Did we come from monkeys?

[Pete K.]

I often hear people say "We didn't come from monkeys, we share a
common ancestor with monkeys." Sometimes I'll respond with something
like "We didn't come from any modern monkey species, but if the last
common ancestor of humans and modern monkeys was alive today we would
call it a monkey", usually to great resistance.

If asked to explain I'll point out that humans evolved from the Old
World monkeys who were already split from the New World monkeys. This
would imply that the LCM of humans and OWM was a monkey unless NWM and
OWM somehow evolved "monkeyness" independently.

The only thing worse than a pedant is a wrong pedant so is correct to
say we did come from monkeys in the above sense?

[John Harshman]

Of course it is. Your reasoning is correct. So if you're at the zoo and
somebody points at a chimp and says "look at the monkey", resist the
urge to "correct" them.

[Pete K.]

Thanks. I suppose I should say humans are "grouped within" rather than
"evolved from" the OWM to avoid being accused of assuming the
conclusion.

[John Harshman]

Does the term "cladistic classification" strike a familiar note?

[Pete K.]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:22:08 -0700, John Harshman

Yes, but if I come right out and say humans *are* monkeys that meets
even more resistance. One step at a time...

[erik simpson]

Actually, we're fish. Earlier than that, it's hard to say.

[John Harshman]

No, it's easy to say. There just aren't a lot of vernacular terms. We're
vertebrates. We're chordates. We're deuterostomes. We're animals. We're
opisthokonts. We're eukaryotes. See? Easy.

[erik simpson]

True. I was thinking of actual fossils that we could point to that stand a
chance of being at least distant cousins.

[jillery]

Would you say that whales are fish? If not, isn't that contrary to
your "grouped within" argument above? If so, wouldn't you expect
others to think that statement is either ignorant or silly?

To invoke cladistics implies that words like "fish" and "monkey" have
formal cladistic definitions. My understanding is they don't, but of
course I could be wrong.

IMO "monkey" implies a vernacular use, to refer to those species which
are arbitrarily labeled monkeys from those which are not. IMO
"haplorhini" should be used when making cladistic distinctions, to
make clear one's intent, assuming of course that making one's intent
clear is also a goal. In the case of word games, the whole point is
to be cryptic.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[erik simpson]

Valid points. Using common names like 'fish' and 'monkey' in statements whose
proper meaning is technical is not very informative. An excellent example that
I've heard is "Triceratops is a stem bird". Not even sure if that's correct,
but you get the idea.

[Pete K.]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:09:02 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

My point is simply to counter the (to me) misguided notion that we
didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor. I contend that
whatever definition of "monkey" you choose* the last common ancestor
of humans and Old Word monkeys would be called one if it were alive
today, and therefore humans did come from monkeys,

*unless your definition is simply a list of known animals we call
monkeys which would be silly since it would exclude any as yet
undiscovered species

[Peter Nyikos]

And if somebody points to you and says, "look at the monkey," you would
not even have the urge to correct them.

And if they point to you and say, "look at the fish," you would
not even have the urge to correct them.

That's because you are firmly committed to modern cladophile
terminology. I think most non-creationists are more comfortable with saying,
"We evolved from monkeys, fish,..." or else adopting Peter K.'s terminology,
but that belongs to the "heresy" of the Linnean classification schema,
making monkeys and fish paraphyletic.

You would no more think of saying it than saying "Birds evolved from
dinosaurs," right?

I'll say this much for your terminology: it tends to mistify creationists
rather than raise their hackles, and so you can probably avoid getting
into arguments with them in real life more easily than I can.


Oh, by the way, you DO realize that you went off on a tangent from
what Pete K. was asking, don't you? He is correct, of course. Of that much
you did reassure him, before going off on your tangent.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[jillery]

I understand your point, and it's a valid point, but I'm unclear if
you apply your point as a general rule, or to just the specific case
you identified. That's why I asked if you would call a whale a fish,
with follow-up questions queued up, ready and waiting for you. That
you didn't answer leaves me no better informed on that point.

As for your footnote, vernacular classifications are often silly,
which was one of my points, that one ought not use vernacular words as
if they have formal scientific meaning.

I understand that humans evolved from something ape-like, which
evolved from something monkey-like. As Harshman pointed out, one can
follow that train of thought even farther down the line.

So, do you get off that train at the monkeys? Or do you say whales
are fish?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:07:04 PM UTC-4, Pete K. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:09:02 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >To invoke cladistics implies that words like "fish" and "monkey" have
> >formal cladistic definitions.

Not to John Harshman. We had a very interesting conversation back in 2011
in sci.bio.paleontlogy about this.

<snip>

> My point is simply to counter the (to me) misguided notion that we
> didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor. I contend that
> whatever definition of "monkey" you choose* the last common ancestor
> of humans and Old Word monkeys would be called one if it were alive
> today, and therefore humans did come from monkeys,
>
> *unless your definition is simply a list of known animals we call
> monkeys which would be silly since it would exclude any as yet
> undiscovered species

You have been very lucid all through this thread, Peter K. Are you
interested in paleontology? The newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology
could certainly use some more participants. [I'm ashamed to admit
that I haven't posted there in some time, but I hope to remedy
that this week.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

[TomS]

"On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:50:57 -0700, in article
<IamdnYLuH7pfg57L...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

The "monkey" problem seems to be unique to English.

The present word "ape" comes from a long line of English referring to
the only non-human primates which were known of before Europeans began
exploring - the Old Word monkeys. For example, the King James Version
uses the word "ape" where we would say "monkey" today. "Barbary ape"
was the perfectly fine term for the animal. No English speakers knew
about chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans or gibbons. (Or lemurs, tarsiers,
or anything about the New World primates, either.)

And then, for some unknown reason, the word "monkey" was introduced to
the English language. If whoever started using that word had the foresight
to use it to refer only to the newly discovered New World primates, and
would continue to use "ape" for the primates of the Old World (except for
the peculiar beasts of Madagascar), it would make things simpler for us
today.

Of course, if we are to apply cladist rules to "fish", and accept that
sharks and tunas are fish, then so are whales. As well as giraffes and
ostriches.

And then there is the word "worm". If flatworms and roundworms are
both worms ...


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[John Harshman]

On 9/23/15, 8:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:07:04 PM UTC-4, Pete K. wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:09:02 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> To invoke cladistics implies that words like "fish" and "monkey" have
>>> formal cladistic definitions.
>
> Not to John Harshman. We had a very interesting conversation back in 2011
> in sci.bio.paleontlogy about this.

I of course recall nothing of it. But that doesn't mean it wasn't
interesting.

[John Harshman]

FYI, Triceratops is indeed a stem bird, as it's more closely related to
birds than to crocodiles.

[John Harshman]

On 9/23/15, 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 3:02:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/23/15, 11:44 AM, Pete K. wrote:
>>> I often hear people say "We didn't come from monkeys, we share a
>>> common ancestor with monkeys." Sometimes I'll respond with something
>>> like "We didn't come from any modern monkey species, but if the last
>>> common ancestor of humans and modern monkeys was alive today we would
>>> call it a monkey", usually to great resistance.
>>>
>>> If asked to explain I'll point out that humans evolved from the Old
>>> World monkeys who were already split from the New World monkeys. This
>>> would imply that the LCM of humans and OWM was a monkey unless NWM and
>>> OWM somehow evolved "monkeyness" independently.
>>>
>>> The only thing worse than a pedant is a wrong pedant so is correct to
>>> say we did come from monkeys in the above sense?
>>>
>> Of course it is. Your reasoning is correct. So if you're at the zoo and
>> somebody points at a chimp and says "look at the monkey", resist the
>> urge to "correct" them.
>
> And if somebody points to you and says, "look at the monkey," you would
> not even have the urge to correct them.
>
> And if they point to you and say, "look at the fish," you would
> not even have the urge to correct them.

True.

> That's because you are firmly committed to modern cladophile
> terminology. I think most non-creationists are more comfortable with saying,
> "We evolved from monkeys, fish,..." or else adopting Peter K.'s terminology,
> but that belongs to the "heresy" of the Linnean classification schema,
> making monkeys and fish paraphyletic.

Who knows what most non-creationists are comfortable with? One of my
goals is to increase the numbers of those comfortable with modern usage,
which you so charmingly call "cladophile" (I presume that's intended as
pejorative).

> You would no more think of saying it than saying "Birds evolved from
> dinosaurs," right?

Still right.

> I'll say this much for your terminology: it tends to mistify creationists
> rather than raise their hackles, and so you can probably avoid getting
> into arguments with them in real life more easily than I can.

You can say that, but I think you're wrong.

> Oh, by the way, you DO realize that you went off on a tangent from
> what Pete K. was asking, don't you? He is correct, of course. Of that much
> you did reassure him, before going off on your tangent.

I will agree that there is a subtle difference, but I wouldn't say it
was a tangent.

[erik simpson]

I'm happy to hear that, since it was my son who made the remark.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!
Good one!

[Pete K.]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:39:20 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

I hadn't intended to get into the cladistic angle at all, but OK. In a
limited context where it would be understood what I meant I might say
whales are fish, but in general I wouldn't; I'm pretty sure the
current most common meaning of "fish" still excludes tetrapods.

>As for your footnote, vernacular classifications are often silly,
>which was one of my points, that one ought not use vernacular words as
>if they have formal scientific meaning.

My original question was about how to respond to people who do use
vernacular words when they say "people didn't come from monkeys."

[Pete K.]

I'm normally a dedicated lurker. I'm already a little uncomfortable
being in just this thread.

[jillery]

And so you illustrate a problem resulting from using poorly defined
vernacular labels like "monkey" to explain scientific concepts like
evolution.

You're quite correct that fish are not tetrapods, but that has nothing
to do with the fact that tetrapods evolved from fish, which is exactly
analogous to your case of humans evolving from monkeys.

In the case of monkeys, you explicitly argue that humans are monkeys
because they evolved from monkeys. But in the case of whales, you
dismiss your own argument, despite the fact that you know whales
evolved from fish.

>>As for your footnote, vernacular classifications are often silly,
>>which was one of my points, that one ought not use vernacular words as
>>if they have formal scientific meaning.
>
>My original question was about how to respond to people who do use
>vernacular words when they say "people didn't come from monkeys."

I understand that. And my question is directly related to your
original question. Any apparent logical paradox is purely semantic.
My understanding is that the vernacular meaning of "monkey" doesn't
include all of its descendants or ancestors. Its definition is, as
you say, a silly collection of species thrown together, and will
almost certainly change in the future to some other yet equally silly
meaning.

So my answer to your question, which is worth every penny you paid for
it, is to qualify your use of "monkey" to make it clear you are not
using any silly vernacular meaning, ex. "monkey-like". Otherwise,
when you play word games to say "humans are monkeys", you risk the
riposte "whales are fish" from fellow gamesters, and your biology
lesson is likely lost in the ensuing chaos.

>>I understand that humans evolved from something ape-like, which
>>evolved from something monkey-like. As Harshman pointed out, one can
>>follow that train of thought even farther down the line.
>>
>>So, do you get off that train at the monkeys? Or do you say whales
>>are fish?

[Greg Guarino]

On 9/24/2015 9:50 AM, Pete K. wrote:
> I'm normally a dedicated lurker. I'm already a little uncomfortable
> being in just this thread.

Don't worry. A quick spritz of Purell will fix you right up. :)

[jillery]

Don't let him intimidate you. The worst he can do is target you for
compulsive and pointless personal attacks.

[August Rode]

'Monkey' is a paraphyletic group but 'simian' is not. To avoid the problem you referred to above, I prefer to say that humans evolved from basal simians and that we remain simians as a result. We are vertebrates because we evolved from basal vertebrates, we are amniotes because we evolved from basal amniotes, we are mammals because we evolved from basal mammals. What these basal forms looked like in comparison with animals that live today (i.e. that a basal simian would be identified as a monkey or at least monkey-like) doesn't change our genetic heritage in the least.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <6j360btqp0oihoesg...@4ax.com>,

"Pete K." <n...@email.plz> wrote:

> Yes, but if I come right out and say humans *are* monkeys that meets
> even more resistance. One step at a time...

Isn't this *clear* to the most obvious observer from, for example, the
Republican debates. Non Americans, please ignore, you don't even
get a vote unless, of course, you have big money.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <3e2f7310-ae6c-4fa6...@googlegroups.com>,

erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, but if I come right out and say humans *are* monkeys that meets
> > even more resistance. One step at a time...
>
> Actually, we're fish. Earlier than that, it's hard to say.

Surely we are metazoa. A very small and numerically insignificant
class of life. Of course, the economic importance of this clade is
huge.

[Pete K.]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:23:16 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

I guess I'm not being clear. Despite my earlier offhand comment my aim
here is not to convince others that humans are monkeys, only that we
evolved from monkeys.

>>>As for your footnote, vernacular classifications are often silly,
>>>which was one of my points, that one ought not use vernacular words as
>>>if they have formal scientific meaning.
>>
>>My original question was about how to respond to people who do use
>>vernacular words when they say "people didn't come from monkeys."
>
>
>I understand that. And my question is directly related to your
>original question. Any apparent logical paradox is purely semantic.
>My understanding is that the vernacular meaning of "monkey" doesn't
>include all of its descendants or ancestors. Its definition is, as
>you say, a silly collection of species thrown together, and will
>almost certainly change in the future to some other yet equally silly
>meaning.

I would argue that the actual vernacular meaning of "monkey" is more
than just a list of species. Suppose I showed people a picture of a
species of monkey they had never seen or heard of. Presumably (unless
it was a very weird derived type) most of them would identify it as a
monkey despite them not knowing if it was on any list. This is what I
mean when I contend that the LCA of humans of OWM would be called a
monkey by most people.

And not just vernacularly, but with any reasonable rigorous meaning
you assign to "monkey" the LCA is still a monkey.

[jillery]

Your answer is even better than mine.

[Mark Isaak]

Apparently, "monkey", or rather Low German "Moneke", was popularized in
a 1498 version of the story "Reynard the Fox", where it was the name of
the son of Martin the Ape. So the word roughly matches New World
exploration in time, but only by coincidence.

To add to confusion, the word "meerkat" comes from a Dutch word for monkey.

> And then there is the word "worm". If flatworms and roundworms are
> both worms ...

And don't forget, dragons, too, are worms.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Pete K.]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:55:51 -0700 (PDT), August Rode
<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with all of that. I agree that the statement "humans evolved
from monkeys" is imprecise. But I haven't heard anything that would
render it incorrect which was my original question.

[jillery]

And apparently I was less than clear also. My use of your "silly"
label for vernacular definitions doesn't imply they lack utility.
Obviously, people identify "monkey" based on features and concepts
which are useful to them, but they don't use the same features and
concepts as those for scientific clades. And most people are adept at
interpolating among known data to derive a reasonable fit for new
data.

As for the LCA of humans and OWM, their superficial appearance as
monkeys isn't especially relevant. If you recognize that all living
things on Earth are related, then you also understand there is
necessarily an LCA between any two extant species, and most LCAs don't
look anything like either extant species. So I remain unclear about
your focus on monkeys in particular.

>And not just vernacularly, but with any reasonable rigorous meaning
>you assign to "monkey" the LCA is still a monkey.

The vernacular meaning of "monkey" isn't rigorous. Basically it's
whatever happens to look like a monkey to the person using the word.
That's one reason why evolutionary biologists rigorously defined their
own words.

>>So my answer to your question, which is worth every penny you paid for
>>it, is to qualify your use of "monkey" to make it clear you are not
>>using any silly vernacular meaning, ex. "monkey-like". Otherwise,
>>when you play word games to say "humans are monkeys", you risk the
>>riposte "whales are fish" from fellow gamesters, and your biology
>>lesson is likely lost in the ensuing chaos.
>>
>>
>>>>I understand that humans evolved from something ape-like, which
>>>>evolved from something monkey-like. As Harshman pointed out, one can
>>>>follow that train of thought even farther down the line.
>>>>
>>>>So, do you get off that train at the monkeys? Or do you say whales
>>>>are fish?

[jillery]

Hypothetically, if you were to ask someone "Where is Chicago?", and
they answered "On Earth", would their answer be acceptable to you?

[William Morse]

If you can get people to agree that humans "came from" or "evolved from"
monkeys, then bless you. Given the number of people who still insist on
special creation for humans, that is a great step in the right
direction. One might think that cladistics would make innate sense to
people, given our interest in family trees, but apparently that is
overridden by our propensity to classify objects into groups.

Yours,
Bill

[Peter Nyikos]

All of which shows what an inadequate substitute "stem__________" is for
"ancestral taxon" which is forbidden by the rules of devotees of Hennig.

With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.

The situation reminds me of the resistance mathematicians had to "imaginary"
numbers long after they were shown to be essentially indispensible in solving
third and fourth degree equations and even to finding the "real" solutions.

Similarly, the word "imaginary" has been used by cladophiles like yourself
as a bogeyman to drive paraphyletic taxa, EXCEPT for "stem_____," to extinction.
This robs us of the kind of quick overview that those old "bubble diagrams"
gave me when I was not yet a teenager.

And so, a whole generation of paleontologists is in danger of losing
sight of the forest of ancestral relationships for the trees.

And some in the old generation, like Erik Simpson, get misunderstood from
time to time. He was hoping for fossils that look like they are close to
the real ancestors of chordates, etc. and you gave him a bunch of clades that
would be part of any modern Linnean classification, and probably are,
because ancestral relationships at that level are still poorly known.

But that doesn't mean that you had to give him taxa which include ourselves.
He implied as much in reply to your irrelevant list.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

nyikos @math.sc.edu

[Peter Nyikos]

I did two posts there today, by the way.

> I'm normally a dedicated lurker. I'm already a little uncomfortable
> being in just this thread.

You can set your mind at ease. True, John Harshman, Erik Simpson and I clash
pretty vigorously in talk.origins from time to time; but we have agreed
to treat sci.bio.paleontology as a kind of "embassy" where we lay aside
our personal differences and converse like the best of ambassadors.
The arrangement is working out very well.

Secondly, despite what you have been told by someone who keeps probing
for weaknesses in your perfectly straightforward comments all through
this thread, I NEVER attack anyone who doesn't give plenty of evidence
of being highly dishonest and/or hypocritical. You are so far removed
from providing such evidence, you could be a role model for people here
in talk.origins where your behavior on this thread is concerned.

AlwaysAskingQuestions is another good role model. I wish more people
in this newsgroup were like the two of you.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Family trees aren't the whole story. We also want to know about family
relationships, like the second cousins once removed from your great-great
grandfather, the one on the straight paternal line. It is of no use to say
"they are in the set of the smallest clades that include HIS
great-grandparents" --for one thing, YOU are also in every one of
those clades!

That is the analogue of what I've been telling Harshman about the
awkwardness of statements like "Triceratops is a stem bird."

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

What's the matter, are you surprised that some people know how to
contribute to an intelligent conversation without making noise and
throwing shit all over the place? You should try it sometime, if only
as a change of pace.

Note to Pete K.: pay attention to which posts includes his employment
claims, and which do not, like one I replied to above. He explicitly
admitted the latter posts aren't serious. That's a sign to watch out
for hooks hidden in baits of cloying flattery. It's what he does.

[erik simpson]

I wasn't misunderstood. I just didn't say what I meant.

[John Harshman]

But it isn't a substitute. It's a separate thing. The remainder of your
rant is likewise senseless.

> With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
> than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
> behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
> nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.

There is no such nearest "real group". The narrowest real group that we
are sure contains the "ur-vogel" (itself a poorly defined term) is
probably Paraves. There is no such thing as an "ancestral group".

> The situation reminds me of the resistance mathematicians had to "imaginary"
> numbers long after they were shown to be essentially indispensible in solving
> third and fourth degree equations and even to finding the "real" solutions.

What solutions require "ancestral groups"?

> Similarly, the word "imaginary" has been used by cladophiles like yourself
> as a bogeyman to drive paraphyletic taxa, EXCEPT for "stem_____," to extinction.
> This robs us of the kind of quick overview that those old "bubble diagrams"
> gave me when I was not yet a teenager.

So it's the chance resemblance of the word "imaginary" that excites you?
I do have to say that your ideas of the usefulness of paraphyletic taxa
strike me as requiring some imagination, similar to that required to
believe in the Easter Bunny.

> And so, a whole generation of paleontologists is in danger of losing
> sight of the forest of ancestral relationships for the trees.
>
> And some in the old generation, like Erik Simpson, get misunderstood from
> time to time. He was hoping for fossils that look like they are close to
> the real ancestors of chordates, etc. and you gave him a bunch of clades that
> would be part of any modern Linnean classification, and probably are,
> because ancestral relationships at that level are still poorly known.
>
> But that doesn't mean that you had to give him taxa which include ourselves.
> He implied as much in reply to your irrelevant list.

Don't know what you're talking about here. Where and when did that happen?

[Pete K.]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:50:37 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Maybe I should go back to the beginning and explain my motivation a
bit better.

Sometimes when a creationist says "I didn't come from a monkey"
someone else who accepts evolution will say "No, we didn't come from
monkeys, but humans and monkeys have a common ancestor." I think this
a well-meaning but incorrect response. I try hard not to be the "but
actually" guy but sometimes I'm weak. In those times when I do say
"but humans did evolve from monkeys" I get so much resistance I
question myself, so I came here to ask if I'm right in doing so.

[RSNorman]

The problem you pose has been worked over here for quite a while, as
you might imagine, with different people giving different answers for
different reasons.

There are the purists who insist on technical correctness even when
teaching the general public. Actually some say that it is especially
important that if you try to teach aspects of biology or evolution you
have to do it properly. Then there are the pragmatists who say the
equivalent of "whatever works." Generally people who have actually
taught intro biology (or pretty much any intro course) for some time
fall into the latter category: you have to elide over the details (OK,
you actually lie about them) to get across the main ideas.

Ordinary language, vernacular, differs from technical language.
Generally people who say "ape" do not at all include humans and people
who say "dinosaur" do not include birds. People, even biologists,
still talk about "reptiles" even though there no longer is such a
category in technical language. I do not see any virtue in correcting
such usage except when the fine details really matter. However it can
be fun in certain circumstances to insist that "people are fish" while
you also demand that people acknowledge humans are apes and dogs are
wolves. You might as well also demand that people acknowledge that
neither a strawberry nor a blackberry is a berry whereas a tomato and
an avocado are and scold them for mentioning starfish, jellyfish, and
cuttlefish which are not fishes at all.

In talking about human evolution my feeling is that the best approach
is to say "modern humans and modern monkeys both evolved from a common
ancestor and, if you ever saw one, you might well think it to be very
monkey-like even though technically we shouldn't actually call it a
monkey." Or "if you try to define the word 'ape' by listing the
characteristics they share you would have to include humans unless you
also add the phrase 'except for ...' which biologists for technical
reasons don't like to do because it distorts the evolutionary
relationships." Similarly you could say "technically our modern dogs
are really just a variety of wolf although they have changed so much
in domestication that we use a different word for them." At dinner
parties, my friends are accustomed to me popping up with things like
"you say eat your vegetables but all I see here on my plate are
fruits" as I contemplate my ratatouille of eggplant, zucchini, squash,
peppers and tomatoes.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:27:02 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/24/15, 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 1:17:03 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/23/15, 5:48 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 5:17:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> >>>> To invoke cladistics implies that words like "fish" and "monkey" have
> >>>> formal cladistic definitions.

As I wrote in another post: John Harshman sees no such implication.

> >>>> My understanding is they don't, but of
> >>>> course I could be wrong.
> >>>> IMO "monkey" implies a vernacular use, to refer to those species which
> >>>> are arbitrarily labeled monkeys from those which are not. IMO
> >>>> "haplorhini" should be used when making cladistic distinctions, to
> >>>> make clear one's intent, assuming of course that making one's intent
> >>>> clear is also a goal. In the case of word games, the whole point is
> >>>> to be cryptic.
> >>>> --
> >>>> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >>>
> >>> Valid points. Using common names like 'fish' and 'monkey' in statements whose
> >>> proper meaning is technical is not very informative. An excellent example that
> >>> I've heard is "Triceratops is a stem bird". Not even sure if that's correct,
> >>> but you get the idea.
> >>>
> >> FYI, Triceratops is indeed a stem bird, as it's more closely related to
> >> birds than to crocodiles.
> >
> > All of which shows what an inadequate substitute "stem__________" is for
> > "ancestral taxon" which is forbidden by the rules of devotees of Hennig.
>
> But it isn't a substitute. It's a separate thing.

It isn't meant to be a substitute, but it is the ONLY kind
of paraphyletic taxon your cladophilia tolerates.

That reminds me: you again made a mistake I corrected
you on long ago: thinking "cladophile" a pejorative word.

Back then I told you it means EXACTLY the following, no more, no less:
someone who will not tolerate an official classification
schema in systematics which includes paraphyletic taxa.

That was before I learned what "stem_______" meant, so now I
make one amendment: except for "stem X" where X is a clade.

If you think that is pejorative, maybe it is because you have
a guilty conscience over being so obdurate.

> The remainder of your
> rant is likewise senseless.

That's a big mountain to base on a mouse of a fine point on word usage.

> > With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
> > than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
> > behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
> > nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.
>
> There is no such nearest "real group".

I meant the only paraphyletic group that you would call "real".
Sorry about not spelling this out.

> The narrowest real group that we
> are sure contains the "ur-vogel" (itself a poorly defined term) is
> probably Paraves.

The "ur-vogel" is the LCA of what used to be called Aves.

And if Archaeopteryx has no known apomorphies that would rule
it out in that role, it is still a candidate for "ur-vogel".

In fact, that is how I *define* "ancestor-candidate": an organism
known from a well preserved and highly detailed fossil that lacks such
apomorphies.

But your cladophilia is so dogmatic, it refuses to accept even such
concepts as being helpful.

> There is no such thing as an "ancestral group".

Oh, but "stem X" includes what traditional systematists would call
ancestral groups to X. The closer they are to "species" in the
Linnean hierarchy, the more valuable they are to someone wanting
to learn about the tree of life.

> > The situation reminds me of the resistance mathematicians had to "imaginary"
> > numbers long after they were shown to be essentially indispensible in solving
> > third and fourth degree equations and even to finding the "real" solutions.
>
> What solutions require "ancestral groups"?

People on various levels of education getting a good feel for
the tree of life as regards vertebrate paleontology. And I don't
mean such a full-blown resource as the following as a start:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/

I would no sooner suggest that someone on the middle school level
start with *that resource* than I would tell someone on that level
to start reading the standard 3-semester calculus text if he is
just starting to learn the beginning of algebra -- the trick of
letting letters stand for unknowns.

> > Similarly, the word "imaginary" has been used by cladophiles like yourself
> > as a bogeyman to drive paraphyletic taxa, EXCEPT for "stem_____," to extinction.
> > This robs us of the kind of quick overview that those old "bubble diagrams"
> > gave me when I was not yet a teenager.
>
> So it's the chance resemblance of the word "imaginary" that excites you?

No, ANY words to that effect, such as the ones you wrote above:

There is no such thing as an "ancestral group".

You really like to play dumb, don't you?

> I do have to say that your ideas of the usefulness of paraphyletic taxa
> strike me as requiring some imagination, similar to that required to
> believe in the Easter Bunny.

I wonder -- is it you that infected RSNorman with these kinds
of ridiculous, pejorative comparisons? Or he who infected you? Or is
it endemic and viral among cladophiles?

> > And so, a whole generation of paleontologists is in danger of losing
> > sight of the forest of ancestral relationships for the trees.
> >
> > And some in the old generation, like Erik Simpson, get misunderstood from
> > time to time. He was hoping for fossils that look like they are close to
> > the real ancestors of chordates, etc. and you gave him a bunch of clades that
> > would be part of any modern Linnean classification, and probably are,
> > because ancestral relationships at that level are still poorly known.
> >
> > But that doesn't mean that you had to give him taxa which include ourselves.
> > He implied as much in reply to your irrelevant list.
>
> Don't know what you're talking about here. Where and when did that happen?

Right on this thread, late last week. Erik knows, and has even replied
to my comment.

But you "only see the posts you want to see" -- a habit that goes back
to before we seriously started to tangle in talk.origins in 2011.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I think the question here is quite different from that one. Pete is
talking to creationists. The resistance he gets isn't coming from a
preference for paraphyletic groups; it's coming from a preference for
unique, special creation of humans. It doesn't matter to them whether
humans are descended from monkeys or humans and monkeys are descended
from a common ancestor. They're both equally unpalatable.

The question is whether "correcting" them by saying, no, we didn't come
from monkeys is better than agreeing with the position they reject. And
I don't see why introducing that extra complication (quite aside from
whether it's right or wrong) does more than muddy the issue. It
certainly doesn't make evolution more attractive to a creationist.

> Ordinary language, vernacular, differs from technical language.
> Generally people who say "ape" do not at all include humans and people
> who say "dinosaur" do not include birds. People, even biologists,
> still talk about "reptiles" even though there no longer is such a
> category in technical language. I do not see any virtue in correcting
> such usage except when the fine details really matter.

I see a virtue when talking about evolution, especially the monkey
issue. It's simpler and clearer, and the "not a monkey but a common
ancestor" is a complicated work-around for a problem that doesn't exist.

Cladistic meanings of both "ape" and "fish" can also be useful in
context, as they directly communicate our connections to other species.
I don't expect that anyone in a restaurant will say "I'll have the fish"
when trying to order a hamburger. (But wouldn't that be cool?)

> However it can
> be fun in certain circumstances to insist that "people are fish" while
> you also demand that people acknowledge humans are apes and dogs are
> wolves. You might as well also demand that people acknowledge that
> neither a strawberry nor a blackberry is a berry whereas a tomato and
> an avocado are and scold them for mentioning starfish, jellyfish, and
> cuttlefish which are not fishes at all.
>
> In talking about human evolution my feeling is that the best approach
> is to say "modern humans and modern monkeys both evolved from a common
> ancestor and, if you ever saw one, you might well think it to be very
> monkey-like even though technically we shouldn't actually call it a
> monkey."

Why, technicaly, shouldn't we call it a monkey?

[John Harshman]

Ah, but it isn't a taxon. It's a description of position on a tree.

> That reminds me: you again made a mistake I corrected
> you on long ago: thinking "cladophile" a pejorative word.
>
> Back then I told you it means EXACTLY the following, no more, no less:
> someone who will not tolerate an official classification
> schema in systematics which includes paraphyletic taxa.

Pretty much synonymous with "cladist", then. Which was also initially
meant as a pejorative term. I think you're being disingenuous, as you
use it to describe a group you think is delusional.

> That was before I learned what "stem_______" meant, so now I
> make one amendment: except for "stem X" where X is a clade.
>
> If you think that is pejorative, maybe it is because you have
> a guilty conscience over being so obdurate.

Or maybe it isn't.

>> The remainder of your
>> rant is likewise senseless.
>
> That's a big mountain to base on a mouse of a fine point on word usage.
>
>>> With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
>>> than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
>>> behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
>>> nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.
>>
>> There is no such nearest "real group".
>
> I meant the only paraphyletic group that you would call "real".
> Sorry about not spelling this out.

There are no paraphyletic groups I would call "real".

> > The narrowest real group that we
>> are sure contains the "ur-vogel" (itself a poorly defined term) is
>> probably Paraves.
>
> The "ur-vogel" is the LCA of what used to be called Aves.

Could you define what used to be called Aves? I suspect that too is a
poorly defined term. An additional problem is that relationships in that
neighborhood are not clear, so just what node in what tree would be
referred to is also unclear.

> And if Archaeopteryx has no known apomorphies that would rule
> it out in that role, it is still a candidate for "ur-vogel".

> In fact, that is how I *define* "ancestor-candidate": an organism
> known from a well preserved and highly detailed fossil that lacks such
> apomorphies.

That's nearly as good a definition as we could come up with, though
there's enough vagueness to cause problems. Are there apomorphies that
wouldn't rule it out as well as apomorphies that would? Or does each
apomorphy just make its candidacy a little less likely without ruling it
out completely? There are after all such things as reversals.

More importantly, what good does it do us to identify some species as an
ancestor candidate? Is science thereby advanced in any way?

> But your cladophilia is so dogmatic, it refuses to accept even such
> concepts as being helpful.

You might have a point if such concepts were actually helpful. Can you
explain the helpfulness?

>> There is no such thing as an "ancestral group".
>
> Oh, but "stem X" includes what traditional systematists would call
> ancestral groups to X. The closer they are to "species" in the
> Linnean hierarchy, the more valuable they are to someone wanting
> to learn about the tree of life.

"Stem X" isn't a group. Why are they valuable?

>>> The situation reminds me of the resistance mathematicians had to "imaginary"
>>> numbers long after they were shown to be essentially indispensible in solving
>>> third and fourth degree equations and even to finding the "real" solutions.
>>
>> What solutions require "ancestral groups"?
>
> People on various levels of education getting a good feel for
> the tree of life as regards vertebrate paleontology. And I don't
> mean such a full-blown resource as the following as a start:
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/

OK, you don't mean that. What do you mean?

You seem to be saying that the scala naturae is a good place,
pedagogically, to begin explaining evolution, even if it's a lie. A
nice, linear progression from ancestor to descendant, like the common
cartoon parade from fish to human.

You probably don't think you're saying that. But then what are you saying?

Your link, by the way, takes me to a list of files, and tells me nothing.

> I would no sooner suggest that someone on the middle school level
> start with *that resource* than I would tell someone on that level
> to start reading the standard 3-semester calculus text if he is
> just starting to learn the beginning of algebra -- the trick of
> letting letters stand for unknowns.
>
>
>>> Similarly, the word "imaginary" has been used by cladophiles like yourself
>>> as a bogeyman to drive paraphyletic taxa, EXCEPT for "stem_____," to extinction.
>>> This robs us of the kind of quick overview that those old "bubble diagrams"
>>> gave me when I was not yet a teenager.
>>
>> So it's the chance resemblance of the word "imaginary" that excites you?
>
> No, ANY words to that effect, such as the ones you wrote above:
>
> There is no such thing as an "ancestral group".
>
> You really like to play dumb, don't you?

Try not to make such assumptions. Perhaps I have a point to make and am
not actually playing dumb. Your tirade on the word "imaginary" was
pointless.

>> I do have to say that your ideas of the usefulness of paraphyletic taxa
>> strike me as requiring some imagination, similar to that required to
>> believe in the Easter Bunny.
>
> I wonder -- is it you that infected RSNorman with these kinds
> of ridiculous, pejorative comparisons? Or he who infected you? Or is
> it endemic and viral among cladophiles?

Any of those alternatives seems insulting. Forgive me if I don't pick one.

>>> And so, a whole generation of paleontologists is in danger of losing
>>> sight of the forest of ancestral relationships for the trees.
>>>
>>> And some in the old generation, like Erik Simpson, get misunderstood from
>>> time to time. He was hoping for fossils that look like they are close to
>>> the real ancestors of chordates, etc. and you gave him a bunch of clades that
>>> would be part of any modern Linnean classification, and probably are,
>>> because ancestral relationships at that level are still poorly known.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't mean that you had to give him taxa which include ourselves.
>>> He implied as much in reply to your irrelevant list.
>>
>> Don't know what you're talking about here. Where and when did that happen?
>
> Right on this thread, late last week. Erik knows, and has even replied
> to my comment.

I see he denied any such thing. I believe I found what you're talking
about, but I didn't recognize it from your description.

[jillery]

I understand your motivation, and I applaud your efforts to seek a
response that's both accurate and persuasive while not sounding like a
pedantic geek obsessed over technical minutiae.

If all you came for was affirmation, then a resident village elder
already gave that to you. I agree your answer is technically correct
as far as it goes, and given the situation you describe, accuracy
isn't important, as your target audience will almost certainly ignore
it anyway.

[Peter Nyikos]

If it waddles like a taxon, quacks like a taxon, and lays
eggs like a taxon...

...then laymen discussing phylogenetic trees with professionals
need to treat it as though it were a taxon. Christine Janis made that
pretty clear on Amazon.com, in the comments section on Prothero's
"review" of _Darwin's Doubt_, when she indulged in all kinds of
pontification about how correct she was to use the taxon name
*Gnathostomata* [caps and all] for the sister group of
Conodonta + Cyclostomata.

What she meant, of course, was the "total group" which consists
not just of the crown group *Gnathostomata* itself but also the stem group
of placoderms and ostracoderms, according to the phylogenetic
tree we were working with.

.
> > That reminds me: you again made a mistake I corrected
> > you on long ago: thinking "cladophile" a pejorative word.
> >
> > Back then I told you it means EXACTLY the following, no more, no less:
> > someone who will not tolerate an official classification
> > schema in systematics which includes paraphyletic taxa.
>
> Pretty much synonymous with "cladist", then.

Not the way I use "cladist" to mean "someone who does something
they call phylogenetic systematics." IOW they plot cladograms
and name taxa that are clades, but are not necessarily insistent
that there is no place in biology for a non-cladistic classification.

It's like a librarian working with the Library of Congress classification
without insisting that the Dewey Decimal system has got to go.

> Which was also initially
> meant as a pejorative term.

By whom? Not by me, that's for sure.

> I think you're being disingenuous, as you
> use it to describe a group you think is delusional.

HUH?????

Might you be thinking of something Cal King wrote
and falsely attributing it to me?

My ONLY perjorative term in this schema is "cladomaniac" and I
am glad to say that the last one of THOSE that I encountered
quit s.b.e. and s.b.p. and t.o. before I returned to talk.origins
in December 2010.

I told you THAT shortly after my return. In fact, while not using
that term, I wrote the following, one day after my return, about
sci.bio.paleontology:

We also had a few kooky True
Believers in cladistics who had no respect for the insights of old-
time taxonomists who tried to be faithful to Linnean classification.
I don't miss them but I miss a lot of others.

You singled that out on the same day and replied:

You may recall that I was one of the kooky
True Believers in cladistics.

I immediately set things straight with:

Not one of the kooky ones, IIRC.

Your reply to that was peculiar: it began with "Oh, sorry":

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/p-Cqh_hfd4IJ

Why would you say you were sorry to have said that, unless you
had been spoiling for a fight?

> > That was before I learned what "stem_______" meant, so now I
> > make one amendment: except for "stem X" where X is a clade.
> >
> > If you think that is pejorative, maybe it is because you have
> > a guilty conscience over being so obdurate.
>
> Or maybe it isn't.

Non-responsive. Where's the acknowledgement that it is not pejorative?

> >> The remainder of your
> >> rant is likewise senseless.
> >
> > That's a big mountain to base on a mouse of a fine point on word usage.
> >
> >>> With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
> >>> than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
> >>> behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
> >>> nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.
> >>
> >> There is no such nearest "real group".
> >
> > I meant the only paraphyletic group that you would call "real".
> > Sorry about not spelling this out.
>
> There are no paraphyletic groups I would call "real".

So stem groups are unreal in your lexicon.
Glad to have that cleared up.

Continued in my next reply on this thread.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Sure. If. That's your problem.

> ...then laymen discussing phylogenetic trees with professionals
> need to treat it as though it were a taxon. Christine Janis made that
> pretty clear on Amazon.com, in the comments section on Prothero's
> "review" of _Darwin's Doubt_, when she indulged in all kinds of
> pontification about how correct she was to use the taxon name
> *Gnathostomata* [caps and all] for the sister group of
> Conodonta + Cyclostomata.
>
> What she meant, of course, was the "total group" which consists
> not just of the crown group *Gnathostomata* itself but also the stem group
> of placoderms and ostracoderms, according to the phylogenetic
> tree we were working with.

How, in your fevered imagination, did that turn into a justification for
calling stem-X a taxon? Not clear to me.

>>> That reminds me: you again made a mistake I corrected
>>> you on long ago: thinking "cladophile" a pejorative word.
>>>
>>> Back then I told you it means EXACTLY the following, no more, no less:
>>> someone who will not tolerate an official classification
>>> schema in systematics which includes paraphyletic taxa.
>>
>> Pretty much synonymous with "cladist", then.
>
> Not the way I use "cladist" to mean "someone who does something
> they call phylogenetic systematics." IOW they plot cladograms
> and name taxa that are clades, but are not necessarily insistent
> that there is no place in biology for a non-cladistic classification.
>
> It's like a librarian working with the Library of Congress classification
> without insisting that the Dewey Decimal system has got to go.

Like I said, pejorative. You intend it as a mark of fanaticism. You are
wrong on multiple fronts.

>> Which was also initially
>> meant as a pejorative term.
>
> By whom? Not by me, that's for sure.

Ernst Mayr, who coined it.

>> I think you're being disingenuous, as you
>> use it to describe a group you think is delusional.
>
> HUH?????

You think "cladophiles" are delusional. Too harsh? Then pick another
unfavorable term.

> Might you be thinking of something Cal King wrote
> and falsely attributing it to me?

No. Why would you ever imagine that?

> My ONLY perjorative term in this schema is "cladomaniac" and I
> am glad to say that the last one of THOSE that I encountered
> quit s.b.e. and s.b.p. and t.o. before I returned to talk.origins
> in December 2010.
>
> I told you THAT shortly after my return. In fact, while not using
> that term, I wrote the following, one day after my return, about
> sci.bio.paleontology:
>
> We also had a few kooky True
> Believers in cladistics who had no respect for the insights of old-
> time taxonomists who tried to be faithful to Linnean classification.
> I don't miss them but I miss a lot of others.
>
> You singled that out on the same day and replied:
>
> You may recall that I was one of the kooky
> True Believers in cladistics.
>
> I immediately set things straight with:
>
> Not one of the kooky ones, IIRC.
>
> Your reply to that was peculiar: it began with "Oh, sorry":
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/p-Cqh_hfd4IJ
>
> Why would you say you were sorry to have said that, unless you
> had been spoiling for a fight?

I don't know, I don't recall anything about the exchange, and I have no
interest in revisiting it. You are an amazing mix of an elephant and the
French aristocracy.

>>> That was before I learned what "stem_______" meant, so now I
>>> make one amendment: except for "stem X" where X is a clade.
>>>
>>> If you think that is pejorative, maybe it is because you have
>>> a guilty conscience over being so obdurate.
>>
>> Or maybe it isn't.
>
> Non-responsive. Where's the acknowledgement that it is not pejorative?

It isn't there, as I think you're being disingenuous.

>>>> The remainder of your
>>>> rant is likewise senseless.
>>>
>>> That's a big mountain to base on a mouse of a fine point on word usage.
>>>
>>>>> With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
>>>>> than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
>>>>> behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
>>>>> nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such nearest "real group".
>>>
>>> I meant the only paraphyletic group that you would call "real".
>>> Sorry about not spelling this out.
>>
>> There are no paraphyletic groups I would call "real".
>
> So stem groups are unreal in your lexicon.
> Glad to have that cleared up.

I'm unsure why there was ever any confusion. Perhaps you see what you
want to see?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:21:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/25/15, 8:37 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:27:02 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/24/15, 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Picking up a bit before I left off, for continuity:

> >>> With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
> >>> than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
> >>> behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
> >>> nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.

<snip bit I dealt with in my first reply>

> > > The narrowest real group that we
> >> are sure contains the "ur-vogel" (itself a poorly defined term) is
> >> probably Paraves.
> >
> > The "ur-vogel" is the LCA of what used to be called Aves.
>
> Could you define what used to be called Aves?

Romer seemed to regard possession of feathers as the defining
characteristic, Colbert [1956] gave feathers and "warm-blooded"
[his quotes]. Both can be investigated using fossil evidence.

Carroll [1988] wrote: "most paleontologists consider *Archaeopteryx*
to be a bird because of a single, albeit complex character --
feathers -- that are uniquely shared by modern birds."

> I suspect that too is a
> poorly defined term.

See above. You of course disagree with the definition, but
it certainly was unambiguously defined.

> An additional problem is that relationships in that
> neighborhood are not clear, so just what node in what tree would be
> referred to is also unclear.

Use true feathers, not proto-feathers, which you yourself
admit are too rare to be used by cladists for classification.
But if they WERE used, the lack of clarity might disappear.

> > And if Archaeopteryx has no known apomorphies that would rule
> > it out in that role, it is still a candidate for "ur-vogel".
>
> > In fact, that is how I *define* "ancestor-candidate": an organism
> > known from a well preserved and highly detailed fossil that lacks such
> > apomorphies.
>
> That's nearly as good a definition as we could come up with, though
> there's enough vagueness to cause problems. Are there apomorphies that
> wouldn't rule it out as well as apomorphies that would? Or does each
> apomorphy just make its candidacy a little less likely without ruling it
> out completely? There are after all such things as reversals.

Finally, you actually engage what I write! and with unusual helpfulness.

These are questions I would love to leave to old-fashioned naturalists
well versed in these kinds of judgments, but they may all be dead by now.

So, all I can say is, there are apomorphies of both kinds, as well
as a sizable gray area. If you ask me about specific apomorphies,
there's a ghost of a chance I might be able to answer well.
But alas, no more than that.

By the way, some anatomical judgments are so obvious, it's inexplicable
why anyone could entertain an opposite judgment. For instance, there was
once a wild hypothesis that Megachiropterans and Microchiropterans developed
wings independently. But any look at the structure of the wings,
especially the closeness of the "index finger" to the "middle finger"
and their relative lengths, should convince anyone of the silliness of
this hypothesis.

> More importantly, what good does it do us to identify some species as an
> ancestor candidate? Is science thereby advanced in any way?

Now THAT is a no-brainer. Scientific pedagogy is advanced immeasurably
when one can point to a fossil, and assure students that it is an
ancestor-candidate by the above criteria. "A picture is worth 1000 words,"
and here the case is even better. Only students that ace a course
in comparative anatomy could master the technical terms for the
various features that the LCA ought to have, and even they might
never make the effort to try and figure out a complete description.

And even if one does, less nerdy students might meantime learn about
twenty ancestor candidates, and have a much better start on being
paleontologists for the love of it, rather than just for the sake
of making a living or having others to hobnob with.

> > But your cladophilia is so dogmatic, it refuses to accept even such
> > concepts as being helpful.
>
> You might have a point if such concepts were actually helpful. Can you
> explain the helpfulness?

See above.

Will you post some snarky comment like "I looked, and didn't see
anything."?

> >> There is no such thing as an "ancestral group".
> >
> > Oh, but "stem X" includes what traditional systematists would call
> > ancestral groups to X. The closer they are to "species" in the
> > Linnean hierarchy, the more valuable they are to someone wanting
> > to learn about the tree of life.
>
> "Stem X" isn't a group.

"Total X" is a group to the extent that Christine Janis claimed
that she was correct in making *Gnathostomata* refer to the total
group without explanation, even though the term officially designates
a crown group.

And since Total group = crown group + stem group, you seem to
be claiming that "real + unreal = real". Or do you want to
take issue with what Christine claimed?

> Why are they valuable?

Extension of what I wrote about ancestor candidate. Students
and even researchers could greatly benefit by being told that the
LCA is as surely in the subfamily ____________ as X is "sister group"
to Y. And I'm sure you've seen lots of generally accepted choices
for X and Y.

The extension becomes complete if students/researchers are referred to some
good reproductions of representative fossils in subfamily __________
so they can get a really good feel for what the LCA should be like.


Concluded in next reply to this post, but not until Monday, if then.
It's time to hit the sack and begin my usual weekend break from posting.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[John Harshman]

On 9/25/15, 9:39 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:21:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/25/15, 8:37 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:27:02 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/15, 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Picking up a bit before I left off, for continuity:
>
>>>>> With the ur-vogel now being pinned down to a taxon of no more disparity
>>>>> than the average Linnean archosaur family, it is like tying our hands
>>>>> behind our backs to avoid giving a name to that taxon and to have the
>>>>> nearest "real group" include pterosaurs as well as ornithischians, etc.
>
> <snip bit I dealt with in my first reply>
>
>>> > The narrowest real group that we
>>>> are sure contains the "ur-vogel" (itself a poorly defined term) is
>>>> probably Paraves.
>>>
>>> The "ur-vogel" is the LCA of what used to be called Aves.
>>
>> Could you define what used to be called Aves?
>
> Romer seemed to regard possession of feathers as the defining
> characteristic, Colbert [1956] gave feathers and "warm-blooded"
> [his quotes]. Both can be investigated using fossil evidence.
>
> Carroll [1988] wrote: "most paleontologists consider *Archaeopteryx*
> to be a bird because of a single, albeit complex character --
> feathers -- that are uniquely shared by modern birds."

I hope you see the difficulties now attending those definitions. That
makes your ur-vogel into some small, flightless theropod, or perhaps
even a primitive dinosaur.

>> I suspect that too is a
>> poorly defined term.
>
> See above. You of course disagree with the definition, but
> it certainly was unambiguously defined.

Even Romer's definition could be ambiguous. What's a feather? Do the
things on Sinosauropteryx count, or don't they?

>> An additional problem is that relationships in that
>> neighborhood are not clear, so just what node in what tree would be
>> referred to is also unclear.
>
> Use true feathers, not proto-feathers, which you yourself
> admit are too rare to be used by cladists for classification.
> But if they WERE used, the lack of clarity might disappear.

No, it wouldn't. Not only are the character states of some species
unclear, so are the relationships among species in that part of the tree.

>>> And if Archaeopteryx has no known apomorphies that would rule
>>> it out in that role, it is still a candidate for "ur-vogel".
>>
>>> In fact, that is how I *define* "ancestor-candidate": an organism
>>> known from a well preserved and highly detailed fossil that lacks such
>>> apomorphies.
>>
>> That's nearly as good a definition as we could come up with, though
>> there's enough vagueness to cause problems. Are there apomorphies that
>> wouldn't rule it out as well as apomorphies that would? Or does each
>> apomorphy just make its candidacy a little less likely without ruling it
>> out completely? There are after all such things as reversals.
>
> Finally, you actually engage what I write! and with unusual helpfulness.

Try not to be an asshole about it.

> These are questions I would love to leave to old-fashioned naturalists
> well versed in these kinds of judgments, but they may all be dead by now.

Sounds too subjective to be of any use in basing a scientific judgment.

> So, all I can say is, there are apomorphies of both kinds, as well
> as a sizable gray area. If you ask me about specific apomorphies,
> there's a ghost of a chance I might be able to answer well.
> But alas, no more than that.
>
> By the way, some anatomical judgments are so obvious, it's inexplicable
> why anyone could entertain an opposite judgment. For instance, there was
> once a wild hypothesis that Megachiropterans and Microchiropterans developed
> wings independently. But any look at the structure of the wings,
> especially the closeness of the "index finger" to the "middle finger"
> and their relative lengths, should convince anyone of the silliness of
> this hypothesis.

Nice to know you can tell by inspection when convergence is impossible.
Life would be much easier if all scientists could do that.

>> More importantly, what good does it do us to identify some species as an
>> ancestor candidate? Is science thereby advanced in any way?
>
> Now THAT is a no-brainer. Scientific pedagogy is advanced immeasurably
> when one can point to a fossil, and assure students that it is an
> ancestor-candidate by the above criteria. "A picture is worth 1000 words,"
> and here the case is even better. Only students that ace a course
> in comparative anatomy could master the technical terms for the
> various features that the LCA ought to have, and even they might
> never make the effort to try and figure out a complete description.

So this isn't about science, then, but about education. There's a
difference. And I don't think you're right even about that. It comes too
close to lying for my comfort, and when you say "ancestor candidate"
everyone will hear "ancestor", and so reinforce a host of
misconceptions. For the sake of a nice, easy story?

> And even if one does, less nerdy students might meantime learn about
> twenty ancestor candidates, and have a much better start on being
> paleontologists for the love of it, rather than just for the sake
> of making a living or having others to hobnob with.

I don't think anyone ever becomes a paleontologist (certainly not a
vertebrate paleontologist) for either of those reasons, so you are
solving a problem that doesn't exist.

>>> But your cladophilia is so dogmatic, it refuses to accept even such
>>> concepts as being helpful.
>>
>> You might have a point if such concepts were actually helpful. Can you
>> explain the helpfulness?
>
> See above.
>
> Will you post some snarky comment like "I looked, and didn't see
> anything."?

If you like. I think your reasons are transparently absurd.

>>>> There is no such thing as an "ancestral group".
>>>
>>> Oh, but "stem X" includes what traditional systematists would call
>>> ancestral groups to X. The closer they are to "species" in the
>>> Linnean hierarchy, the more valuable they are to someone wanting
>>> to learn about the tree of life.
>>
>> "Stem X" isn't a group.
>
> "Total X" is a group to the extent that Christine Janis claimed
> that she was correct in making *Gnathostomata* refer to the total
> group without explanation, even though the term officially designates
> a crown group.

Yes, "Total X" is a group. But you were claiming that "Stem X" is a
group. I don't see the point of attacking Christine for using a
different definition of Gnathostomata than you like, especially not
here. Your penchant for inserting various wrongs done to you into a
conversation, even when completely irrelevant, is annoying.

> And since Total group = crown group + stem group, you seem to
> be claiming that "real + unreal = real". Or do you want to
> take issue with what Christine claimed?

Well of course real + unreal = real, some times. A real group can
contain unreal subsets, which even you would admit, if I picked a
polyphyletic subset. The only thing driving your argument is your
conviction that paraphyly is a good thing. But I don't share that
conviction, and therefore your argument doesn't convince me.

>> Why are they valuable?
>
> Extension of what I wrote about ancestor candidate. Students
> and even researchers could greatly benefit by being told that the
> LCA is as surely in the subfamily ____________ as X is "sister group"
> to Y. And I'm sure you've seen lots of generally accepted choices
> for X and Y.

Why would that be a benefit? It creates the illusion of certainty,
nothing more?

> The extension becomes complete if students/researchers are referred to some
> good reproductions of representative fossils in subfamily __________
> so they can get a really good feel for what the LCA should be like.

Now that might be a benefit, but you don't have to name paraphyletic
groups to do it, just tell them that fossil X resembles the
reconstructed ancestor. Assembling pseudolineages and calling them real
is a problem, not an advantage.

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:22:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

It may be of some interest to you that there are paraphyletic 'groups' that are
discussed in the paleo literature for their own interest. I'm thinking
especially of the 'lobopods' whose members include, most broadly, euarthropods,
tardigrades and onychophorans. Paraphyletic, indeed. I believe Budd has even
identified a subgroup, 'armored lobopods' as a clade (I don't have a reference
handy, but I suspect it would be easy to find). That the many beasts in this
group have obvious similarities is, well, obvious. That is isn't a clade, in
the accepted definition, is also obvious. Is it 'useful'? Depends on what
you're trying to conclude from studying them. I think so, so long as you
recognize how they are included in a evolutionary context.

[dcleve]

Some other posters have given you very good technical answers. here is a non-specialist answer.

You are right, in general. But as so many here have noted, "monkey" is an informal term for a grouping of species with similar characteristics that may not all have similar ancestry (note old world and new world monkeys). The evolution history is that apes diverged out of the informal cluster of monkeys. Push the timeline back, and we also diverged out of the informal cluster of "rodents".

In specific, you are not quite right, as the LCA between humans and any current monkey will often be different, and you impled a single LCA.

The best phrasing to get the point across might be that humans are apes, and apes diverged out of monkeys.

[John Harshman]

That doesn't work very well by your criteria, as "ape" is an informal
term for a grouping of species with similar characteristics, and the LCA
between humans and any current ape will often be different. Fortunately,
I think your criteria are bad. If "monkey" refers to characteristics,
it's clear that the LCA of humans and any monkey you like would be
considered a monkey, as it would share all the characteristics shared by
both New World and Old World monkeys.

Nor is the common ancestor of humans and rodents a rodent, unless you
want to use "rodent" as a term for any small mammal. Which would be
weird. Humans are not nested within the group we call rodents.

[John Harshman]

I wouldn't call it a group. It's a term for a collection of species that
share a similarity. It's more like "tree" or "protist" than it's like
"arthropod". Useful, but not a group.

[dcleve]

Isn't the LCA of any ape and any extant monkey the same for the different apes? Why doesn't it work then?

The small rodent-shaped and rodent-niche critters that pretty much all modern mammals derived from are not actually rodents? I fear I am well beyond my interest in precision here.

[John Harshman]

I was talking about the claim that humans are apes, not that apes are
monkeys.

> The small rodent-shaped and rodent-niche critters that pretty much
> all modern mammals derived from are not actually rodents? I fear I
> am well beyond my interest in precision here.

First, they're rodent-shaped only if you call every small mammal a
rodent. Some few of them had rodentlike niches (gnawing on seeds and
such) but more were insectivores. Nor should you call everything that
gnaws on seeds a rodent either. That's moving the definition way beyond
the techinical or even the vernacular. Is a shrew a rodent? Is a weasel?

Now, it happens that rodents and humans have a common ancestor within
Euarchontoglires, but even that ancestor clearly wasn't a rodent, as it
lacked the ever-growing pair of front incisors that are the main
character of rodents. And it would look like a rodent only if you just
think rodent means "small mammal".

[jillery]

IIUC the above refutes the veracity, and so the relevance, of the
statement that the LCA of humans and monkeys must also be a monkey.

So what's left is the vernacular meaning of "monkey". From
Wiktionary:

************************************************
Any member of the clade Simiiformes not also of the clade Hominoidea
containing humans and apes, from which they are usually, but not
universally, distinguished by smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches.
***********************************************

IOW "monkey" explicitly excludes apes.

And here's a vernacular definition of "ape":

**********************************************
A primate of the clade Hominoidea, generally larger than monkeys and
distinguished from them by having no tail.
**********************************************

IOW "ape" explicitly excludes monkeys.

To say that humans evolved from monkeys adds unnecessary confusion,
because humans don't fit the vernacular definition of "monkey", and
incorrectly distinguishes monkeys from other modern representatives of
human ancestors.

One can more easily defend the statement "humans evolved from apes",
because the vernacular meaning of "ape" includes humans, and apes are
the modern representatives of the last branch before humans.

[R. Dean]

Most people, not steeped in evolution, would look at depictions of
the earliest Homo Sapien ancestors would certainly call these monkeys.

[erik simpson]

I agree that 'group' isn't the right term. A 'grade' perhaps?

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:08:32 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Most people, not steeped in evolution, would look at depictions of
>the earliest Homo Sapien ancestors would certainly call these monkeys.

Since neither you nor I are qualified to speak for "most people", I
suggest we stick to our own opinions.

Since I freely admit I'm "steeped in evolution", apparently my opinion
doesn't count. So, do you, R.Dean, as one who is not so steeped, make
no distinction between monkeys and apes, that the two words mean
exactly the same thing?

[R. Dean]

How, pray tell, can you speak for me. In any case, you are, for once
totally, absolutely and perfectly wrong. I've have studied evolution;
both positive and the negative, you on the other hand know _only_ one
side, convinced there is no other honest point of view.
And I do make a distinction between apes and monkeys.

[John Harshman]

That's sometimes used. Sure.

[John Harshman]

Why? The situations are entirely different. To use the technical terms,
monkeys are paraphyletic to apes and humans, while rodents are
monophyletic and most certainly do not include humans. And character
states or appearance, if that's what you're going by, would correspond.

> So what's left is the vernacular meaning of "monkey". From
> Wiktionary:
>
> ************************************************
> Any member of the clade Simiiformes not also of the clade Hominoidea
> containing humans and apes, from which they are usually, but not
> universally, distinguished by smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches.
> ***********************************************
>
> IOW "monkey" explicitly excludes apes.

True. But by this definition, the common ancestor of humans and monkeys
would be a monkey, which was the original question.

> And here's a vernacular definition of "ape":
>
> **********************************************
> A primate of the clade Hominoidea, generally larger than monkeys and
> distinguished from them by having no tail.
> **********************************************
>
> IOW "ape" explicitly excludes monkeys.

Yes, that definition does. There are others.

> To say that humans evolved from monkeys adds unnecessary confusion,
> because humans don't fit the vernacular definition of "monkey", and
> incorrectly distinguishes monkeys from other modern representatives of
> human ancestors.

"Evolved from" means what to you?

> One can more easily defend the statement "humans evolved from apes",
> because the vernacular meaning of "ape" includes humans, and apes are
> the modern representatives of the last branch before humans.

I don't think the vernacular actually does include humans, though the
definition you quote does.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:53:13 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

I apologize if I misspoke. I am too used to you contrasting your POV
with mine. Are you now saying that you actually agree with me here?
Please indulge my confusion, as I am unused to such an event.

> In any case, you are, for once
>totally, absolutely and perfectly wrong. I've have studied evolution;
>both positive and the negative,

If I am incorrect here, it is not about any reference to your
education or knowledge, but merely about your meaning of "steeped". I
confess it never occurred to me that you describe yourself as being
"steeped in evolution".

>you on the other hand know _only_ one
>side, convinced there is no other honest point of view.

And now you choose to speak for me. That's especially ironic when you
do it so quickly after admonishing me.

You are totally, absolutely, and perfectly wrong here. In fact, I
know you know I am familiar with IDeology, if perhaps not as familiar
as you. In fact, I have never even raised the issue of your personal
honesty, nevermind questioned it, even though I suspect you feel
otherwise.

>And I do make a distinction between apes and monkeys.

Ok. Will you state explicitly *how* you distinguish between them, and
apply those distinctions to the topic in this thread?

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:49:30 -0700, John Harshman

IIUC one of your points above is that "rodent" is not defined well
enough to use for describing human LCAs. That is my point wrt
"monkey".

>> So what's left is the vernacular meaning of "monkey". From
>> Wiktionary:
>>
>> ************************************************
>> Any member of the clade Simiiformes not also of the clade Hominoidea
>> containing humans and apes, from which they are usually, but not
>> universally, distinguished by smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches.
>> ***********************************************
>>
>> IOW "monkey" explicitly excludes apes.
>
>True. But by this definition, the common ancestor of humans and monkeys
>would be a monkey, which was the original question.

This definition makes no inference wrt common ancestors. It merely
states a distinction.

>> And here's a vernacular definition of "ape":
>>
>> **********************************************
>> A primate of the clade Hominoidea, generally larger than monkeys and
>> distinguished from them by having no tail.
>> **********************************************
>>
>> IOW "ape" explicitly excludes monkeys.
>
>Yes, that definition does. There are others.

To my recollection, it's the only definition posted in this topic.

>> To say that humans evolved from monkeys adds unnecessary confusion,
>> because humans don't fit the vernacular definition of "monkey", and
>> incorrectly distinguishes monkeys from other modern representatives of
>> human ancestors.
>
>"Evolved from" means what to you?

There are too many ways I can answer that. Rephrase to make clear
your purpose for asking.

>> One can more easily defend the statement "humans evolved from apes",
>> because the vernacular meaning of "ape" includes humans, and apes are
>> the modern representatives of the last branch before humans.
>
>I don't think the vernacular actually does include humans, though the
>definition you quote does.

There are many vernacular definitions, by definition, which is why
using vernacular words to make technical distinctions is a poor
strategy.

[John Harshman]

No, that isn't one of my points. "Rodent" is defined quite well. While
there are several definitions of "monkey", only one of them would
exclude human ancestors: the one that just lists a number of extant
species. I don't think anyone uses that definition.

>>> So what's left is the vernacular meaning of "monkey". From
>>> Wiktionary:
>>>
>>> ************************************************
>>> Any member of the clade Simiiformes not also of the clade Hominoidea
>>> containing humans and apes, from which they are usually, but not
>>> universally, distinguished by smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches.
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>>> IOW "monkey" explicitly excludes apes.
>>
>> True. But by this definition, the common ancestor of humans and monkeys
>> would be a monkey, which was the original question.
>
> This definition makes no inference wrt common ancestors. It merely
> states a distinction.

It mentions the clade Simiiformes; the common ancestor belongs to that
clade. It mentions Hominoidea to exclude it, but the common ancestor
doesn't belong to that clade. And the common ancestor woud be
reconstructed as having a smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches. I
don't know how you can say that this definition does not include the
ancestor.

>>> And here's a vernacular definition of "ape":
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> A primate of the clade Hominoidea, generally larger than monkeys and
>>> distinguished from them by having no tail.
>>> **********************************************
>>>
>>> IOW "ape" explicitly excludes monkeys.
>>
>> Yes, that definition does. There are others.
>
> To my recollection, it's the only definition posted in this topic.

But wouldn't you agree there are others? For example, this definition
includes humans, while ordinary speech would not.

>>> To say that humans evolved from monkeys adds unnecessary confusion,
>>> because humans don't fit the vernacular definition of "monkey", and
>>> incorrectly distinguishes monkeys from other modern representatives of
>>> human ancestors.
>>
>> "Evolved from" means what to you?
>
> There are too many ways I can answer that. Rephrase to make clear
> your purpose for asking.

I'm trying to find one that would allow one to say we didn't evolve from
monkeys. It seems to me that "evolved from" should be transitive: if we
evolved from apes, and apes evolved from monkeys, then we evolved from
monkeys.

>>> One can more easily defend the statement "humans evolved from apes",
>>> because the vernacular meaning of "ape" includes humans, and apes are
>>> the modern representatives of the last branch before humans.
>>
>> I don't think the vernacular actually does include humans, though the
>> definition you quote does.
>
> There are many vernacular definitions, by definition, which is why
> using vernacular words to make technical distinctions is a poor
> strategy.

I'd say there actually is only one vernacular definition of "ape", or at
least all the definitions imply the same membership: gibbons,
orangutans, gorillas, and chimps, plus various fossils that look rather
like them if anyone thinks about fossils. The definition you quoted is
not vernacular; it's attempting to be scientific.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:14:51 -0700, John Harshman

The point is not which definition is correct, but rather that there
are multiple definitions. Vernacular definitions are not regulated,
at least not in the U.S. Of course, you can say I'm wrong again.

>>>> So what's left is the vernacular meaning of "monkey". From
>>>> Wiktionary:
>>>>
>>>> ************************************************
>>>> Any member of the clade Simiiformes not also of the clade Hominoidea
>>>> containing humans and apes, from which they are usually, but not
>>>> universally, distinguished by smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches.
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>
>>>> IOW "monkey" explicitly excludes apes.
>>>
>>> True. But by this definition, the common ancestor of humans and monkeys
>>> would be a monkey, which was the original question.
>>
>> This definition makes no inference wrt common ancestors. It merely
>> states a distinction.
>
>It mentions the clade Simiiformes; the common ancestor belongs to that
>clade. It mentions Hominoidea to exclude it, but the common ancestor
>doesn't belong to that clade. And the common ancestor woud be
>reconstructed as having a smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches. I
>don't know how you can say that this definition does not include the
>ancestor.

Whether or not the LCA of humans and monkeys is considered a monkey is
no more relevant to the point than if the LCA of humans and rodents is
considered a rodent.

>>>> And here's a vernacular definition of "ape":
>>>>
>>>> **********************************************
>>>> A primate of the clade Hominoidea, generally larger than monkeys and
>>>> distinguished from them by having no tail.
>>>> **********************************************
>>>>
>>>> IOW "ape" explicitly excludes monkeys.
>>>
>>> Yes, that definition does. There are others.
>>
>> To my recollection, it's the only definition posted in this topic.
>
>But wouldn't you agree there are others? For example, this definition
>includes humans, while ordinary speech would not.

Again, the point is not which definition is correct, but rather that
there are multiple definitions.

>>>> To say that humans evolved from monkeys adds unnecessary confusion,
>>>> because humans don't fit the vernacular definition of "monkey", and
>>>> incorrectly distinguishes monkeys from other modern representatives of
>>>> human ancestors.
>>>
>>> "Evolved from" means what to you?
>>
>> There are too many ways I can answer that. Rephrase to make clear
>> your purpose for asking.
>
>I'm trying to find one that would allow one to say we didn't evolve from
>monkeys. It seems to me that "evolved from" should be transitive: if we
>evolved from apes, and apes evolved from monkeys, then we evolved from
>monkeys.

You ignore my point entirely. That's one reason why replying to you
is such a chore.

I don't argue that humans didn't evolve from monkeys. I argue that
the statement "humans evolved from monkeys" is needlessly inaccurate,
or alternately, there are equally easy ways to say a more accurate
statement.

>>>> One can more easily defend the statement "humans evolved from apes",
>>>> because the vernacular meaning of "ape" includes humans, and apes are
>>>> the modern representatives of the last branch before humans.
>>>
>>> I don't think the vernacular actually does include humans, though the
>>> definition you quote does.
>>
>> There are many vernacular definitions, by definition, which is why
>> using vernacular words to make technical distinctions is a poor
>> strategy.
>
>I'd say there actually is only one vernacular definition of "ape", or at
>least all the definitions imply the same membership: gibbons,
>orangutans, gorillas, and chimps, plus various fossils that look rather
>like them if anyone thinks about fossils. The definition you quoted is
>not vernacular; it's attempting to be scientific.

That's odd, because you said multiple times there are multiple
vernacular definitions. I can think of two right off the top; with
and without humans. In any case, I recommend you take up this
discussion with Wiktionary.

[John Harshman]

You would have a point only if some definitions excluded the common
ancestor and others didn't. I don't think any of them do. They could be
different without being different in a relevant way.

>>>>> So what's left is the vernacular meaning of "monkey". From
>>>>> Wiktionary:
>>>>>
>>>>> ************************************************
>>>>> Any member of the clade Simiiformes not also of the clade Hominoidea
>>>>> containing humans and apes, from which they are usually, but not
>>>>> universally, distinguished by smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches.
>>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW "monkey" explicitly excludes apes.
>>>>
>>>> True. But by this definition, the common ancestor of humans and monkeys
>>>> would be a monkey, which was the original question.
>>>
>>> This definition makes no inference wrt common ancestors. It merely
>>> states a distinction.
>>
>> It mentions the clade Simiiformes; the common ancestor belongs to that
>> clade. It mentions Hominoidea to exclude it, but the common ancestor
>> doesn't belong to that clade. And the common ancestor woud be
>> reconstructed as having a smaller size, a tail, and cheek pouches. I
>> don't know how you can say that this definition does not include the
>> ancestor.
>
> Whether or not the LCA of humans and monkeys is considered a monkey is
> no more relevant to the point than if the LCA of humans and rodents is
> considered a rodent.

Then I have mistaken the point. What's the point?

>>>>> And here's a vernacular definition of "ape":
>>>>>
>>>>> **********************************************
>>>>> A primate of the clade Hominoidea, generally larger than monkeys and
>>>>> distinguished from them by having no tail.
>>>>> **********************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW "ape" explicitly excludes monkeys.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that definition does. There are others.
>>>
>>> To my recollection, it's the only definition posted in this topic.
>>
>> But wouldn't you agree there are others? For example, this definition
>> includes humans, while ordinary speech would not.
>
> Again, the point is not which definition is correct, but rather that
> there are multiple definitions.

I don't think that point, while true, helps you make any point about
what we have been talking about here.

>>>>> To say that humans evolved from monkeys adds unnecessary confusion,
>>>>> because humans don't fit the vernacular definition of "monkey", and
>>>>> incorrectly distinguishes monkeys from other modern representatives of
>>>>> human ancestors.
>>>>
>>>> "Evolved from" means what to you?
>>>
>>> There are too many ways I can answer that. Rephrase to make clear
>>> your purpose for asking.
>>
>> I'm trying to find one that would allow one to say we didn't evolve from
>> monkeys. It seems to me that "evolved from" should be transitive: if we
>> evolved from apes, and apes evolved from monkeys, then we evolved from
>> monkeys.
>
> You ignore my point entirely. That's one reason why replying to you
> is such a chore.
>
> I don't argue that humans didn't evolve from monkeys. I argue that
> the statement "humans evolved from monkeys" is needlessly inaccurate,
> or alternately, there are equally easy ways to say a more accurate
> statement.

Why is it inaccurate? What's more accurate? I don't think it's
inaccurate, and so nothing could be more accurate.

>>>>> One can more easily defend the statement "humans evolved from apes",
>>>>> because the vernacular meaning of "ape" includes humans, and apes are
>>>>> the modern representatives of the last branch before humans.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the vernacular actually does include humans, though the
>>>> definition you quote does.
>>>
>>> There are many vernacular definitions, by definition, which is why
>>> using vernacular words to make technical distinctions is a poor
>>> strategy.
>>
>> I'd say there actually is only one vernacular definition of "ape", or at
>> least all the definitions imply the same membership: gibbons,
>> orangutans, gorillas, and chimps, plus various fossils that look rather
>> like them if anyone thinks about fossils. The definition you quoted is
>> not vernacular; it's attempting to be scientific.
>
> That's odd, because you said multiple times there are multiple
> vernacular definitions. I can think of two right off the top; with
> and without humans. In any case, I recommend you take up this
> discussion with Wiktionary.

I don't think a definition of "ape" that incudes humans counts as
vernacular; at the very least it would be a tiny minority if you asked
people about it. Now I would certainly like to see that definition
become popular, but I don't think it is now. I also note that you said
"the vernacular definition", not "a vernacular definition", so you were
claiming there was only one such definition, whether you noticed it or not.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:9PCdneLft8GGzJrL...@giganews.com...

snip

>
> I'm trying to find one that would allow one to say we didn't evolve from
> monkeys. It seems to me that "evolved from" should be transitive: if we
> evolved from apes, and apes evolved from monkeys, then we evolved from
> monkeys.
>

That's easy. If we evolved from apes, then we evolved from apes, not monkeys.

[jillery]

You quibble over articles, and you accuse me of arguing about
anything. My irony meter can't cope.

My "the" refers to *the* one definition of "ape" I copied from
Wiktionary, which is *the* one definition of "ape" included in this
thread, which in fact includes humans. Since you still claim you have
problems with *the* one definition of ape I copied from Wiktionary, a
well-known repository of vernacular definitions, I suggest you take
your problems to Wiktionary. Or a psychiatrist.

[August Rode]

Would you agree with the following, Glenn? "If we are descended from our
parents, then we are descended from our parents, not from our grandparents."

[John Harshman]

I don't have any problems with that definition. In fact I like that
definition. It just isn't the one that most people use. Usually, when
people say "ape", they don't include humans. Do you disagree with that?
As you have said, there are multiple definitions.

Here are a couple from Merriam Webster:

a type of animal (such as a chimpanzee or gorilla) that is closely
related to monkeys and humans and that is covered in hair and has no
tail or a very short tail

a : monkey; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed
Old World forms
b : any of various large tailless semierect primates of Africa and
southeastern Asia (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon)
—called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape — compare great ape

I find (a) very interesting; the first part is an archaic definition,
showing that meanings of words do change over time. At any rate, none of
these include humans.

You're starting to overheat again.

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mu8kdm$3d4$1...@dont-email.me...

How about "If we acquired a trait from our parents, then we acquired a trait from our parents, not our grandparents."
Do you attribute everything given to you by your parents to your grandparents?

[August Rode]

Not everything, but if my parents inherited traits from my grandparents
that they then passed on to me, isn't it reasonable to say that I got
those traits from my grandparents?

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 07:39:16 -0400, August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Since we descended from our parents and our grandparents and our great
grandparents... ad infinitum, ISTM the relevant question here is which
statement is more accurate, rather than which is incorrect.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 06:53:52 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:


>You're starting to overheat again.

And there it is. Congratulations, you're so predictable.

[John Harshman]

Aren't they all equally accurate?

[John Harshman]

I'm assuming you have decided to call this discussion to a close.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:24:20 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 9/27/15, 8:25 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 06:53:52 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You're starting to overheat again.
>>
>>
>> And there it is. Congratulations, you're so predictable.
>>

>I'm assuming you have decided to call this discussion to a close.

You got in your puncline. Do you want to stretch out your joke?

[jillery]

Don't bother to ask, just continue to troll.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:08:32 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

>Most people, not steeped in evolution, would look at depictions of
>the earliest Homo Sapien ancestors would certainly call these monkeys.

Most people not "steeped in" biology would look at a picture
of a porpoise and call it a fish (in the vernacular sense).
Most people not "steeped in" biology would look at a picture
of a bat and call it a bird. Does that make them correct, or
simply ignorant?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:24:58 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

I'd say that "we descended from our parents" is more
directly relevant than "we descended from our grandparents",
but both are equally correct, just as replacing "parents"
with "apes" and "grandparents" with "fish" leaves both
equally correct, but the former more directly relevant.

The answer to "Where did you come from?" would be equally
correct if it were "Down the hall" or "Cleveland", but the
former would probably be a more useful answer, depending on
circumstances.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:03:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

This goes back to a question I asked Pete K.:

Hypothetically, if you were to ask someone "Where is Chicago?", and
they answered "On Earth", would their answer be acceptable to you?

I agree the answer is technically correct, but not very useful in most
cases, because it's not especially accurate. A more useful answer
would be more accurate, ex. "In the state of Illinois" or "on the
southwest shores of Lake Michigan". Clearly these three answers are
all technically correct, but they are not equally accurate.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/26/15 7:14 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> [...]
> I'd say there actually is only one vernacular definition of "ape",...

The story "Gil Braltar" deals much with confusion between apes and men,
with men disguised as apes and appearing to be apes even out of
disguise. And since that story was written by Jules Verne, we may say
that including men among apes is the Vernacular.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:02:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 9/26/15 7:14 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> [...]
>> I'd say there actually is only one vernacular definition of "ape",...
>
>The story "Gil Braltar" deals much with confusion between apes and men,
>with men disguised as apes and appearing to be apes even out of
>disguise. And since that story was written by Jules Verne, we may say
>that including men among apes is the Vernacular.

And, to complete the cycle, you should point out that the Gibralter
Apes are really monkeys.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:32:29 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

That's 20,000 Leagues deep.

[John Harshman]

It wasn't a joke, and there was no punch line. But you appear not to
want to talk about anything else at this point. Is that right?

[John Harshman]

On 9/27/15, 2:02 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/26/15 7:14 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> [...]
>> I'd say there actually is only one vernacular definition of "ape",...
>
> The story "Gil Braltar" deals much with confusion between apes and men,
> with men disguised as apes and appearing to be apes even out of
> disguise. And since that story was written by Jules Verne, we may say
> that including men among apes is the Vernacular.
>

It was written in French, which doesn't have the same words as English.
Hard to compare.

[John Harshman]

You mean "precise", not "accurate". Two different things.

[John Harshman]

And the latter could be more useful too, also depending on
circumstances. Neither is more accurate than the other.

[John Harshman]

It was a simple question. Why not just answer it? I think they are
indeed all equally accurate. We evolved from apes, we evolved from
monkeys, we evolved from primates, we evolved from mammals. All equally
true and equally accurate. You may be thinking of precision, but I don't
think even that is right. All are equally precise. What you really mean
is constrained, as if someone had asked "what is the most restricted,
named group that we evolved from?"; but I don't think anyone asked that,
and if so, then we evolved from earlier Homo sapiens, or perhaps earlier
Homo.

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mu8vd3$nd4$1...@dont-email.me...

"Evolved" means "changed".

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>On 9/26/15 7:14 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> [...]
>> I'd say there actually is only one vernacular definition of "ape",...

>The story "Gil Braltar" deals much with confusion between apes and men,
>with men disguised as apes and appearing to be apes even out of
>disguise. And since that story was written by Jules Verne, we may say
>that including men among apes is the Vernacular.

AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH!

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:VYqdnVws9cbEhZXL...@giganews.com...

Do apes have tails?

[August Rode]

Was that a 'yes'?

[TomS]

"On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:04:38 -0400, in article <mua3jg$1k0$1...@dont-email.me>,
August Rode stated..."

Evolution is a change in a *population*.


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[Glenn]

"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:453403489.000...@drn.newsguy.com...

Evolution has been said to be many things.

[Glenn]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mua3jg$1k0$1...@dont-email.me...

No, and it didn't sound like no either. Does "getting traits from" sound like change?

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:36:27 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:


>You mean "precise", not "accurate". Two different things.

I meant what I wrote, but my point remains equally valid using either
one. So feel free to continue posting your irrelevant noise.