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

[AndromedaRXJ]

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.

Again, under what basis? The only way you can argue this is to argue that monkeys are a polyphyletic group (evolved twice). Again, polyphyletic groups are defined strictly by convergence. What defining "monkey feature" is shared between old world and new world monkeys that is also convergent (non-ancestral)?

You can't say they're polyphyletic "just because". That is arbitrary, and also useless.

If you're gonna define paraphyletic groups and polyphyletic groups, you must do so only because it's very useful to do so. Particularly, they should be defined by plesiomorphic or convergent traits respectively (plesiomorphic traits for paraphyletic groups and convergent traits for polyphyletic groups). Otherwise, you must adhere to cladistics where animal groups are defined by relationship.

 

[Skwim]

Again, under what basis?

Sorry, but I've presented about as much reason, both in text and illustration, as I care to. Obviously you're hung up on cladistics as being thee tool of the hour in determining the evolutionary development of organisms, (or recently had a college class on it). I am not. So, instead of beating this sucker to death, I'm going to simply be on my way.

Have a good day.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Obviously you're hung up on cladistics as being thee tool of the hour in determining the evolutionary development of organisms

I'm not hung up on it. Like I said before, I'm fine with paraphyletic and polyphyletic groupings, but only when it's useful. Grouping organisms that way "just because" is what I don't agree with. You haven't presented a reason as to why monkeys should be considered a polyphyletic group. Their shared traits aren't convergent, which is what is suppose to define a polyphyletic group.

I'm fine with fish being paraphyletic given the usefulness of doing that. I'm fine with the group endotherms (the set of all warm blooded animals) which is polyphyletic. It's useful to establish groups like that. But I don't see any usefulness of monkeys as a polyphyletic group.

 

[gnostic]

Sadly, we get to the point where Lack of Knowledge = God? I don't know, I don't have a clue = God and Religion, whereas I know, i am curious = Science

All this stems from a fear of if Science is right there is no heaven - no easy life after death. Religious stories are comforting - God made us, and he is waiting to take care of us, we will get to live in comfort for eternity - people want to believe and religions are more than happy to tell them exactly that

The problem is that this "comfort" is an illusion - though I would personally called it the Great Con.

I am curious person and wide interest in many things: art and architecture, literature, history, cultures, religions, myths, astronomy, science, and the list goes on.

But my interest in religions is the same with my interests in myths, legends and folklore: I am always interest in some good stories.

Although, I do often pick holes into Genesis narratives in this forum, but only I disagree with believers' interpretations of stories, and yet the Creation story and the Flood story happened to be my favourite parts of the whole bible. And despite being favorite, I know what are real and possible, and what are not.

When I was a little kid, the first thing I wanted to become, was an astronomer, because at that time, the books at the school library have great pictures of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae, etc. It made me want to own a telescope and looked up to the sky. But why didn't I choose to be an astronaut instead? To this day, I don't know why. Perhaps because the telescope was more interesting than being in a rocket. Perhaps, because space-walk and the moon don't hold as much interest than what out there, further than the moon.

My point is that it is the stories in the scriptures that hold interests to me, more so than the religion or belief in the existence of god, or the comfort of living forever or the fear of being thrown into hell and eternal damnation.

When I read biblical stories, I am less interested in faith, religious practice or customs. I am less interested in comfort, because I am interested in the entertainment and how people think back then.

When I first read the 4 gospels for the first time, it was Jesus that hold my interest, not God, not heaven, not hell, not resurrection. It was story of Jesus, what he did (said and teach) that interested me.

And it is same for every other stories. To me, the main characters were the people themselves, like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samson, David, etc; Christians and Jews may believe that God is all-powerful, know-it-all bossy-boots, but to me, he is a secondary or minor character.

But just because I like the stories, doesn't mean that I believe it to be real. The value of reading scriptures don't necessarily have to be "believing".