Talk:How come there are still monkeys?

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

We are not descended from monkeys[edit]

(Unless you are related to a certain pop group)

.... we, they, apes, Lucy (whether or not throwing 'pretty crystals' into the air), and 'hobbits' (to name but a few) are descended in different ways from several common ur-ancestors which 'disappeared' by variously becoming us and them. (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Think (Not checked) that it'll say that in the article. Scream!! (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Checked: "Evolution explains how humans developed from a primate ancestor, but not an extant species of monkey or ape. (Modern primates include: bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons, macaques, lemurs, gibbons, and humans. None of these is a descendant of any other.)" Thought so. — Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs
then what explains my poo flinging and public masturbation? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) You're obviously a precursor of what man will evolve into. Scream!! (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Decidedly untrue. While the common ancestor we share with chimps were not chimps they were definitely of the same order as all modern apes. They were apes, just not modern apes. Ikanreed (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If we decide to follow the strict rules of cladistics, then

1) Humans are more closely related to chimps than their is to gorillas. As long as both gorillas and chimps are universally recognized as African apes, then any clade which is to be named "African apes" (Hominidea), will contains chimps and gorillas, and their most recent common ancestor, and all of the descendants of that MRCA, in particular Homo sapiens" as well the recent human ancestors and near relatives. That means that not only are we descended from African apes, we are African apes. 2) The situation with regard to monkeys is more complicated. 2a) There are two clades of monkeys, the Old World monkeys, including baboons and others; and the New World monkeys, including howler monkeys. There is no commonly recognized clade of "monkeys". 2b) If there is a clade of Old World monkeys, then it would have to include descendants. Apes are descendants of Old World monkeys. Therefore, if there is a clade of Old World monkeys, then it includes all apes, including African apes, including humans. 2c) If there is a clade of monkeys including baboons and howler monkeys, then it contains their MRCA and all of its descendants, etc. etc. including humans. 3) Do we really advance the understanding of evolutionary biology by going into such details? I am not suggesting that there is anything that should be hidden. I am only saying that it is complicated beyond the interest of most people. It is better to stick to what must be the real confusion, that no modern species of humans, chimps, gorillas, baboons, howler monkeys, is the ancestor of any other of them. If there is a species of ape or monkey in our ancestry, it is not true that that species is still around. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If there was any actual convenience served by this line of reasoning, I'd take the argument by pragmatism. Ikanreed (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I belong to the 'apes and monkeys are distant relatives (and so long as there is a niche for a species, or one it can adapt to at least as well as other possible occupants, it will survive)' group. (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some monkey ain't there anymore[edit]

They were extinct :( --Arisboch (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)[edit]

This is the go-to article on the topic, it's been stable for ages and it answers the question pretty well. What's it missing? - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I was going over the page, and what do we want it to be:
  1. A guide how to discus this with someone.
  2. An explanation to someone who is confused about the topic.
Right now, it rather leans towards to the first. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but a bit different from most other pages I've seen here. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems more useful as the first, but has to cover the second in the process (which it more or less does) - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it fails quite hard in explaining this to those who are uninformed in evolution. I strongly doubt that anyone who is confused sufficiently about evolution to ask this question will be helped by this page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that we can successfully explain evolution from the start to people right here - that that's an actionable objection. (We might be able to achieve it with links to other articles or Wikipedia.) It does note strategies that have actually been found to work - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we can do so with in a very brief section, because the basic concept isn't that difficult; I'll expand it this evening. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
excellent :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It's missing a picture of a human emerging from a chimp's body like a snake shedding its skin with a caption saying "How creationists think it works." ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It totally isn't - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

MHO, this question is based on misunderstandings that have to be cleared away before making any progress. Misunderstandings are difficult to deal with, and any attempt to deal with them are apt to be met with resistance in the hardening of the denial. We're dealing with people who really don't like the idea of being related to "monkeys", who have integrated that dislike into their religious life - they may think that any reasonable consideration of the idea is the trick of a wily Satan. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this intended as an actionable objection? - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Any actionable objections? Last call - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

An actionable objection[edit]

Very strong no. We reference just 9 sources. Literally 1 of them is a scientific publication. We would not provide any new information for a seasoned skeptic. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Our target audience is not just seasoned skeptics. That being said, let me source it a bit better. Then I'll support covering as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha argument[edit]

"Some creationists ask questions like this thinking they've made a real zinger you can't possibly answer"

Gotcha argument defines itself as a legitimate point/claim that the responder does not have a response to, and thus claims it is an invalid point. Our use here implies a gotcha argument is actually an invalid point. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the implication here is that creationists incorrectly think they've made a gotcha argument, when in reality their point is invalid, and thus not a gotcha at all. (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes. The important part is "...thinking they've made ...". It could equally have read "thinking they are clever". It would not mean they were clever.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Monkeys and tools[edit]

On a trawl through the search engines came across [1] - where does this or a better link fit? This is presumable another example of 'non-human tool development and usage' - and how soon before there are claims that 'these monkeys are the ancestors of the successor species to humans'? Anna Livia (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)