Evolution from monkeys

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sure, but I have no problem going with the minority when I fully agree with them. That's if they even are the minority. I'm not sure where concensus is right now.

The consensus is firmly with cladistic taxonomy and phylogenetic nomenclature. Under this system, as I already mentioned, the term "monkey" does not represent a proper clade due to its polyphyletic nature. To make monkeys a clade, one would have to include apes. However, the clade Simiiformes already provides this function. So what you are proposing is simply to rename Simiiformes, or to declare monkey a synonym of this group. Not a biggy. But not really necessary either.

[Blind groper]

Xamonas

Taxonomy is not evolution. It is supposed to reflect evolution, but does not always succeed in that.

You have chosen to argue that the only monkeys are new world and old world. Well duh! If those two groups are monkeys, then their common ancestor must also have been a monkey. At the end of the day, however you posit the evolution, apes had monkey ancestors. Trying to alter the nomenclature to make those ancestors go under a different name does not change the fact that they were monkeys.

[JimC]

Xamonas

Taxonomy is not evolution. It is supposed to reflect evolution, but does not always succeed in that.

You have chosen to argue that the only monkeys are new world and old world. Well duh! If those two groups are monkeys, then their common ancestor must also have been a monkey. At the end of the day, however you posit the evolution, apes had monkey ancestors. Trying to alter the nomenclature to make those ancestors go under a different name does not change the fact that they were monkeys.

I still think you have missed the point that XC basically agrees that an alteration in the definition of the term "monkey" in a taxonomic sense may well be a logical move, but that the current taxonomic definitions mean that "monkey" is at present an incorrect term for all the higher primates.

[pErvinalia]

Xamonas

Taxonomy is not evolution. It is supposed to reflect evolution, but does not always succeed in that.

You have chosen to argue that the only monkeys are new world and old world. Well duh! If those two groups are monkeys, then their common ancestor must also have been a monkey. At the end of the day, however you posit the evolution, apes had monkey ancestors. Trying to alter the nomenclature to make those ancestors go under a different name does not change the fact that they were monkeys.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. You've been repeatedly misreading what XC has been saying throughout this thread.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Xamonas

Taxonomy is not evolution.

Please explain where I have ever claimed that.

It is supposed to reflect evolution, but does not always succeed in that.

Very true, but it does a far better job than it used to. See my comments HERE

You have chosen to argue that the only monkeys are new world and old world. Well duh!

I take this to mean that you agree with me. This would be progress if you had any idea what you are agreeing with...

If those two groups are monkeys, then their common ancestor must also have been a monkey.

...which you clearly don't! This would only be the case if "Monkey" described a monophyletic group which, as you have just agreed, it does not!

At the end of the day, however you posit the evolution, apes had monkey ancestors. Trying to alter the nomenclature to make those ancestors go under a different name does not change the fact that they were monkeys.

Here is why you annoy people. You jump from non sequitur to non sequitur without any attempt to arrange your thoughts logically.

Let me spell out the catastrophic flaw in your logic.

1. "The only monkeys are new world and old world. Well duh!" Correct
2. "If those two groups are monkeys, then their common ancestor must also have been a monkey." Complete logical bollocks! You agree that monkeys consist of only two groups and then go on to say that a third group, that containing their common ancestor, must also be in the group. Both cannot be true!

The last common ancestor and subsequent antecedents of OWMs and NWMs are all neither OWMs nor NWMs - the two groups are taxonomically and evolutionarily disconnected. No other member of the Simiiformes outside of these two groups can possibly also be in either of the groups. And anything that is neither an OWM nor a NWM is, by statement 1, not a monkey.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. You've been repeatedly misreading what XC has been saying throughout this thread.

I still think you have missed the point that XC basically agrees that an alteration in the definition of the term "monkey" in a taxonomic sense may well be a logical move, but that the current taxonomic definitions mean that "monkey" is at present an incorrect term for all the higher primates.

See, it's not just me. There are others that get it. You just seem incapable of following logic when you KNOW you ought to be right.

[mistermack]

Can we argue about Pandas now? I'm fed up with monkeys.

Without looking anything up, I seem to remember not so long ago when we were told that Giant Pandas were not bears, they looked superficially like bears, but they were closer to Raccoons, or Red Pandas anyway.

But lately they've been saying that they are closest to bears again.
Good old dna. It has sorted a lot of stuff out.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Can we argue about Pandas now? I'm fed up with monkeys.

Without looking anything up, I seem to remember not so long ago when we were told that Giant Pandas were not bears, they looked superficially like bears, but they were closer to Raccoons, or Red Pandas anyway.

But lately they've been saying that they are closest to bears again.
Good old dna. It has sorted a lot of stuff out.

But but but but... Giant Pandas and Red Pandas are both Pandas so their common ancestor must have been a panda so bears and raccoons and turnips are pandas!

[JimC]

Can we argue about Pandas now? I'm fed up with monkeys.

Without looking anything up, I seem to remember not so long ago when we were told that Giant Pandas were not bears, they looked superficially like bears, but they were closer to Raccoons, or Red Pandas anyway.

But lately they've been saying that they are closest to bears again.
Good old dna. It has sorted a lot of stuff out.

But but but but... Giant Pandas and Red Pandas are both Pandas so their common ancestor must have been a panda so bears and raccoons and turnips are pandas!

[Blind groper]

Semantics are the key.
Red panda and giant panda are common names, not taxonomic classifications, so the two types of animal do not have to be related in spite of the name similarity.

The word 'monkey' is also a common name, not a taxonomic classification, even though old world and new world monkeys are terms often used to replace the correct taxonomic nomenclature. But 'monkey' is not a scientific term. Which is why arguing that the common ancestor of OWMs and NWMs has a different name and is thus not a monkey is crazy.

The word 'monkey' is defined according to standard English dictionaries, and that definition encompasses the common ancestor of OWMs and NWMs.

In addition, the genetic similarity of apes to old world monkeys and its dissimilarity to new world monkeys is a pretty damn good indication that apes arose from the old world monkey line.

[cronus]

A rose by any other name....can't believe some would argue about a trivial word like this...

[Svartalf]

Can we argue about Pandas now? I'm fed up with monkeys.

Without looking anything up, I seem to remember not so long ago when we were told that Giant Pandas were not bears, they looked superficially like bears, but they were closer to Raccoons, or Red Pandas anyway.

But lately they've been saying that they are closest to bears again.
Good old dna. It has sorted a lot of stuff out.

But but but but... Giant Pandas and Red Pandas are both Pandas so their common ancestor must have been a panda so bears and raccoons and turnips are pandas!

aren't tanuki panda dogs?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Semantics are the key.
Red panda and giant panda are common names, not taxonomic classifications, so the two types of animal do not have to be related in spite of the name similarity.

The word 'monkey' is also a common name, not a taxonomic classification, even though old world and new world monkeys are terms often used to replace the correct taxonomic nomenclature. But 'monkey' is not a scientific term. Which is why arguing that the common ancestor of OWMs and NWMs has a different name and is thus not a monkey is crazy.

The word 'monkey' is defined according to standard English dictionaries, and that definition encompasses the common ancestor of OWMs and NWMs.

In addition, the genetic similarity of apes to old world monkeys and its dissimilarity to new world monkeys is a pretty damn good indication that apes arose from the old world monkey line.

Can't prove your point taxonomically, so switch to semantics. How did I know this was coming.

If "Red panda and giant panda are common names, not taxonomic classifications, so the two types of animal do not have to be related in spite of the name similarity.", then "The word 'monkey' is also a common name, not a taxonomic classification," implies that the two kinds of monkey "do not have to be related in spite of the name similarity." BY YOUR OWN FAULTY LOGIC!!!1!

That they are related is incontrovertible, however, that does not imply FUCK ALL about what their common ancestor is called scientifically.

You are just plain WRONG!

[mistermack]

The thing is, semantics are superficially like taxonomics, but when you examine their dna, they are actually closer to pedantics.

[Blind groper]

what their common ancestor is called scientifically.

It is because the word 'monkey' is not a scientific name that I am right. Even the phrase 'old world monkey' is not a scientific term, although much literature uses it as if it were. The word 'monkey' does not have an exact scientific definition, because it is not such a scientifically defined term.

Scientists may also use words like 'cat', or 'dog' or 'bird', but they are not scientific terms, either. There is a school of thought among biologists that birds are actually an order of reptiles, and should be classed under reptilia. If that change is made, and it very easily might be made, it will not make a blind bit of difference to how the word 'bird' is used.

But if a scientific term, like simiiformes, is reclassified, it makes a lot of difference. It might, for example, exclude a lot of those currently called simiiformes.

How you class those primates we refer to as 'monkeys' has no bearing on what they are, or how they evolved, because there is no scientific taxa called 'monkeys'.

Since the word 'monkey' is not a scientific term, your arguments are invalid. If we take the true meaning of the word 'monkey', which is standard English, not zoological, then all hairy primates who are not apes, lemurs, tarsiers, or lorises, and who climb trees are monkeys. That includes the ancestors of old world and new world monkeys.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If we take the true meaning of the word 'monkey', which is standard English, not zoological, then all hairy primates who are not apes, lemurs, tarsiers, or lorises, and who climb trees are monkeys. That includes the ancestors of old world and new world monkeys.

True by whose definition? ex recto again, I would imagine.

Should we exclude non-arboreal monkeys from the group now? What should we call them instead? Gropers, perhaps?