Philosophical arguments, explanations that the world is not moral, better definitions of morality, they’re all nice but in the end, you won’t convince me that a monkey birthed a human.
If I am making a mistake in believing that you believe that the monkey birthed a human, I want to know what that mistake is in order to learn about evolution.
That seems like a total non-sequitur. Morality is a separate question from evolution. But I can also argue this topic. The mistake is that you think your mother is somehow not a monkey.
Do you accept that your mother is a mammal? A vertebrate? An animal (as opposed to, say, a plant or fungus)? Does “mammal” not imply “animal”? A primate? Why do the older clades get a pass, but the more recent and more obvious ones cause offense? You’re either in denial or haven’t bothered to look.
No taxonomist worth his salt will dispute that we’re in the monkey clade. We have all the taxonomic features distinctive of monkeys. We’ve read the DNA. It’s over. There are multiple lines of evidence building this case beyond a reasonable doubt, which we can discuss at length, if you care to.
The only way we can say that humans aren’t “monkeys” is with paraphyletic groupings where we say that “monkey” means all of the monkey clade except for the apes, and “ape” means all the ape clade except for the humans. The exception proves the rule, and doesn’t even work when you account for the extinct species.
That seems like a total non-sequitur. Morality is a separate question from evolution. But I can also argue this topic. The mistake is that you think your mother is somehow not a monkey.
I thought the ears were a dead giveaway.
No, this is not just a “your mom” joke. I’m serious. You evolved from monkeys. Your ancestors were monkeys, you’re descended from monkeys. You are a monkey. We are all monkeys in shoes.
Do you accept that your mother is a mammal? A vertebrate? An animal (as opposed to, say, a plant or fungus)? Does “mammal” not imply “animal”? A primate? Why do the older clades get a pass, but the more recent and more obvious ones cause offense? You’re either in denial or haven’t bothered to look.
No taxonomist worth his salt will dispute that we’re in the monkey clade. We have all the taxonomic features distinctive of monkeys. We’ve read the DNA. It’s over. There are multiple lines of evidence building this case beyond a reasonable doubt, which we can discuss at length, if you care to.
The only way we can say that humans aren’t “monkeys” is with paraphyletic groupings where we say that “monkey” means all of the monkey clade except for the apes, and “ape” means all the ape clade except for the humans. The exception proves the rule, and doesn’t even work when you account for the extinct species.