Food & Drink3 mins ago
cavemen on earth
43 Answers
how did cavemen get on earth
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by phatneck21br. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
and RE your quote, the same article says that the ancestor it speaks of was clearly a monkey. Just because we came from non-humans and we were not around when they were around, and chimps came from the same thing ultimately, and they were not around at the time, does not mean necessarily that the ancestor of monkeys was not necessarily a monkey. Evolution is not about CHANGE it's about ADAPTATION.
MargeB - I am totally confused by your argument; it appears to have gone through a process of adaptation also.
You first stated that humans evolved from monkeys and made reference to the discovery of Victoriapithecus.
Now you state that humans descended from apes and that monkeys descended from monkeys!
This was my position from the outset and it was you who erroneously brought monkeys into the discussion.
Apes (including humans) and monkeys have a common ancestor which no Anthropologist would ever describe as a monkey.
No, I haven't adapted my answer at all.
Humans having evolved from monkeys is NOT incompatible with humans having evolved from apes.
BECAUSE: Humans evolved from an ape line via a common ancestor (an ape) with the chimpanzee, which together have a common ancestor (an ape) with the gorilla, which all together have a common ancestor (an ape) with the orang utan. Which has a common ancestor (a monkey) with monkeys as we know them today.
I never said the common ancestor was an ape; it is a primate from which apes, humans, monkeys and lemurs evolved, and as such cannot be called an ape nor a monkey.
Re-reading your first post I have found the error in your theory i.e. placing monkey above primate in the classification of the species. It should read:
Kingdom = Animalia
Phylum = Chordata
Class = Mammalia
Order = Primates
and so on through
Family
Genus
Species
It is impossible for Species: Human to evolve from Species: Monkey
Where are you getting your information from?
Monkey: definition
- Any of a large and varied group of mammals of the primate order. The term monkey includes all primates that do not belong to the categories human, ape, or prosimian. � 2003, Columbia University Press
- Any of various long-tailed, medium-sized members of the order Primates, including the macaques, baboons, guenons, capuchins, marmosets, and tamarins and excluding the anthropoid apes and the prosimians. � 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company
- Any of various long-tailed primates (excluding the prosimians). � 2001 by Princeton University
I'm not sure what you're pointing to with your post there kempie. Is it what I said about Monkeys not being a species? Monkey is not a species, as also ape is certainly not, I doubt even if 'human' is: many would say 'homo sapien' and count 'erectus' as a human and obviously a different species.
Dissecting your last quote, I'm trying to understand where you're going
"are at least 145 living species of the suborder Anthropoidea. Over 90% of them are monkeys. {MB: yes, that's fine, all the different species of monkey collectively are 'monkeys'. But 'monkey' is not a species.}
The remaining species are apes and humans.'
{Similarly, the remaining species when taken together are either ape or human. This doesn't mean that there is a species 'ape' or necessarily 'human'. They seem to be using the classic definition of 'ape' here.}
I'm inclined to agree with MargeB here (although I think you are at cross-purposes in some respects).
I have read the Dawkins book refered to above. It is clear that the concestor (Dawkins own term) of apes and monkeys etc is a monkey like creature. (I believe from memory that it is concestor 8). Man therefore evolved from a monkey like creature - but not a monkey as currently exists. But carry on back and we evolved from a baterium like creature.
Kempie - it is not theoretically impossible for humans to evolve into a monkey type - highly unlikely but not impossible. What cant happen is that humans evolve into a specific pre-existing monkey species.
I am now bored with this monkey business!
This all seems to hinge on your definition of 'monkey'. You say that only Hominids younger than 2 million years can 'count as' human but that Victoriapithecus is still a monkey at 15 million years. You do all monkeys a great disservice by suggesting that they have not evolved in all that time.
Your specious argument is as inaccurate as calling a Mastodon an Elephant.
As to humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) not being a species, please enlighten me. What are we really?
I concede defeat (not that you are correct but that I cannot seem to make my point clear enough to you).
Kempie, I'll go through what you said in order:
"This all seems to hinge on your definition of 'monkey'.
It's an objective definition. To be a 'monkey' requires that the animal have certain features that have been decided that separate that group from all other animals. Although it seems subjective and arbitrary, because of evolution it does take on an objective root. The environmental basis of evolution is the niche and it is not surprising that certain phenotypes of a group should prevail.
You say that only Hominids younger than 2 million years can 'count as' human but that Victoriapithecus is still a monkey at 15 million years. You do all monkeys a great disservice by suggesting that they have not evolved in all that time."
Sorry, but I discount this argument entirely. Evolution has nothing to do with necessarily 'getting better', it is to do with adapting to a niche. It does so happen that humans are more intelligent than our chimp concestor is more intelligent than our gorilla concestor, but this is only because of the evolutionary arms race that affected our line. The animal kingdom is full of other species which adapted in a way that did not make them look 'better' or 'cleverer' but just 'better suited to that niche. Monkeys have evolved (for example, the Diana Monkey has evolved semantic communication, which was not achieved by orang utans nor gorillas), but the other features which they have retained, which make them 'monkey', bear testament to the SUCCESS of those features over many environments and against the competition from alternatives. Furthermore, we could take the example of the crocodile, which has basically remained unchanged for a much longer period of time, because it can rule its niche quite happily without any further adaptation, thank you very much.
Your specious argument is as inaccurate as calling a Mastodon an Elephant.
Funny pun, but it's nothing like calling a Mastodon an Elephant.
"This all seems to hinge on your definition of 'monkey'.
It's an objective definition. To be a 'monkey' requires that the animal have certain features that have been decided that separate that group from all other animals. Although it seems subjective and arbitrary, because of evolution it does take on an objective root. The environmental basis of evolution is the niche and it is not surprising that certain phenotypes of a group should prevail.
You say that only Hominids younger than 2 million years can 'count as' human but that Victoriapithecus is still a monkey at 15 million years. You do all monkeys a great disservice by suggesting that they have not evolved in all that time."
Sorry, but I discount this argument entirely. Evolution has nothing to do with necessarily 'getting better', it is to do with adapting to a niche. It does so happen that humans are more intelligent than our chimp concestor is more intelligent than our gorilla concestor, but this is only because of the evolutionary arms race that affected our line. The animal kingdom is full of other species which adapted in a way that did not make them look 'better' or 'cleverer' but just 'better suited to that niche. Monkeys have evolved (for example, the Diana Monkey has evolved semantic communication, which was not achieved by orang utans nor gorillas), but the other features which they have retained, which make them 'monkey', bear testament to the SUCCESS of those features over many environments and against the competition from alternatives. Furthermore, we could take the example of the crocodile, which has basically remained unchanged for a much longer period of time, because it can rule its niche quite happily without any further adaptation, thank you very much.
Your specious argument is as inaccurate as calling a Mastodon an Elephant.
Funny pun, but it's nothing like calling a Mastodon an Elephant.
Kempie, I'll go through what you said in order:
"This all seems to hinge on your definition of 'monkey'.
It's an objective definition. To be a 'monkey' requires that the animal have certain features that have been decided that separate that group from all other animals. Although it seems subjective and arbitrary, because of evolution it does take on an objective root. The environmental basis of evolution is the niche and it is not surprising that certain phenotypes of a group should prevail.
"You say that only Hominids younger than 2 million years can 'count as' human but that Victoriapithecus is still a monkey at 15 million years. You do all monkeys a great disservice by suggesting that they have not evolved in all that time."
Sorry, but I discount this argument entirely. Evolution has nothing to do with necessarily 'getting better', it is to do with adapting to a niche. It does so happen that humans are more intelligent than our chimp concestor is more intelligent than our gorilla concestor, but this is only because of the evolutionary arms race that affected our line. The animal kingdom is full of other species which adapted in a way that did not make them look 'better' or 'cleverer' but just 'better suited to that niche. Monkeys have evolved (for example, the Diana Monkey has evolved semantic communication, which was not achieved by orang utans nor gorillas), but the other features which they have retained, which make them 'monkey', bear testament to the SUCCESS of those features over many environments and against the competition from alternatives. Furthermore, we could take the example of the crocodile, which has basically remained unchanged for a much longer period of time, because it can rule its niche quite happily without any further adaptation, thank you very much.
Your specious argument is as inaccurate as calling a Mastodon an Elephant.
Funny pun, but it's nothing like calling a Mastodon an Elephant.
As to humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) not being a species, please enlighten me. What are we really?
To say 'humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)' is not correct. 'Humans' are a family (Hominidae)
which include:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
These are all different species. You can make some genus groupings, e.g. Homo. But Homo sapiens sapiens is our species. We are a larger part of the family of 'Humans'. I never said that Homo sapiens sapiens was not a species, but denied that there was a species 'Human'.
MargeB - you have constantly and consistently misinterpreted my posts and worse 'spun' them when repeated.
Please show where I equate 'evolve' with 'getting better'? My point was that you called a 15 million year old creature a monkey instead of 'a monkey-like creature'.
Also where is the pun in 'calling a Mastodon an Elephant'? It is not a joke but an example of incorrectly naming an animal because it looks like another. Perhaps another 'pun' would be to call a Slow Worm a Snake.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.