Wow, that was one of the most illustrative and encouraging pieces of feedback I have received. Thank you for spending the time to tell me that.

@@ClintsReptiles No problem! You're the one who did the work and composed this wonderful explanation and put it into video format! And btw I stand corrected! I had overlooked that you have quite a few videos of this length and even longer! Also, I like both the longer and shorter formats tbc! Hoping for that Hominidae deep dive!

Yes! I absolutely _adore_ Clint's teaching style. He doesn't just sit you down and tell you _that_ something works; he tells you the _how_ and the _why_ (and when relevant, the _when,_ _where,_ and possibly even the _who_ ) so that you come out not _knowing_ a thing, but _understanding_ it. I wish I had teachers like him when I was in school; I would have actually enjoyed it.

Same. I could nerd out listening to the level of intellect 24/7, especially your delivery. Your passion and love for these topics shine.

@@ClintsReptiles You were too politically correct, for the video that you´ve posted above. When actually, Chimps are only 77% the same has Hominids. While Gorillas are 81% the same as Hominids; due to some ancient hybridization with their own version of Hominids, called Parentotropus. Being that Hominids, descend from Gibbons, that are about 87% the same as the Ikiminus, that are the first real Hominids, that still look a lot like a full time, walking Gibbon. Both Parentotropus and Ikiminus, still exist on planet Earth. In a very low number. And well hidden and protected by the G.L.A. Against the unreliable tendency for genocide, from the Humans, from nowadays planet Earth.

best comment

Personally I fancy myself more of a reptile bird.

​@@Nomad-sw4uy- like a hanky panky duck?

Hanky-Panky Ducks sounds like an official scientific term. I'll take it

Fucking Molluscs

but sometimes... poachers export...

San Diego.

I want both of these quotes on shirts

"But is it Madagascar 1, 2 or 3?"

None of the lemurs I've ever met were in Madagascar!

Exactly.

there is no net to return to where you have always been

I guess he just didn't want to be a monkey, which is kinda silly because monkeys are cute

Not even plain ignorance, more like willing ignorance.

scientists are ironically some of the most closed minded of all people. The danger arrives when someone forgets that science is not about policing hard coded laws and regulations but in fact is supposed to simply be a system to categorize and understand that which we do not understand. If you come to a conclusion using the scientific method that is then proved false, the next step is to alter the erroneous conclusion, accounting for new data and evidence. After all if we knew everything, science would not exist. Sadly, particularly when pride and arrogance are involved, a close minded scientist will insist his views are correct even when irrefutable physical evidence to the contrary is dumped in his lap. This mindset is the largest reason behind the stagnation of many areas of scientific study. (*Cough cough*AquaticApeTheory*cough cough*)

"You should be more specific" = "pick a lower clade because I don't like this."

Maybe he didn't like the circular argument. What does monkey mean and is it a word that has anything to do with evolutionary relationships?

oh thats 100% something other monkeys would do if they had access to human postal service

My thought exactly!🤣🤣

IKR? _classic_ monkey stuff right there.

I see I wasn't alone in that thought.

Apes are large monkeys without tails. Humans are apes. Humans are large land monkeys without tails.

Blessed comment

Your wisdom is boundless.

Reject monke, we will always be fishe.

I’d rather be a banana slug….

The true monke was the friendships we made along the way

PTSD Triggered

😉

Build house. Build bed. Build pillow fort. Eat banana.

Nestception

A bed on my bed an extra pillow on my head 😅

​@@radikaldesignz "Nested" already means "inception" (in the meme sense). So it's "nested nests"

it's nests all the way down

Let me know if it changes! Keep fighting the good fight! Thank you for supporting our channel :)

Yeah that is why you get people who are so insistent that apes are not monkeys, its like most people call them monkeys but people who think they know stuff say they arent but people who really know primatology have to break it to them. Its like how toads are a type of frog or tortoises are a type of turtle, apes are a type of monkey and I just so happen to be a very derived ape and therefore monkey. But I mean we thought aye ayes were rodents so its not like we are the only weird primate out there.

So not everyone speaks phylogenetics. If you look up the word "animal" in some dictionaries it states that it is any organism belonging to the taxonomic kingdom "animalia" and I've seen it written that this is explicitly not including humans. I don't agree with this definition per se, but my point is that words are defined by a consensus of people and if people want a word to define all simiiformes, excluding hominoidea, and they want that word to be "monkey" ,then shouldn't they be able to use that word? Most of these scientific names make little sense to the group as a whole anyways (as can be seen when extinct lineages are pieced together and rearranged) so I see little issue in arguing that "we are all fish" when clearly the we could use a more layman's term to differentiate me from my guppy.

They also need to fix the signs that say whales and dolphins aren't fish.🤓

​@@ExquailiburPeople also think sea lions aren't seals and dolphins aren't whales. What I'm realizing is taxonomy is usually a lot more intuitive than people think. Usually, if it seems like something shares a clade, it does.

The world needs more moms like you!

And a correctly pedantic monkey.

😳

hello fellow math and primate lover, I'm in agreement

I'm not sure we need AI Clint, having AI seems unnecessarily confusing. It is not like Real Clint is ever going to get tired of talking about clades! 🤣

Diversifiii

@@MJWPub But eventually, AI Clint will learn the difference between Linnaean taxonomy and cladistics, whereas Clint seems to refuse to.

@@KAZVorpal I just asked ChatGPT if humans are monkeys. This was the response, "Yes, from a strictly phylogenetic and cladistic perspective, it is correct to say that humans are a type of monkey. This perspective considers all descendants of the last common ancestor of what we traditionally call monkeys (both New World and Old World monkeys) to be part of the same clade, which includes apes and, consequently, humans. To clarify: Cladistics: Cladistics is a method of classification based on common ancestry, and it groups organisms into clades that include an ancestor and all its descendants. If monkeys are defined as the descendants of the last common ancestor of New World monkeys (Platyrrhini) and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea), then apes (Hominoidea), which include humans, are also part of this clade. Traditional Classification: Traditionally, "monkeys" are used to refer to non-ape primates. Apes and humans are typically separated from monkeys in common language and traditional taxonomy. Phylogenetic Relationship: Phylogenetically, apes and Old World monkeys share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either does with New World monkeys. Thus, under a strict cladistic definition, apes (including humans) are a subset of the larger monkey clade. Therefore, while traditionally and colloquially, humans are not referred to as monkeys, from a cladistic and evolutionary biology standpoint, it is accurate to say that humans are monkeys. This acknowledges our place within the broader primate clade that includes both apes and monkeys." Did AI get it right?

​@@KAZVorpal Rejecting the usefulness and currency of traditional Linnaean taxonomy in favor of exclusively cladistic taxonomy is a far cry from failing to understand the difference between the two. Traditional Linnaean taxonomy classifies organisms based on superficial phenotypology -- in other words, vibes -- as opposed to empirically demonstrable genetic relationships, and Clint is absolutely correct to reject a "vibes-based" approach to biology when we have more useful paradigms.

Well, as far as i know they don't make wars like chimps and humans so in that sense they have higher moral values and "better". And a baby gorilla is arguably more cute than a human baby imho 🙃.

​​@@Tybold63so Gorillaz is just better than humans

@@Tybold63Baby gorillas definitely sport superior cuteness! And silverbacks are pretty handsome dudes.

Also Gorillas are huge, the biggest extant primates, so id argue they are the definition of Great Apes

Also Gorillas are huge, the biggest extant primates, so id argue they are the definition of Great Apes

Good to know that Dullahans are, indeed, still monkeys!

@@jedimasterajlee9983 Dullahans do have heads though, just not on their neck lol.

And he managed to do it without ever being annoying about it! That is a very rare gift indeed. Usually if people make a video to rant about some idiot, the video suffers in quality, but not here.

I wonder if chimps think we look like freakish seemingly rainbow-colored versions of themselves.

I know which chimp you speak of and he absolutely looked very human like but…JACKED. Like kangaroo jacked. It just goes to show we have evolved but we lost a lot of the cool stuff that chimps and gorillas can do lol. I’m not being scientifically accurate here, but the fact that their babies can hold on to them tight enough to be carried around w no hands from mom is incredible.

@@jamiepender6667That’s true, but look on the bright side there’s also a lot of cool stuff we can do that chimps and gorillas can’t, like run marathons, throw stuff really far, and of course type these comments on KZfaq 😂 also side note you’d be surprised how good our babies actually are at clinging to things, my baby cousin can already hold herself onto someone without any help

Creationists are more like "evolution says humans are monkeys and that offends me, so evolution is wrong."

"humans aren't monkeys, humans are monkeys" - ChatGPT

It always leads back to monke.

Creationalist believe there’s a almighty creator because they read it in an old book I would love that if it didn’t involve making it against the law for women in violent relationships to get divorced. It’s doesn’t matter how old the book is If he is hitting then you can’t be like No you have to stay If he isn’t hitting then you can’t be like no he has to stay Why are they in charge of Anything? evolution without revolution

Not surprised you all mischaracterised Creationists: Humans are humans always have been and always will be.

He sounds like a fundie. Yikes

​@@KateeAngelIt does beg the question what a creationist was doing there. I doubt he just got lost on the way to his cult compound.

​@@biblicallyaccuratecockroach maybe he wasn't one. But he sounded like one

@@biblicallyaccuratecockroachalright calm down lol

​​​@@KateeAngelTo me it just sounded like someone who is not fond of the cladistic taxonomy and instead continues to use the traditional linnaean classification where paraphyletic groups are excusable. Basically he likely believes that apes have evolved different enough from other monkeys that it justifies them not being monkeys anymore. Obviously this way of thinking doesn't help you at all when you try to look at the bigger picture of evolution and understand the relationships, but some oldschool professors still use this system, probably because it was what they were initially taught and they simply don't what to change their entire way of looking at phylogeny.

True since they are literally screwed up.

I don't know, man. Evolving general intelligence and self-aware consciousness seems pretty special, seeing as the different species of human, and possibly some hominids, are the only species to ever evolve it. At least as far as we know. If we make it to another planet, we'll again be the only known organisms to do so.

I don't know man. Gorillas got all that fur.@@spracketskooch

@@spracketskooch Nah we already know several earth species with general intelligence and self-awareness. Orca (and a few other dolphin species), crows and corvids, chimps and some others. We really aren't that special, and if we do make it to another planet, then all we've got is that we THINK we're the first to do so

​@@Kehy_ThisNameWasAlreadyTaken Hmmm, I can't prove this, but it seems to me like there's an extra layer or two to human consciousness that isn't possessed by other primates, maybe by dolphins. The best way I can put is we're aware that we're self-aware. We can observe the internal observer. Something I'm not sure any other extant animal can do. I also don't think that other animals have true general intelligence. They're still specialized in their thought patterns. Like, I suspect an orca cannot understand several layers of abstraction or metaphor. Of course, I could be wildly wrong. These are just observations I've made. We probably need to actually understand the minute workings or consciousness before I can make any solid claims, but the same goes for everyone else.

It's like people somehow think they're "better" than any of our extant relatives. I mean, sure, we're better at being US, but that's about where that ends. We'd make TERRIBLE bonobos. Imagine just sleeping around with anyone you wanted, any time regardless of se- hmm... on second thought. Sign me up to become a bonobo!

and usually the ones that don't wanna admit it are the most monkey-like of us

@@shigeminotoge4514 "we're better at being US, but that's about where that ends." This is a comically vast oversimplification. A bonobo is very well adapted to the environments in which bonobos generally live while humans are capable of living pretty much anywhere on the planet for extended periods of time, hunting whales on the open ocean, sleeping at 90° angle inclines while hundreds of feet up a mountain, circumnavigating the entire planet in less than 24 hours, flying to the moon mostly for the sake of vanity, and communicating with eachother across thousands of miles via invisible waves of energy. Even just from a foodchain standpoint no other creature can compete. We're not just apex predators, we're *the* apex. Are we better at being bonobos than bonobos? No. Are we better at almost everything else outside of their specific niche? Most certainly. ...We're still monkeys though.

Monkey is a paraphyletic group solved 🤪

​@@jacobesterson That's not because Homo sapiens is a "better" or "more evolved" species though. That's because we've got thousands of years of societal and technological progress behind us. You probably wouldn't last a month in any natural environment without technology. A modern human without society and technology is as useless and ineffectual as an ant without a colony or a bee without a hive. We have essentially become eusocial monkeys.

Apes are only monkeys if monkeys are a clade. Most people claim they're not, or rather a shared label assigned to two clades. From a linguistic perspective, the redundancy of the word primate would encourage us to keep apes separate and modify one of the monkey clades to have a slightly different name. Clint's dissertation said "IF monkeys are a monophyletic group". So... Just say they aren't instead. I don't disagree, just think both perspectives are valid.

@@tristanridley1601the idea that apes are not monkeya while still considering cercopithecoidea and the platyrrhini as monkeys is not valid and incorrect according to evolutionary biology.

Because all of the groups have a common ancestor, and the apes cannot evolve out of a clade, the clade classification is correct here because monophyletic groups are the most valid grouping of evolution

It might just need to happen!

100% buying merch that says that 😂

​@@ClintsReptilesDespite all my rage, you still can't evolve out of a clade 🎶

you know what? same!

@@ClintsReptiles Why are Neaderthals not considered humans (a different species) when we successfully interbred with them?

That's how it looks to me as well.

@@ClintsReptiles as muslim i dont belive you at all any one how speck about that why god mack us like that we did not come from animels

​@@night927if God exists he made us to be monkeys, deal with it

The question was so clear though. *IF* monkeys are a monophylatic group. If! He could have just said "but they're not" in his head every five seconds instead of what he did. :(

@@tristanridley1601 Yeah, he could have just said something like, "maybe in French, all _Simiiformes_ are called 'singes,' but in English, we call some of them monkeys and some of them apes, and that's OK. They can still all be simians." There should be no dispute whatsoever that apes are crown monkeys, but it's not wholly unreasonable to argue that "monkey" on its own needn't be a clade. Like, it would be bizarre if someone argued "winged animal" had to be a clade, and therefore all bilaterians are winged animals. Personally, I think it makes way more sense to say that apes are a type of monkey (which was historically what we did anyway before misguided zoologists started "correcting" people), but there is room for argument. And that dude in the audience wasn't making it.

😂😂😂

He may have evolved into trains, but he can't evolve out of being human. That's the whole point of the video. This is, however, great news for the trains-humanist agenda.

we are superior. either we're made in the image. or superiority and inferiority, good and evil are human concepts imposed on an uncaring universe. either way, the concepts themselves only exist because we do. find me something else smarter than like, a 6 year old, and maybe we'd have to revisit it... but as it is now, all that mumbo jumbo only exists as defined by and in relationship to humanity.

Did you even watch the video?

I is monke

No we're not.

@@uruloki2758 of course, I loved it. I'm saying it for the people who say humans are not monkeys.

One day you'll have to account for you ignorance as well as you misleading hundreds of kids every year. What will you excuse be?

@@jaketinsley1987 How do you know he his ignorant? And if you are wrong what will your excuse be?

@@jaketinsley1987 At least he doesn't have to account for his ignorance every single day by continually and nauseatingly propping up a story from the bronze age about talking bushes, talking snakes, and a bunch of other absurdities like a stupid flood story. I've still seen no convincing evidence that those stupid stories were nothing more than tall tales. Accountability you say? Account for your claims first.

then trying to explain that mushrooms aren't a type of fungus but rather just a means to pass on their genetics and it's like you just gave a dissertation and it's only noon lol

Don't. Cry. I'm just a fish!

Trying to explain to people that species don't really exist and are just one snapshot in a looooong timeline of evolutionary changes is... difficult. It is very hard for some people to grasp how long millions of years is and how many generations and mutations occur in that time.

@@TheVerendus I’ve found that Ring Species are the easiest way to explain the problem of defining species. But yeah, a lot of people don’t get it.

Human are apes

BECAUSE WHY HAVE I BEEN THINKING THIS SINCE I DISCOVERED THIS CHANNEL

Yeah, the ghosts of your ancestors, in Ancient Latin culture

Does that mean all of lemurs descendants are also ghosts?

@@Marlerc11can't evolve out of being a ghost, everyone knows that 😂

I've just looked up why a Latin name for ghosts got attached to Lemurs. Pretty randomly, Linnaeus gave them it because they "walk around at night"

ahhh!

they make my cuteness aggression go bananas

@@hebedite4865 That sounds like something a monkey would say.

Tarsiers have absurdly large eyes relative to their head size! Does any animal have a higher fraction of their head volume taken up by eyes? I know some insects beat them when it comes to *surface area* (e.g. love bugs males: ur.amaurea.net/lovebug_eye_meme.png), but compound eyes don't go as deep into the heads as the camera eyes of vertebrates.

They're creepy looking.

Why are you people liking this?

@@Pootie_Tang Because they also love banana and fear cats and hawks.

@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 sounds like it's 100% true

Banana go hard tho

@@Julio-it1pl word

I would happily do it.

That committee member is definitely watching this.

@@roddo1955 that certainty seems to indicate its you

@@rogeriopenna9014 who? Me? I err...I'm.. uh.. I...ahem. w-what makes you say that? ....did someone say something? Because I am definitely not that committee member. I swear! 😉

@@roddo1955 I am Obama

@@infinitestare hello Mr. President! How's Michelle?

​@@crichard1815 That's because humans are the only animals to possess language.

​@@ominous-omnipresent-theydefinitely not correct. Many other animals communicate through sounds, gestures, and body language, including monkeys and the most well known aquatic mammals.

​@@drothicyaaresh6915 None of which communicate via a developed language. A structured form of communication exclusive to humans.

the science denial rooted so heavily into our society is genuinely repulsive

​@@crichard1815 Because not everyone possesses the same level of communication skills. I don't recall deleting any posts.

and it's not even a hard question because of that obvious fact

it could work as an april fools video though

Amniotes, not even the first eggs, came so much earlier than dinosaurs, and the chicken is a very late dinosaur. So simple. Would probably still make a rad video.

I hate arguing with people about that cause they never listen, I have to say over and over "the animal that made the first chicken egg wasn't a chicken, because the first chicken was formed inside the egg" I go on and on about mutations but no one ever gets it

​@@BarbieDreamDungeon Except there was no first chicken. Evolution is too gradual for that.

yeah i laughed out loud loll

It was shocking to hear them again. I didn't remember them being as bad as they were.

That was real?! I thought it was just a re-enactment

It's true. 😢

You joke, but if humans evolved to no longer have vertebrae would we still count as vertebrates? Obviously Clint's position is that you never evolve out of a clade, but this clade is specifically named for a trait that all members possess. Losing that trait would make it much harder to call us vertebrates despite the common ancestor.

@@giovannigutierrez6916 or you could in theory transfer your consciousness into a different vessel. if ever a technology or process is discovered in the future. you will be cutting ties with your ancestor by that point. you have now left the monkey family

​@@ultimatevexation8782 or… it's just a vertebrate mind in an invertebrate body

@@MrDj232 Look at tunicates. They are chordates, but evolved away their notochords. They are more closely related to you and me than they are to lancelets, which are also chordates.

​@@MrDj232 hagfish are vertebrates that don't have vertebrae

We behave monke so this checks out.

so we're already there all along, I don't need to work so hard anymore

Yes, we’ve always been monke.

Oho oho ah ah ah ah

I don't go to Walmart. The "people" there scare me. They don't wear enough clothing.

Any police bodycam footage will verify.

Why would you dissrespect minimum wage employees that way? 😂

Especially with how we immediately get distracted with treats like oreos the moment that we step in the door!

@@falcolfNot to mention shiny objects!

You need to throw in Erika as well.

​@@TheMilkMan8008 I love Gutsick Gibbon

@@TheMilkMan8008 Erika is cool, but Forrest and Clint both have this kinda manic excitement when they talk.

@@pierreblignaut5859 so does Erika. She's done videos with Forrest and call in shows with him. She just isn't as bubbly of a person.

Or Clint and Aron Ra, who has some amazing phylogeny videos.

...but the word monkey does not generally refer to any monophyletic group.

​@@barneylaurance1865words can have multiple meanings. In common usage, monkey refers to all primates of the given lineage apart from apes. But in a phylogenetic usage, if it is to have any meaning at all it MUST include apes.

well it's to survive long enough to shag, but i get you.

"Stupid monkey" - Frieza probably

I hate when people realise they don't understand the question and then just start stonewalling because they are afraid to look stupid. A simple: "can you break the question down for me? Ah OK, I understand what you're proposing, now. Go ahead, Im listening"

am i alone here in thinking his confusion wasnt all that wrong, and could have been cleared up with a simple namedropping of the scientific name of the "monkey clade"?

@@azhdarchidae66 No, I agree. Asking for more clarity in the presentation of your argument is understandable and if you can't communicate your thesis clearly that's kinda on you. His tone of voice could've been less judgmental, I suppose, and maybe there was more to the situation than that one interaction that led to 'ruining a year of Clint's life'.

The skrunkliest of creatures :)

Now you can correct people who say apes are not monkeys

😆👍

Depends on how the term "monkey" is defined. I don't think most of us have thought it was meant to be so expansive that it described an entire lineage.

Monkeys is the label attached to two closely related clades which are also related to apes. Or they are the clade that includes apes (making simians a totally redundant word). Both perspectives are reasonable.

@@tristanridley1601 It really is about perspective, we're all fish too. That helps get a certain idea across, but is uninformative when trying to look at other relationships.

Ok, now that I’ve watched the whole thing, Clint’s “explicit” sass is palpable 😂 Oh man, I feel so bad for him, but those of us in academia all experience this at one point or another. Growing pains, lol!