no scientific grounds for saying that homo sapiens evolved from monkeys. As rEv reiterated: What is your point?

[Blind groper]

My initial point was the silliness of atheists arguing against creationists when they claim we did not evolve from monkeys.

However, the point has changed now to the silliness of people who keep arguing a position when they have been proved wrong.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My initial point was the silliness of atheists arguing against creationists when they claim we did not evolve from monkeys.

However, the point has changed now to the silliness of people who keep arguing a position when they have been proved wrong.

Silliness that you amply demonstrate every time you post in this thread.

Seriously though, please lay out the killer argument that proved me wrong? I seem to have missed it among the semantic vagueness and logical torsions.

[pErvinalia]

My initial point was the silliness of atheists arguing against creationists when they claim we did not evolve from monkeys.

But it's not much of a point. Evolution is a scientifically described process. Mixing in vaguely defined general terms isn't really a very illuminating act. I really think your "point" is basically pointless. How one defines the term "monkey" has no bearing on what we actually evolved from. We evolved from the simiiformes, regardless of how you or anyone defines "monkeys".