My Mormon boyfriend
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2014, 08:11 AM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(23-08-2014 11:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 10:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, we aren't. If we 'never grow out of ..." then we're reptiles and amphibians and fish and ...

See how that doesn't work? Consider It's not a useful concept.

Besides, we were never monkeys, we and monkeys were something then we diverged and some became monkeys and others became humans (and all the other apes).

Our ancestors were never modern 'reptiles', modern fish, or modern amphibians. You're misconstruing common terms with specific taxonomic classifications.

I am not confused in the least. Drinking Beverage

I am not the one saying we're monkeys. No

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(24-08-2014 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 11:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Our ancestors were never modern 'reptiles', modern fish, or modern amphibians. You're misconstruing common terms with specific taxonomic classifications.

I am not confused in the least. Drinking Beverage

I am not the one saying we're monkeys. No


[Image: 139417.jpg]



A taxon (pl. taxa) is any group of organisms that is given a formal taxonomic name. Loosely, a monophyletic taxon is one that includes a group of organisms descended from a single ancestor , whereas a polyphyletic taxon is composed of unrelated organisms descended from more than one ancestor.

These loose definitions fail to recognize the fact that all organisms are related, therefore any conceivable group is logically "monophyletic". In modern usage, a monophyletic taxon is defined as one that includes the most recent common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all of its descendents [as in (a)]. Such groups are sometimes called holophyletic. It is also possible to recognize a paraphyletic taxon as one that includes the most recent common ancestor, but not all of its descendents [as in ©]. A polyphyletic taxon is defined as one that does not include the common ancestor of all members of the taxon [as in (b)].

Well-known monophyletic taxa include Mammalia and Aves (modern birds), recognizable as all furry and feathered vertebrates, respectively. Paraphyletic taxa include Pisces and Reptilia, the former comprising all ray-finned fish but excluding terrestrial descendants of fleshy-finned fish, and the latter comprising all scaly tetrapods but excluding mammals and birds with their modified scales. Polyphyletic taxa once in common usage include Agnatha for jawless lampreys and hagfish, and Insectivora for various toothless, insect-eating mammals such as anteaters and armadillos. Note that these latter groups are defined by 'absence' characters, and that although redwood trees are jawless and toothless, they are not included in those taxa.

Taxonomists tend to fall into two schools, "Evolutionary" or "traditional" systematics versus "Phylogenetic" or "cladistic" systematics. Since the 1970s, "phylogenetic systematics" has been replacing "traditional systematics" Because the older literature and textbooks often use "evolutionary" classifications, the student must understand both systems.

An unfortunate circumstance for the student is that the two schools use the same terms, but in different ways, and often refuse to recognize the alternative usage. Evolutionary taxonomists claim to recognize only "monophyletic" taxa, but use the term to include both holophyletic and paraphyletic taxa. Phylogenetic taxonomists also claim to recognize only "monophyletic" taxa, but limit the term to what is defined above as "holophyletic," although most reject that particular term. Both schools reject the use of polyphyletic taxa, although most phylogenetic taxonomists would use that term to included paraphyletic taxa.

https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm


So within a monophyletic taxonomic hierarchy, humans are monkeys. Because our common ancestor with the great apes did itself have a common ancestor with the other monkeys, that was itself a monkey. So humans are still monkeys in the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, chordates, and tetrapods.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(24-08-2014 08:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am not confused in the least. Drinking Beverage

I am not the one saying we're monkeys. No


[Image: 139417.jpg]



A taxon (pl. taxa) is any group of organisms that is given a formal taxonomic name. Loosely, a monophyletic taxon is one that includes a group of organisms descended from a single ancestor , whereas a polyphyletic taxon is composed of unrelated organisms descended from more than one ancestor.

These loose definitions fail to recognize the fact that all organisms are related, therefore any conceivable group is logically "monophyletic". In modern usage, a monophyletic taxon is defined as one that includes the most recent common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all of its descendents [as in (a)]. Such groups are sometimes called holophyletic. It is also possible to recognize a paraphyletic taxon as one that includes the most recent common ancestor, but not all of its descendents [as in ©]. A polyphyletic taxon is defined as one that does not include the common ancestor of all members of the taxon [as in (b)].

Well-known monophyletic taxa include Mammalia and Aves (modern birds), recognizable as all furry and feathered vertebrates, respectively. Paraphyletic taxa include Pisces and Reptilia, the former comprising all ray-finned fish but excluding terrestrial descendants of fleshy-finned fish, and the latter comprising all scaly tetrapods but excluding mammals and birds with their modified scales. Polyphyletic taxa once in common usage include Agnatha for jawless lampreys and hagfish, and Insectivora for various toothless, insect-eating mammals such as anteaters and armadillos. Note that these latter groups are defined by 'absence' characters, and that although redwood trees are jawless and toothless, they are not included in those taxa.

Taxonomists tend to fall into two schools, "Evolutionary" or "traditional" systematics versus "Phylogenetic" or "cladistic" systematics. Since the 1970s, "phylogenetic systematics" has been replacing "traditional systematics" Because the older literature and textbooks often use "evolutionary" classifications, the student must understand both systems.

An unfortunate circumstance for the student is that the two schools use the same terms, but in different ways, and often refuse to recognize the alternative usage. Evolutionary taxonomists claim to recognize only "monophyletic" taxa, but use the term to include both holophyletic and paraphyletic taxa. Phylogenetic taxonomists also claim to recognize only "monophyletic" taxa, but limit the term to what is defined above as "holophyletic," although most reject that particular term. Both schools reject the use of polyphyletic taxa, although most phylogenetic taxonomists would use that term to included paraphyletic taxa.

https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm


So within a monophyletic taxonomic hierarchy, humans are monkeys. Because our common ancestor with the great apes did itself have a common ancestor with the other monkeys, that was itself a monkey. So humans are still monkeys in the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, chordates, and tetrapods.

*like

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
"My dream is that we will move away from fossil fuel and legalize pot."

Somewhere... Over the rainbow.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
24-08-2014, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 04:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
"My Mormon boyfriend"

Let me tell you about my Mormon boyfriend.
Oh wait, He's not.
But since it's so big we had to start getting our Halloween party ready, and he suggested we get our hair cut, and get nerdy black suits and thin ties, and go together (with Bibles) as "the Mormons at your door", (Or JW's at your door). Sadcryface2

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(24-08-2014 08:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So within a monophyletic taxonomic hierarchy, humans are monkeys. Because our common ancestor with the great apes did itself have a common ancestor with the other monkeys, that was itself a monkey. So humans are still monkeys in the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, chordates, and tetrapods.

No, you can not say that. It was a monkey's uncle, but it wasn't a monkey.

We're not monkeys in the same way we are not fish.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 06:17 PM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(24-08-2014 05:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So within a monophyletic taxonomic hierarchy, humans are monkeys. Because our common ancestor with the great apes did itself have a common ancestor with the other monkeys, that was itself a monkey. So humans are still monkeys in the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, chordates, and tetrapods.

No, you can not say that. It was a monkey's uncle, but it wasn't a monkey.

We're not monkeys in the same way we are not fish.

What happen to aegyptopithecus? That was a monkey with traits of apes. What about proconsul? That ape still had traits like that of monkeys. Not only is there genetic evidence we are monkeys, but fossil evidence too. Not to mention apidium, a monkey that was like a combination of new world monkeys and catarrhini primates. I mean take a look at aegyptopithecus

[Image: Aegyptopithecus_NT.jpg]

[Image: aegyptopithecus.jpg]

To make it worst aegyptopithecus appears before both old world monkeys and apes.

Aegyptopithecus appeared in the late eocene and disappeared in the early oligocene. Apes appeared in the late oligocene.

So not only is aegyptopithecus a monkey with ape traits, it appeared before the first ape even evolved. Seems like the lineage that stared apes was a monkey.

All apes are monkeys. Humans, chimps, Australopithecus, Paranthropus boisei, gorillas etc are monkeys.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
24-08-2014, 06:26 PM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(23-08-2014 10:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
Besides, we were never monkeys,
...

I'm sorry, but great scholars would disagree:

"You're a fucking monkey, mate!"
-- Eddie Izzard

"We're just fucking monkeys in shoes"
-- Tim Minchin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
24-08-2014, 06:33 PM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(24-08-2014 06:17 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 05:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you can not say that. It was a monkey's uncle, but it wasn't a monkey.

We're not monkeys in the same way we are not fish.

What happen to aegyptopithecus? That was a monkey with traits of apes. What about proconsul? That ape still had traits like that of monkeys. Not only is there genetic evidence we are monkeys, but fossil evidence too. Not to mention apidium, a monkey that was like a combination of new world monkeys and catarrhini primates. I mean take a look at aegyptopithecus

[Image: Aegyptopithecus_NT.jpg]

[Image: aegyptopithecus.jpg]

To make it worst aegyptopithecus appears before both old world monkeys and apes.

Aegyptopithecus appeared in the late eocene and disappeared in the early oligocene. Apes appeared in the late oligocene.

So not only is aegyptopithecus a monkey with ape traits, it appeared before the first ape even evolved. Seems like the lineage that stared apes was a monkey.

All apes are monkeys. Humans, chimps, Australopithecus, Paranthropus boisei, gorillas etc are monkeys.

As I have said, and will continue to say, no. We are not monkeys - we have a common ancestor with monkeys. You are simply declaring that common ancestor to be a monkey.

What is the purpose of doing so? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-08-2014, 08:16 PM
RE: My Mormon boyfriend
(24-08-2014 06:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 06:17 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  What happen to aegyptopithecus? That was a monkey with traits of apes. What about proconsul? That ape still had traits like that of monkeys. Not only is there genetic evidence we are monkeys, but fossil evidence too. Not to mention apidium, a monkey that was like a combination of new world monkeys and catarrhini primates. I mean take a look at aegyptopithecus

[Image: Aegyptopithecus_NT.jpg]

[Image: aegyptopithecus.jpg]

To make it worst aegyptopithecus appears before both old world monkeys and apes.

Aegyptopithecus appeared in the late eocene and disappeared in the early oligocene. Apes appeared in the late oligocene.

So not only is aegyptopithecus a monkey with ape traits, it appeared before the first ape even evolved. Seems like the lineage that stared apes was a monkey.

All apes are monkeys. Humans, chimps, Australopithecus, Paranthropus boisei, gorillas etc are monkeys.

As I have said, and will continue to say, no. We are not monkeys - we have a common ancestor with monkeys. You are simply declaring that common ancestor to be a monkey.

What is the purpose of doing so? Consider

No that common ancestor was a monkey. The major give away is the tail. Apes don't have those. The thing is that you are thinking of modern monkeys. We are not old world monkeys, that is true. However all apes are monkeys.

I will go further.

Apidum was a monkey with the traits of catarrhini and new world monkeys. This is most definitely a monkey. All monkeys came from it. So even by default it would be a monkey because apes were not around yet.




[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: