Originally posted by googlefudge
Fish is not a phylogenetic category. Monkey's are.
Turns out we DID come from monkeys! by AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
Fish is not a phylogenetic category.
I see what you mean by phylogenetic category now. It's called a monophyletic group. Fish is a paraphyletic group. Our distant common ancestor (with modern fishes) would be classified as fish.
Monkey's are.
The current definition of monkey (which I got wrong, by the way - it's all about the nose apparently), excludes hominids* (apes) because of our shoulders (also news to me), so "monkey", like "fish", is a paraphyletic group.
Turns out we DID come from monkeys! by AronRa
While AronRa presents a good argument for why he thinks hominids should be included in the definition of monkey, thus making "monkey" a monophyletic group, he completely ignores why scientists have classified hominids as different from monkeys.
In any case, to say that we come from monkeys is only true if by "we" you mean "hominids" and by "monkeys" you mean "old world monkeys". But I take it that by "we" you're talking about the modern human species (homo sapiens sapiens), and we are several hominid species removed from old world monkeys.
Not that any of this really matters I suppose. I'd be perfectly happy to refer to myself as a monkey. It's just that... I'm not. I'm more monkey than fish, certainly, but I'm neither monkey nor fish; I'm an homonid, like my chimpanzee brothers. 😏
* Sorry, that's hominoidea, which includes hominids. I had no idea our own clades had become so confusing.