Humans evolved from monkeys

[Old Baby]

No, it isn't.  A prosimian is no more a monkey than you or I.  They are a prosimian.  In the same way that a lemur and a baboon are not the same thing, or a chimp and a human.  We all share a common ancestor, we have shared attributes, we're all primates...........only one of them, however, is a monkey..the baboon.

To bring it into more contrast, to say that we're arguing over definition would be to say that claiming that the sun and a light bulb were different is only arguing over definitions.  Perhaps, trivially, true...depending on the specifics...but substantially and demonstrably false by any reasonable or scientific standard.  That asshat, let's recall, was "schooling" people on evolution™.

@Oldbaby, a source?  Try wiki, for starters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Particularly the diagram, first section after the introduction.  You'll notice that there aren't any monkeys in our branch of the "tree".  Even "modern day" prosimians are distinct, genetically and ancestrally, from those prosimian ancestors we shared....themselves divided into subgroups.

Ok, let's take that diagram and go back to Catarrhini.  They split from Simians along with new world monkeys.  Catarrhini then split into old world monkeys and apes.  Would then Catarrhini not be considered a monkey by current standard?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Old Baby]

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.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

That's pretty much it.

In the colloquial sense, "monkey" is a generic/layman's term for all primates, so the argument "we didn't evolve from monkeys" is stated by people who don't know the distinction between a monkey and a primate or ape. So when an atheist responds, "yes we did", we don't mean that we evolved from the actual monkey, as used in a scientific sense... we're simply responding to people who truly believe that humans are created separately and not as an evolved part of the natural world. Much like "theory" means something very different in the colloquial versus the scientific sense, the same applies here.

Your friend is just playing games with semantics. Lots of Christians understand evolution just fine; atheists pretty much have to, since we're attacked with the "monkeys" bullshit any time we announce ourselves as atheists in the presence of literalists/fundamentalists.

(Edit to Add: He's also creating a strawman version of atheism. You need to call him on that.)

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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.

It resembles more a squirrel or other type of rodent, excepting the primate fingers, but Prosimean is really a "monkey"? Makes sense.

[rexbeccarox]

I'm still learning about the evolution stuff, but there's some dude on twitter hammering me over the statement that humans did not evolve from monkeys. 

His argument is that humans DID evolve from monkeys and he cites this as his source: 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm

So, is this guy actually right? 

I know extant monkeys share a common ancestor with humans, but what about extinct monkeys? 

Thanks.

Since I'm no evolutionary biologist, my only contribution is that Palomar College is a two-year school a few miles away from me. It's definitely no UC Berkeley.

[Minimalist]

I'm not an evolutionary biologist either but I have a sneaky suspicion that when a creatard talks about "monkeys" he doesn't understand the difference between a gorilla and a rhesus.

[The Grand Nudger]

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? 

In context with the specific arguer?  Ignorance.  When I respond to these things below I'm not arguing with you (or think you're arguing with me), merely loading your clip.

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.

The response above would be small dollops of truth interspersed with deep pools of bullshit.  The first three sentences most closely approach the truth, and the rest is trash. 

The rest is him telling you that we -should- call the ancestors prior to that monkeys...seems like he knows that we don't.  Apes aren't a type of old world monkey and there is no "should be" about it.  

Prosimians aren't "just as much a monkey" as a monkey..if they were, we'd call them monkeys, like all the other monkeys.  We call them prosimians...and there -are- prosimians alive today which we call..wait for it, prosimians.  

Primates aren't "just as much a monkey" as a monkey either.  I'm a primate, but I'm not "just as much a monkey" as a baboon..which is a monkey.  The very real and demonstrable differences between myself and, say, a baboon..are why we refer to ourselves with different terms.

We didn't make these differences up, we had no say in the ways that a monkey and an ape are different.  The terms exist only to describe what differences we find.  

That it has anything to do with not offending people is ridiculous, people are offended anyway...hell, this guy is offended that we -don't- get to call people monkeys.  I guess you just can't make everyone happy?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The response above would be small dollops of truth interspersed with deep pools of bullshit.  The first three sentences most closely approach the truth, and the rest is trash. 

The rest is him telling you that we -should- call the ancestors prior to that monkeys...seems like he knows that we don't.  Apes aren't a type of old world monkey and there is no "should be" about it.  

Prosimians aren't "just as much a monkey" as a monkey..if they were, we'd call them monkeys, like all the other monkeys.  We call them prosimians...and there -are- prosimians alive today which we call..wait for it, prosimians.  

Primates aren't "just as much a monkey" as a monkey either.  I'm a primate, but I'm not "just as much a monkey" as a baboon..which is a monkey.  The very real and demonstrable differences between myself and, say, a baboon..are why we refer to ourselves with different terms.

We didn't make these differences up, we had no say in the ways that a monkey and an ape are different.  The terms exist only to describe what differences we find.  

That it has anything to do with not offending people is ridiculous, people are offended anyway...hell, this guy is offended that we -don't- get to call people monkeys.  I guess you just can't make everyone happy?

If you want an easily-grasped, fun way to understand these differences and see a "picture" of human evolution from our shrew-like ancestors, read Evolution by Stephen Baxter. It's sci-fi, but it starts with the story of Purgatorius a proto-primate who watches the fall of the asteroid that kills the dinosaurs, tells the story of various species we've discovered along the way from a first-person perspective, and then projects human evolution into a speculative future about our extinction.

It's just science-fiction, but I found it completely engrossing, and it may help you have a better picture of what scientists are talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

You had me at sci-fi.  I'll give it a look, I need a new book to read.