(March 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No. Monkeys are considered monkeys by modern standards...the only standard. No monkey split into an ape, nor will they..they will split into yet more monkeys. Morphologically and genetically (and thus ancestrally) distinct from other primates. Cata is a -primate-..not a monkey (and a simiiforme, and a haplorhini). Just as we are primates, but not monkeys.
Not arguing, just trying to make sure my understanding is bullet proof so I can think about this correctly.
I think I get what what you're saying, but I can't get around this being a semantics thing. In your opinion, why are people calling them monkeys if they are not monkeys?
For example, this response I found:
We didn't evolve from gorillas. We did evolve from apes. We are apes and every ancestor back about 15 million years was an ape. Before that our ancestors are what should be called monkeys. They would be called that if they lived today. We are closer to old world monkeys than new world monkeys. Apes should be a type of old world monkey but that seems to offend some people so they play meaningless semantic games like saying we didn't evolve from monkeys. We essentially did in the real world and the problem with their semantic games is that even many anthropologists and biologists actually think we didn't evolve from monkeys. It is rather pathetic how many scientists that should know better think we didn't evolve from what would be a monkey if it lived today. It is just as much a monkey as modern monkeys are but they were no doubt different species. Otherwise there wouldn't be new and old world monkeys with us closer to old world monkeys. It is a confusing semantics game they play and I doubt I made it any clearer. We make the rules so we decide that humans and apes are different enough to not be called monkeys. It is essentially to keep from calling us monkeys and thus offending many people.
