tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post6184287464209787084..comments2024-02-27T21:23:44.159-08:00Comments on A Three-Pound Monkey Brain: Human Origins: Wrong Answers to the QuestionMike Keeseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-20286465135100395302009-08-29T11:02:20.604-07:002009-08-29T11:02:20.604-07:00"Also interesting is that Linnaeus placed chi..."Also interesting is that Linnaeus placed chimpanzees in <i>Homo</i>, not <i>Simia</i>."<br /><br />I was in error when I said this. Linnaeus named something <i>Homo troglodytes</i>, but it is not the same as the <i>Simia troglodytes</i> (later, <i>Pan troglodytes</i>) of Oken.Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-14368188273607243682008-05-08T20:35:00.000-07:002008-05-08T20:35:00.000-07:00I have some alternetive didatics for the "sooo, wh...I have some alternetive didatics for the "sooo, why macacos*** are still heeeeere?":<BR/><BR/>1)Wake up, guy. Not only we CAME from primates, but WE ARE STILL PRIMATES!<BR/>OR<BR/>2)Well, chimps often ask why humans don't evolve to chimps, since we are "less evolved" than they...<BR/><BR/>But they are just impact words, lol. After these, here I go, to explain that ALL primates evolved, that we came NOT from the chimps, but share a common ancestor, et cetera.<BR/><BR/>And creationists seem not to know words more scientifics, like "primate", "hominid" (panimid? gorillaminid? all these sound fine)... <BR/><BR/>***Portuguese doesn't have separade words for "ape" and "monkey", using "macaco" for both. This surely causes further troubles...<BR/>BTW, sorry my bad English O.o<BR/><BR/>Farewell!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-42020511600635855892007-12-16T18:53:00.000-08:002007-12-16T18:53:00.000-08:00Well, it's not a very good question if you have a ...Well, it's not a very good question if you have a clear understanding of what "ape" means, but, certainly, if you didn't, it might make some sense.<BR/><BR/>I think though, it assumes that we have changed and apes haven't. Clearly people asking this question have not stopped to notice that, hey, apes all look really different. Ergo, <B>somebody</B> had to have changed.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if ape diversity is down all that much now. Remember, a lot of these different fossil ape species lived at different times. Of course, if current trends continue, apes will be getting a lot less diverse pretty quickly. And certain ape groups, such as <I>Hominina</I> (the human total group) are unquestionably very low in terms of diversity right now. But we don't have a very good record of most ape lineages -- mainly just the one that left the rain forest (where things hardly ever fossilize) for the savannah.<BR/><BR/>Good point about <I>Pan</I> vs. <I>Australopithecus</I> when it comes to competing with <I>Homo</I>. I think <I>Pan</I> hasn't had to deal with much competition from <I>Homo</I> until relatively recently. <I>Australopithecus</I>, on the other hand, seems to have had much more ecological overlap with <I>Homo</I>. (Maybe that's a naïve interpretation, but it's all I got right now.)<BR/><BR/>Your question about species really depends on which species concept you're using. Under the phylogenetic concept, a parent species becomes extinct as soon as any daughter species appear, by definition.<BR/><BR/>I actually tend to take an organism-level approach to cladogenesis, which pretty much ignores the concept of species. (See my paper in <I>Zoologica Scripta</I> for details.)Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-41114239053534557542007-12-16T14:14:00.000-08:002007-12-16T14:14:00.000-08:00The question isn't perfect, but I don't like evolu...The question isn't perfect, but I don't like evolutionists acting like it's the dumbest question ever. I think there is some merit to it that could inspire worthwhile discussions. One gets the impression from the fossil record that in pre-human times, there was a great diversity of apes. Today, there aren't as many non-human apes, and they're usually endangered due to human activity. I can see why people might hypothesize a negative correlation between human success and non-human ape success. Were <I>Sahelanthropus</I>, <I>Orrorin</I>, <I>Ardipithecus</I>, <I>Australopithecus</I>, <I>Paranthropus</I>, <I>et al.</I> driven to extinction by competition with their more human relatives/descendants? And if our lineage caused the extinction of all those apes, well, what's different about the apes that <I>have</I> managed to survive despite our presence? Is <I>Pan</I> actually better ecologically suited to coexistence with <I>Homo</I> than <I>Australopithecus</I> was? Of course, this is in the paradigm of a cladogenesis model of hominin evolution... If you want to argue anagenesis, I suppose some of the above makes less sense. :P<BR/><BR/>When cladogenesis happens, how typically does the descendant species contribute to the extinction of the parent species? Are most extant species the descendants of extinct species, or other extant species? This actually looks like a pretty big and important topic for evolutionary biologists to study.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15613329277334129312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-74514323749953784172007-12-10T15:39:00.000-08:002007-12-10T15:39:00.000-08:00Nice response, Grant. I may just use that myself. ...Nice response, Grant. I may just use that myself. (Certainly less long-winded than this post!)<BR/><BR/>Good point, John. It's wrong <B>and</B> it dodges the question.Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-54214302095264520732007-12-10T15:31:00.000-08:002007-12-10T15:31:00.000-08:00I get around the "parents" problem by saying, "If ...I get around the "parents" problem by saying, "If you're descended from your grandparents, how come you still have cousins?"<BR/><BR/>This is instantly recognizable as a meaningless question, thus getting the point across quite nicely.<BR/><BR/>-Grant HardingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-36700290852901890162007-12-10T03:25:00.000-08:002007-12-10T03:25:00.000-08:00Yes! - I find it really irritating when people say...Yes! - I find it really irritating when people say we only share a common ancestor with apes in order to argue with creationists. Firstly because, as you point out, it's wrong; and secondly, even if it were true - it's miserly and pedantic to make such a point.<BR/><BR/>We <I>did</I> evolve from something just about everybody would call and ape, and we further back, we evolved from something everyone would call a monkey.<BR/><BR/>Everyone need to understand and face up to this basic fact.John Conwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087359611394071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-37902482049060209402007-12-09T13:14:00.000-08:002007-12-09T13:14:00.000-08:00Thanks! Of course, if you wanted to be technical, ...Thanks! Of course, if you wanted to be technical, you could use "simian" or "anthropoid" instead of "monkey", and "hominoid" instead of "ape".<BR/><BR/>I should also point out that "great ape" is an unnatural designation that could be "naturalized" by adding ourselves. Then it would be synonymous with "hominid".<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, Linnaeus himself actually wanted to place humans with apes and monkeys in <I>Simia</I>, but created a separate genus for us (<I>Homo</I>) because he feared the more anatomically honest scheme would not be popular.<BR/><BR/>Also interesting is that Linnaeus placed chimpanzees in <I>Homo</I>, not <I>Simia</I>. Of course, he had never actually seen one and was relying on relayed accounts. Who knows what he would have thought if he had an actual specimen? (Then again, who cares -- he was a botanist, not a primatologist.)Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5350157389434430698.post-68329891879067240602007-12-09T12:50:00.000-08:002007-12-09T12:50:00.000-08:00A human being is an ape, as an ape is a monkey. No...A human being is an ape, as an ape is a monkey. Not all monkeys are apes, and not all apes are human beings.<BR/><BR/>Sounds fine to me, good post, Mike.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08718847558790015112noreply@blogger.com