Evolution Denialism in Universities

[NewtonTrino]

Hold on, are you people claiming that people are monkeys?

When was the last time a monkey drove car? Monkeys aren't people and people aren't monkeys. Although I bet you could fit a lot of monkeys into a clown car.

 

[drkitten]

Hold on, are you people claiming that people are monkeys?

And NewtonTrino once again demonstrates what happens when you skip reading class too often.

 

[Vortigern99]

Yes, but that's not the same as saying "monkeys did not exist."

Monkey-like animals existed. Monkeys did not.

It would also look like a monkey to a trained eye. Because it was a monkey.

No it wasn't.

But nothing about "monkey" restricts its application to the currently extant species. We have no problem, for example, classifying the various mammoths and mastodons as "pachyderms" despite the fact that a) they don't exist today, and b) they have characteristics that are not found in any living pachyderm.

Fair points, I suppose, but I'm only passing on what I was taught by Prof. David Glassman in pursuit of a minor in anthropology. If there is some academic debate about correct terminology of which I was heretofore unaware, I'll position myself with the "ancient animals such as Aegyptopithecus were monkey-like, not monkeys" crowd, while you clearly side with the "no, they were monkeys" crowd. Science is fun!

 

[drkitten]

Fair points, I suppose, but I'm only passing on what I was taught by Prof. David Glassman in pursuit of a minor in anthropology. If there is some academic debate about correct terminology of which I was heretofore unaware, I'll position myself with the "ancient animals such as Aegyptopithecus were monkey-like, not monkeys" crowd, while you clearly side with the "no, they were monkeys" crowd. Science is fun!

Well, was Aegyptopithecus only "mammal-like," or was it an actual mammal?

 

[Vortigern99]

I see where you're going, but "mammal-ism" contains a much broader set of characteristics than "monkey-ism". Mammals are warm-blooded, fur-bearing, milk-producing, live-birthing cordata. From its fossil remains, we can either see or reasonably conclude that Aegyptopithicus zeuxis had all of these features; ergo it was a mammal.

Yet Aegyptopithicus, as a basal catarrhine that existed prior to the divergence of Old World monkeys and apes, possessed prosimian featues (tiny brain-to-body ratio), monkey features (arboreal leaping and clinging, "anthropoid" quadrupedalism), as well as ape features (robust bones, "large and slow" in terms of mass and speed).

So which was it? Is it accurate to say it was both monkey and ape? If so, what is the purpose of making a denotational distinction between the two terms, monkey and ape? Further, what about the prosimian features? Are we to call it a "prosimonkapey" in order to fairly and factually represent all its diverse and shared characteristics? The purpose of taxonomic classification in grouping like animals with like begins to break down at this point.

Ultimately it is more accurate and more meaningful to say Aegyptopithecus was neither monkey nor ape, and was simply a "monkey-like" or simiiform ancestor to parvorder Catarrhini.

 

[NewtonTrino]

See this is what I'm saying. We couldn't have descended from monkeys because there were no monkeys! Only clowns!

 

[Vortigern99]

Bozopithecus?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Teh Interwebz.

The same societal movement that has caused other groups to believe that it's perfectly okay to make death threats against US senators or to shoot abortionists in the middle of a church service.

A long, long time ago (I can still remember how that music used to make me,... sorry, I drifted off there) you got most of your information from the same sources that your neighbors did. We all read the Daily Bugle and watched Channel 1 News, and if I wanted to know whether Bigfoot had been instrumental in getting the UFOs to fake evidence of the Holocaust, I'd probably ask my neighbor and he would tell me I was bonkers.

If I wanted to know what D&D was like, I had to wait for someone to hand me a copy of Chick's Dark Dungeons tract.

Today I know that my neighbor is part of the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy sheepie because Google told me so, and I can download all the Chick tracts I like in the privacy of my own parents' basement.

I absolutely agree the internet is responsible for rise in modern day woo...from creationism to anti vaccines. People tend to think if something's written down, it's true. So you'll have websites with absolutely no references, no facts, no actual data, and people will treat them as if they're reading a peer reviewed scientific journal.

It also allows people to get together, and encourage eachother's woo, and provide eachother "evidence" to back it up (even when a rational person would say, wait, Kirk Cameron holding a banana is not proof of creationism).

I can't even count the number of times I've seen a woo stating "google *whatever the subject at hand* and you'll find all the evidence you need." They seem to think that the fact that many websites exist which support their viewpoint make it right.

I asked my mom a little while ago how it was possible for the anti vaxx movement to be as big as it is, and she said, "People who spend too much time on the internet who don't know how to put information into context." I thought that summed it up nicely.

 

[Paradox74]

Aren't the Illuminati supposed to be a small group that works in the highest secrecy that are actually mythical conspiracy nut fodder?

Rather the opposite of what's happening with Christianity.

I thought that the Illuminati are a bunch of shapeshifting reptiles who are controlling us inside of a computer simulation with us.

 

[FramerDave]

It's a problem that I don't see going away, either. If people point out that we have to call out denialists' ideas as unscientific and illegitimate, I'm sure there will be cries of religious persecution. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place.

They're trying to have it both ways. They argue that science is amoral (or immoral) and does not have all the answers, yet try to argue their religious viewpoints with science. If an opponent attacks their science, then they get to play the persecution card.

Quite crafty.

 

[fuelair]

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

Or a fool, or an incompetant, or ignorant (by accident or on purpose), or brainwashed, or a liar (for whatever purpose - often political). So many possiblities. Actually, nutcase is the least likely so, perhaps, I should have said "Instead, possibly a fool, or.........". A nutcase would likely be unconcerned with evolution pro or con.

 

[Nursedan]

Er,.... actually, we are descended from monkeys.

If I persuaded Superman to take me back in time and help me bring back a few specimens of the most recent common ancestor between humans and spider monkeys, what do you think those specimens would look like?

If I were to donate those specimens to the National Zoo, where do you think they would be housed?

It's not that we are descended from monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with them. Just like we share a common ancestor with the first forms of life and every other form of life. Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins to better understand this.

The way he explains it, life forms can be imagined on a 'evolutionary ladder', and life forms that we know of today all diverged from the path at a cetain point and developed on their own. I'm paraphrasing of course.

 

[drkitten]

It's not that we are descended from monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with them.

And just what do you think our (most recent) common ancestor with a monkey looked like?

Did it look like a parrot? With feathers and a beak?

Did it look like a whale? With flukes and a blowhole?

Did it look like a turtle? With a shell?

Or did it look like a monkey, with hand-like paws and binocular vision?

Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins to better understand this.

Read it, and I submit I understand it better than you.

 

[Wowbagger]

We are not descended from contemporary monkeys.

We share a common ancestor with today's monkeys, but that ancestor was, technically, neither a human nor a modern monkey. It was an earlier form of primate.

It was probably more monkey-like, than human-like, perhaps. But, technically, I think Nursedan's view is more accurate than drkitten's, in this case.

Monkeys have also undergone evolution, since the population split and diverged from that earlier form.

 

[Roboramma]

We are not descended from contemporary monkeys.

We share a common ancestor with today's monkeys, but that ancestor was, technically, neither a human nor a modern monkey. It was an earlier form of primate.

It was probably more monkey-like, than human-like, perhaps. But, technically, I think Nursedan's view is more accurate than drkitten's, in this case.

Well, considering that it is part of a clade that includes all modern monkeys and no non-monkeys (except apes which, considering all apes are more closely related to old-world monkeys than new-world monkeys, any group that includes all monkeys will necessarily include all apes) I'm happy to call it a monkey.

I can't see any reason to call it something else.

But here's a question for those who don't consider out most recent common ancestor with monkeys to have been a monkey: was our most recent common ancestor with old-world monkeys are monkey?

 

[shadron]

It's not that we are descended from monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with them. Just like we share a common ancestor with the first forms of life and every other form of life. Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins to better understand this.

The way he explains it, life forms can be imagined on a 'evolutionary ladder', and life forms that we know of today all diverged from the path at a cetain point and developed on their own. I'm paraphrasing of course.

It's more a semantics argument than a biological one. The lowest clade in which we (man) and they (old world monkeys) share a common ancester is Catarrhines (which means simple-nosed). One step above that we all merge with the new world monkeys (Platyrrhines, flat-nosed) in the clade Simiformes (monkey-shaped). So, if a basal Simiform or a Catarrhine can be call a monkey, then we shared a monkey for an ancestor, but note that he will be neither an old or new world monkey.

In general, the English equivalent animal words are usually paraphyletic (not all descendants of such have share the name, such as "dinosaur" doesn't usually include birds). "Monkey" is paraphyletic, normally, as it doesn't include man. Biological systematics doesn't strictly allow for this; all clade names must be monophyletic (the name covers all descendants). So, we're all simiformes, and all catarrhines. Does that make us all monkeys? Semantics.

Same goes for being apes, as well. If a basal Hominidae (commonly, a hominid, though the use is debatable) is an ape, then we are all apes. One step further up is the clade Hominoidea, which also include Gibbons; same goes for that clade. All us people are Homo, Hominini (or homonin or hominin), Homininae, Hominidae, Hominoidea (and that is not the same as humanoid), Catarrhinea, Simiformes, Haplorrhini (dry-nosed!), and primates, and about 30 other named clades all the way to Eutheria. Above that it is no longer a tree, but rather a free-for-all of life.

 

[Wowbagger]

Well, considering that it is part of a clade that includes all modern monkeys and no non-monkeys (except apes which, considering all apes are more closely related to old-world monkeys than new-world monkeys, any group that includes all monkeys will necessarily include all apes) I'm happy to call it a monkey.

I can't see any reason to call it something else.

Fine. But, that's just a semantic/taxonomic argument.

When addressing such questions as: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", it is more important to communicate the common ancestry factor, than the "what we call it" factor.

The general concepts of evolution mean more to me, than what the specifics of the terms mean, in general.

But here's a question for those who don't consider out most recent common ancestor with monkeys to have been a monkey: was our most recent common ancestor with old-world monkeys are monkey?

I'll let others fight over taxonomic designations.

 

[tensordyne]

Rings Anyone?

You guys ever hear of ring species? They are a great in-your-face-your-are-wrong to Christian Scientist types (or is that a whole other can of worms...). A ring species is a set of species that are geographically separated to such an extent that at one end members can not mate with those on the other end. A given species can mate with neighboring "species" so that genetic information forms a kind of ring even if the mating pattern does not.

I read about it in one of Dawkins' books. It is a wonderful example of evolution because it is the analog of evolution in time, this time over space. Remember also that the platform of old school Christian religion is that God created all species once and they should never change. The species are supposed to be of a specific kind and immutable. Ring species fly right in the face of this idea.

 

[Roboramma]

Fine. But, that's just a semantic/taxonomic argument.

When addressing such questions as: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", it is more important to communicate the common ancestry factor, than the "what we call it" factor.

The general concepts of evolution mean more to me, than what the specifics of the terms mean, in general.

I find the general concepts more interesting and meaningful as well, but I also consider it to be very misleading to reply "we didn't descend from monkeys" and leave it at that.

Because the people that you're talking to very likely would consider our most recent common ancestor with monkeys to have been a monkey if they saw it, and they have reasonable justification for doing so.

To point out the error of the argument doesn't require saying "it wasn't a monkey". It's not only easy to show that the argument is false, but also in doing so to illuminate some of those "general concepts of evolution".

Moreover, it's certainly possible for a modern organism to be descended from an animal that was virtually identical to another, now still existent, modern organism, without contradicting anything about evolutionary theory. That fact that it doesn't usually work that way is interesting, but not particularly important in regards to why the "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" question.

I'll let others fight over taxonomic designations.

Okay, fair enough.

PS to Shadron, nice post, I think you said everything that needed to be said on this issue.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Remember also that the platform of old school Christian religion is that God created all species once and they should never change. The species are supposed to be of a specific kind and immutable. Ring species fly right in the face of this idea.

Most Creationism proponents acknowledge that natural selection today causes variations in "kinds", so the existence of these variations doesn't bother them at all.