But a person understands that it's a trick, they understand the point of it and know they are being fooled. The chimp doesn't.Are you sure? It sure looked to me like, at points, the chimp was literally trying to look up the magician's sleeve.
Some people would argue that apes are a sub-category of monkey, in the same way that monkeys are sub-category of primates, and primates are a sub-category of mammals.The same argument implies that we are fish.
I would say it implies that we are vertebratesThis is not in dispute.
and that "fish" is not a good subclade of vertebrates since it includes organisms that are not closely related (not monophyletic)The common meaning of the word "monkey" that the video argues against is also not monophyletic. If the argument is "people are monkeys", then "people are fish"; if the argument is "'fish' is a poor cladistic term", then "'monkey' is a poor cladistic term".
Certainly, if you come up with a list of properties common to all fish but not common to all vertebrates, it won't include apes.If you assume that, by definition, we are not fish, despite the fact that we are descended from things that were fish. But this goes against the fundamental premise of the video's argument.
we are not directly descended from bacteriaI stand corrected. We are archaea.
« Older As George Carlin once said, "it is an infinit... | Scientists draw squid using it... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 11:35 AM on August 24 [5 favorites has favorites]