jbg Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Since humans are monkeys then yes. Then I'll be a monkey's uncle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Then I'll be a monkey's uncle. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) No...humans are apes...different family from monkeys Apes evolved from monkeys and an animal can never stop being what it once was. A mammal will always be a mammal no matter how much it evolves even if all its mammalian characteristics dissappear. Another example birds are still considered dinosaurs and reptiles. Taxonomy is an interesting subject it is unfortunate that most people know little about it. Then I'll be a monkey's uncle. Possible orgin of that saying Edited December 16, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Apes evolved from monkeys and an animal can never stop being what it once was. Hmmm... wouldn't it be better say that apes and monkeys evolved separately from a common simian ancestor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Humans, apes, monkeys, chimpanzees gorillas, et al, are all primates. We are all cousins to each other. There is a common ancestor or a small group of ancestors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Hmmm... wouldn't it be better say that apes and monkeys evolved separately from a common simian ancestor? That common ancestor was, by current classification, a monkey. Edited December 16, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) That common ancestor was, by current classification, a monkey. Don't think so..a primate, but not a monkey. The lineage is called prosimian and includes modern Lemurs Edited December 16, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Don't think so..a primate, but not a monkey. The lineage is called prosimian and includes modern Lemurs Right now I don't have time to get into this, I have to get to school. So here is a video that explains the problem with current classification. . I'll add some more when I get home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Right now I don't have time to get into this, I have to get to school. So here is a video that explains the problem with current classification. . I'll add some more when I get home. That link isn't credible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 That's an interesting video, but I am not convinced and I think generally, the jury is still out. The presenter asserts that Apidium is the common ancestor to both monkeys and apes, which is fine, but I can't find anything creidble that positively classifies Apidium as a 'monkey.' It would sort of like be saying that australopithecine is human. But it does say that Apidium is a primate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) No...humans are apes...different family from monkeys You might get into something of a debate with systematics community. If "monkey" is a clade that includes all Old World and New World monkeys, then the apes fall into that clade, and so they too are monkeys. That's from a cladistic point of view. In general, most paleontologists say we descend from monkey-like ancestors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini Humans are, cladistically, Old World monkeys. Edited December 16, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 You might get into something of a debate with systematics community. Do you mean semantics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Do you mean semantics? No, systematics; cladists, taxonomists and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) That link isn't credible Just an intro that sums up my opinion nicely, but then how about this all apes are descended from the "old world" monkeys, which in turn are probably descended from the "new world" monkeys. Humans are descended from apes. The logical conclusion then is that humans evolved from monkeys and as such are still monkeys. All apes are considered "old world" monkeys. If humans are apes than humans are "old world" monkeys That's an interesting video, but I am not convinced and I think generally, the jury is still out. The presenter asserts that Apidium is the common ancestor to both monkeys and apes, which is fine, but I can't find anything creidble that positively classifies Apidium as a 'monkey.' It would sort of like be saying that australopithecine is human. But it does say that Apidium is a primate. There is debate true but at the very least there is evidence that current Linnaean taxonomy is flawed. To my knowledge of the characteristics of monkeys humans have many if not all of these characteristics. Apidium seems to have them to. Apidium reconstruction Apidium skeleton Edited December 16, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 There is debate true but at the very least there is evidence that current Linnaean taxonomy is flawed. To my knowledge of the characteristics of monkeys humans have many if not all of these characteristics. Apidium seems to have them to. Apidium reconstruction Apidium skeleton Oh I wouldn't argue that Apidium is not monkey-like any more than I would argue that Homo Habilis wasn't human-like. But in everyday vernacular I wouldn't call H. Habilis a 'human' any more than I would call Apidium a 'monkey.' And, of course, appearances aren't everything especially when we deal with artists rendition of fossils. Use the artistic reditions of dinosaurs over the past 100 years as an example. I always thought of the Linnaean taxonomy as an adaptable structure not an end result, so it will always be flawed until the latest information is integrated. So it could be one day, once more detailed - painfully detailed - research is completed on Apidium, that the taxonomy is changed to reflect a new understanding. In the meantime, I think it would be more correct to say primate ancestor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Oh I wouldn't argue that Apidium is not monkey-like any more than I would argue that Homo Habilis wasn't human-like. But in everyday vernacular I wouldn't call H. Habilis a 'human' any more than I would call Apidium a 'monkey.' And, of course, appearances aren't everything especially when we deal with artists rendition of fossils. Use the artistic reditions of dinosaurs over the past 100 years as an example. True enough though scientifically homo habilis was human. Not sure about Apidium I don't think even the scientists are completely sure. I always thought of the Linnaean taxonomy as an adaptable structure not an end result, so it will always be flawed until the latest information is integrated. So it could be one day, once more detailed - painfully detailed - research is completed on Apidium, that the taxonomy is changed to reflect a new understanding. In the meantime, I think it would be more correct to say primate ancestor. Linnaean taxonomy needs a major overhaul under it animals stop being what they evolved from. Snakes stop being lizards and birds stop being reptiles and we know that isn't right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Snakes stop being lizards and birds stop being reptiles and we know that isn't right. Birds stopped being reptiles when they stopped being cold blooded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) Birds stopped being reptiles when they stopped being cold blooded. No they didn't bird always have been and always will be reptiles. Birds are archosaurs like crocodiles, they are also in diapsida, and should be in the class reptilia but are not because the current classification is flawed. Edited December 17, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 No they didn't bird always have been and always will be reptiles. Birds are archosaurs like crocodiles, they are also in diapsida, and should be in the class reptilia but are not because the current classification is flawed. They have evolved...are there any other warm blooded reptiles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Linnaean taxonomy needs a major overhaul under it animals stop being what they evolved from. Snakes stop being lizards and birds stop being reptiles and we know that isn't right. That's what cladistics is all about, but unfortunately not everyone is happy about that. In cladistics, if you descended from a dinosaur, you are a dinosaur. So Aves (birds) are simply a dinosaur, and mammals are just a type of reptile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 They have evolved...are there any other warm blooded reptiles? So far as I know, birds and mammals are the only extant descendants of reptiles with warm blood. The problem with classification is that a lot of the old Linnean lineages are paraphyletic. Some argue that if a branch of any tree differs too greatly (ie. mammals) from the common ancestor, they should be moved out of the tree. But I think the strict cladists are winning out, particularly with birds, and it seems to be tumbling some other paraphyletic groupings; like Artidodactyla (even-toed ungulates), where Cetaceans, which are a descendant clad are being grouped with it, despite rather obvious differences between whales and, say, cows. But old habits die hard, and some just can't used to the idea of calling a whale an ungulate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) They have evolved...are there any other warm blooded reptiles? Dinosaurs (although all birds are dinosaurs not all dinosaurs are birds) and mammals. So your not just a monkey your a reptile monkey. That's what cladistics is all about, but unfortunately not everyone is happy about that. In cladistics, if you descended from a dinosaur, you are a dinosaur. So Aves (birds) are simply a dinosaur, and mammals are just a type of reptile. Aves are also reptiles as dinosaurs descended from reptiles Edited December 17, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 Dinosaurs (although all birds are dinosaurs not all dinosaurs are birds) and mammals. So your not just a monkey your a reptile monkey. Aves are also reptiles as dinosaurs descended from reptiles By that logic, we are all fish.... There is really no concensus on whether dinosuars were warm blooded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 By that logic, we are all fish.... Technically we are all chordates, and that encompasses the overwhelming majority of animals we call fish. But fish are a good example of a paraphyletic grouping, in that it explicitly excludes descendants of the common ancestor who aren't almost exclusively aquatic. But if one goes by strict cladistics, then yes, we're all fish. There is really no concensus on whether dinosuars were warm blooded. Clearly there were, because birds descended from them. The debate is over which dinosaur lineages were warm-blooded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 (edited) By that logic, we are all fish.... Technically yes we are. There is really no concensus on whether dinosuars were warm blooded. There is some debate over which dinosuars but we know that at least some were "warm blooded". Some dinosuar bones should signs of endothermic metabolism. Microscopic analysis has shown that the bones of some dinosaurs grew at a rate comparable to modern mammals, and have more features in common with the bones of mammals and birds than they do with the bones of modern-day reptiles. Many dinosaur bones have been found in high allitudes and in climates that would have be very cold when they were alive. Birds are endothermic so it is logical that at least their direct dinosuar ancestors were endothermic to. Some dinosaurs would require a warm blooded circulatory system. There are arguments against all dinosaurs being endothermic, but it is accepted that at least some (mostly the therapods) we endothermic. Some dinosaurs were to big. The jurrasic era was very hot so it wouldn't be neccessary. we don't know enough about dino posture. etc. Edited December 18, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.