Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Evolution

Posted Mar 14, '13 at 11:13pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,798 posts

Knight

Found this link (it includes the video previously posted at the end.) It breaks down each point with a conclusion.

http://www.science20.com/genomicron/are_we_descended_monkeys

1. "Apes", as defined as orangutans, gorillas, and chimps, but not humans, is paraphyletic. In other words, either "apes" is not a scientifically defensible term or else it must include humans.

2. "Monkeys" is paraphyletic, and in particular Old World monkeys are more closely related to "apes" than they are to New World monkeys. (Also, humans and Old World monkeys are equally closely related to New World monkeys).

3. We are not descended from any modern "monkeys" or "apes", rather we share common ancestors with them. (In that sense, the answer is NO to whether we're descended from monkeys).

4. The last ancestor shared by all apes (including humans) would itself probably have qualified as an ape. (In that sense, the answer is YES we are descended from an ape, but not any of the modern species).

5. For "monkeys" not to be problematic, it would have to include apes. In that sense, we would be apes AND monkeys. (And, for that matter, we're also lobe-finned fishes). As above, it may very well be that the ancestor of all monkeys and apes (the very bottom node on the phylogeny) would have been considered a monkey, and therefore YES we are descended from a monkey (but again, not any modern species).


I remember coming across information supporting point 4. I will have to look for it again. Though with point 4 we then have to look at the problem that arises mentioned in point 5.
 

Posted Mar 15, '13 at 12:43pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,831 posts

Moderator

Of course apes has to include humans, or else it would be paraphyletic. In that way, yes, monkeys would have to include apes to be monophyletic, in which case we would be apes and monkeys. But the very term monkey is garbage to me, for the simple reason of point 2: OWM are more closely related to apes than to NWM, and as such the name "monkey" makes no phylogenetic sense; it's a relict.

The only way you would be correct is indeed if there would be positive evidence that the common ancestor of NWM, OWM and apes would unite the same characteristics and specializations that make both NWM and OWM. In that case, apes would be derived from actual ancestral monkeys that didn't change much since the anthropoid node; that's quite an assumption.

 

Posted Mar 15, '13 at 5:18pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,322 posts

no ape, no monkey. we came from a fish!!!
(sorry i had to say that)

 

Posted Mar 15, '13 at 9:46pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,798 posts

Knight

and as such the name "monkey" makes no phylogenetic sense; it's a relict.


That's okay we don't need to use that term, we can use another and still have humans be "monkeys".

Going back to the transcript.
"When referring to basal monkeys, ancestral to ourselves, most scientists prefer to use the word, âAnthropoidâ, one of two acceptable names for that clade. Because â"regardless of phylogeny- scientists generally consider it incorrect, -or even offensive- to refer to humans or other apes as âmonkeysâ. Thatâs a colloquial term, not a scientific one. And itâs paraphyletic, meaning âall anthropoids except apesâ, just like âapesâ used to mean âall hominoids except humansâ. But saying âall of them except for usâ is a Freudian admission that we already know âweâ are one of âthemâ. Besides the words, âanthropoidâ and âhominoidâ both imply possession of human characteristics. So humans could hardly be excluded from either taxon."

The only way you would be correct is indeed if there would be positive evidence that the common ancestor of NWM, OWM and apes would unite the same characteristics and specializations that make both NWM and OWM. In that case, apes would be derived from actual ancestral monkeys that didn't change much since the anthropoid node; that's quite an assumption.


I don't see how that's a huge assumption to make. Or really much of an assumption at all.

"At the root of the simian family tree is another transitional fossil, one that is universally recognized as a monkey and is described as such even by primatologists. Thus this form represents the mother of all monkeys as well as their descendants in denial.

The first division within that clade is between parapithecids, a diverse group of monkeys who are now all extinct, and the clade that remains, forming the next division. Here we have another transitional species bridging the morphological gap between the basal forms of both New World and Old World monkeys.
"

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/8/figure/F2?highres=y

Now where would this basal simian which is universally recognized as a monkey happen to fit?
 

Posted Mar 15, '13 at 9:48pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,798 posts

Knight

Sorry here's the image and a apologize for not being able to bring my A game to this.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2148-8-8-2-l.jpg

 

Posted Mar 16, '13 at 4:40am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,831 posts

Moderator

But saying âall of them except for usâ is a Freudian admission that we already know âweâ are one of âthemâ.

Not necessarily. There's no reason to think that monkeys stayed unchanged compared to our common ancestor while we obviously didn't. That was my whole point, you were arguing as if we were the only one that changed, but modern monkeys could have changed just as much from that common ancestor.

Besides the words, âanthropoidâ and âhominoidâ both imply possession of human characteristics. So humans could hardly be excluded from either taxon."

Humans are definitely anthropoid; there's not the question at all. The question is, can the basal anthropoid be termed a monkey. It can, you say, and if that fossil really has monkey features, whatever that means, you win

But I still would not say that we are monkeys, as most people will then imagine the modern ones. Best still to use the correct term anthropoids and qualify us as apes, which is more accurate since we're quite derived from the basal node.
 

Posted Mar 17, '13 at 10:43pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,798 posts

Knight

Not necessarily. There's no reason to think that monkeys stayed unchanged compared to our common ancestor while we obviously didn't. That was my whole point, you were arguing as if we were the only one that changed, but modern monkeys could have changed just as much from that common ancestor.


Of course changes occurred on both sides. Just not enough changes to give it a different classification.

Humans are definitely anthropoid; there's not the question at all. The question is, can the basal anthropoid be termed a monkey. It can, you say, and if that fossil really has monkey features, whatever that means, you win


I haven' had the energy or time to go looking for it but I had planned to find a picture to do a comparison from.

But I still would not say that we are monkeys, as most people will then imagine the modern ones. Best still to use the correct term anthropoids and qualify us as apes, which is more accurate since we're quite derived from the basal node.


Considering the point is to eliminate subjectivity this really doesn't seem to apply. Besides we get the same issue with people thinking we evolved from modern apes.
 

Posted Mar 18, '13 at 5:24pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,831 posts

Moderator

Of course changes occurred on both sides. Just not enough changes to give it a different classification.

Give what a different classification? I'm not arguing to extract apes from the simian tree (btw, "simian" means monkey as well as ape, contrary to what your link stated (one more little mistake in that link)). To even make that linguistic distinction is an English specificity, and I'm starting to see I won't get anywhere if I continue using the term monkey myself as if it was a taxon. It isn't. Apes, OWM, NWM and all extinct relatives are simians, anthropoids. So we're apes AND we're simians. I think that's what we both said from the beginning.

I haven' had the energy or time to go looking for it but I had planned to find a picture to do a comparison from.

That would be worthless. C'mon, doing taxonomy on pics on the internet? Really? You better just link me to those fossils of yours, I searched the web but the only things I found yet are mentions of pieces of fossil primate mandibles. Hurray.

And I hope you're not thinking of Ida, because that's another matter altogether.

And I still won't qualify the basal simian as closer to the two "monkey" groups, as they're not particularly linked compared to apes. Instead, OWM are closer to apes than to NWM. The catarrhini have their very own characters justifying their end of the phylogenetic tree compared to the NWM, the platyrrhines. All of the single catarrhini taxa then split into own specializations. We certainly can agree that the basal simian probably superficially resembled a non-hominoidean one, but it still had to unite basic characteristics of all groups. The amount of derivation that apes might have experienced since then doesn't change that.
 

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 1:24am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,798 posts

Knight

Give what a different classification? I'm not arguing to extract apes from the simian tree (btw, "simian" means monkey as well as ape, contrary to what your link stated (one more little mistake in that link)). To even make that linguistic distinction is an English specificity,


What? I see it pointing out how simian means monkey.

"We must either assign consistent definitions or drop these words from our vocabulary of scientific terms. And itâs important to note that while there are English words to distinguish apes from monkeys, other languages donât see this division. The Latin word for âmonkeyâ is âsimianâ, and that is the other name of the clade to which apes and all other monkeys belong."

Sounds like it's saying what you're basically saying.

It isn't. Apes, OWM, NWM and all extinct relatives are simians, anthropoids. So we're apes AND we're simians. I think that's what we both said from the beginning.


I suppose. Wouldn't that fit with the whole "we are monkeys" things though?

That would be worthless. C'mon, doing taxonomy on pics on the internet? Really? You better just link me to those fossils of yours, I searched the web but the only things I found yet are mentions of pieces of fossil primate mandibles. Hurray.


What we can't use photographs of fossils to compare characteristic similarities mentioned by others who had the chance to study them? Of course I would provide links. Though so far a quick search so far is coming up with the same as you got.

And I hope you're not thinking of Ida, because that's another matter altogether.


No I wasn't thinking of Ida.

And I still won't qualify the basal simian as closer to the two "monkey" groups, as they're not particularly linked compared to apes. Instead, OWM are closer to apes than to NWM.


Basically it would be saying the OWM, NWM ape, and this basal form all belong to the same clade and thus can all fall under the term "monkey".
 

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 6:02am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,831 posts

Moderator

What? I see it pointing out how simian means monkey.

I was just under the impression that he was using the translation of simian as monkey as an argument, omitting it also means ape. But I guess that's unimportant.

I suppose. Wouldn't that fit with the whole "we are monkeys" things though?

What are monkeys anyway? Extant non-apes, not a valable taxonomic term. Why use it if we have simian or anthropoids, pretty much unambiguous terms?

What we can't use photographs of fossils to compare characteristic similarities mentioned by others who had the chance to study them?

Many characters aren't as visible on photos as on the original; for example the distinction of sediment and actual fossil. If others have looked at the original, which is to be expected from published material, you can use the photo to visualize their arguments, but a photo alone is not a base for arguments.
The reason why I say this is that there have been claims from dubious people, making their own interpretation using private software on published photos, completely misinterpretating many details. Here, have fun:
Why the world has to ignore ReptileEvolution.com

Basically it would be saying the OWM, NWM ape, and this basal form all belong to the same clade

Never said anything different..

and thus can all fall under the term "monkey".

..but again... argh, whatever. I do agree it is wrong to say, like in the wiki, that simians include "tarsiers, monkeys and apes"; mainly because I do not attach any systematic value to the term monkey. I couldn't care less whether we're monkeys or not in the sense that I wouldn't consider it an offense. I'm just saying it makes no sense as we have other terms already, and just because two groups are called old world and new world monkeys doesn't mean this has any taxonomic relevance. Those two groups have other names as well.
 
Reply to Evolution

You must be logged in to post a reply!