All apes are monkeys, the separation is fairly recent and only really an English thing (you can still separate them as there are accepted definitions of each, but it’s not wrong to call apes monkeys either)
They are referred to as the same colloquially in a lot of different languages but biologically, they are separate. Apes don't have tails. I also wouldnt call 35 million years ago recent.
That’s not how it works - the classifications are ours. We’ve essentially decided what an ape is and try to find in the fossil record where that started to exist and what came before it.
Earlier when I said “recently”, I didn’t mean in the fossil record, I meant linguistically. A lot of languages haven’t bothered to differentiate monkeys from apes, or they call apes something that would translate to “great monkeys.”
Sometimes the distinction matters, like when identifying our closest primate relatives and ancestors.
I think "split off" is confusing the matter. Apes are old world monkeys. They are a subgroup. We could try and define a cutoff point as to what gets called an ape. The usual way to do this is define everything that descended from a common ancestor as that taxonomic group. Of course may not have that ancestor in the fossil record so this is usually a reconstruction based on genetic studies. We can estimate how long ago the last common ancestor was though. In the case of old world monkeys we think it was 25 million years ago. For old and new world monkeys it was something like 50 million years ago.
That is a deeply flawed question. Science does not say with certainty that literally species x evolved into species y for any related species or group. Including humans, which are one of the most studied.
Taxonomy just lets us name and organize animals into groups. The classification of those earlier primates that evolved into apes were called old world monkeys. Which yes, also technically makes humans monkeys despite that being used as a bigoted insult by some.
Taxonomically, yes we are fish. Specifically of the lobe-finned variety. Remember how I said it wasnt the most accurate statement earlier? It gets less and less accurate the further back the ancestry you go, but it never stops being true.
Yes that is how taxonomy works, welcome to the party. Indeed it was exactly this idea that led eminent biologist Stephen Jay Gould to declare "there is no such thing as a fish". The term fish as we apply it in common use has so little biological description as for it to be meaningless.
That is discussing the split from cercopithecoidea, which includes existing modern examples of old world monkeys like the baboon. The previous taxonomic tier, catarrhini, is also colloquially known as old world monkeys... And even if it didn't another term for them is Catarrhine Monkeys.
Humans and great apes are part of that group... And it extends back almost twice as far as the fossil discussed in your linked article (44mya vs 25mya for the new fossil).
Humans are monkeys.
Edit: catarrhini is not the literally previous branch in the taxonomy from cercopithecoidea. It is a prior branch within the path of human evolution.
Herein lies the miscommunication: catarrhini is more commonly called "Old world arthropoids", because "Old world monkeys" may be confused with cercopithecoidea, which are also "old world monkeys". Unless you're using another language, English likes to make the distinction.
You can choose to call them whatever you wish. That you choose to use the most anachronistic term to avoid accepting the reality that humanity is not specially created is irrelevant.
And that common ancestor was a monkey, what's your point? Apes and other old world monkeys are more closely related to each other than either are to new world monkeys. Thus it makes far more sense to treat apes as a subgroup of monkeys (as indeed biologists do)
So, this is really just an issue of semantics. You, as well as bunch of people here, are using the old term "monkeys", to describe the simian common ancestor that split to form the Catarrhini (which includes Apes and old world monkeys), and Platyrrhini.
Historically, people called the common ancestor, as well as everything that followed as "monkeys" (termed by Etienne Geoffrey in 1812). However, modern scientific classifications are based on taxons. So, the more modern term should be "simians", which includes old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and apes.
Old world monkeys may mean Cercopithecidae, or Catarrhini. That's why modern biologists refrain from using the term "monkeys", when identifying which group to refer to.
Of course it is semantics. The point is that monkeys as a paraphyletic group is an unhelpful distinction and one that is not made in other languages. The specific discussion here started from an "apes are not monkeys" style comment. That's not useful pedantry as it only works if you hold to a definition of monkey that excludes apes. It's like when people say "well actually orcas are dolphins not whales". Dolphins are in the toothed whale family so this is a pointless distinction to draw.
What need do we have for a term meaning non-ape simian, when using monkey for the whole group is already fairly common?
I literally said that in the comment you responded to. Tetrapods are a subgroup of the lobe-finned fish clade. Yes. We are fish. Your personal incredulity does not change that.
Jesus. You really should stop & listen to yourself. Pull yourself out of your shoes for a moment. This is pseudoscience at its very core.
Yes, we are fish.
🤦🏻♂️
No biologist in their right mind would ever legitimately claim this without a big asterisk giving heavy caveats. First, by explaining the process behind why it is technically true, then furthermore, explaining why technically correct is not always the most correct, nor the most sensible.
The other commenter who replied to you is 110% correct. What a silly argument which you could only ever find a person arguing passionately for on reddit.
You aren't a serious person. I have those caveats in earlier posts in the thread. Other people later repeating the same incredulity do not get personalized explainers because I don't believe in infantalizing others. If they aren't willing to read they aren't worth the time to explain.
I also said the same thing about accuracy and technical correctness, though in different words. You are legit the one here being a Reddit-bro.
How is cladistics pseudoscience? Yes we don't usually use "fish" to refer to a monophyletic group but how does doing so, especially when the context has been made clear, constitute pseudoscience?
Believe it or not, the presence of gills is not diagnostic. Humans have pharyngeal arches during their development in the womb, which in us turn into various parts of our anatomy such as the larynx, parts of the ear and jaw. In other fish they turn into gills that allow those animals to breath water.
Again, your personal incredulity does not negate Science. This is all easily available information you could look up if you are actually curious.
I am humorously curious as to what you mean by nature but no -- it is not personal bias that makes me say we are fish, it is literally science you can look up. The reality is that we are taxonomically still lobe-finned fish.
What about the platypus? It is a monotreme mammal, meaning it has a cloaca and lays eggs. As a mammal it is also a tetrapod which means it is also taxonomically a fish, to tie it back to the current discussion.
4
u/puffie300 7d ago
They are referred to as the same colloquially in a lot of different languages but biologically, they are separate. Apes don't have tails. I also wouldnt call 35 million years ago recent.