|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 10, 2019 6:35:01 GMT 5
I feel like we've already been over this. Courtesy of Darren Naish.  Unfortunately the article he originally wrote on this is gone, but this is an easy question to answer anyway. |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 10, 2019 6:52:02 GMT 5
I feel like we've already been over this. Courtesy of Darren Naish. Unfortunately the article he originally wrote on this is gone, but this is an easy question to answer anyway. i dont know about that , he was also wrong about many other things science related |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 10, 2019 7:02:01 GMT 5
I feel like we've already been over this. Courtesy of Darren Naish. Unfortunately the article he originally wrote on this is gone, but this is an easy question to answer anyway. i dont know about that , he was also wrong about many other things science related ...Like what? And what does that even matter here? Apes evolved from monkeys, hence they are just one group of monkeys among others. What reasonable dispute is there against this? |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 10, 2019 7:04:30 GMT 5
i dont know about that , he was also wrong about many other things science related ...Like what? And what does that even matter here? Apes evolved from monkeys, hence they are just one group of monkeys among others. What reasonable dispute is there against this? monkeys have tails , apes do not , apes cannot be considered monkeys because they do not have tails and are part of a serprate family |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 10, 2019 7:10:39 GMT 5
...Like what? And what does that even matter here? Apes evolved from monkeys, hence they are just one group of monkeys among others. What reasonable dispute is there against this? monkeys have tails , apes do not , apes cannot be considered monkeys because they do not have tails and are part of a serprate family Apes lost their long tails from their monkey ancestors. Snakes lost their limbs, but they are still part of the larger clades they evolved from. This one distinct features of apes does not suddenly mean they are not monkeys. They are simply derived, tailless monkeys. |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 10, 2019 7:18:07 GMT 5
monkeys have tails , apes do not , apes cannot be considered monkeys because they do not have tails and are part of a serprate family Apes lost their long tails from their monkey ancestors. Snakes lost their limbs, but they are still part of the larger clades they evolved from. This one distinct features of apes does not suddenly mean they are not monkeys. They are simply derived, tailless monkeys. exactly my point , for instance snakes lost thier limbs , but they are not lizards , apes lost their tails thus not monkeys. their is no such thing as a tailess monkey , in order to be a monkey you need to have a tail.  |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 10, 2019 7:45:12 GMT 5
They are, for the reasons I am currently trying to explain here. I'm curious then, what's the barbary macaque, with a vestigial tail, to you?  What you're describing is paraphyly, and that's simply not how modern phylogenetics works. You don't stop being part of a larger clade just by having more derived features from your ancestors. Mammals are very distinct from their early synapsid ancestors (much more so than apes are to their immediate monkey ancestors), but you absolutely would not use this to deem mammals as somehow not synapsids. Similarly, you wouldn't use the obvious physical differences between mammals and their early tetrapod ancestors to deem mammals as not being tetrapods, despite mammals tracing their ancestry to early tetrapods. It is the same case with apes and monkeys. Simply replace 'mammals' with 'apes', and 'synapsids' or 'tetrapods' with 'monkeys'. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jul 10, 2019 16:05:36 GMT 5
I feel like we've already been over this. Courtesy of Darren Naish. Unfortunately the article he originally wrote on this is gone, but this is an easy question to answer anyway. i dont know about that , he was also wrong about many other things science related Such as? |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 10, 2019 16:41:54 GMT 5
i dont know about that , he was also wrong about many other things science related Such as? this because apes are nto monkeys you can tell by the chart , anthriopoids are a seprate family from monkeys |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 10, 2019 17:21:14 GMT 5
The reason your chart makes any kind of distinction between monkeys and apes, and therefore neglects to highlight the nuances of modern phylogenetics (i.e. the concept of monophyly), is simply to help laymen (who aren't all aiming to be taxonomists) understand where modern primate clades are relative to each other on the phylogenetic tree.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 11, 2019 0:32:09 GMT 5
The reason your chart makes any kind of distinction between monkeys and apes, and therefore neglects to highlight the nuances of modern phylogenetics (i.e. the concept of monophyly), is simply to help laymen (who aren't all aiming to be taxonomists) understand where modern primate clades are relative to each other on the phylogenetic tree. again they are on two seprate branches , one group is anthropoids and monkeys are well monkeys |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 11, 2019 1:53:21 GMT 5
The reason your chart makes any kind of distinction between monkeys and apes, and therefore neglects to highlight the nuances of modern phylogenetics (i.e. the concept of monophyly), is simply to help laymen (who aren't all aiming to be taxonomists) understand where modern primate clades are relative to each other on the phylogenetic tree. again they are on two seprate branches , one group is anthropoids and monkeys are well monkeys Let's look at the phylogenetic tree you posted again. The Old World monkey branch and the ape branch both come from the same, singular branch; together they form a group called the Catarrhini, its members called catarrhines. This indicates that the Old World monkeys and the apes share the same common ancestor. And here's the kicker: that common ancestor has to be something that we would consider a monkey. Do you know how you can tell that that bolded statement is true? Because, as your chart also shows, before Old World monkeys and apes split from each other, the catarrhines themselves split from the New World monkeys from their last common ancestor. Do you see where this is going? That catarrhine common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes was itself a monkey, because not only did it share a common ancestor with animals that we consider monkeys (the New World monkeys), but it also gave rise to animals that we consider monkeys (the Old World monkeys). So if the last common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes was itself a monkey, then everything descended from that LCA is also phylogenetically a monkey (i.e. a member of the infraorder Simiiformes). This includes not just the Old World monkeys, but also the apes. Do you understand now? Basically, Old World monkeys are more closely related to apes than they are to the New World monkeys. It doesn't make sense that we consider the Old World monkeys to be monkeys but consider the apes to not be monkeys, because the Old World monkeys are closer to apes than they are to other animals that we consider to be monkeys (the New World monkeys). The way we correct this problem is to consider the apes to be monkeys. |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 11, 2019 5:54:29 GMT 5
again they are on two seprate branches , one group is anthropoids and monkeys are well monkeys Let's look at the phylogenetic tree you posted again. The Old World monkey branch and the ape branch both come from the same, singular branch; together they form a group called the Catarrhini, its members called catarrhines. This indicates that the Old World monkeys and the apes share the same common ancestor. And here's the kicker: that common ancestor has to be something that we would consider a monkey. Do you know how you can tell that that bolded statement is true? Because, as your chart also shows, before Old World monkeys and apes split from each other, the catarrhines themselves split from the New World monkeys from their last common ancestor. Do you see where this is going? That catarrhine common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes was itself a monkey, because not only did it share a common ancestor with animals that we consider monkeys (the New World monkeys), but it also gave rise to animals that we consider monkeys (the Old World monkeys). So if the last common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes was itself a monkey, then everything descended from that LCA is also phylogenetically a monkey (i.e. a member of the infraorder Simiiformes). This includes not just the Old World monkeys, but also the apes. Do you understand now? Basically, Old World monkeys are more closely related to apes than they are to the New World monkeys. It doesn't make sense that we consider the Old World monkeys to be monkeys but consider the apes to not be monkeys, because the Old World monkeys are closer to apes than they are to other animals that we consider to be monkeys (the New World monkeys). The way we correct this problem is to consider the apes to be monkeys. great apes and old world monkeys are pretty close , but apes are on a seprate branch , they are not on the same branch because as you can see the last comman ancestor of monkeys and apes split 25 million years ago , this making them seprate families |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 11, 2019 6:28:02 GMT 5
Let's look at the phylogenetic tree you posted again. The Old World monkey branch and the ape branch both come from the same, singular branch; together they form a group called the Catarrhini, its members called catarrhines. This indicates that the Old World monkeys and the apes share the same common ancestor. And here's the kicker: that common ancestor has to be something that we would consider a monkey. Do you know how you can tell that that bolded statement is true? Because, as your chart also shows, before Old World monkeys and apes split from each other, the catarrhines themselves split from the New World monkeys from their last common ancestor. Do you see where this is going? That catarrhine common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes was itself a monkey, because not only did it share a common ancestor with animals that we consider monkeys (the New World monkeys), but it also gave rise to animals that we consider monkeys (the Old World monkeys). So if the last common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes was itself a monkey, then everything descended from that LCA is also phylogenetically a monkey (i.e. a member of the infraorder Simiiformes). This includes not just the Old World monkeys, but also the apes. Do you understand now? Basically, Old World monkeys are more closely related to apes than they are to the New World monkeys. It doesn't make sense that we consider the Old World monkeys to be monkeys but consider the apes to not be monkeys, because the Old World monkeys are closer to apes than they are to other animals that we consider to be monkeys (the New World monkeys). The way we correct this problem is to consider the apes to be monkeys. great apes and old world monkeys are pretty close , but apes are on a seprate branch , they are not on the same branch because as you can see the last comman ancestor of monkeys and apes split 25 million years ago , this making them seprate families I meant that they share the whole branch circled below (you can click on this for a larger view, btw).  Of course, the branch is expanded to show the specific clades of catarrhines, but you get what I mean. |
|
