Evolution from monkeys

[Blind groper]

Bloody hell, you guys are stubborn.

Monkeys are every primate except lemurs, tarsiers, lorises, and apes. That means they are also simiiformes of the type that evolved into new world and old world monkeys.

There is no scientific definition of 'monkey', and the standard English dictionary definition includes simiiformes of the type that existed before old and new world monkeys.

So old world monkeys evolved from a common ancestor of new and old world monkeys, from the root stock simiiformes, and apes evolved from old world monkeys. Humans evolved from apes.

Humans evolved from monkeys. QED.

To Hermit

Who still owes me an apology. I know that man is a rationalising animal rather than a rational animal, but boy, do you push the rationalisations to the ludicrous limit!! Man! In spite of your spurious argument, you still owe me an apology. But don't worry. I did not expect one. Only people of high character and courtesy ever admit to being wrong and apologise.

[Blind groper]

And let me repeat. Simply because there are multiple definitions of a word, does not mean that you can choose the one you like and claim that you are right and I am wrong.

I have not selected a definition. I have checked up on about 6 definitions in various dictionaries, and they all are congruent with my argument. There is, AFAIK, not one definition that disagrees with my case.

The person wo has failed, Xamonas, is you. You have failed to present a case to support your ideas. The word 'monkey' is broad enough to encompass, and does encompass, the common ancestors of old world and new world monkeys, and nothing you have said disproves that.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have not selected a definition. I have checked up on about 6 definitions in various dictionaries, and they all are congruent with my argument. There is, AFAIK, not one definition that disagrees with my case.

The person wo has failed, Xamonas, is you. You have failed to present a case to support your ideas. The word 'monkey' is broad enough to encompass, and does encompass, the common ancestors of old world and new world monkeys, and nothing you have said disproves that.

So you didn't bother to check this one out?

"A monkey is a primate of the Haplorrhini suborder and simian infraorder, either an Old World monkey or a New World monkey, but excluding apes and humans." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey

[Hermit]

Bloody hell, you guys are stubborn.

Only people of high character and courtesy ever admit to being wrong and apologise.

[Hermit]

...and apes evolved from old world monkeys. Humans evolved from apes.

Awut?

Have another look:

[pErvinalia]

And let me repeat. Simply because there are multiple definitions of a word, does not mean that you can choose the one you like and claim that you are right and I am wrong.

I have not selected a definition. I have checked up on about 6 definitions in various dictionaries, and they all are congruent with my argument. There is, AFAIK, not one definition that disagrees with my case.

The person wo has failed, Xamonas, is you. You have failed to present a case to support your ideas. The word 'monkey' is broad enough to encompass, and does encompass, the common ancestors of old world and new world monkeys, and nothing you have said disproves that.

Even if we granted that, so what?? Your point is still worthless.

[Blind groper]

Xamonas

Your definition is still congruent with my argument. Take another look. It excludes the same kinds of primate that the definition I offered excludes. But it does not exclude the root stock simiformes that lead to old world and new world monkeys.

The word 'haplorhinii' includes all the simmiformes, and the word 'simian' is actually scientifically incorrect, since it just means monkey or ape.

To Hermit.

Your tree diagram includes those root stock simiformes, and is congruent with my argument.

Look, you guys, I won my argument ages ago. The entire basis of the counter argument was a fallaceous idea of what a monkey is. The only reason you keep arguing is a weird kind of pride that refuses to give up, even when you are proven wrong. Just accept it.

Apes evolved from monkeys. Humans from apes. Therefore humans evolved from monkeys.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Twaddle, waffle, bullshit and evasion. Fuck off, Groper.

[Blind groper]

It is always sad to see people who have lost an argument, instead of conceding graciously, resorting to obscenity.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It is always sad to see people who have lost an argument, instead of conceding graciously, resorting to obscenity.

I don't need any excuse to resort to obscenity. I'm a fucking potty-mouth.

As to who has lost the argument. I only saw one person arguing your corner - and we came to an agreement. Everyone else that has commented in this thread thinks you not only lost but did so fucking spectacularly. Way to win!

[Blind groper]

Not only obscene, but suffering from self delusion. How sad.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Not only obscene, but suffering from self delusion. How sad.

Is it self-deluded to think that Jim and Rev and Seraph also think you are talking bollocks and have no real point to make? Oh, OK then.

[Hermit]

Your tree diagram includes those root stock simiformes, and is congruent with my argument.

Actually, it does not. Simiiformes are not monkeys as such in any other way than the colloquial usage of "monkey". If you insist to adopt the colloquial definition you must give up the pretense of talking about evolution in scientific terms when you claim that we are evolved from monkeys. Furthermore, the diagram clearly shows that old age monkeys, new age monkeys and several species of apes branched out from the simian stem and in evolutionary terms went their own ways.

Look, you guys, I won my argument ages ago. The entire basis of the counter argument was a fallaceous idea of what a monkey is. The only reason you keep arguing is a weird kind of pride that refuses to give up, even when you are proven wrong. Just accept it.

You sound like our resident D-K poster boy now.

[pErvinalia]

Your tree diagram includes those root stock simiformes, and is congruent with my argument.

Actually, it does not. Simiiformes are not monkeys as such in any other way than the colloquial usage of "monkey". If you insist to adopt the colloquial definition you must give up the pretense of talking about evolution in scientific terms when you claim that we are evolved from monkeys.

[Blind groper]

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.