Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this was the case one would have to then ask, why did other primates not do the same? Hair/fur coats on animals help protect them from the sun, it's an advantage.
Humans still have body hair, some more than others. Having said that, primates also vary in amount and size of hair they have. Those that don't, have evolved other ways for protection. Take people for example, those in the tropics are darker skinned than those near the poles. How did that come about?
Your first mistake is making the assumption that humans evolved FROM monkeys when the reality is that they likely evolved WITH monkeys. { don;t worry though, I dont blame you. Its a common lie spread from the pulpit in order to distort the truth. }
Secondly, your theory about being ashamed of nakedness falls apart on the fact that there are plenty of nudist colonies with people who aren't ashamed to be naked at all.
{ Sorry if this was already adressed, I only read the first page of the thread }
This is because in modern usage "monkey" is a biologically meaningless term -- it simply means "all members of the infraorder Simiiformes, excluding the great apes". It's as silly as a definition of "canine" that excludes all Golden Retreivers, or all wolves.
Going back, though, if we accept that:
*all modern monkeys had a common ancestor
*this common ancestor was a monkey (in the same way that all modern birds, for example, are descended from a single species that is by cladistic definition called a bird)
Then it follows that because humans (ie, Homo sapiens) ultimately descended from that same common ancestor of all monkeys, an ancestor which we recognize was a monkey, that humans are descended from monkeys.
Ultimately, the problem is that the silly definition of "monkey" was redefined to exlude humans simply because some people were uncomfortable with the idea that humans would be so classified. We should not accept the culturally-driven re-definition of biological concepts which render such concepts scientifically nonsensical.
I don't think it follows that monkeys ultimately had an ancestor what was also a monkey. The reason is that new world monkeys are related to Catarrhines, which include old world monkeys and Hominidae, which includes humans and apes. What that means is that all monkeys and apes have a common ancestor, and must have had traits in common with all of the above. If it were alive today, I doubt if it would be classified as a monkey.
Humans still have body hair, some more than others. Having said that, primates also vary in amount and size of hair they have. Those that don't, have evolved other ways for protection. Take people for example, those in the tropics are darker skinned than those near the poles. How did that come about?
Well, I can speculate but thats all.
Those that migrated didn't need as much melatonin so the levels eventually decreased.
I am old but not so old that I lived through all the years these changes were occuring.
Well, I can speculate but thats all.
Those that migrated didn't need as much melatonin so the levels eventually decreased.
I am old but not so old that I lived through all the years these changes were occuring.
At least you're on the right track. Now, why would hair continue to exist if it finds no use? Bald people, and those with Brazilian wax job, excluded.
I don't think it follows that monkeys ultimately had an ancestor what was also a monkey. The reason is that new world monkeys are related to Catarrhines, which include old world monkeys and Hominidae, which includes humans and apes. What that means is that all monkeys and apes have a common ancestor, and must have had traits in common with all of the above. If it were alive today, I doubt if it would be classified as a monkey.
It doesn't -- if "monkey" has no biological meaning. But if "monkeys" represents a monophyletic clade (ie, the infraorder Simiiformes) then every member of that infraorder, extant and extinct, including the founding species, is a "monkey".
This holds true for all clades -- small (apes, superfamily Hominoidea), medium (bird, class Aves) and large (animals, kingdom Animalia).
The problem, as can be visualized on the chart in your post, is that the New World Monkeys branched off from our lineage before Old World Monkeys. If either of these groups -- one, but not both -- were called "monkeys" then that name would be biologically meaningful. Alternately, if the apes branched off first, then there would simply be one large group of monkeys, subdivided but not excluding any subsequent species (as opposed to the way apes are now excluded from "monkeys" despite clearly being in the clade Simiiformes). This group would then not be in our ancestral lineage, but a successor to one of our ancestors.
So "monkeys" is a paraphyletic grouping. These are not unknown -- excluding birds from "reptiles" is one example, and excluding mammals (among other clades) from "fish" (and "reptiles", too) is another. But such groupings are constructs usually meant to underscore some profound difference (such as warm-bloodedness, in the case of mammals from fish and birds from reptiles, or breathing air in the case of mammals from fish). It's hard to see any profound biological difference between what is commonly called a monkey and, for example, a gibbon (an ape), that necessitates such a paraphyletic grouping.
It's an interesting digression -- but my ultimate problem lies not with honest disagreements in biological terminology but those who insist on things like "we just can't be descended from monkeys, I won't believe that!", "I'm not an ape!" and "humans are most certainly not mere animals!". Such people aren't interested in science but rather are interested in manipulating it to fit their weird agendas based on ancient writings that have nothing to do with modern scientific knowledge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
