Evolution from monkeys

[Animavore]

I know, but there is still a coceptual conflict between the bible stories 'explaining' human origins and evolution (& cosmology etc). The religious 'explanations' shouldn't be taught as science, but there's plenty of scope in a faith-school environment to downplay and undermine the facts in favour of the fantasies.

It would really depend where you're taught, I suppose. I went to Catholic school myself and religion wasn't taught in science at all.

It's sort of accepted by the Catholic Church that animals evolved to hominds at which point God chose it and injected it with a soul (on the sixth, non-literal day). This then separated it from the other animals. It also helps solves the problem of natural evil because up to this point life is mechanical.. but let's not go ahead of ourselves.

I say "sort of" because this isn't always true for all Cahtolics, and it's one of my biggest gripes with the Catholic Church, it's how wishy-washy and vague they leave belief. They never really make any firm decisions on belief at all in many cases and if some teachers are teaching science in a way that is near enough to their teaching they won't really correct them. Or to give example of this type of thing, recently in Limerick some guy cut down a tree and the stump vaguely resembled the Virgin Mary and a load of people came down to view it. The parish priest being interviewed on the news said, "We need to be careful about idolatry and remember God above all" (or some such). What he wasn't doing was telling the crowd to clear off because he was leaving it as a "matter of faith" for the revellers.

I remember Richard Dawkins was on Irish radio and some Catholics texted in giving out about him and his 'belief' in evolution seemingly oblivious to the Catholic Church's stance on this and not one person corrected them. I think the vagueness is done on purpose so they're never fully accountable for anything.

[mistermack]

It only really matters to people who know little or nothing about human evolution, because they they tend to take the words at face-value.

What are u pretending to be an expert about now??

You're certainly no expert reader. Or your comprehension is poor. But that's been demonstrated many times.

I certainly wouldn't class myself as an expert, but I also don't fall into the category of people who know little or nothing about human evolution.
I know more than the average person, who generally know very little.

[Svartalf]

We are definitely tetrapods...

But there are days I doubt we are craniate

[mistermack]

It is equally true that "Equilateral" and "Isosceles" mean exactly the same thing "Equal Angled" in Latin and Greek respectively yet I don't hear mathematicians using that as an argument for calling any triangle with two or more sides equal, "equilateral"!

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.
Equilateral means equal SIDES, literally I think. As a triangle has three sides, that automatically has the result of equal angles.
Isosceles literally means equal LEGS, which means that a triangle has two equal legs standing up, and one base lying flat that can be of different length. But it doesn't mean equal angles.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It is equally true that "Equilateral" and "Isosceles" mean exactly the same thing "Equal Angled" in Latin and Greek respectively yet I don't hear mathematicians using that as an argument for calling any triangle with two or more sides equal, "equilateral"!

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.
Equilateral means equal SIDES, literally I think. As a triangle has three sides, that automatically has the result of equal angles.
Isosceles literally means equal LEGS, which means that a triangle has two equal legs standing up, and one base lying flat that can be of different length. But it doesn't mean equal angles.

I fucked that up. Actually, they both mean "equal sides".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The Catholic Church accept evolution and it's taught in Catholic schools though. They're not creationists.

Some of them are. Unless things have changed very recently, it is left up to individual priests how they interpret such things. I had many, long and unproductive arguments about evolution with a catlick couple in my local. Their priest was a dyed-in-the-wool YEC and preached 6000-year-old Earth bollocks from his pulpit.

[Blind groper]

[quote="Xamonas Chegwé"] New-world monkeys and Old-world monkeys should not be grouped together in any sensible system of taxonomy - and these days they are not! Monkey, as a scientific term, is defined as the combination of the two groups but is not a true clade.[quote]

And at last we agree. The word 'monkey' does not describe a true clade. It is a term used by non primatologists, and has a loose non scientific meaning. It incorporates new world and old world monkeys, which are not closely genetically related. It also includes the old world monkeys from which apes descended.

Ergo :apes and humans descended from monkeys.

[Svartalf]

Aren't old world tarsiidae platyrrhini like new world monkeys?

[Blind groper]

We are all members of the simiiformes. We meaning new world, old world and apes. The word simiiformes literally means 'having the form of a monkey'.

In fact, when animavore argued that we are all still monkeys, he had a point.

[Blind groper]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptopithecus

The reference above is to an Oligocene fossil monkey. This beast is similar to new world monkeys, but lies on the stem leading to modern old world monkeys and apes. It is clearly a monkey, yet it (or its close relatives) are ancestral to apes and humans.

[Animavore]

We are all members of the simiiformes. We meaning new world, old world and apes. The word simiiformes literally means 'having the form of a monkey'.

In fact, when animavore argued that we are all still monkeys, he had a point.

We are all also members of the alternative, anthropoidea. Meaning resembling a human, funnily enough.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

New-world monkeys and Old-world monkeys should not be grouped together in any sensible system of taxonomy - and these days they are not! Monkey, as a scientific term, is defined as the combination of the two groups but is not a true clade.

And at last we agree. The word 'monkey' does not describe a true clade. It is a term used by non primatologists, and has a loose non scientific meaning. It incorporates new world and old world monkeys, which are not closely genetically related. It also includes the old world monkeys from which apes descended.

Ergo :apes and humans descended from monkeys.

You say "at last we agree" and go on to completely disagree!

Let's look at what you got right and what you got wrong, shall we?

1. The word 'monkey' does not describe a true clade. TRUE. A clade is a monophyletic group containing a single ancestor and all of its descendants.
2. It is a term used by non primatologists, and has a loose non scientific meaning. FALSE. I have no idea where you gleaned this piece of misinformation! It has a very definite zoological meaning, describing a polyphyletic group of primates.
3. It incorporates new world and old world monkeys, TRUE. That is exactly what it incorporates, that and nothing more.
4. which are not closely genetically related. FALSE. They are extremely closely related, sharing a common ancestor immediately prior to the branching of Simiiformes into Platyrrhini and Catarrhini.
5. It also includes the old world monkeys TRUE. But you already said this once.
6. from which apes descended. FALSE. At least according to the classical, zoological definition.

"Monkey" is not the name of a clade. It is the name for the union of two, closely related but evolutionarily separate clades. It would make FAR more sense for it to refer to Simiiformes as a whole, including the apes. However, it does not. Ergo :apes and humans did not descend from monkeys. Not until the zoological definition is rationalised.

Just because something should be right by all that is sensible, does not necessarily make it right. This is one of those cases. Just like Justin Bieber continuing to be popular alive.

[Blind groper]

Xamonas

You don't give up, do you? You insist on extracting every last gram of bullshit.

My Collins English dictionary defines 'monkey' as - "any of numerous long tailed primates, excluding the lemurs and tarsiers."

By that definition, Aegyptopithecus is a monkey, and it is definitely on the lineage of apes (or its close relatives are). So apes are descended from monkeys.

When I said apes were descended from old world monkeys, that is a conclusion derived from the fact that they are genetically closely related. More closely related than old and new world monkeys are to each other. Of course, I did not mean they were descended from modern old world monkeys. The line of descent was from primates which were common ancestors of both old world monkeys and apes. Aegyptopithecus would be similar to that common ancestor, and it definitely is a monkey. The common ancestor would be, by both genetic and fossil evidence, a monkey reasonably similar to old world monkeys of today.

[pErvinalia]

Why do you keep referring to a general language dictionary in relation to scientific concepts?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Xamonas

You don't give up, do you? You insist on extracting every last gram of bullshit.

Actually, my argument has been totally consistent throughout this thread. There is a zoological definition of "monkey" and there are others (such as the one in your dictionary) which I deem less valid in the context of evolution.

It is your arguments that have clutched at one straw after another. Your citing of the Collins Dictionary here being yet another case in point.

I have made my case again and again and have never had to change my tack. You have played semantic troll-games as you always do.