Turns out we DID come from monkeys!

in an earlier video I listed many of the taxonomic traits identifying humans as primates in another video I also explained why we're more specifically classified as a species of apes but I deliberately omitted an intermediate stage between those two apparent levels because it's one that evokes so much resistance it really requires a separate discussion just for that one grade alone now no one argues whether we're different surahs central mammals even though that also means we're animals the fact that we're apes can now be verified just as easily for a while most people thought the word a preferred only to extent non-human punk it's also known as great apes there was no consideration given to lesser apes nor any of the many ancient Apes we kept finding fossils for mainstream science sources are just now starting to realize that the word ape means a lot more than just chimpanzees gorillas and orangutans and that it includes a few extinct hominids that are more humanoid than any of these so there was a problem with our old method of classification and it had to be fixed over the last 250 years we've kept patching up the old seven layer system by adding a sub order infraorder super family sub genus and so on till we can't even tell how to rank the labels anymore that's when we figured out there are no ranks so we dropped the labels and found a new system one that isn't so arbitrary see the problem with Linnaean taxonomy is that some of it is subjective it's usually based on morphological similarity and sometimes on opinion there's often no way to prove whether Linnaean classification was even correct because he didn't rely on the rigid set of rules that phylogenetics does we used to say that men didn't default from apes but that men and apes shared a common ancestor now we have a better understanding of what an ape is and that our common ancestry actually would have been classified as such and so should we be this rule of monophyletic hierarchy should also apply to everything including the race of cat people from the science fiction comedy Red Dwarf don't get it well you know how mankind evolved from apes yeah I know that evolve from cats Samson as with cats is descended from cats he is a cat here you go cut Polly shows you like these hey you monkeys eat off the floor you've got no style or sophistication I'm sorry I'm sorry you people unbelievable creationists try to ridicule evolution through the implication that we came from monkeys and those who know the difference are quick to point out that apes are not monkeys for one thing apes don't have tails but there's more to it than that for example we can tell that a Barbary ape isn't really an ape it's a tail it's monkey the same way we can tell a glass snake isn't really a snake it's a legless lizard there are so many distinctions that even if we found a snake that had legs and we have we'd still know it was a snake but snakes are a subset of the order squamata that means lizard if snakes evolved from lizards do they stop being lizards at the moment they become snakes and when exactly is that moment it turns out that this is another confusing convention in Linnaean taxonomy which is corrected by cladistics paraphyletic group shouldn't exist in phylogenetics nor with systematic classification permit the emergence of a new species to add another equivalent category instead existing branches split in two successive subsets that are each monophyletic sharing a common line of descent from which they can diverge but never detach this means snakes will always be a subset of lizards and apes would still be monkeys talking monkeys can't exist hey donkey evolutionary ladder now I've done it I've annoyed both creationists and scientists too but I intend to show that our old interpretations are incorrect that not only was the ancestor of apes actually a monkey after all but that they never stopped being monkeys and neither did we I intend to show that humans can be and already are properly classified currently both as apes and as monkeys well even it's come back on the cards mr. Charles Darwin who looked a bit like God which is interesting and he wrote a book called you're a monkey maybe and he played around with the title for a while we're all monkeys you're monkey might get out my face you're monkey and then you end up with a larger decision something you didn't care much for centuries taxonomist taught us the clan of monkeys was divided in two branches some primatologist prefer to say new world monkeys and Old World primates because they don't want people to confuse apes with monkeys they look at them as sister groups in the consider that old-world monkeys refer only to circa pithos a day this is a relatively modern group so we know apes didn't evolve from them they certainly didn't evolve from new world monkeys either that's a whole different lineage so by this definition apes are not monkeys and aren't descended from them but polyphyletic groups wouldn't exist in an evolutionary lineage either just as to Latin based languages couldn't be independently derived from a non Latin template neither could separate sets of monkeys have come from a source that wasn't itself a monkey also I think God designed us in his image but I also think God is a monkey the mention you get to interview the knight industries 2000 from the TV show Knight Rider and you tell it you've never had a conversation with a car before but KITT argues that he is not a car because he is smarter and generally better than any car because mere cars can't talk like he can of course you know that even a sentient automobile is still an automobile so if you can't determine a rigid definition of exactly what that is perhaps you can still prove the point if KITT will admit that being manufactured as a General Motors Pontiac Firebird Trans Am means it can only be a car people deny their monkey hood for the same reason and that excuse can be refuted in the same way phenotypical taxonomy is character based an in-depth analysis of every morphological developmental genetic or physiological trait systematic classification surpasses this by comparing these collectives to determine derived Sinop amorphous indicating a nested phylogeny and that determines the clade because phylogenetic hierarchy is the only consistent criteria for classifying diverse fly form stemming from an evolutionary during lineage and that is evidently where we came from ah I see so you mean we've traveled in time but not in space listen you semi evolved simian go climb a tree will you don't bang your head together four-eyes no no your monkey has got it right you jumped forward many millions of years in time whilst retaining the same position in space let's start with the definition of primates and then add the traits of each successive stage from there on we begin with a pair of subsets in a transitional link between them one that is almost a monkey when referring to basil monkeys ancestral to ourselves most scientists prefer to use the word anthropoid one of two acceptable names for that clade because regardless of phylogeny scientists generally consider it incorrect or even offensive to refer to humans and other Apes as monkeys that's a colloquial term not a scientific one and it's paraphyletic meaning all anthropoids except apes just like Apes used to mean all hominoids except humans but saying all of them except for us is a Freudian admission that we already know we are one of them besides the words anthropoid and hominoid both imply possession of human characteristics so humans could hardly be excluded from either taxon we're just beginning to realize this and it takes time to accept unconventional or uncomfortable truths if you go to the right school in North Carolina you'll learn the new standard one which admits that humans are monkeys in the literal sense but in Texas they'll still say the chimpanzees belong to the Pongo family even though this was shown to be an error at least a decade ago polyphyletic emissions attempting to exclude basil Simha forms to avoid embarrassing associations our unscientific and unacceptable being reliant on subjective criteria common dictionary definitions are similarly inconsistent incomplete contradictory and in applicable so are the absurd aspects of some layman's classifications obviously we can't properly identify anything by single traits nor can we say what something is by listing what it is not traits that are usually present still aren't definitive unless they are shared by all members so the only way to properly classify anything is according to the collective characters common to everything already accepted to that category without making exceptions for certain ones consequently cladistics has rendered some colloquial words like fish and reptiles virtually meaningless because there is inconsistent with phylogeny as things that are gray we must either assign consistent definitions or drop these words from our vocabulary of scientific terms and it's important to note that while there are English words to distinguish Apes from monkeys other languages don't see this division the Latin word for monkey is simian and that is the other name of the clade to which apes and all other monkey's belong at the root of the simian family tree is another transitional fossil one which is universally recognized as a monkey and is described as such even by primatologists thus this form represents the mother of all monkeys as well as their descendants in denial the first division within that clade is between para pithy seeds a diverse group of monkeys which are now all extinct and the clade that remains forming the next division here we have another transitional species bridging the morphological gap between the basil forms of both new world and old world monkeys well man are sort of evoluted from the old world monkeys Kate you and I aren't even descended from one american monkey in some respect new world monkeys are actually older and more primitive than old world monkeys and contrary to popular opinion old world monkeys aren't a sister clade to apes because they're not limited to circa paths the fossil record reveals yet another set of Caterina's that are not only definitely monkeys but are basal to both circa pithos a day and hominoid yet most cladograms omit or ignore groups that are otherwise entirely extinct and thus perpetuate an erroneous illusion especially since these groups are where the most transitional species do to be found in this case age of two Pittacus was an ape like monkey believed to be ancestral to proconsul a monkey like ape and the forerunner of all hominoidea the implication is inescapable even when there is a concentrated effort to avoid using the word monkey in a context which includes apes and that's especially odd since the general public commonly recognizes chimpanzees and even gorillas as monkeys if they're not monkeys and what's the difference between them especially since every ape extent or extinct including man himself meet all the criteria of that clade regardless of the outraged objections often raised by this it is a fact that whether classified by features or phylogeny humans and other apes are uninsurable monkeys both by definition and derivation you're a monkey mate

Channel: AronRa

Views: 228,438

Rating: 4.8230224 out of 5

Keywords: evolution, creationism, monkey, monkeys, parapithicidae, hominoidea, hominidae, propliopithecoidea, old, world, catarrhini, apes, humans

Id: 4A-dMqEbSk8

Length: 11min 0sec (660 seconds)

Published: Sat Jan 16 2010

Reddit Comments

[u/cavehobbit]

No shit, Sherlock. You have been to Walmart haven't you?

[u/Kennian]

Apes innit? For some reason I thought humans were great apes