If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

[Ouroboros]

I think people get natural selection and evolution mixed up sometimes. No matter how many years you give to a fish, even millions of years, it's not going to grow legs, breathe air on land, turn into monkeys and then evolve into humans. There was nothing but fish and undersea creatures back then. Really, we should all be variations of the same thing.

Currently, the database of fossils showing the past species and the transitional forms has more than half a million specimen logged. We do know that some fish, not only back then but even in our time, right here, right now, have developed legs. There are fish today, in our world right now, that actually can transfer themselves on land.

Creatures are not going to turn into something completely different.

The fossil record says otherwise.

Mutations occur but most of the time, they harm the creature, not help it.

Not true. You have several unique mutations in your own DNA. And it didn't change anything or ruin your life at all. Some do, but "most of the time" isn't quite right. Most mutations are in fact neutral, neither harmful or beneficial. That's why the theory shows that mutations comes first, then selection. Selection can come generations later on previous neutral mutations. The idea that mutations occur at the same time as selection or the need of a feature is nothing but fiction. It's not X-Men mutations we're talking about, but neutral mutations that are inherited for generations, and some are more beneficial than others.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The fossil record says otherwise.

Well that depends what one means by "completely different" which Theweirdtophat has failed to define. To me, "completely different" would be something utterly alien. So different in such a way that it wouldn't be able to be placed on a phylogenetic tree.

Theweirdtophat fails to understand that, even if we pretend that Evolution isn't true, all life forms on Earth are the same at the most fundamental level. Everything is carbon based with the same basic structure of DNA.

If someone finds a non-carbon based life form that contains self-replicating molecules that's different from DNA where it may not even be a double-helix, then we can argue that it's "completely different".

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It's just a theory that evolution is just a theory.

So you admit that it is twicely untrue?

 

[Ouroboros]

If someone finds a non-carbon based life form that contains self-replicating molecules that's different from DNA where it may not even be a double-helix, then we can argue that it's "completely different".

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21091066

Looking at all the strange life forms we do have on this planet, we can easily find species that are completely different from each other, yet (as you said) have the same fundamental carbon based structure.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you admit that it is twicely untrue?

He was joking.

 

[Skwim]

What I mean is humans have monkey ancestors.

Please see my OP. Humans did not have monkey ancestors, no more than they had turtle or bat ancestors.

.​

 

[Ouroboros]

Please see my OP. Humans did not have monkey ancestors, no more than they had turtle or bat ancestors.

True. The correct phrase should really be, "shared ancestor". Humans and monkeys share an ancestor. Just as we do with turtles, bats, and carrots. There is a life form in the past from where we all came from.

 

[Sunstone]

So you admit that it is twicely untrue?

We could play this all day!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

We could play this all day!

Yes we could, but there cannot be an infinite regress, so there must have been a first theory.

And i say that god is the first theory.

Hahaha check mate atheist.

 

[FearGod]

If Americans came from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans? If I came from my parents, then why are my parents still alive? If English is a Germanic language, then why do we still have German? =P

And where did the origin gone (the common ancestor)?

 

[Milton Platt]

This is an old one that really grates on the evolutionist, and even the knowledgeable creationist, but because it keeps popping up from time to time I thought I might explain (got nothing better to do---it's raining outside).

Fact of the matter is, monkeys still exist because we never replaced them. They evolved from early prosimians millions of years ago. Like 25 ++ millions of years ago, the same time another form of primate diverged from the prosimians, those that eventually evolved into the apes.
While recognizing that humans and monkeys were never that closely related---and we're not---some people think we humans evolved from apes, meaning the gorillas and orangutans, and question why these creatures are still around. Well, the answer is the same as that for the monkey question: Gorillas and orangutans still exist because we never replaced them; we evolved separately and in a different direction.
But, they will say, if that's true then why do evolutionists call humans "apes"? Easy answer: because of convention. When the ape lineages and the monkey lineages diverged the ape lineage became quite diverse,eventually embracing the gorillas, chimps, humans, etc. To denote this varied clad (group) of animals and so as to distinguish them from all the other primates, zoologists decided to call it the "ape" group. ("Ape" is thought to have come from the ability of these animals to mimic human expressions.) So, under the designation of "ape" we have the gorillas, orangutans, chimps, bonobos, gibbons, and humans.

Don't like being thought of as an ape? Tough!

Here's a graphic I put together to better visualize the relationships I'm talking about.

Christians would rather think they were made out of dust......I have no idea why.

 

[LuisDantas]

And where did the origin gone (the common ancestor)?

Our common ancestors died a long time ago. What they were like depends a lot on which group you are asking about exactly.

If you mean life as a whole, that ancestor would be a microbe of some sort, perhaps amoeaba-like.

If you mean hominids, then current molecular evidence implies that we split off from Gorillas and other non-human apes sometime between 4 and 8 million years ago.

More ancient common ancestors exist for (for instance) primates, mammals, vertebrates, chordates (in increasing order of age).



I get the feeling that you seem to expect your question to be perceived in a certain way that eludes me. Maybe you expected an admission that no common ancestor is known?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Please see my OP. Humans did not have monkey ancestors, no more than they had turtle or bat ancestors.

.​

Look at the first picture you posted.

The red circle marks the split between old world monkeys and apes. Both of which form the clade catarrhini, which is a clade that excludes new world monkeys. Further back in time, catarrhini and new world monkeys split. Old world monkeys are more related to apes than to new world monkeys.

You can't have two separate clades of monkeys where the common ancestor wasn't a monkey (green circle). And you can't have a monkey group that's more related to apes than to another monkey clade, but at the same time, those same apes lack a monkey ancestor. Both the green and red circle are our monkey ancestors, as well as everything in between those times.

There wasn't a non-monkey primate group that split off where one became apes and one became monkeys. That's a misconception. Apes branched off from monkeys. There's no monkey clade that excludes apes. If you exclude apes from the monkey group, it becomes paraphyletic.

It's dissimilar to your turtle example and more like the example of fish. We do in fact have ancestors that were fish. And we do in fact have ancestors that were monkeys.

 

[Smart_Guy]

What I mean is humans have monkey ancestors.

And I respect this view. Sorry if I sounded disrespectful earlier in my remarks.

 

[Skwim]

Look at the first picture you posted.

The red circle marks the split between old world monkeys and apes. Both of which form the clade catarrhini, which is a clade that excludes new world monkeys. Further back in time, catarrhini and new world monkeys split. Old world monkeys are more related to apes than to new world monkeys.

You can't have two separate clades of monkeys where the common ancestor wasn't a monkey (green circle). And you can't have a monkey group that's more related to apes than to another monkey clade, but at the same time, those same apes lack a monkey ancestor. Both the green and red circle are our monkey ancestors, as well as everything in between those times.

There wasn't a non-monkey primate group that split off where one became apes and one became monkeys. That's a misconception. Apes branched off from monkeys. There's no monkey clade that excludes apes. If you exclude apes from the monkey group, it becomes paraphyletic.

It's dissimilar to your turtle example and more like the example of fish. We do in fact have ancestors that were fish. And we do in fact have ancestors that were monkeys.

"The simian line and the tarsier line diverged about 60 million years ago. Forty million years ago, simians from Africa colonized South America, giving rise to the New World monkeys. The remaining simians (catarrhines) split 25 million years ago into apes and Old World monkeys."
Source: Wikipedia​

Diagrammed it looks like this:

Those primates that made up the simian lineage (Arthropoidea) over 25 million years ago are not monkeys.


.



.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

"The simian line and the tarsier line diverged about 60 million years ago. Forty million years ago, simians from Africa colonized South America, giving rise to the New World monkeys. The remaining simians (catarrhines) split 25 million years ago into apes and Old World monkeys."
Source: Wikipedia​

Diagrammed it looks like this:

Those primates that made up the simian lineage (Arthropoidea) over 25 million years ago are not monkeys.


.



.

I think it's time to just go ahead and drop the aronra video because these diagrams are starting to resemble cladograms less and less.
I think this is probably the most difinitive 'apes descended from and still are monkeys' resource for lay discussions.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

"The simian line and the tarsier line diverged about 60 million years ago. Forty million years ago, simians from Africa colonized South America, giving rise to the New World monkeys. The remaining simians (catarrhines) split 25 million years ago into apes and Old World monkeys."
Source: Wikipedia​

Diagrammed it looks like this:

Yes, it's saying exactly what I just said. Look at what I bolded in your quote. It illustrates the earliest anthropoidea splitting off into two distinct lineages. Catarrhines and new world monkeys (40 million years ago). Catarrhines further splits off into apes and old world monkeys (25 million years ago).

Those primates that made up the simian lineage (Arthropoidea) over 25 million years ago are not monkeys.

So monkeys evolved twice? Worst still, the common ancestor of these two monkey group isn't even a monkey either?

25 million years ago we're already at early catarrhines. Keep in mind, at this time there's already a completely separate lineage of monkeys that's diversified (new world monkeys) where the lineage leading to them goes back to 40 million years.

The earliest catarrhines had to have been monkeys. Otherwise you're arguing that monkeys evolved twice at separate times. But that simply doesn't happen. Monkeys have never been grouped as a polyphyletic group under any science literature, because that would make the whole thing a complete arbitrary mess. They're either paraphyletic (ancestor and their descendants except apes) or monophyletic (all descendants including apes). In both cases, apes have monkey ancestors.

If you still don't understand, then never mind apes. On your diagrams, point to the common ancestor of old world monkeys and new world monkeys and tell me if you think those ancestors were monkeys or not.

 

[Skwim]

So monkeys evolved twice? Worst still, the common ancestor of these two monkey group isn't even a monkey either?

Yes, they did evolve twice. And, yes, neither form of animal at the juncture of the split was a monkey. It took millions of years for each to reach that status.

It's similar to the evolution of Homo sapiens in the illustration of the Hominids I presented in the OP. The Australopithecus, and whatever sat before it at the juncture of the split creating the lineage leading to humans, isn't considered a human. At best It could be regarded as a pre-human.

And, the same holds true for those forms of simians at the 40 million year and 25 million year junctures. At best those at the 40 million year juncture, the Platyrrhinis, could be regarded as pre-monkeys. AND, the other lineages at the 25 million split could be regarded as pre-monkeys (the Cathyrrhinis) and pre-humans, although such "pre" labels is stretching the implication of similarity beyond reasonability.

Those forms at the 40 million year juncture that did not go on to be New World monkeys did not automatically become monkeys, although they are often given the same taxonomic label (Cathyrrhini) as those forums that did go on to be Old World monkeys---a regrettable labeling.

Monkeys have never been grouped as a polyphyletic group under any science literature, because that would make the whole thing a complete arbitrary mess. They're either paraphyletic (ancestor and their descendants except apes) or monophyletic (all descendants including apes).

I don't see the mess. And even if there is one, that doesn't mean it's false. The following shows exactly why it can't be anything but polyphylyic.

In any case, the cladistics of monkeys it's hardly an important or relevant one to their evolution.

In both cases, apes have monkey ancestors.

No. Apes had ancestors in common with the ancestors of monkeys: which is the lineage of simians that essentially ran from 60 million to 25 million years ago.

If you still don't understand, then never mind apes. On your diagrams, point to the common ancestor of old world monkeys and new world monkeys and tell me if you think those ancestors were monkeys or not.

As explained above, they are not.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yes, they did evolve twice. And, yes, neither form of animal at the juncture of the split was a monkey. It took millions of years for each to reach that status.

So you're arguing that monkeys are a polyphyletic group. Polyphyletic groups are strictly defined by convergence. E.g. the set of animals containing endotherms are polyphyletic (birds and mammals) since the defining feature of endotherms are convergent between mammals and birds.

The defining characteristics between old world monkeys and new world monkeys (the traits they have that would define them as monkeys to begin with) are not due to convergence. Those traits didn't evolve twice. They're plesiomorphic, meaning the common ancestor had them. The common ancestor then went on to diversify into various subsets, one of which simply lost their tails and then diversified further.

It's similar to the evolution of Homo sapiens in the illustration of the Hominids I presented in the OP. The Australopithecus, and whatever sat before it at the juncture of the split creating the lineage leading to humans, isn't considered a human. At best It could be regarded as a pre-human.

Australopithecus isn't the latest common ancestor. The latest common ancestor is probably homo habilis, or something closely related. Whatever it was, it would have been considered being part of the homo genus, which is often another name for human if one choses to define human as any member of the homo genus.

Regardless, australopithecus doesn't need to be considered human in order to maintain the human set (homo) as a monophyletic group.

And, the same holds true for those forms of simians at the 40 million year and 25 million year junctures. At best those at the 40 million year juncture (the Platyrrhinis) could be regarded as pre-monkeys.

Platyrrhines are still around today. And they're always considered monkeys. They include things like the spider monkey, capuchin, squirrel monkey etc... those are monkeys. Not lemurs or tarsiers or pre-monkeys or anything.

AND, the other lineages at the 25 million split could be regarded as pre-monkeys (the Cathyrrhinis) and pre-humans, although such "pre" labels is stretching the implication of similarity beyond reasonability.

Those forums at the 40 million year juncture that did not go on to be New World monkeys did not automatically become monkeys, although they are often given the same taxonomic label (Cathyrrhini) as those forums that did go on to be Old World monkeys---a regrettable labeling.

How is it regrettable? Do you understand how cladistics works? Catarrhini is a clade. It's the most useful way to group animals.

Yup. Plus it serves no practical purpose to do so.

You just said earlier that monkeys evolved twice. Meaning the bulk of their defining features are due to convergence. That denotes polyphyly. So do you think they're polyphyletic, or do you think there's no practical purpose?

Might well be a mess, but that doesn't mean it's false. The following shows exactly why it can't be anything but polyphletic.

Yes it does. Because unless you can prove that their defining shared features are due to convergence, then all you're really saying is the common ancestor isn't a monkey "just because...".

No. Apes had ancestors in common with the ancestors of monkeys: which is the lineage of simians that essentially ran from 60 million to 25 million years ago.

 

[Skwim]

So you're arguing that monkeys are a polyphyletic group. Polyphyletic groups are strictly defined by convergence. E.g. the set of animals containing endotherms are polyphyletic (birds and mammals) since the defining feature of endotherms are convergent between mammals and birds.

The defining characteristics between old world monkeys and new world monkeys (the traits they have that would define them as monkeys to begin with) are not due to convergence. Those traits didn't evolve twice. They're plesiomorphic, meaning the common ancestor had them. The common ancestor then went on to diversify into various subsets, one of which simply lost their tails and then diversified further.



Australopithecus isn't the latest common ancestor. The latest common ancestor is probably homo habilis, or something closely related. Whatever it was, it would have been considered being part of the homo genus, which is often another name for human if one choses to define human as any member of the homo genus.

Regardless, australopithecus doesn't need to be considered human in order to maintain the human set (homo) as a monophyletic group.



Platyrrhines are still around today. And they're always considered monkeys. They include things like the spider monkey, capuchin, squirrel monkey etc... those are monkeys. Not lemurs or tarsiers or pre-monkeys or anything.





How is it regrettable? Do you understand how cladistics works? Catarrhini is a clade. It's the most useful way to group animals.



You just said earlier that monkeys evolved twice. Meaning the bulk of their defining features are due to convergence. That denotes polyphyly. So do you think they're polyphyletic, or do you think there's no practical purpose?



Yes it does. Because unless you can prove that their defining shared features are due to convergence, then all you're really saying is the common ancestor isn't a monkey "just because...".

No. Apes had ancestors in common with the ancestors of monkeys: which is the lineage of simians that essentially ran from 60 million to 25 million years ago.

I have to apologize. I edited my post significantly during the time you constructed your reply here, so some of what I previously said may not be relevant to it Therefore, I'm not going to answer your points in case you feel they should be revised. That said,I seriously believe you're attributing far too much significance to cladistics. The fact remains that no matter how you choose to group the primates their tree clearly shows that monkeys are not our ancestors.