Is there any debate over the fact that humans are monkeys?
I hear many people say we share a common ancestor with monkeys, but are apes.
If I'm understanding phylogeny correctly, then modern monkeys diverged from an ancestor shared with humans that was a monkey taxonomically.
So, if we are primates (which I've never heard disputed) and we are apes, then we are also monkeys, right? At least we're in the same clade as monkeys.
>>7771908
Not exactly. We are primates which apes and im pretty sure monkeys do fall under but that doesnt make us apes or monkeys. Just cousins ;)
It's all a question of definition.
By that logic we are as much apes and monkeys as we are that ancient fish we evolved from
>>7771915
Well, we're in our own clade hominadae, I believe. But what I'm asking is, if the line between old world monkeys and humans is unbroken, then like a bird is an avian dinosaur, we are bipedal monkeys, right?
>>7771920
Then what the hell even constitutes a biological clade? Is it just wherever you decide to draw the line on the evolutionary tree?
>>7771925
By looking at how similar the DNA is and how it evolved then grouping the closest ones together and naming it for articulation?
>>7771908
>>7771922
No, monkeys are a paraphyletic group. It includes every ancestor of modern monkeys up to their latest common ancestor, and all the descendants of that ancestor EXCEPT for hominoid apes such as humans. A good rule of thumb is that anything without a tail is probably not categorized as a monkey.
>>7771925
>>7772897
No, in this case it's merely a morphological division. Old World monkeys are actually closer genetically to us apes than New World monkeys, yet they are still called monkeys and we are not. It's essentially just preserving commonly used taxonomy that was invented before genetics.
>>7772968
We are old world monkeys, though. So we're monkeys. Just like dinosaurs are birds, and vertebrates (Sarcopterygii) are fish.
And it's just more fun to say we're monkeys. God, how it pisses off the religious faggots.
God molded us out of clay.
Taxonomy has a lot of weird things. Best to ignore them, or we call everyone a fish and it's just a little silly.
>>7772987
No, we're not. The classification specifically excludes apes. That's the point of a paraphyletic group.
Not all dinosaurs are birds, birds evolved from dinosaurs (and are dinosaurs).
Saying all vertebrates are fish is even more nonsensical, since fish are defined as gill-bearing, aquatic, and lacking limbs with digits.
>>7773010
Dunno. The fact that you admit that it would be "a little silly" shows that humans can't handle reality.
It makes more sense for humans to be considered a type of fish, than for transgender persons to be called ______. And if the man Bruce Jenner is now a "woman" named Caitlyn, then the world should also acknowledge that we're a species of bony, jawed fish. Not that we're descendants of them...we *are*, cladistically, jawed bony fish.
>>7773021
I don't recognize paraphyletic groups, as no one should. They are an antiquated designation, and should be abandoned like "the Aether" the planet Vulcan.
Paraphyly is absolutely redundant and makes no sense.
>>7773034
>I don't recognize paraphyletic groups
I don't recognize the words you're using! English is a completely redundant, antiquated language and makes no sense!
See the thing is, the only thing that matters is that everyone knows what you're talking about when you say fish. It will be quite useless to you to talk about fish when everyone else thinks fish are something else.
"People are bloody ignorant apes."
— Samuel Beckett, "Waiting for Godot"
>>7773041
Natural languages change all the time.
Once upon a time, the definition of "human" had nothing to do with primates. Now, "human" is a type of primate.
What was defined as a bird was once never associated with reptiles, let alone dinosaurs. Now, what is defined as a bird is also defined as a type of dinosaur, even if it's still rare to associate birds as being reptiles. But one day birds will be merely a type of reptile. Because they are.
And one day, all [bony] vertebrates will be considered a type of bony fish, just as cartilaginous fish and bony fish, and hagfish, and lampreys, are still types of fish.
Paraphyly is a remnant from a time when morphological taxonomy was the norm. It needs to go, and there is no shame it in going.
>>7771920
I don't think that follows. there are fish on one branch of the tree and mammals on the other branch, so the common ancestor need not be one or the other. the reason it's a problem for the classification of monkeys is that you have monkeys popping up on both sides of the tree
>>7773139
can a monkey impregnate a human?
no
then humans aren't monkeys
>>7773166
That's a stupid analogy
>>7772968
We aren't monkeys we are great apes nigga
Not really. The debate is coming from emotional religious people who think humans are the top shit and created in the image of the gods.
>>7773254
Humans are top shit regardless.
If you disagree go live with your superior elephant brothers, or with the ultra self-aware crows.
>>7773261
>Humans are top shit regardless.
Humans are the most intelligent beings on the planet, and that's about it. We're not magic.
>>7773268
Who's talking about magic?
Humans are top tier, Rank 1 organisms.
Fuck this "one with the universe" shit. In the words of Conor McGregor, "We're not here to take part--we're here to take over."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyaAQh8THtk
>>7773001
>Mod golded us out of day.
2
