Timeline for Humans are Apes are Primates. But will they remain so?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2022 at 8:03 | vote | accept | Marian Aldenhövel | ||
| Jul 23, 2022 at 0:04 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 27, 2022 at 3:02 | |||||
| Jul 12, 2022 at 20:10 | answer | added | Darlingtonia | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 8, 2021 at 12:07 | comment | added | S Pr | @jamesqf Oops I'm sorry, well spotted. Here's a small amendment to my second comment for OP to understand more clearly: I meant that if "apes" is to be used as a monophyletic designation, then all future descendants from any ape will be apes. One day we may of course designate "ape" as a paraphyletic group. Fish are a great example of a paraphyletic group. What I want to confer/re-state is that it doesn't matter what word you use, you have to understand that the word has to be defined with an explicit category in mind. One must know the categories. That is the crux of the answer IMO :) | |
| Dec 8, 2021 at 7:23 | comment | added | bob1 | @jamesqf - yes I am. But your example isn't RAA in my opinion because land animals are part of the group descended from fishes, though the conclusion may seem absurd becuase most people (myself included) think of fish as scaly, water etc. | |
| Dec 8, 2021 at 4:21 | comment | added | jamesqf | @bob1: Are you familiar with the logical principle of reductio ad absurdum? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum | |
| Dec 8, 2021 at 0:47 | comment | added | bob1 | Traits that are lost and then redeveloped are called atavisms and can be gained and lost several times in a evolutionary history. I suspect you need to learn about parsimony and why it's not necessarily the true course of evolution. | |
| Dec 7, 2021 at 20:29 | comment | added | bob1 | @jamesqf Yes, as is currently thought. Under our current system Cyclostomata would be the common ancestor I think. These would be the bony jawless fishes, similar to lamprey now. | |
| Dec 7, 2021 at 18:06 | comment | added | jamesqf | @S Pr: Though that definition runs into the obvious problem that it makes all land vertebrates into fish. Any descendant of any fish will always be a fish since they are part of "fish" monophyly, no? | |
| Dec 7, 2021 at 11:16 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 23, 2021 at 3:04 | |||||
| Dec 7, 2021 at 10:08 | comment | added | S Pr | I'll give you a rudimentary example to explain. Let's say we make a term called 'multi-hearters' and we use it to group animals with more than one heart. This term would be polyphyletic. You'd group squids and roundworms with this approach, though they are not closely related in phylogeny. Whichever way you choose to use the terms ape, primate, simian or human, you have to be clear about what you mean. If "ape" is to be used monophyletically, then any descendants of humans will be apes, by definition. Any descendant of any ape will always be an ape since they are part of "ape" monophyly. | |
| Dec 7, 2021 at 9:57 | comment | added | S Pr | Very simple question that is at the root of systematics/phylogenetics. I think I offer a complete answer: when considering whether a species is considered part of something, it is very crucial to understand (and dependent on) whether the term that uses to group things ("Primates" "apes" "animals", "eukaryotes", etc.) is mono-, para- or polyphyletic. See here. | |
| S Dec 7, 2021 at 9:17 | review | First questions | |||
| Dec 7, 2021 at 12:08 | |||||
| S Dec 7, 2021 at 9:17 | history | asked | Marian Aldenhövel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |