Evolution from monkeys

[pErvinalia]

When there is a direct equivalence between the plain English and the science. In this case there isn't.

[Hermit]

There is nothing wrong with using plain English when discussing science.

Using plain English, the common perception of sunrise and sunset also proves geocentrism.

[mistermack]

To Xamonas

My degree is in zoology. Yes, it included studies of primate evolution.

To Mistermack

Feel free to add the words "or ape" to definitions of simiiforme or simion. The only reason I did not was keeping it simple. That addition does not alter the argument.

Of course it does. Now you're being ridiculous. Your argument was that simiiforme meant ''having the shape of a monkey'' when it clearly doesn't. It means having a form like a whole group of animals. You're posting false facts. And basing your argument on them.

It doesn't alter YOUR argument, only because you change it or ignore the facts.

[Blind groper]

Simiiforme means having the form of a monkey or ape. In case you did not see it, monkeys and apes have pretty much the same form. Even humans have the same form, with two arms, two legs, grasping fingers, forward facing eyes and so on.

Anyway, my thesis is proven. Apes and humans evolved from monkeys. In fact, that statement applies in two parts of the various lineages.

1. Apes evolved from an earlier form of old world monkey, which both the genetic link between apes and old world monkeys, plus the fossil discoveries, shows very clearly.

2. Old world and new world monkeys have a common ancestor. That common ancestor is simply a more ancient monkey.

Arguing about whether simiiformes means having the form or a monkey, or having the form of a monkey or apes does not change the reality of those lineages.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

Simiiforme means having the form of a monkey or ape.

That may be its derivation as a word, but its taxonomic definition is the monophyletic group that includes the old and new world monkeys and apes, and their common ancestors. No more, and no less.

All you are claiming, without scientific consensus from current taxonomists, is that the name of this taxonomic group can be used synonymously with the term "monkey". People have already said that this may in fact happen at some stage, but it is not the currently accepted viewpoint.

[mistermack]

Anyway, my thesis is proven. Apes and humans evolved from monkeys.

Where and by whom? Since I've proved that they evolved from simiiformes, and that that is not the same thing as monkeys, I would say that your thesis is DIS proven.

All that is proven is that we all evolved from simiiforms, that were similar in body shape to a monkey.
That doesn't make them monkeys.
As I demonstrated earlier, they were genetically closer to us humans than modern monkeys, as we are fewer generations away from the ancestral simiiformes than monkeys are.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Blind groper wrote:

Simiiforme means having the form of a monkey or ape.

That may be its derivation as a word, but its taxonomic definition is the monophyletic group that includes the old and new world monkeys and apes, and their common ancestors. No more, and no less.

All you are claiming, without scientific consensus from current taxonomists, is that the name of this taxonomic group can be used synonymously with the term "monkey". People have already said that this may in fact happen at some stage, but it is not the currently accepted viewpoint.

Polyphyletic group, Jim. Containing disjoint species from separate branches.

[Blind groper]

Genetic similarities between old and new world monkeys means there is almost certainly a common ancestor, which can also be called a monkey. Sadly, there is a dearth of primate fossils from the time required, so this remains to be proved completely, and remains simply a great probability.

However, my thesis is that apes (and humans) evolved from monkeys, and I have shown conclusively, from the fossil record, that around 25 million years ago, the lineages of old world monkeys and apes were the same, and that older fossils were old world monkeys.

So my thesis that apes evolved from monkeys is demonstrated. The rest of the discussion is just fluff and hot air.

[mistermack]

Genetic similarities between old and new world monkeys means there is almost certainly a common ancestor, which can also be called a monkey. Sadly, there is a dearth of primate fossils from the time required, so this remains to be proved completely, and remains simply a great probability.

However, my thesis is that apes (and humans) evolved from monkeys, and I have shown conclusively, from the fossil record, that around 25 million years ago, the lineages of old world monkeys and apes were the same, and that older fossils were old world monkeys.

So my thesis that apes evolved from monkeys is demonstrated. The rest of the discussion is just fluff and hot air.

What you HAVE demonstrated there, is that you know fuck-all about evolution.
That's one of the silliest posts I've ever read.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Genetic similarities between old and new world monkeys means there is almost certainly a common ancestor, which can also be called a monkey. Sadly, there is a dearth of primate fossils from the time required, so this remains to be proved completely, and remains simply a great probability.

However, my thesis is that apes (and humans) evolved from monkeys, and I have shown conclusively, from the fossil record, that around 25 million years ago, the lineages of old world monkeys and apes were the same, and that older fossils were old world monkeys.

So my thesis that apes evolved from monkeys is demonstrated. The rest of the discussion is just fluff and hot air.

What you HAVE demonstrated there, is that you know fuck-all about evolution.
That's one of the silliest posts I've ever read.

There is ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY a common ancestor between any two species in the animal kingdom. However, the existence of this ancestor implies FUCK ALL about what it is called taxonomically.

"which can also be called a monkey" could be replaced with "which can be called a gnoppol" without changing the veracity of the claim. Blind Groper's entire argument rests upon the fact that he CHOOSES to call that ancestor a monkey, based on non-scientific definitions of that term and a total lack of comprehension of zoology and taxonomy.

I claim, with equal certainty, that we are all descended from gnoppols - specifically ulbergrumtious gnoppols.

[Blind groper]

As I told you before, Xamonas, the word "monkey" is not a scientific word used in taxonomy. It is a common English word. Your attempt to change its definition to one that matches a fictional scientific term is pathetic.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's lovely not having to see his replies. Please, somebody tell me if he ever concedes defeat.

[Blind groper]

To Xamonas

I declare victory.

You have been totally unable to refute the simple fact that the fossil record shows that, about 25 million years ago, the old world monkey lineage diverge, and apes evolved from that lineage. So apes evolved from monkeys.

The problem is that you are trying to add stuff that never belonged to this discussion. The thesis is simple. Apes evolved from monkeys.

Now, the word "monkey" (and the word 'ape' for that matter) is not a scientific term. It is a common English word, which means all primates excluding lemurs, tarsiers, loruses, and apes. In fact, that definition makes it an (almost) exact synonym for the simiiformes, but while simiiformes is a scientific term, "monkey" is not.

The only reason simiiformes is not quite an exact synonym for monkey is that the simiiformes includes apes, while the common word, monkey, does not. If the word "monkey" was a scientific term, it would include the apes.

So if you want to argue the point, stick to the point. This means sticking to the word "monkey" rather than arguing about assorted taxonomic terms relating to things that are not monkeys.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

Simiiforme means having the form of a monkey or ape.

That may be its derivation as a word, but its taxonomic definition is the monophyletic group that includes the old and new world monkeys and apes, and their common ancestors. No more, and no less.

All you are claiming, without scientific consensus from current taxonomists, is that the name of this taxonomic group can be used synonymously with the term "monkey". People have already said that this may in fact happen at some stage, but it is not the currently accepted viewpoint.

Polyphyletic group, Jim. Containing disjoint species from separate branches.

Not according to the diagram in this post from Hermit: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1582820

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Blind groper wrote:

Simiiforme means having the form of a monkey or ape.

That may be its derivation as a word, but its taxonomic definition is the monophyletic group that includes the old and new world monkeys and apes, and their common ancestors. No more, and no less.

All you are claiming, without scientific consensus from current taxonomists, is that the name of this taxonomic group can be used synonymously with the term "monkey". People have already said that this may in fact happen at some stage, but it is not the currently accepted viewpoint.

Polyphyletic group, Jim. Containing disjoint species from separate branches.

Not according to the diagram in this post from Hermit: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1582820

Sorry, Jim. My bad. I thought you were saying monkey was a monophyletic term. Data Read Error.