Did Trump come from a monkey?

[AndromedaRXJ]

Ape forelimbs are appreciably longer than their hind limbs, which is not true of monkey limbs.​

It's not true for humans either.

The ape chest is barrel shaped rather than flattened side-to-side as in monkeys.
The ape wrist is constructed so as to permit considerable mobility. The monkey wrist is not.
Ape nostrils are close set (the columella is quite narrow) and face downward. Those of monkeys are/do not.
The cheek teeth of apes are crowned with conical bumps, whereas these teeth in monkeys are made up of ridges.
And just to be clear: Apes don't have a tail. Except for the Barbary ape (Barbary macaque) and the Sulawesi crested macaque, all monkeys do.

These are all true (for extant apes, anyway), but I can also sit here and list all the differences between New World Monkeys and Catarrhinis (Old World Monkeys and apes), which would result in a greater list than yours. It also means that, even considering your list above, Old World Monkeys and Apes still have more commonality than either do to New World Monkeys.
​

.

This cladogram shows that Apes and Old World Monkeys share more recent common ancestry than either do to New World Monkeys.

 

[Skwim]

. . .some universities have already changed their curriculum to remove Linnean style grouping

First of all, what the heck is "Linnean style grouping"? Could you possibly be referring to the hierarchy of taxonomic ranks? If so, just which universities have discarded it?

such as the beginning of your post, which has scores of exceptions.

I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to here. For one thing, I began my post with a list of the anatomical differences between monkeys and apes, and not anything remotely resembling a hierarchy of taxonomic ranks.

Such as equal length late hominid limbs or longer armed archaeoindris, which also have barrel chests [and yes I'm using lemur examples because nobody uses posimian as a taxonomic terms and lemurs are, in fact, simiioformes like the rest.], as well as extinct macaques and extinct lesser apes put in those categories but do not conform to the often arbitrary morphological categories of Linnean nested hierarchy.

??????????makes no sense whatsoever??????????????

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yup.

A little about AronRa, (real name, L. Aron Nelson) the video's creator. He is

"Texas State Director of American Atheists
Freethought contributor to the Global Secular Council
Host of the Ra-Men podcast
Author of the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Producer of the Living Science lessons channel"

​

More biography HERE .
I did a fairly extensive search for his educational background and came up near empty---he is said to have been "a paleontology student from Dallas"*---leading me to believe that, at most, he has a high school diploma.

*source
.

.
​

You should know better than to address an argument via the background of the person, else none of us could make any argument outside personal professions.
However, here is a link to the North Carolina University taxonomy page referred to in the video which displays humans and all apes as a subclade of monkey. https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/zo150/mozley/primates.html

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That is a very unfair dismissal of someone just because he lacks the right piece of paper. His education background/history really shouldn't matter when he cites everything he says in his video with proper academic sources. You don't need a degree to have a sound argument.

Fact: Many institutions do indeed adopt a more strict cladistic world view, mainly because it's far less arbitrary than traditional Linnaean taxonomy.

Fact: The distinction to "monkey" and "ape" is only found in the English language. Therefore the distinction is not of biological convention, but of English-speaking convention.

His argument is sound, regardless of his formal (or lack there of) education. I mean geez, if people with college degrees are the only people allowed to have a sound argument, than what's the point of being on this forum trying to explain Evolution to people? This type of attitude is gonna make people not want to learn science and turn away from it, which is already a huge problem in our society. We live in the information age. It's rather very easy to self-education, cite sources properly, and back up an argument without a degree.

Another Note: AronRa is well respected by the likes of Dawkins and other formally educated biologists. But I don't think that matters as much as it sounds. Just something I'm throwing out there.

I just noticed that you explained the same things and better than I did. Thanks.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

First of all, what the heck is "Linnean style grouping"? Could you possibly be referring to the hierarchy of taxonomic ranks? If so, just which universities have discarded it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
And see other link for an example of the revised standard.

I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to here. For one thing, I began my post with a list of the anatomical differences between monkeys and apes, and not anything remotely resembling a hierarchy of taxonomic ranks

I'm showing the failure of using morphological traits to make a uniform system of classification when there's clear exceptions to the rules of 'anatomical differences.'

makes no sense whatsoever?

Same as above. Also threw in a bit about the divisive use of 'prosimian' in Cladistics but that's neither here nor there. Point being there's shortcomings of calling new world and old world 'monkeys' but leaving out humans for no particularly good reason, and the video itself does too. With an added joke that we used to do the same thing with humans and great apes, to keep us at a distance from the term ape. Now we are struggling to keep a distance from the term 'monkey'.

 

[Skwim]

That is a very unfair dismissal of someone just because he lacks the right piece of paper.

My, my, what an interesting snap. Why does noting one's education amount to dismissing them?

His education background/history really shouldn't matter when he cites everything he says in his video with proper academic sources.

Then don't consider it.

You don't need a degree to have a sound argument.

No you don't, but a degree goes a long way in establishing competence. Given the choice, who would you choose to invest two hours of your time listening to?

1) An unknown PhD speaking in his field about X,

2) An unknown high school graduate speaking about X​

Fact: The distinction to "monkey" and "ape" is only found in the English language. Therefore the distinction is not of biological convention, but of English-speaking convention.

Unmitigated B.S..

His argument is sound, regardless of his formal (or lack there of) education.

Forgive me for doubting your ability to judge such a thing, but I do.

I mean geez, if people with college degrees are the only people allowed to have a sound argument, than what's the point of being on this forum trying to explain Evolution to people?

Hey, have all the sound arguments you want, but if you have no credentials in your relevant field don't be surprised if people pass by your booth in favor of spending their time with those educated in the field. Most of us can't afford the time to listen to people bouncing around near the bottom of the education scale.

This type of attitude is gonna make people not want to learn science and turn away from it, which is already a huge problem in our society.

OMG. I don't know where such ideas came from, but they don't flatter you at all. As for the lack of students graduating in the science fields, by far the biggest reason is simply a lack of high school preparation. A lot of students enthusiastically go into science fields in college, but quickly become discouraged and drop out because the curriculum is just too hard. Poor grades quickly send the message that further study will be fruitless. THAT'S why the USA is producing so few science grads.

We live in the information age. It's rather very easy to self-education, cite sources properly, and back up an argument without a degree.

It isn't a matter of properly citing sources and backing up an argument, but creating a sound argument that can stand up to peer review. Without peer review, no one's going to listen, and they shouldn't. Life is too short to bother with junk science.

Another Note: AronRa is well respected by the likes of Dawkins and other formally educated biologists. But I don't think that matters as much as it sounds. Just something I'm throwing out there.

Interesting. I assume you read this somewhere. Care to share? Who?


.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

My, my, what an interesting snap. Why does noting one's education amount to dismissing them?

Is there some other reason you're pointing out his education background?

No you don't, but a degree goes a long way in establishing competence. Given the choice, who would you choose to invest two hours of your time listening to?

1) An unknown PhD speaking in his field about X,

2) An unknown high school graduate speaking about X​

Whichever one does a better job at backing up what they're saying. There's also a number of other factors that can determine who I'd rather listen to.

Unmitigated B.S..

Let me rephrase. Other languages have a word for ape, but they're also called monkeys in a broader sense. People don't argue in other languages that apes aren't monkeys.

Forgive me for doubting your ability to judge such a thing, but I do.

Then point out any argumentative flaws or bad citations in AronRa's video.​

Hey, have all the sound arguments you want, but if you have no credentials in your relevant field don't be surprised if people pass by your booth in favor of spending their time with those educated in the field. Most of us can't afford the time to listen to people bouncing around near the bottom of the education scale.

I rarely see people do this, especially scientists formally trained in a field. A scientist will simply look at the logic behind an argument as well as citations, experimentations and observations backing it. So I will continue to be surprised when someone resorts to this flawed logic to dismiss an argument.

It isn't a matter of properly citing sources and backing up an argument, but creating a sound argument that can stand up to peer review. Without peer review, no one's going to listen, and they shouldn't. Life is too short to bother with junk science.

Peer review only applies to experimentation and observation of some natural phenomenon. But this is arbitrary convention we're talking about. Apes are separated from monkeys simply due to naming convention and nothing more.

Also, a source was pointed out to you of an Institution that adheres to a cladistic classification of monkeys. Do you have anything to say about that?

But I don't want to get caught up on naming conventions. The real argument here is that humans have monkey ancestors, whether you want to call humans monkeys or not. Every cladogram from any university website, textbook, etc... including the cladogram you posted, indicates this.

Interesting. I assume you read this somewhere. Care to share?

Who?

I suppose it's a bit of conjecture on my part, but Dawkins seems to highly respect what AronRa says based on how much Dawkins gives his attention to him whenever he speaks, and had a look of enthusiasm whenever AronRa spoke in high depth of phylogenetics. He never bothers to correct him on anything when AronRa speaks in high depth about evolutionary biology. The talks are mostly of atheism, but biology does get brought up a lot (naturally).

Like I said though, this doesn't matter that much to me, so if you don't think Dawkins respects him, then so be it.

Also, side note: How do you not know what Linnaean Taxonomy is? How educated are YOU in evolutionary biology?
.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some monkeys do have strange red hair and small mouths and piggy eyes.
Some are also deceitful, tricky, greedy, oversexed and cunning.
There is no reason to suppose that Trump's ancestors had any of these characteristics
or he might have inherited them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution teaches man came from a monkey. Does anyone really believe Trump came from a monkey?

And it was proven beyond doubt scientifically that men came from monkeys, by Piltdown man!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

From an ape.

Btw, apes feel deep shame for this.

He's half Scottish you know!

 

[Revoltingest]

Definitely. People shouldn't go around and making a monkey out of the subject.

I do have an idea for a new game......
Barrel Of Trumps

 

[Revoltingest]

He's half Scottish you know!

Great....now Scots can feel shame....more than usual.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Great....now Scots can feel shame....more than usual.

Nothing to be ashamed of- a fine race! I am 1/3 Scottish myself, (it would have been 1/2 but my dad was very cheap)

 

[Skwim]

Is there some other reason you're pointing out his education background?

Absolutely. It goes a long way in establishing credibility, which in turn is a relevant factor in deciding whether he's worth the bother to listen to. And, taking that chance, whether or not what he says is worth one's time to check out. I assume you did check out is claims, whatever they are.

Whichever one does a better job at backing up what they're saying.

I'm talking about before you know who will do a better job at backing up what they're saying.

There's also a number of other factors that can determine who I'd rather listen to.

Care to cite them? Factors that would convince you that your time would be better spent listening to an unknown high school graduate speaking about X rather than an unknown PhD speaking in his field about X.

Let me rephrase. Other languages have a word for ape, but they're also called monkeys in a broader sense. People don't argue in other languages that apes aren't monkeys.

Really! Show me that people don't argue in other languages that apes aren't monkeys.

Then point out any argumentative flaws or bad citations in AronRa's video.

Believe it or not, but my ability or inability to point out anything in the video has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to judge the soundness of his argument. Sheesh!

I rarely see people do this, especially scientists formally trained in a field.

Then you obviously know very little of the life of scientists.

A scientist will simply look at the logic behind an argument as well as citations, experimentations and observations backing it. So I will continue to be surprised when someone resorts to this flawed logic to dismiss an argument.

The point isn't what a scientist will do after reading an article, but what will convince him to read it at all.

Peer review only applies to experimentation and observation of some natural phenomenon.

That's it. Obviously you can't follow a simple line of reasoning, and know nothing of what you speak. Have a good day.



Oh yes, about

Like I said though, this doesn't matter that much to me, so if you don't think Dawkins respects him, then so be it.

Dawkins playing with his pen, yawning, and looking completely bored during AronRa's speech hardly signifies respect for him. Obviously you're afflicted with Idol Bias.


.
.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And it was proven beyond doubt scientifically that men came from monkeys, by Piltdown man!

I want to see a wrestler with that name! *grin*

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Absolutely. It goes a long way in establishing credibility, which in turn is a relevant factor in deciding whether he's worth the bother to listen to. And, taking that chance, whether or not what he says is worth one's time to check out. I assume you did check out is claims, whatever they are.

That sounds like dismissal.

I'm talking about before you know who will do a better job at backing up what they're saying.

I can't make that decision until I start hearing them speak.

Care to cite them? Factors that would convince you that your time would be better spent listening to an unknown high school graduate speaking about X rather than an unknown PhD speaking in his field about X.

Honestly, if they're both unknown, then I probably wouldn't know the latter has a Ph.D. I don't see a situation where I know someone has a PhD and he's also unknown.

As I said above, I have to hear them speak a little bit.

There's Ph.Ds out there that spread pop-science rather than real science. There's people who lie about having PhDs (a possibility with your unknown PhD example). There's PhDs who are still succeptible to emotion based beliefs and will let that influence what they are saying (e.g. scientists who believe in creationism). The point I'm making is, it's better to just see what is back-up and what isn't. I'm not gonna blindly believe someone just because he has a PhD.

Really! Show me that people don't argue in other languages that apes aren't monkeys.

It doesn't matter. I'm gonna deviate from the discussion of naming conventions. The title of this thread is asking if Trump (and by extention, Humans) came from monkeys. It's a fact that humans have monkey ancestors (that is, tailed simians). Whether you choose to call humans monkeys or not, is more of a matter of preference and nothing more. Laymen and scientists alike often call apes monkeys.

Believe it or not, but my ability or inability to point out anything in the video has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to judge the soundness of his argument. Sheesh!

I guess, but you can't claim to know anything of my judgement towards his argument if you won't even listen to his argument.

The point isn't what a scientist will do after reading an article, but what will convince him to read it at all.

There's plenty of other things that can convince a scientist to read an article apart from a Ph.D.

Dawkins playing with his pen, yawning, and looking completely bored during AronRa's speech hardly signifies respect for him. Obviously you're afflicted with Idol Bias.

.
.

Naturally if you're sitting a long time, you're gonna zone out at times. I've seen him do this at press conferences with other scientists. Just because ones eyes aren't constantly locked on someone talking, doesn't mean you don't respect him. Several times, Dawkins had a look of enthusiasm when looking at AronRa.

Dawkins wouldn't be there at all if he didn't respect the intellect of those people at the press-conference.

 

[sandycreekboy]

Evolution teaches man came from a monkey. Does anyone really believe Trump came from a monkey?

that is an insult to monkeys

 

[TPaine]

Its doubtful. Monkeys and apes are intelligent. Most likely Trump came from a turkey.

 

[TPaine]

Its doubtful. Monkeys and apes are intelligent. Most likely Trump came from a turkey.