Evolution from monkeys

[pErvinalia]

Yep.

[mistermack]

The definition of monkey (the standard English dictionary definition) is any primate that is not lemur, tarsier, loris or ape.

Exactly, loser. You just disproved your own thesis and lost the debate.
It says IS NOT, not WAS NOT.

So your own definition just disproved your whole argument.
(far from this phanthom ''proof'' that you mention, but nobody has seen).

I've seen lots of disproof, but definitely no proof.

If you can produce a reference for a standard English dictionary including animals from fifty million years ago in the definition, you might make a bit of progress.

[Blind groper]

http://palaeos.com/systematics/cladisti ... atics.html

To Xamonas

The reference above shows that the simiiformes are monophyletic, not polyphyletic. So the new world monkeys, plus the old world monkeys, and the apes have a common ancestor. The fossil Eosimias of 40 to 45 million years ago shows that this common ancestor was a monkey.

Mistermack

I am absolutely blown away by the sheer lack of logic in your, and other peoples reasoning. You are not even attacking the thesis. Just quibbling about specific wordings in definitions.

The Palomar University stated clearly that apes are evolved from monkeys. That should be enough to settle the whole question. My reference above shows a family tree of primates which indicates the simiiformes are monophyletic.

There is no question. Apes evolved from monkeys. The 'reasoning' to the contrary is pure emotional logic. In this case based on the emotion of pride - the refusal to admit being wrong.

Sad to see people who should take pride instead in being rational, using that pride to cling to bullshit.

[mistermack]

Haha, you don't even read your own links. Apes evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR of monkeys and apes : Click your own link and it's right there.

[Blind groper]

Of course apes evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes. That is pretty much true by definition. But the fossil record shows clearly that the common ancestor was a monkey.

Mistermack, you are still trying to argue by quibbling about word meanings. Such trivia change nothing. Apes evolved from monkeys.

[mistermack]

Of course apes evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes. That is pretty much true by definition. But the fossil record shows clearly that the common ancestor was a monkey.

Mistermack, you are still trying to argue by quibbling about word meanings. Such trivia change nothing. Apes evolved from monkeys.

Not according to the links you provide. It seems it's just you.

[Blind groper]

Mistermack

I do not know what it will take. Your pride is a massive barrier to rational thinking.

I have shown that the simiiformes (which means having the form of monkey or ape) are monophyletic, meaning having a common ancestor. I have shown that anthropologists agree that apes came from monkeys. I have shown the range of fossils before apes, which were monkeys. I have shown that the simiiformes around 40 to 45 million years ago (before the split into old and new world types) were monkeys, indicated by old fossils.

All you seem to want to do is play with trivial word meanings, and you think nothing has been demonstrated. Sheesh!

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

I have shown that anthropologists agree that apes came from monkeys.

I don't think that anthropologists have a professional stake in this debate.

Perhaps you meant palaeontologists?

[Svartalf]

I'm descended from a lemur, I know it.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm descended from a lemur, I know it.

You're descended from an unbroken line of pimps and whores. Such quality as a lemur never featured.

[Svartalf]

I never thought I'd see the day you'd grant me a line as lofty as your own

[Blind groper]

Blind groper wrote:

I have shown that anthropologists agree that apes came from monkeys.

I don't think that anthropologists have a professional stake in this debate.

Perhaps you meant palaeontologists?

The quote I gave which said "apes evolved from monkeys" was from the anthropology dept. of Palomar University. The study of human evolution via the fossil record is known as palaeoanthropology.

That word represents the academic overlap between anthropology and palaeontology.

[Blind groper]

I'm descended from a lemur, I know it.

Probably more correct to say that humans and lemurs have a common ancestor in the prosimian group. I am not sure it would be classifiable as a lemur, though it might be reasonably similar.

There is, however, a fossil primate called Darwinius massilae, from 47 million years ago, which combines monkey and lemur characteristics. It is not likely to be a direct ancestor in the ape lineage, though, since it is more lemur-like, but it points to something similar which would be on our lineage.

[Brian Peacock]

[mistermack]

Does anyone ever check groper's links? There is no Palomar University, there is an obscure college by that name. How much combing of the internet did it take to get to that page? And their page that he quotes is obviously aimed at young school children.
Which is why they say monkeys, not simiiformes. It's a simplified page for children.

When there is the whole world of science to refer to, how desperate do you have to be, to end up with a page from an obscure college, written for youngsters.

Sad.