Evolution from monkeys

[pErvinalia]

Evolution is a scientifically described process. You and your dictionary have no place in a scientific discipline.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

10687040_10205029400473756_6806303911669553638_n.jpg (41.26 KiB) Viewed 2903 times

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Allow me to sum up BG's argument for those that may have missed a few salient points...

I hope things are clearer now.

[Hermit]

Simiiformes are monkeys in the colloquial sense for the simple reason (try to understand this now) that there is no other sense. "Monkey" is, in your words, colloquial. It is not a scientific term. The simiiformes include monkeys when the term is used in its normal sense - in common English.

You guys who are trying to argue this issue in terms of scientific terms are off the planet. Scientific terms are not what it is about.

Can you not get this through your exceedingly slow minds - the word 'monkey' is not a scientific word. Its meaning is defined as any primate except lemurs, tarsiers, loruses and apes.



This means that monkeys are predecessors of both new world (not new age) and old world monkeys.

OK. Got it now. You're entertaining yourself by seeing for how long you can make us believe that you are seriously convinced by the truth of an assertion that is contrary to evidence. Nice trick, bro.

[Blind groper]

You guys are so slow to catch on. Bloody hell!!

Your arguments run along the lines that monkeys are what you say they are, not what the English dictionary says they are, and therefore they fit into the evolutionary time line where you say they do, and not where the genetic and fossil evidence says they do.

Let me repeat.

1. The word 'monkey' means any primate that is not a lemur, tarsier, loris or ape.

2. This means that monkeys are old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and any primate on their lineage that is not a lemur, tarsier, loris or ape.

3. That includes the simiiformes that evolved into new world and old world monkeys.

4. Therefore old world monkeys, apes and humans evolved from monkeys.

Is that simple enough for your simple minds, or do I need to put it in kindergarten language. Sheesh!

[Blind groper]

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates ... imates.htm

Let me also add the above reference. Since you guys all think you are so clever, and so expert in this subject, why did the Anthropology Department of Palomar University, a group of genuine experts, say with no ambiguity at all, and I quote : "apes evolved from monkeys."

[pErvinalia]

Who cares? It's a pointless point. Vague term applies to something. Wow.

[JimC]

Channeling Peter Sellars, there should be an "Evolution from minkeys" parody...

[Blind groper]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Primate

This web site contains a primate family tree diagram that summarises the relationships quite well. If you look at it, you will see the close genetic relationship between apes and old world monkeys. You will see that apes descended from monkeys, since the descent line was after the new world monkey lineage broke away.

The scientific evidence is very clear. Using a proper definition for 'monkey', the scientific consensus is that the lineage of apes included a number of primates properly described as monkeys.

[Hermit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Primate

This web site contains a primate family tree diagram that summarises the relationships quite well.

This one?



Yes, it does summarise the relationships quite well indeed. Note the branching between monkeys and apes? Also that there is no branching from apes to humans?

[Blind groper]

Thank you for posting that diagram, Hermit. Yes, that is the one.

We do not need a branching from apes to human, since humans are just one variety of ape. The family tree illustrated shows the main branches - not the minor ones.

But it clearly shows the lineage of apes, coming from monkeys.

[pErvinalia]

No, it shows it coming from simiiformes.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, it shows it coming from simiiformes.

Wasting your time, Rev, he has shown repeatedly that he does not understand these diagrams in the slightest.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. He's really imparting no knowledge. He's saying we evolved from "monkeys" and monkeys is defined as including us and the others after the branching point. It's circular reasoning. I could define "squonkies" as Tarsiers, NWM, OWM and Apes and say we evolved from 'squonkies'. Or "bunkeys" as Lemurs, Lorises, Bushbabies, Tarsiers, NWM, OWM and Apes and say we evolved from "bunkeys". Pointless.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Get your hands off me, you stinking squonkie!