Orangutans are apes, nor monkeys. That's like saying that a ring tailed lemur or a slow loris are monkeys
jessica
+ethan maly
meh. humans are monkeys, too.
ethan maly
+jessica no we're technically great apes
Damon Teichroeb
Whoever was stupid enough to think that we humans came from monkeys should have never been a scientist. Prove me wrong once you have OBSERVABLE evidence of a monkey or ape or great ape transform into a human. It is very simple. Monkeys, apes, and great apes are animals and always have been.
jessica
+ethan maly
but, i have no problem in using the terms "primate" and "monkey" interchangeably. it's a perfectly acceptable colloquialism. tarsiers are a bit of a problem, granted. but not enough to deny the usage.
the offense comes out merely in a hierarchical perception. an ape is not merely a monkey. but, there's not a lion in the world that sees a human differently than any other monkey. it's a shallow anthropomorphic absurdity, really.
i mean, a lion might very well think it important to point out the difference between a leopard and a cougar. a leopard can roar. it is not merely a cat. a wolf may take great offense to being called a dog. but, we see them all as essentially the same thing.
Joshua Quint Norton
+jessica
You may. People with the slightest ability of differentiation wahtsoever - do not.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
hrmmn. and, what are these criteria that you believe are so obvious?
surely, you don't claim that it's dna.
Joshua Quint Norton
It's so clear what I said. So very clear.
So my response is go stick a porcupine in your eurethra and call it a puppy , you disengenious sophistic twat.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
it does not matter how angry you are. you have yet to put down meaningful separation criteria, let alone defend it from scrutiny.
Joshua Quint Norton
Well when I'm responding to such utter shite as 'We see dogs and wolves as essentially the same' (imagines a Pug and Wolf and giggles) I know I'm dealing with a sophistic diehard who will defend the most insane statements with the zeal of a true fuckwit.
So no. You don't deserve a response if you do not realise all labels are labels of convienience.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
but, dogs and wolves are scientifically classified as the same species.
Joshua Quint Norton
Again. go fuck yourself. I can read you like a comic book, only a lot quicker.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
i suspect that it would take you an unusually long amount of time to make your way through a comic book.
Joshua Quint Norton
Keep your narcissm to thyself.
I can tell you're an expert on it.
Fare thee badly. I'm out.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
many baseless insults, zero reasoned arguments.
i'll help you out on the disengage.
*plonk*
Fedor Steeman
+jessica There is in fact a host of synapomorphies (shared derived traits) that distinguish the superfamily of apes (Hominoidea) from other simians. Here's a few:
1. tubular tympanic bone
2. dental formula 2.1.2.3
3. broad incisors
4. primitive molars with rounded cusps
5. broad palates
6. broad nasal regions
7. large brain
8. no tail
9. reduced lumbar region
10. long upper limbs
11. wrist lacks an articulation between the ulna and carpel bones; have a fibrous meniscus
12. hind limbs: broad ilium, broad femoral condyles, large hallux
There are also many synapomorphies to be found on the molecular level like DNA, MtRNA and protein sequences that you can go look up yourself.
jessica
+Fedor Steeman
while those characteristics may be used to suggest that apes are a specific type of monkey, i don't see anything in that list that would suggest that an ape is a different thing than a monkey. i mean, you could make these kinds of arguments in comparing great danes to chihuahuas, too.
a valid characteristic, here, would have to necessarily define a monkey and be sufficiently different in apes.
Fedor Steeman
+jessica I really don't think you're qualified to asses the validity of morphological data. Especially when you think that these differences also can be seen within a species and that a single characteristic would be sufficient to define a group. That is ridiculous nonsense and by that you have just proven your complete incompetence. Why don't you go study zoological systematics with emphasis on cladistics AND mammalian morphology and come back then?
These are the anatomical details that actual scientists use to distinguish groups. The Hominoid clade is well-defined cladistically. It is true that the "monkeys" form a so-called paraphyletic grade group that especially strict cladists frown upon, but I have not heard of any of them propose to redefine this vernacular group name to include apes. Not so strict taxonomists have suits of characters for defining both delimiters of the "monkey" grade.
Zoologists, you know, people who actually know what they're talking about, call the monophyletic group that includes monkeys and apes "Haplorrhini", not "monkeys".
In vernacular, zoologists generally talk of "monkeys" as something distinct from "apes" and are fine with it. Now you may go maverick and throw around your own personal definitions, but no one has to accept those, because you're just some nobody on the internet.
jessica
+Fedor Steeman
again, there's a lot of anger here, but not a lot of reasoned thought.
the best characteristic you provided was the lack of a tail. but, then the deduction is that apes are just tailless monkeys. and, as it turns out, there are species of monkeys without tails (the macaque is one), anyways.
i'm used to people yelling at me when i frustrate them with the tyranny of logic. but, it is now as it always is - you simply have no argument.
again: you are providing a list of reasonable characteristics to define apes as a subset of monkeys. but, you have not provided any argument at all to suggest that an ape is not a monkey.
perhaps we should take a step back for a second to clarify a distinction, as i think it might be at the root (pardon the pun) of the difficulty, here.
a cladistic relationship is not a set-theoretical relationship. it defines a broad genealogical relationship between species. but, we don't claim that mammals are fish. and, likewise, we don't need a recent common ancestor to point out that dolphins and sharks are both aquatic predators.
the question of whether apes are monkeys or not is not a cladistic question, it is a categorical one.
what you need to do to provide a good argument here is what i said:
1) find some characteristics that uniquely define monkeys. what makes a monkey a monkey?
2) demonstrate that those characteristics fail to describe apes. how is it that what makes a monkey a monkey makes an ape not a monkey?
and, good luck to you.
i wouldn't have suggested that apes are monkeys if such a distinction were truly readily apparent.