Why do people consistently claim that humans are not monkeys?

👨🏻‍🏫 學術台生物學

[匿名]

2013-12-26 4:53 pm

If you want to say that we are not monkeys please also answer the following questions:

1). Can you give a suitable taxonomical definition which would include ALL monkeys but exclude apes?

2). Have you heard of cladistics, and if so why don't you think it is valid?

更新1:

@'Screwtheguidelines': Does that mean you can't give a taxonomical definition that works and are equally unable to comment about cladistics? @'billie': I asked the same question in R

更新2:

@'billie': I asked the same question in R and S - do you not think that your answer would have been more appropriate there?

更新3:

@'sciencenut': Not a bad attempt at describing clades, it's not "all a matter of semantics" though. If the evolutionary ancestors of something are part of a clade does it not make sense that they, and all future ancestors, will remain part of the same clade? Whales and Dolphins, and their descendants will always be mammals (even if they lose the ability to produce milk from mammary glands), and similarly apes will always be monkeys (the earliest simians WERE monkeys). The taxonomic groupings which should be considered invalid are those that include more than one phylogenetic group - do you really think that this is a stupid way of classifying organisms, even though it would make evolutionary relationships far clearer? @'Damien': By what reasoning? @'Joan H': Nice attempt, but everything that you list as characters of apes can be found in at least some monkeys (and may be found in others in the future). Besides, don't you think that trying to

更新4:

@'JazSinc': Good answer. Can you explain why you say "birds are not dinosaurs"? (Suggesting that humans are "fish" doesn't work because 'fish' is a polyphyletic grouping). @'nosson': Yes - but that doesn't explain why humans aren't monkeys. Do you have a reason?

回答 (8)

JazSinc

2013-12-26 10:51 pm

✔ 最佳答案

> Why do people consistently claim that humans are not monkeys?
We have derived characteristics. Your shoulder articulation is an ape characteristic.
Similarly, birds aren't dinosaurs although they had dinosaur ancestors.

> 1). Can you give a suitable taxonomical definition which would include ALL monkeys but exclude apes?
Nope, other than the one you've just given: "Simiiformes primates that aren't Hominoidea."

> 2). Have you heard of cladistics, and if so why don't you think it is valid?
Yes. It's valid. But having a fish ancestor does not make you a fish.

👍 2 👎 0

[匿名]

2013-12-26 4:54 pm

1. Sigh
2. See 1.

👍 3 👎 0

[匿名]

2013-12-26 5:47 pm

Humans are not monkeys, but are apes. Monkeys have tales and walk on 4 legs.

Apes don't have tails and can walk on two legs (at least for a short time),

Ape arms and shoulders allow swinging from branches (or whatever). Monkeys can't do that. If you can fold your arms behind your neck, you are an ape, but not a monkey.

👍 1 👎 0

[匿名]

2013-12-26 5:31 pm

Humans are not monkeys, primates, but not monkeys.

👍 1 👎 0

[匿名]

2013-12-26 5:21 pm

I believe the definition of a clade is a group of species all descended from a common ancestor and that ancestor would be seen as one of the group if alive today.
Ok, so all monkeys are all descended from a monkey-like common ancestor. But there are some descendants of the common ancestor that are not considered to be monkeys, so monkeys are not a clade, unless you define anthropoid apes as a kind of monkey, which would then make monkeys a clade after all. It is all a matter of semantics. Reptiles are not a clade because birds and mammals are not considered reptiles. Amphibians are not a clade because birds and mammals and reptiles are not considered amphibians. But frogs are a clade, as are birds, and also mammals. But then you could make a case for whales and dolphins not being mammals any longer just as birds are not reptiles any longer.
It is all just semantics and how you look at it, in my opinion. Such arguments are stupid in my opinion and not productive.

👍 1 👎 1

[匿名]

2015-01-30 3:02 am

I think they just use the word "monkeys" as a slang word for "ape like creature." They don't mean it literally. I had evolutionists tell me that evolutionist was not a word. Or tell me that there is no word as microevolution. If you know what people mean, then let it go.

👍 0 👎 0

[匿名]

2013-12-27 11:36 am

Because "monkey" is not a taxonomic term?

edit:
"Yes - but that doesn't explain why humans aren't monkeys. Do you have a reason?"
Because that's not their definition.

Why is Apple computer called Apple if its not an apple the fruit?
Do you know how language works?
You give something a name and if people accept it that's the name. It doesn't have to fit some special order or pattern or something.

👍 0 👎 0

[匿名]

2013-12-26 5:01 pm

Dude you feeling okay? Humans are NOT monkeys and humans have not evolved from the lineage of monkeys. God has created us and Adam and Eve are our foreparents. It is theoretically impossible for evolution to occur because everything has a beginning and an end. Evolution has the idea that everything started as a microbe. Really? I think not! What started the microbe to evolve eh? It couldn't of evolved on its own. Also look at our chromosomes. We have 23 pairs and look at our "ancestors" chromosomes. They don't match!! Chromosomes can't just be created it changes everything in the genetic code

👍 0 👎 6

收錄日期: 2021-04-20 23:52:02
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131226085327AAClFOT

檢視 Wayback Machine 備份