So how do domesticated chimps behave in the wild with wild chimps? Who killed who? that's how the Neanderthal went extinct.
If you 'd have done a Skinner operant and teach the chimps on how to analyze and create tools! What if human go into extinction tomorrow? Who 'd take our place? bees?
I did make the error of not being clear in calling all catarrhini old world monkeys, it is sometimes called that and other times not. Old world monkeys and apes are both separate from new world monkeys. All catarrhini are old world monkeys but its common to for biologist to separate the groups and call the cercopithecidae old world monkeys. But hominidae and cercopithecidae share a common ancestor that was itself a old world monkey. So I see the confusion.
Apes are not Old World monkeys. Old World monkeys are in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea and apes are in the superfamily Hominoidea. Both Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea belong in the parvorder Catarrhini, but that is where the relation ends. Of course, the superfamily Hominoidea contains the families Hylobatidae (gibbons and siamangs, the lesser apes) and Hominidae (great apes and humans).
@tcalvin1 When I was saying old world monkeys I was speaking of Catarrhini, which broke off from new world monkeys and then sub divided further in hominidae. But the general point I was making was that because what people tend to call monkeys are in both new world and old world branches then the basal form would have to been a monkey. Even in the catarrhini family the basal from to great apes and Cercopithecidae would have been a monkey, then we are by definition we are monkeys.
@TemplarX2 What do you mean apes are not monkeys? Are humans worms? if not then we also aren't Eukaryotes, not to mention mammals( which seems to be obvious).
If your father's last name is Monkey and you change your last name into Ape, doses that change the fact that your father is a monkey and therefore so are you.
Why can't you call snake lizards, snake's ancestors are lizards?
Why are people so ignorant about this subject. Look up two things before anyone else responds to me. First is the cladogram that contains humans and our ancestors, then watch a video on youtube called "turns out we did come from monkeys after all" Please do those two things before someone else makes a stupid comment to me.
What do old world monkeys have to do with apes? If you're suggesting we branched out of Old World Monkeys, then not only are you wrong. But you're just silly.. Think about this. If Old World Monkeys ONLY fall under the classifcation of the superfamily: Cercopithecoidea... Then how can we be related??
@Erectoralporicy all apes are old world monkeys, you dont understand basic classification do you? Apes are a subset of old world monkeys. I cannot help you are stupid.
@thesparitan So what if he doesn't undertand "basic classification". You are rude. If he doesn't understand, that's called being ignorant not stupid. In addition to being rude it's you who are, at the very least, being ignorant AND you may very well be stupid as well because you are wrong. Chimpanzees are classsified as New world. Old world monkeys have a prehensile tail and chimpanzees don't have tails. Get your facts straight and don't be rude. Oh, and learn to construct a sentence.
@changing3 Dude he is the one that told me to fuck off and he responded to me first. Read the very first comment and then you can talk. And you are completely wrong as well, old world monkeys are all monkeys that live in asia and africa, including us humans are a old world monkey. Again you call me ignorant and you dont know what you are talking about. Not all old world monkeys have tails, of course all large primates dont but we still come from monkeys, just like we come from mammals.
@changing3 Oh and the BTW you are far more stupid then erectoralporicy because even he knows that chimps are classified as old world monkeys, a type of primate themselves. Primate is the scientific term for monkey, but they mean the same thing. I don't know how you can be so confused but you know even less then the other guy. Why are people so ignorant of biology
Yes. A human is an animal. A human is also a Primate. A human is also a Simian, but it is NOT a type of monkey, it a type of APE - which is a type of Simian.
@Erectoralporicy all mammals have a common ancestor that was itself a mammal. that is why we are mammals. all apes have a common ancestor which is a monkey, therefore are all all monkeys. If look any biology text book, talk to any biologist, or just look up and source of up to date science on the subject you will see that classify humans as monkeys. This is because we came from a monkey and never stop being a monkey just like we all came from a mammal, the first mammal and never stop being
@thesparitan He is right, you, cockface. Apes are not old world monkeys; they are hominodae (family) while old monkeys are a different family but they fall in the same order. Now STFU and go in the corner for being so thick and mouthy!
@Erectoralporicy What family are primates in? and do you know how biologist classify? they are call old world monkeys, get it monkeys. I think you cannot admit that your original comment to me was wrong and filled with irony. You keep using different words thinking this will get you out of the hole you are in but it wont. were do simians come from? you already proved me right, unless you believe apes did are not descended from monkeys, well do you think that?
Okay, well - if thats the case. Link me. If you have reputable source then show it. And then I will admit that I am wrong and you were right and blahblahblah.
@Erectoralporicy Yeah I know I was right, its pretty clear. And as for the source you need to find out if what I say is true, true any scientific article on old and new world monkeys common ancestor. If that common ancestor was considered a monkey, then we are monkeys by definition. We are simians, which are a type of primate which is a type of monkey, therefore we are a type of monkey just like we are an animal. I am glad you admitted you were wrong, good work, now we can move on.
I didn't say I admit to being wrong. I said if you can supply an article where the context is that we are IN FACT a type of monkey, then I will admit I am wrong. But you haven't - all you've said is that if the common ancestor is a monkey then we are a type of monkey. But no.. No, my friend. that is not how it works. If that was how it works then we wouldn't be monkeys, because not even monkeys would be monkeys - you would, by your own reasoning HAVE to classify all life forms -
as an evolved bacteria, and maybe you do look at it that way. But if thats the case. Don't call Apes an evolved Monkey, call them an evolved Bacteria. Because that is the definitive source - its not like monkeys just randomly appeared one day.
@Erectoralporicy You do not know what you are talking about, but you think you do and that is what is so annoying about this conversation. Stop working of off linnaean classification. We are called old world monkeys ok, it doesn't get much more simple then that. Our common ancestor was a monkey, we are monkeys. Just like our common ancestor was a mammal, we are mammals. You are a moron that is clear.
@Erectoralporicy BTW monkey isnt even a scientific term, but if you consider a Emperor Tamarin a monkey, then we are monkeys. If you believe a Vervet Monkey to be a monkey then you also believe humans are monkeys. If by monkey you mean every old world monkey then humans, then we are not monkeys by that silly definition. But if you call any of my examples monkeys, then we are too monkeys. So I was right.
Now go learn some biology before you criticize me.
More food for though for user named erectoralporicy
The Old World monkeys or Cercopithecidae are the family that contains humans, and the other primates as well. New world and old world monkeys share a common ancestor, and the new world monkeys are actually older then old world monkeys. This means that humans are in fact a type of monkey, just like we are also a type of mammal. I wish people would inform themselves before trying to challenge a position.
I fail to see the signifigance in any of that. There is a reason they are referred to as apes as a opposed to monkeys. Old-World monkeys are completely irrelevent. By your classification standards you may as well have said that all living beings are technically bacteria.
@Erectoralporicy Its called biology, and we are also eukaryote. aronra has a great youtube video on this subject called "turns out we did come from monkeys". You need to study this more before you try to talk to me about it. You dont seem to understand what I am even talking about. If humans ancestors were ever monkeys then we are still monkeys, just a different type. We are apes and monkeys, I do now how to make that any more clear.
@Erectoralporicy WE ARE A TYPE OF MONKEY, JUST LIKE WE ARE A TYPE OF ANIMAL. fucking idiot. animal, mammal, monkey, ape, human we are all the above. Can I make it any more simple for you, you thick headed retard, wtf. You keep on saying that I am claiming that all monkeys and apes are the same, of course I am not.
That's not my problem with what you said. My problem is you're making a stupid fucking generalization that holds no water - and since you're being such a little priss about how invalid your statement is I will choose to supply you more facts. FACT the scientific definition of a Monkey is ANY Old-World and New-World primate except for Prosimians and Apes. So having that, WE ARE NOT A TYPE OF MONKEY? How can you seriously not understand the consequence of Evolution
monkey and ape aren't formal categories. Check your dictionary:
"1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes"
That's *especially* and not *exclusively*. Apes are catarrhine primates, more related to the so called old world monkeys than to the so called new world monkeys (platyrrhines).
monkeys have tails, new and old world species, apes do not. Baboons are monkeys, colobus are monkeys. Pongids, Bonobo, Pan, Gorilla, Orangutan, are great apes, Gibbon, lesser apes ..... all without tails.
@perfectbark Wrong. The Barbary Macaque is a Simian, not an ape, and has no tail. You can find criteria to separate any species of animal from all others, and it will still be an artificial grouping... like grouping dogs and chimps as "animals" apart from humans, even though a chimp is much closer to a human than to a dog. Same goes with grouping non ape catarhynes with their distant platyrhine cousins.
Many people call all primates monkeys, when in fact apes and monkeys are two kinds of animals under the classification of primate. They may look similar, but when you start to learn more about them, it becomes apparent there are many differences between monkeys and apes. Which animals are monkeys, and which are apes?
There are many many differences between monkeys and apes. But let's list some basics to remember right now. . There are only a small number of types of apes, while there are over a hundred types of monkeys. This article will focus more on apes: 1. Apes are usually larger and heavier than monkeys. 2. Apes have no tail. 3. Apes have a more upright body posture than monkeys, and are often able to walk on 2 legs.
4. Apes have a broad chest. 5. Apes rely on vision rather than smell, and thus have shorter noses than some monkeys.
6. Apes have a large brain to body size ratio compared with other animals. 7. Apes only live in Africa and Asia (monkeys also live in South America).
@perfectbark Your logic is like grouping house cats with dogs as "pets" against lions and tigers as "beasts" because lions and tigers are bigger than dogs and cats. Or monkeys and dogs against humans and chicken because the former walk on all fours an the later are bipedal.
Apes and old world monkeys share the same grouping, catarrhini, apart from new world monkeys, which are platyrrhini. But don't believe me, go check the Britannica.
I've had graduate courses in mammology and vertebrate zoology that have always taught that monkeys and apes are distinct taxa. And, I will continue to teach it this way myself. Macaques, particularly the barbary, have a tail, albeit a a "stub." Perhaps they are an intermediary form.
@perfectbark "hat have always taught that monkeys and apes are distinct taxa"
Go get your money back than, because there is no such a thing as a monkey taxa. I bet they also taught you reptiles are a distinct taxa from mammals and birds, didn't they?
@Eikinkloster Instead of trying to interpret dictionary semantics, you should refer to biology. A Chimp is not a Monkey, because it is an Ape. That is how it breaks down. However, all Chimps and all Monkeys and all Prosimians are Primates. We are closer to the Monkey family, as Apes, than we are to Rodents or other Mammal families, but Apes are neither New World nor Old World, Monkeys. We are further broken down as Simian, which includes Old/New World Monkeys and Apes, but not Prosimians.
@NodrogTrax monkey is not a strictly biological term. In Biology, the Infraorder Simiiformes is actually broken down in only two groups, the Parvorders Catarrhini and Platyrrhini... Catarrhini is divided in the superfamilies Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea. So, in biology we won't have much space to argue. The argument is around how to map the popular terms "monkey" and "ape" into those technical terms. I say monkey = simiiformes and ape = hominoidea, thus making apes a kind of monkey.
@NodrogTrax and furthermore, I say Old World Monkey = Catarrhini, thus making the apes one of them. The popular use of "monkey" is paraphiletic, since it includes all the Platyrrhini, but only one group of Catarrhini, the Cercopithecoidea. Excluding the apes from the monkeys makes as much sense as excluding us from the apes, considering chimps are closer to us than to gorillas.
@72Roo67 ugh! you sound so uneducated stating that chimps are monkeys and not apes. every single person on this planet with a minimal level of education will know that chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans are the great apes, not monkeys!
@3BDRR7MAN Well you are a monkey too, unless you dont believe me and in that case you dont believe in evolution or biology or science for that matter, in that case you are a mentally challenge lower primate. I would rather be related to a monkey then to a man that disrespects science as you do.
Fuck you good sir, pretending like you have any sense on the subject matter. Humans aren't monkeys, we are Hominids - and yes, the difference is rather large.
@Erectoralporicy Go take a look at humans evolutionary cladogram, you really dont have any idea what you are talking about. What you said was very stupid, let me show you why. All humans are apes, all apes are monkeys all monkeys are mammals. We are mammals, monkeys and apes at the same time. Its like you are saying that san francisco and California are different places. Look it up and get informed before you criticize someone that knows more then you.
@thesparitan No we are not a subgroup of monkeys you stupid fuck. apes and old world monkeys both have a common ancestor that falls in the order of the catarrhines. You nigger must be high on crack to spew that shit on the net and persists at being wrong. Go kill yourself.
not true brother, the distinction is supermassive. So massive that, in fact, there is a species (Gibbons) of primates that are a sort of buffer between what is monkey and what is ape. Monkeys and Apes aren't even in the same family of species as a whole.
@Erectoralporicy Apes come from monkeys. Not today's monkeys, of course, but ancient monkeys like the Aegyptopithecus, which is still a monkey. So technically apes are monkeys :)
@Tazy50 Well said, the stupidity of erectoralporicy is EPIC!!! I cannot believe he had the nerve to claim I didnt know what I was talking about lol. Ignorance like this always surprises me
Think about it. If apes are 'technically just evolved monkeys' then what are monkeys if not over evolved... Well, I don't know just what beast a monkey sprouted from. Nonetheless, thats hardly a statement that can be defended. Its a simple, not well thought out, generalization. And your statement about the evolution of homosapiens sounds as though you assume the progression was linear.. Most archaelogists and historians are of the opinion that this progresssion was rather ---
@Erectoralporicy WTF, go look at a biology text book damn it man I cannot seem to get it in your head. Look what you just said is a strawman of my position and you are making statements about my beliefs in evolution I have never made. oh and BTW You are using a fallacy of equivocation. You are mistaking the common use of the word monkey from the scientific word monkey. You are a fucking moron mate, that seems to be clear to me now
chaotic. And if you really want to get into the complexities of it, it all began when apes in Central Africa moved out of the forests and into the Savanna-type land in the East, where they gradually moved towards the Nile and farther South. During this time these Apes developed fully opposable thumbs and became Bi-Pedal out requirement for the new environments. Eventually becoming Austrapelathicus(sp?), and these Hominids there on branched off into other species ---
@Erectoralporicy FUCK YOU ARE STUPID. Everything you just said while true has no bearing in this discussion, we are talking about the ancestors of the ape, which are monkeys, therefore we are monkeys. We are mammals and we are animals as well. If you are troll you better tell me now, because I hate to waste my time like this on someone that is just screwing with me. I dont believe someone can be this thick.
such as Habilis, Neanderthalis, and Erectus. From there... It all gets fuzzy, all we believe to know for certain is that Neanderthalis was not involved in our progression. Habilis, Erectus, and what was left by this point of the Austras' must have cross-bred numerous times, and so on until Sapiens had arrived around 180 000 yrs ago. Why did I choose to go through this? Simply so you'd gather that I just so happen to know, at least a little bit about how homosapiens --
@Erectoralporicy I guess you are going to keep position without reading my objections, you keep rambling on with this crap that has no point. You are only proving that humans come from apes, now tell me were apes come from, monkeys, ergo we are fucking monkeys mate. We are a type of old world monkey, get it MONKEY. wikipedia this please, before you make another asinine post.
came to be. As far as science is concerned monkeys and apes are, while sharing common ancestors, completely different. Don't get so caught up on 'technicalities', because when push comes to shove it's just a useless little sidenote that holds no merit. Lizards aren't 'technically' snakes, and apes aren't 'technically' monkeys. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but your argument is completely biased, and utterly shames itself. Generalizations ignore ---
@Erectoralporicy They are different, no one is arguing in that. But they are also similar and share a common ancestor. You are just to much of an douche to admit you were wrong. You do not know as much as I do and dont even seem to understand the basis concept in the first place. No one is saying apes and all monkeys are the same, we are saying that all apes are monkeys. Its like asking the distance between california and LA.
huge differences in favour of small similarites. Are Abrahamic religions the same because they're all Abrahamic? Or would you agree that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam hold some extreme differences in their beliefs? Sure, they all stem from the same background - but that doesn't mean that they're the same.
The changes, in anything, that occur during a proggression is what defines and justifies the difference. That is why an ape, while still being a simian ---
No.. It's not. Abrahamic Religions did not start with Judaism. Abrahamic Religions stem from the Nilo-Saharan cultural sect of the four founding dialects/cultural groups of African Civilization.
@Erectoralporicy so Judaism is a type of "Nilo-Sharan cultural sect"... and Christianity will still be a type of Judaism (and also of Nilo Saharan cultural sect). And Islam will be a type of Christianity, Judaism, and Nilo Saharan cultural sect.
Islam is not a type of Christianity.. It came after Christianity, yes - but no, it is not an offshoot of Christianity. Regardless - the line of thinking you have on the subject is silly, which is my point: To say an ape is a monkey is an oversimplification which is not necessary ---
--- in the greater schemes of things it is counter-productive. If looking at things in that way were correct: Humans would not be humans - they would be organic chemicals that merely react in a certain way. Technically that is very true, we are just organic chemicals, yet at the same time - we are so much more that merits recognition of a difference. This is the basis of my point of argument. I should also mention Apes are known to have theory of mind, monkeys do not.
@Erectoralporicy "Humans would not be humans - they would be organic chemicals "
You are still failing to think in terms of sets and subsets. Humans *are* a type of "organic chemicals reacting in a certain way". Not just any type: a very specific type, called "human".
I should also mention NO. Judaism is not an offshoot of a Nilo-Saharan cultural sect. Nilo-Saharan class was thousands of years before Judaism, so obviously other factors were involved in the creations of Judaism. All that is known is All Abrahamic Religions can be traced back to the Nilo-Saharan Cultural Groups' way of thinking.
@Erectoralporicy Judaism is actually an ofshoot of Sumerian culture.
Really, now I understand what you don't understand :-) The key word for you is "subset", and it is very basic math, so you might check here: v=aqsIWLqlDhE
What kind of number is 8? Is it a real number? a rational number? an integer? or something a lot more specific, a natural number? Check it out at the Khan Academy :-)
... I am very well versed in classics.. Mesopatamia is irrelevent. Which in fact could also be traced back to the Nilo-Saharan sect. You simply don't understand the difference between simplification and oversimplification. Same with the other lad who stated apes are monkeys.
Not to mention Sumerian/Mesopatamian culture is actually moreso a precursor to Classical Era mythology than it is to Abrahamic Religion. Take the Epic of Gilgamesh if you will. Which is a perfect example of a Precursor to Heracles.
@Erectoralporicy Now I know you are actually trolling me :-) Gilgamesh IS the source for the story of Noah. Noah is there with the name Utnapishtim. Gilgamesh, on it's turn, draws from Atra-Hasis.
Anyhow, you still need to study set theory. The basics.
Noah..? Have you ever even read the Epic of Gilgamesh? Let me give you a brief synopsis: Gilgamesh is a king among men wrought from the gods. The people get angry and wish the gods to wrought one who can challenge Gilgamesh and put him in his place. The gods in turn wrought Enkidu to challenge him. They eventually become brothers and travel the world for adventure. Enkidu is killed by the great bull and his mortality causes Gilgamesh to seek immortality ---
@Erectoralporicy yeah, go on... you covered tablets 1 to 8 of a total of 12... we're in tablet 9 now, Gilgamesh is seeking immortality. How does he do that for the next 3 tablets?
Well actually he doesn't do shit for the next three tablets other than roam around looking for answers.. One he finds from a man who supposedly lived eternally after he was told to build a boat as a warning for the coming flood. Of which his family, he, his animals, and the people who built it survived. However it's most likely a metaphor of how you cannot live eternally without leaving everything else behind. seeing as how Gilgamesh was challenged to do the same and failed...
@Erectoralporicy Great. There you have your Noah: Utnapishtim. But he didn't just survive. He became immortal: 'Previously Utanapishtim was a human being. But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods! Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.'
The full text is available for anyone on the ancienttexts site , so drop the Wikipedia meep meep meep already.
Just to humour your claim that what i state is quote from Wikipedia. Why don't you go take a look at Wikipedia and what it has to say about Gilgamesh.. You will notice, as I have, nothing is mentioned about Heracles. So how could i be quoting Wikipedia when it isn't even on there? I don't need the full text, I own a physical copy of Gilgamesh - as most who have studied Classics do. The point you are missing is that the story of the flood in Gilgamesh is nominal ---
--- it has little to do with the main point of the story, and is moreso a tale told to Gilgamesh as method in which to explain to him why he will never be immortal. Such as many cultures throughout the world have proverbs and folk tales to explain reality. I've never contested that there are similarities between Noah and Gilgamesh. However, there are way more similarities to the myth of Heracles - and Utnapishtim was never established to have, in fact, survived a flood. He ---
--- merely says it to be true. In that way you can consider the flood story to be a metaphor (like I do) or a legitimate happening (as you do). I'm finished with you though, you have an opinion, it isn't as well thought out as mine - but it's still yours and you'll have time to reevaluate what you think. You also sound too much like the Spartiat for me to have this conversation. I think you are the same person. Go to university some time, you're smart enough to bullshit.
--- the whole epic covers the basics of Heracles's 12 labours, and his relationship with the gods. This is well supported with intensive studies between the classical era and ancient summerian text. Now instead of quoting Wikipedia, why don't you back yourself up with some legitimate argument (which I might add is completely irrelevent to our actual conversation - way to try and redirect the topic).
@Erectoralporicy I agree, you completely went away from the topic when you started the "abrahamic religions" thread. But there is nothing really left in the topic to be discussed. I'm using the word monkey to refer to the infraorder Simiiformes. You are using monkey to refer to Cercopithecidae and Platyrrhini because that's the popular use of the word. Monkey isn't a scientific term. It's popular. It is ambiguous. It can be used both ways, and *is* used in both ways. End of the story.
And that's not the point was getting at at all. He was arguing that apes are monkeys and that therefore we are a type of monkey. My use of Abrahamic Religions was merely to outline how extreme difference qualifies as accepting a difference.
@Erectoralporicy and he is right. popular perception will see the three abrahmic religions as completely distinct classes... when they are actually a sequence in which the former is a variant of the previous. This is particularly true for Judaism and Christianity (Christianity being originally a sect of Jews)
If you will make such accusations at least do not switch the order of the words. You meant incumbent behavior right? Moreover, Obama dim-witted? We had Bush who could not even say nuclear correct and constantly made embarrassing mistakes and you choose to call a man who graduated from Harvard law school not by having daddy pull strings, but through effort? Let's not forget we were attacked 1 year into Bush's term, made an erroneous invasion, crashed the economy all under the watchful eye of reps
Pons....Honey....I don't believe that you have anything herein to say that applies to my comment. Take a xanax, and please leave decent folk be. You are all in a 'snit' over nothing.
Our own human nature is far closer to that of the chimp than the bonobo.....in bonobo societies females have an equal sometimes dominant postion and sex is used to diffuse male aggression.....in chimp societies males are dominant and hence their existence is more vioelnt
you should read 'our inner ape' by frans de waal. i think he would say you are wrong, and to use a metaphor borrowed from de waal, humans are a janus head with one side being that of the chimp and the other that of the bonobo.
Yes, eventually. The leader will be deposed and then, it may be castrated and torn to pieces by its former rivals. One of the rivals will become the new Alpha Male of that chimp troop.
More: Case in point is the Democrats attack on former President Bush. That's the closest analogy that I can produce in evidence to assist in making my point clear to you. I hope that this helps.
they tear off the genitals if the chimps refuse to pay "protection money" like th eway the members of the US congress are afraid of not being subservient to isreali scum
Ripping off the genitals will most certainly lead to a slow death. Even if the beating doesn't kill the apes, infection and immobilization will. Just try walking with your gonads ripped off--it isn't going to happen.
Too funny. Don't get too upset. Remember that for years, GWB was referred to as "The Chimp" in blogs and comments. Well, turnabout is fair play. It's a hoot to see reactions to simple comments.
Honda, I've thought about it and I think it is because of lack of not only intellect but also brain plasticity in terms of life expereience.. There's a lack of insight on behalf of the arguer yet they feel they know what they're talking about because of their brain limitations in terms of monitoring their own behavior.
What is the full documentary called?
RIT2009 2 days ago
"god" created man 4000 years ago
andrewCNC905 5 months ago
the earth is HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD. it arose out of the GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD-bang.
payasoinfeliz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So how do domesticated chimps behave in the wild with wild chimps? Who killed who? that's how the Neanderthal went extinct.
If you 'd have done a Skinner operant and teach the chimps on how to analyze and create tools! What if human go into extinction tomorrow? Who 'd take our place? bees?
UnitedPebbles 6 months ago
Comment removed
UnitedPebbles 6 months ago
Take your nerd fight else where please it has nothing to do with this video
Carhat778 7 months ago 4
where´s karl?
fredrs1403 7 months ago
bullshit tease, half sentence come on 1 min man
mandaltby 7 months ago
Other monkeys? And this is a nature doc. The mother fuckers!
TemplarX2 7 months ago 4
@TemplarX2 thought the same thing . that pretty much makes people monkes too
ShreddGamer14 6 months ago
Freud is building a bed of leaves...for his patients to lie on when he opens is psychiatry clinic lol
mistermajestyck 8 months ago
gay
daz21a 9 months ago
i thought the title said decomposed :]
alienbooga 10 months ago
i thought the same thing, as it's titled i figured the chimp was severely injured and was actually attacked by monkeys(as chimps are apes) !
use2slam2 10 months ago
I did make the error of not being clear in calling all catarrhini old world monkeys, it is sometimes called that and other times not. Old world monkeys and apes are both separate from new world monkeys. All catarrhini are old world monkeys but its common to for biologist to separate the groups and call the cercopithecidae old world monkeys. But hominidae and cercopithecidae share a common ancestor that was itself a old world monkey. So I see the confusion.
thesparitan 11 months ago
Apes are not Old World monkeys. Old World monkeys are in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea and apes are in the superfamily Hominoidea. Both Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea belong in the parvorder Catarrhini, but that is where the relation ends. Of course, the superfamily Hominoidea contains the families Hylobatidae (gibbons and siamangs, the lesser apes) and Hominidae (great apes and humans).
tcalvin1 11 months ago
@tcalvin1 When I was saying old world monkeys I was speaking of Catarrhini, which broke off from new world monkeys and then sub divided further in hominidae. But the general point I was making was that because what people tend to call monkeys are in both new world and old world branches then the basal form would have to been a monkey. Even in the catarrhini family the basal from to great apes and Cercopithecidae would have been a monkey, then we are by definition we are monkeys.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@tcalvin1 Even if they were this doesn't mean apes are monkeys. You cannot call snake lizards because they both from the squamata order.
TemplarX2 7 months ago
@TemplarX2 What do you mean apes are not monkeys? Are humans worms? if not then we also aren't Eukaryotes, not to mention mammals( which seems to be obvious).
If your father's last name is Monkey and you change your last name into Ape, doses that change the fact that your father is a monkey and therefore so are you.
Why can't you call snake lizards, snake's ancestors are lizards?
SloveintzWend 7 months ago
Why are people so ignorant about this subject. Look up two things before anyone else responds to me. First is the cladogram that contains humans and our ancestors, then watch a video on youtube called "turns out we did come from monkeys after all" Please do those two things before someone else makes a stupid comment to me.
thesparitan 11 months ago
You are a troll, no one can be this dumb
thesparitan 11 months ago
What do old world monkeys have to do with apes? If you're suggesting we branched out of Old World Monkeys, then not only are you wrong. But you're just silly.. Think about this. If Old World Monkeys ONLY fall under the classifcation of the superfamily: Cercopithecoidea... Then how can we be related??
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy all apes are old world monkeys, you dont understand basic classification do you? Apes are a subset of old world monkeys. I cannot help you are stupid.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan So what if he doesn't undertand "basic classification". You are rude. If he doesn't understand, that's called being ignorant not stupid. In addition to being rude it's you who are, at the very least, being ignorant AND you may very well be stupid as well because you are wrong. Chimpanzees are classsified as New world. Old world monkeys have a prehensile tail and chimpanzees don't have tails. Get your facts straight and don't be rude. Oh, and learn to construct a sentence.
changing3 11 months ago
@changing3 Dude he is the one that told me to fuck off and he responded to me first. Read the very first comment and then you can talk. And you are completely wrong as well, old world monkeys are all monkeys that live in asia and africa, including us humans are a old world monkey. Again you call me ignorant and you dont know what you are talking about. Not all old world monkeys have tails, of course all large primates dont but we still come from monkeys, just like we come from mammals.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@changing3 Oh and the BTW you are far more stupid then erectoralporicy because even he knows that chimps are classified as old world monkeys, a type of primate themselves. Primate is the scientific term for monkey, but they mean the same thing. I don't know how you can be so confused but you know even less then the other guy. Why are people so ignorant of biology
thesparitan 11 months ago
Some people just cannot admit when they are wrong. You just made yourself look like a even bigger idiot just now erectoral. Nice work buddy. lol
thesparitan 11 months ago
Yes. A human is an animal. A human is also a Primate. A human is also a Simian, but it is NOT a type of monkey, it a type of APE - which is a type of Simian.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy all mammals have a common ancestor that was itself a mammal. that is why we are mammals. all apes have a common ancestor which is a monkey, therefore are all all monkeys. If look any biology text book, talk to any biologist, or just look up and source of up to date science on the subject you will see that classify humans as monkeys. This is because we came from a monkey and never stop being a monkey just like we all came from a mammal, the first mammal and never stop being
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan He is right, you, cockface. Apes are not old world monkeys; they are hominodae (family) while old monkeys are a different family but they fall in the same order. Now STFU and go in the corner for being so thick and mouthy!
TemplarX2 6 months ago
@Erectoralporicy What family are primates in? and do you know how biologist classify? they are call old world monkeys, get it monkeys. I think you cannot admit that your original comment to me was wrong and filled with irony. You keep using different words thinking this will get you out of the hole you are in but it wont. were do simians come from? you already proved me right, unless you believe apes did are not descended from monkeys, well do you think that?
thesparitan 11 months ago
Okay, well - if thats the case. Link me. If you have reputable source then show it. And then I will admit that I am wrong and you were right and blahblahblah.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Yeah I know I was right, its pretty clear. And as for the source you need to find out if what I say is true, true any scientific article on old and new world monkeys common ancestor. If that common ancestor was considered a monkey, then we are monkeys by definition. We are simians, which are a type of primate which is a type of monkey, therefore we are a type of monkey just like we are an animal. I am glad you admitted you were wrong, good work, now we can move on.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
I didn't say I admit to being wrong. I said if you can supply an article where the context is that we are IN FACT a type of monkey, then I will admit I am wrong. But you haven't - all you've said is that if the common ancestor is a monkey then we are a type of monkey. But no.. No, my friend. that is not how it works. If that was how it works then we wouldn't be monkeys, because not even monkeys would be monkeys - you would, by your own reasoning HAVE to classify all life forms -
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@thesparitan
-
as an evolved bacteria, and maybe you do look at it that way. But if thats the case. Don't call Apes an evolved Monkey, call them an evolved Bacteria. Because that is the definitive source - its not like monkeys just randomly appeared one day.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy You do not know what you are talking about, but you think you do and that is what is so annoying about this conversation. Stop working of off linnaean classification. We are called old world monkeys ok, it doesn't get much more simple then that. Our common ancestor was a monkey, we are monkeys. Just like our common ancestor was a mammal, we are mammals. You are a moron that is clear.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
I'll stop working off of what is considered by biologists the true classifcations, if you stop working off of generalisations.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@thesparitan
my bad i mixed my shit up. we are related beyond primate. but old world monkeys and apes came around arguably around the same time.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy
Last time I checked, the closest simarity we have within the Primate clade.. Oh, so maybe you were just wrong.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy BTW monkey isnt even a scientific term, but if you consider a Emperor Tamarin a monkey, then we are monkeys. If you believe a Vervet Monkey to be a monkey then you also believe humans are monkeys. If by monkey you mean every old world monkey then humans, then we are not monkeys by that silly definition. But if you call any of my examples monkeys, then we are too monkeys. So I was right.
Now go learn some biology before you criticize me.
Old world monkeys, monkeys see
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
lulz. and nice job completely dogding what i said about classifying things from the definitive source.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
Just watch this youtube video
watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
aronra does a better job then I do, and please for the love of all that is logical read some biology, and particularly biological classifications.
thesparitan 11 months ago
More food for though for user named erectoralporicy
The Old World monkeys or Cercopithecidae are the family that contains humans, and the other primates as well. New world and old world monkeys share a common ancestor, and the new world monkeys are actually older then old world monkeys. This means that humans are in fact a type of monkey, just like we are also a type of mammal. I wish people would inform themselves before trying to challenge a position.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
I fail to see the signifigance in any of that. There is a reason they are referred to as apes as a opposed to monkeys. Old-World monkeys are completely irrelevent. By your classification standards you may as well have said that all living beings are technically bacteria.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Its called biology, and we are also eukaryote. aronra has a great youtube video on this subject called "turns out we did come from monkeys". You need to study this more before you try to talk to me about it. You dont seem to understand what I am even talking about. If humans ancestors were ever monkeys then we are still monkeys, just a different type. We are apes and monkeys, I do now how to make that any more clear.
thesparitan 11 months ago
is an ape.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy WE ARE A TYPE OF MONKEY, JUST LIKE WE ARE A TYPE OF ANIMAL. fucking idiot. animal, mammal, monkey, ape, human we are all the above. Can I make it any more simple for you, you thick headed retard, wtf. You keep on saying that I am claiming that all monkeys and apes are the same, of course I am not.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
That's not my problem with what you said. My problem is you're making a stupid fucking generalization that holds no water - and since you're being such a little priss about how invalid your statement is I will choose to supply you more facts. FACT the scientific definition of a Monkey is ANY Old-World and New-World primate except for Prosimians and Apes. So having that, WE ARE NOT A TYPE OF MONKEY? How can you seriously not understand the consequence of Evolution
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Ok lets try it this way, is a human a mammal?
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
I am almost positive you are confusing Simian with Monkey.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@thesparitan No wrong again. We are not in that family. We are part inthe hominoida family you misguided fuck.
TemplarX2 6 months ago
What was the point of posting this vid? Seriously.
angstotheclown 1 year ago
wish my colleagues can do the same to my BOss..
atticuscorleone 1 year ago
What retard titles these videos?
CottageLife100 1 year ago
Mutiny!
DoubleX31 1 year ago
that was lame
cracksmackinator3000 1 year ago
what was the point in such a short clip?
maxpoweruk2008 1 year ago 3
I took a girl back to my chimp-a-boody bed in the trees and she just laughed at me.
straggletag13 1 year ago
Nice, sit through a 30 second commercial for a 60 second clip. You've started down a dark road, Youtube.
iksarguards 1 year ago
Yes, it's Wasington D.C., 2012.
aliveinsd 1 year ago
He was too aggresive with that first monkey. He needed to stay lower key.
MegaBaboon1 2 years ago
As with us, so with our chimp cousins: all political careers end in failure...
londonemski 2 years ago 2
Sounds about right for someone from South Boston...
baszmeg88 2 years ago
From the title I got the impression this chimp was going to get ambushed by actual monkeys :-/
D3adGoon 2 years ago 38
Very sad, but it is a reflection how our society is.
WinterHaven 2 years ago
that chimp looks alot like Barack Obama, although i for one believe the chimp would make a better President.
SouthBoston88 2 years ago 4
other monkeys? chimps are apes!
ngobmx 2 years ago 35
ARGH!
monkey and ape aren't formal categories. Check your dictionary:
"1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes"
That's *especially* and not *exclusively*. Apes are catarrhine primates, more related to the so called old world monkeys than to the so called new world monkeys (platyrrhines).
Humans are apes, apes are monkeys.
Eikinkloster 2 years ago
monkeys have tails, new and old world species, apes do not. Baboons are monkeys, colobus are monkeys. Pongids, Bonobo, Pan, Gorilla, Orangutan, are great apes, Gibbon, lesser apes ..... all without tails.
perfectbark 1 year ago
@perfectbark Wrong. The Barbary Macaque is a Simian, not an ape, and has no tail. You can find criteria to separate any species of animal from all others, and it will still be an artificial grouping... like grouping dogs and chimps as "animals" apart from humans, even though a chimp is much closer to a human than to a dog. Same goes with grouping non ape catarhynes with their distant platyrhine cousins.
Eikinkloster 1 year ago
Many people call all primates monkeys, when in fact apes and monkeys are two kinds of animals under the classification of primate. They may look similar, but when you start to learn more about them, it becomes apparent there are many differences between monkeys and apes. Which animals are monkeys, and which are apes?
perfectbark 1 year ago
There are many many differences between monkeys and apes. But let's list some basics to remember right now. . There are only a small number of types of apes, while there are over a hundred types of monkeys. This article will focus more on apes: 1. Apes are usually larger and heavier than monkeys. 2. Apes have no tail. 3. Apes have a more upright body posture than monkeys, and are often able to walk on 2 legs.
perfectbark 1 year ago
4. Apes have a broad chest. 5. Apes rely on vision rather than smell, and thus have shorter noses than some monkeys.
6. Apes have a large brain to body size ratio compared with other animals. 7. Apes only live in Africa and Asia (monkeys also live in South America).
perfectbark 1 year ago
@perfectbark Your logic is like grouping house cats with dogs as "pets" against lions and tigers as "beasts" because lions and tigers are bigger than dogs and cats. Or monkeys and dogs against humans and chicken because the former walk on all fours an the later are bipedal.
Apes and old world monkeys share the same grouping, catarrhini, apart from new world monkeys, which are platyrrhini. But don't believe me, go check the Britannica.
Eikinkloster 1 year ago
I've had graduate courses in mammology and vertebrate zoology that have always taught that monkeys and apes are distinct taxa. And, I will continue to teach it this way myself. Macaques, particularly the barbary, have a tail, albeit a a "stub." Perhaps they are an intermediary form.
perfectbark 1 year ago
@perfectbark "hat have always taught that monkeys and apes are distinct taxa"
Go get your money back than, because there is no such a thing as a monkey taxa. I bet they also taught you reptiles are a distinct taxa from mammals and birds, didn't they?
Eikinkloster 1 year ago
@Eikinkloster
OK, I finally get it. I just looked at your channel. You are science illiterate and ineducable, so forget it.
perfectbark 1 year ago
@perfectbark huh? what do you have against Finnish music?
Eikinkloster 1 year ago
@Eikinkloster Instead of trying to interpret dictionary semantics, you should refer to biology. A Chimp is not a Monkey, because it is an Ape. That is how it breaks down. However, all Chimps and all Monkeys and all Prosimians are Primates. We are closer to the Monkey family, as Apes, than we are to Rodents or other Mammal families, but Apes are neither New World nor Old World, Monkeys. We are further broken down as Simian, which includes Old/New World Monkeys and Apes, but not Prosimians.
NodrogTrax 7 months ago
@NodrogTrax monkey is not a strictly biological term. In Biology, the Infraorder Simiiformes is actually broken down in only two groups, the Parvorders Catarrhini and Platyrrhini... Catarrhini is divided in the superfamilies Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea. So, in biology we won't have much space to argue. The argument is around how to map the popular terms "monkey" and "ape" into those technical terms. I say monkey = simiiformes and ape = hominoidea, thus making apes a kind of monkey.
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@NodrogTrax and furthermore, I say Old World Monkey = Catarrhini, thus making the apes one of them. The popular use of "monkey" is paraphiletic, since it includes all the Platyrrhini, but only one group of Catarrhini, the Cercopithecoidea. Excluding the apes from the monkeys makes as much sense as excluding us from the apes, considering chimps are closer to us than to gorillas.
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@ngobmx nah im pretty sure theyu are monkeys.
72Roo67 1 year ago
@72Roo67 nope your wrong lol
grannysnatcha 1 year ago
@grannysnatcha ahh k
72Roo67 1 year ago
@72Roo67 ugh! you sound so uneducated stating that chimps are monkeys and not apes. every single person on this planet with a minimal level of education will know that chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans are the great apes, not monkeys!
slovakmath 1 year ago
@slovakmath dude i already admitted i was wrong so dont waste your time and my time correcting me again.
72Roo67 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ngobmx They eat each other! ?
silver911surfer 1 year ago
@ngobmx apes are sub group of monkeys, in the end we are all types of monkeys.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Maybe you are retard.
MrAnimalControl 1 year ago
@MrAnimalControl You are a troll, go away
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan STFU monkey man.
MrAnimalControl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAnimalControl what an Idiot you are.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan DAMN! MONKEY SURFING YOUTUBE!!
3BDRR7MAN 1 year ago
@3BDRR7MAN Well you are a monkey too, unless you dont believe me and in that case you dont believe in evolution or biology or science for that matter, in that case you are a mentally challenge lower primate. I would rather be related to a monkey then to a man that disrespects science as you do.
Get an education.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan BAD MONKEY! BAD!
3BDRR7MAN 1 year ago
@3BDRR7MAN what are you fucking twelve?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Take a joke.
3BDRR7MAN 1 year ago
@3BDRR7MAN It has to be funny first
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Depends on the species.
3BDRR7MAN 1 year ago
@thesparitan
Fuck you good sir, pretending like you have any sense on the subject matter. Humans aren't monkeys, we are Hominids - and yes, the difference is rather large.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Go take a look at humans evolutionary cladogram, you really dont have any idea what you are talking about. What you said was very stupid, let me show you why. All humans are apes, all apes are monkeys all monkeys are mammals. We are mammals, monkeys and apes at the same time. Its like you are saying that san francisco and California are different places. Look it up and get informed before you criticize someone that knows more then you.
moron. lol
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan No we are not a subgroup of monkeys you stupid fuck. apes and old world monkeys both have a common ancestor that falls in the order of the catarrhines. You nigger must be high on crack to spew that shit on the net and persists at being wrong. Go kill yourself.
TemplarX2 6 months ago
@TemplarX2 You need to get laid dude, alot of anger that must be because of your chronic virginity.
Go away troll.
thesparitan 6 months ago
@ngobmx technically apes are monkeys, just highly evolved.
Tazy50 1 year ago
@Tazy50
not true brother, the distinction is supermassive. So massive that, in fact, there is a species (Gibbons) of primates that are a sort of buffer between what is monkey and what is ape. Monkeys and Apes aren't even in the same family of species as a whole.
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Apes come from monkeys. Not today's monkeys, of course, but ancient monkeys like the Aegyptopithecus, which is still a monkey. So technically apes are monkeys :)
Tazy50 11 months ago
@Tazy50 Well said, the stupidity of erectoralporicy is EPIC!!! I cannot believe he had the nerve to claim I didnt know what I was talking about lol. Ignorance like this always surprises me
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
Think about it. If apes are 'technically just evolved monkeys' then what are monkeys if not over evolved... Well, I don't know just what beast a monkey sprouted from. Nonetheless, thats hardly a statement that can be defended. Its a simple, not well thought out, generalization. And your statement about the evolution of homosapiens sounds as though you assume the progression was linear.. Most archaelogists and historians are of the opinion that this progresssion was rather ---
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy WTF, go look at a biology text book damn it man I cannot seem to get it in your head. Look what you just said is a strawman of my position and you are making statements about my beliefs in evolution I have never made. oh and BTW You are using a fallacy of equivocation. You are mistaking the common use of the word monkey from the scientific word monkey. You are a fucking moron mate, that seems to be clear to me now
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
---
chaotic. And if you really want to get into the complexities of it, it all began when apes in Central Africa moved out of the forests and into the Savanna-type land in the East, where they gradually moved towards the Nile and farther South. During this time these Apes developed fully opposable thumbs and became Bi-Pedal out requirement for the new environments. Eventually becoming Austrapelathicus(sp?), and these Hominids there on branched off into other species ---
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy FUCK YOU ARE STUPID. Everything you just said while true has no bearing in this discussion, we are talking about the ancestors of the ape, which are monkeys, therefore we are monkeys. We are mammals and we are animals as well. If you are troll you better tell me now, because I hate to waste my time like this on someone that is just screwing with me. I dont believe someone can be this thick.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
---
such as Habilis, Neanderthalis, and Erectus. From there... It all gets fuzzy, all we believe to know for certain is that Neanderthalis was not involved in our progression. Habilis, Erectus, and what was left by this point of the Austras' must have cross-bred numerous times, and so on until Sapiens had arrived around 180 000 yrs ago. Why did I choose to go through this? Simply so you'd gather that I just so happen to know, at least a little bit about how homosapiens --
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy I guess you are going to keep position without reading my objections, you keep rambling on with this crap that has no point. You are only proving that humans come from apes, now tell me were apes come from, monkeys, ergo we are fucking monkeys mate. We are a type of old world monkey, get it MONKEY. wikipedia this please, before you make another asinine post.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
---
came to be. As far as science is concerned monkeys and apes are, while sharing common ancestors, completely different. Don't get so caught up on 'technicalities', because when push comes to shove it's just a useless little sidenote that holds no merit. Lizards aren't 'technically' snakes, and apes aren't 'technically' monkeys. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but your argument is completely biased, and utterly shames itself. Generalizations ignore ---
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy They are different, no one is arguing in that. But they are also similar and share a common ancestor. You are just to much of an douche to admit you were wrong. You do not know as much as I do and dont even seem to understand the basis concept in the first place. No one is saying apes and all monkeys are the same, we are saying that all apes are monkeys. Its like asking the distance between california and LA.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@thesparitan
---
huge differences in favour of small similarites. Are Abrahamic religions the same because they're all Abrahamic? Or would you agree that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam hold some extreme differences in their beliefs? Sure, they all stem from the same background - but that doesn't mean that they're the same.
The changes, in anything, that occur during a proggression is what defines and justifies the difference. That is why an ape, while still being a simian ---
Erectoralporicy 11 months ago
@Erectoralporicy It's like saying all Abrahamic religions are types of Judaism.
Or saying humans are a type of chimp (our common ancestor would qualify as a chimp, Pan prior).
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
No.. It's not. Abrahamic Religions did not start with Judaism. Abrahamic Religions stem from the Nilo-Saharan cultural sect of the four founding dialects/cultural groups of African Civilization.
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Erectoralporicy so Judaism is a type of "Nilo-Sharan cultural sect"... and Christianity will still be a type of Judaism (and also of Nilo Saharan cultural sect). And Islam will be a type of Christianity, Judaism, and Nilo Saharan cultural sect.
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
Islam is not a type of Christianity.. It came after Christianity, yes - but no, it is not an offshoot of Christianity. Regardless - the line of thinking you have on the subject is silly, which is my point: To say an ape is a monkey is an oversimplification which is not necessary ---
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Erectoralporicy "but no, it is not an offshoot of Christianity"
yes, it is.
"To say an ape is a monkey is an oversimplification which is not necessary"
no it is not.
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
--- in the greater schemes of things it is counter-productive. If looking at things in that way were correct: Humans would not be humans - they would be organic chemicals that merely react in a certain way. Technically that is very true, we are just organic chemicals, yet at the same time - we are so much more that merits recognition of a difference. This is the basis of my point of argument. I should also mention Apes are known to have theory of mind, monkeys do not.
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Erectoralporicy "Humans would not be humans - they would be organic chemicals "
You are still failing to think in terms of sets and subsets. Humans *are* a type of "organic chemicals reacting in a certain way". Not just any type: a very specific type, called "human".
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
I should also mention NO. Judaism is not an offshoot of a Nilo-Saharan cultural sect. Nilo-Saharan class was thousands of years before Judaism, so obviously other factors were involved in the creations of Judaism. All that is known is All Abrahamic Religions can be traced back to the Nilo-Saharan Cultural Groups' way of thinking.
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Judaism is actually an ofshoot of Sumerian culture.
Really, now I understand what you don't understand :-) The key word for you is "subset", and it is very basic math, so you might check here: v=aqsIWLqlDhE
What kind of number is 8? Is it a real number? a rational number? an integer? or something a lot more specific, a natural number? Check it out at the Khan Academy :-)
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
... I am very well versed in classics.. Mesopatamia is irrelevent. Which in fact could also be traced back to the Nilo-Saharan sect. You simply don't understand the difference between simplification and oversimplification. Same with the other lad who stated apes are monkeys.
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
Not to mention Sumerian/Mesopatamian culture is actually moreso a precursor to Classical Era mythology than it is to Abrahamic Religion. Take the Epic of Gilgamesh if you will. Which is a perfect example of a Precursor to Heracles.
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Now I know you are actually trolling me :-) Gilgamesh IS the source for the story of Noah. Noah is there with the name Utnapishtim. Gilgamesh, on it's turn, draws from Atra-Hasis.
Anyhow, you still need to study set theory. The basics.
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
Noah..? Have you ever even read the Epic of Gilgamesh? Let me give you a brief synopsis: Gilgamesh is a king among men wrought from the gods. The people get angry and wish the gods to wrought one who can challenge Gilgamesh and put him in his place. The gods in turn wrought Enkidu to challenge him. They eventually become brothers and travel the world for adventure. Enkidu is killed by the great bull and his mortality causes Gilgamesh to seek immortality ---
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Erectoralporicy yeah, go on... you covered tablets 1 to 8 of a total of 12... we're in tablet 9 now, Gilgamesh is seeking immortality. How does he do that for the next 3 tablets?
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
Well actually he doesn't do shit for the next three tablets other than roam around looking for answers.. One he finds from a man who supposedly lived eternally after he was told to build a boat as a warning for the coming flood. Of which his family, he, his animals, and the people who built it survived. However it's most likely a metaphor of how you cannot live eternally without leaving everything else behind. seeing as how Gilgamesh was challenged to do the same and failed...
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Erectoralporicy Great. There you have your Noah: Utnapishtim. But he didn't just survive. He became immortal: 'Previously Utanapishtim was a human being. But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods! Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.'
The full text is available for anyone on the ancienttexts site , so drop the Wikipedia meep meep meep already.
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
Just to humour your claim that what i state is quote from Wikipedia. Why don't you go take a look at Wikipedia and what it has to say about Gilgamesh.. You will notice, as I have, nothing is mentioned about Heracles. So how could i be quoting Wikipedia when it isn't even on there? I don't need the full text, I own a physical copy of Gilgamesh - as most who have studied Classics do. The point you are missing is that the story of the flood in Gilgamesh is nominal ---
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
--- it has little to do with the main point of the story, and is moreso a tale told to Gilgamesh as method in which to explain to him why he will never be immortal. Such as many cultures throughout the world have proverbs and folk tales to explain reality. I've never contested that there are similarities between Noah and Gilgamesh. However, there are way more similarities to the myth of Heracles - and Utnapishtim was never established to have, in fact, survived a flood. He ---
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
--- merely says it to be true. In that way you can consider the flood story to be a metaphor (like I do) or a legitimate happening (as you do). I'm finished with you though, you have an opinion, it isn't as well thought out as mine - but it's still yours and you'll have time to reevaluate what you think. You also sound too much like the Spartiat for me to have this conversation. I think you are the same person. Go to university some time, you're smart enough to bullshit.
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
--- the whole epic covers the basics of Heracles's 12 labours, and his relationship with the gods. This is well supported with intensive studies between the classical era and ancient summerian text. Now instead of quoting Wikipedia, why don't you back yourself up with some legitimate argument (which I might add is completely irrelevent to our actual conversation - way to try and redirect the topic).
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Erectoralporicy I agree, you completely went away from the topic when you started the "abrahamic religions" thread. But there is nothing really left in the topic to be discussed. I'm using the word monkey to refer to the infraorder Simiiformes. You are using monkey to refer to Cercopithecidae and Platyrrhini because that's the popular use of the word. Monkey isn't a scientific term. It's popular. It is ambiguous. It can be used both ways, and *is* used in both ways. End of the story.
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@Eikinkloster
And that's not the point was getting at at all. He was arguing that apes are monkeys and that therefore we are a type of monkey. My use of Abrahamic Religions was merely to outline how extreme difference qualifies as accepting a difference.
Erectoralporicy 7 months ago
@Erectoralporicy and he is right. popular perception will see the three abrahmic religions as completely distinct classes... when they are actually a sequence in which the former is a variant of the previous. This is particularly true for Judaism and Christianity (Christianity being originally a sect of Jews)
Eikinkloster 7 months ago
@ngobmx and apes are part of the larger taxonomic group which stem from old world monkeys
jappud 9 months ago
@jappud Finally someone that understands cladistics. Good to know there are intelligent people still out there.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@ngobmx damn i was going to say that
m1c000l 9 months ago
Washington D.C., year 2012.
aliveinsd 2 years ago
no god
CondorDM 2 years ago
WTF happened? I need more input.
TheAthol 2 years ago
i hate this 1min clips
canino247 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
aliveinsd 2 years ago
If you will make such accusations at least do not switch the order of the words. You meant incumbent behavior right? Moreover, Obama dim-witted? We had Bush who could not even say nuclear correct and constantly made embarrassing mistakes and you choose to call a man who graduated from Harvard law school not by having daddy pull strings, but through effort? Let's not forget we were attacked 1 year into Bush's term, made an erroneous invasion, crashed the economy all under the watchful eye of reps
PonsXAsinorum 2 years ago
Pons....Honey....I don't believe that you have anything herein to say that applies to my comment. Take a xanax, and please leave decent folk be. You are all in a 'snit' over nothing.
aliveinsd 2 years ago
Lol; apparently you removed your comment.
PonsXAsinorum 2 years ago
Our own human nature is far closer to that of the chimp than the bonobo.....in bonobo societies females have an equal sometimes dominant postion and sex is used to diffuse male aggression.....in chimp societies males are dominant and hence their existence is more vioelnt
asaidweeman28 2 years ago
you should read 'our inner ape' by frans de waal. i think he would say you are wrong, and to use a metaphor borrowed from de waal, humans are a janus head with one side being that of the chimp and the other that of the bonobo.
jonbeme 2 years ago
Everybody should have sex outside it is awsome
MrDripdrop 2 years ago
Thats Sad.
Dealz1988 2 years ago
chimpanzees are apes not monkeys. there is a difference. you would think the BBC would get that right.
realDUMBname 2 years ago 2
they are apes!, just like us.
im sure the bbc didnt post this, they would know the difference between apes and monkeys.
rnisgetting 2 years ago
same shit different day
lezkalaz 2 years ago
that ex leader will get surrounded then have his genitals torn off then killed and probably eaten by the other chimps
dubzy81 2 years ago 3
Yes, eventually. The leader will be deposed and then, it may be castrated and torn to pieces by its former rivals. One of the rivals will become the new Alpha Male of that chimp troop.
aliveinsd 2 years ago
More: Case in point is the Democrats attack on former President Bush. That's the closest analogy that I can produce in evidence to assist in making my point clear to you. I hope that this helps.
aliveinsd 2 years ago
WHAT does anything you're spewing have to do with this video? lmao
shawkme 2 years ago
how come they tear off the genitals??
smizzles716 2 years ago
cos they are savage little maniacs
dubzy81 2 years ago 3
they tear off the genitals if the chimps refuse to pay "protection money" like th eway the members of the US congress are afraid of not being subservient to isreali scum
halliburtoncrusher 2 years ago
Ripping off the genitals will most certainly lead to a slow death. Even if the beating doesn't kill the apes, infection and immobilization will. Just try walking with your gonads ripped off--it isn't going to happen.
aliveinsd 2 years ago
it's symbolic
asaidweeman28 2 years ago
they will do the same thing to a man
redNOSEDready 2 years ago
Man will also do the same thing to other men.
TruthBeyond 2 years ago
Comment removed
aliveinsd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why can't you just watch something and not have to make some kind of stupid political remark. Most people don't really care what you think.
JackAss
robl1263 2 years ago
Too funny. Don't get too upset. Remember that for years, GWB was referred to as "The Chimp" in blogs and comments. Well, turnabout is fair play. It's a hoot to see reactions to simple comments.
aliveinsd 2 years ago
Now, I remember reading Freud is one of Fifi's sons (or maybe I saw it on "People of the Forest"). Too bad that he couldn't stay on top.
Ivyandstone 3 years ago
Honda, I've thought about it and I think it is because of lack of not only intellect but also brain plasticity in terms of life expereience.. There's a lack of insight on behalf of the arguer yet they feel they know what they're talking about because of their brain limitations in terms of monitoring their own behavior.
aramfuri 4 years ago 2