Is the more traditonal primate scheme from the cladistic or evolutionary classification school?
362373
If by traditional you mean old world monkey, new world monkey, chimp, ape, man,  that scheme was established a while ago and has been backed up by genetic analysis, ie by growth hormone family.
160576
I suppose all eutherian mammals should be considered higher, (excluding metatherian and protherian). Any other division would be very skewed ,a hypothetical elephant looking for higher mammals would view evoloutionary history in terms of proboscitude ;pthus considering all mammals with larger noses then average as 'higher'
658838
If and when the fundamental organizing principle for interactions and transactions between and among members of "our" species becomes the psychology of love in lieu of the psychology of power (which it has been since the inception of "our" species here on earth) then, and only then would the state of affairs implied by your question be possible.\n\nOur is written as it is, i.e. "our", because this, I suggest necessitates a further stage of human evolution, i.e. post-modern homo sapiens.  The question is, which will come first, the required evolutionary process or the extinction of the species homo sapiens?\n\nA further question is, if perchance post-modern homo sapiens does come to fruition, what would "we" be like?  I think that, from time to time, we are provided with glimpses of this from throughout the entire species extant. I also think, that like quality, we know it when we see it, notwithstanding the obstacle posed by current ideas, concepts and perceptions about "human nature" and its possibilities.
140787
Because the current classification system is based on homologies, and not analogies. \nHomologous structures have the same origins and are derived from a common structure that existed in an ancestral form. They may have similar functions or not, for instance some of the bones that are found in the mandible of reptiles are transformed into the middle-ear ossicles of mammals: different function, but same origin. Other obvious homologies are the bones in our hand and those in the flipper of a dolphin: same origin, mostly same bones, different function.\nThe similarities between bats and birds are due to adaptations to a flying morphotype, but although the bones forming both bats' and birds' wings are the same (because both have evolved from a tetrapod ancestor with those bones), they don't have a _common ancestor_ that had wings; therefore this trait is not useful for grouping tem.  Their flight was acquired independently.\nThe similarities are convergent, not homologous.
513828
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
594431
1. There is no such thing as a "lower primate". Only creationists who are ignorant of evolutionary science would ever  use such a term. All organisms have been evolving for EXACTLY the same amount of time. There are no "lower" organisms.\n\n2. We are not simply the descendants of apes, we ARE apes. Humans are one of the 5 currently living great ape species. \n\n3. The most compelling evidence is in the degre of genetic homogeneity, with over 95% of genetic material shared between humans and the chimp species.
60131
I agree; humans and modern monkeys share a common ancestor.  Homosapien sapien (what *we* are) actually directly descended from homo erectus.  \n\nAll the scientific evidence backs this common descent up, btw.  We share a common morphology with chimps as well as a common molecular make up, which indicates that we share a common ancestor.  How else would you rationally explian it?\n\nFurthermore we share malfunctioning genes.  One in particular is a gene that prevents our bodies from producing vitamin C.  It seems that far back in our line of descent one of our distant ancestors was able to produce vitamin C.  This production was halted by a mutation - a mutation that all modern chimps share with us.  This is powerful evidence for a common lineage between chimps and humans because the best explanation is that this mutation was passed on through our evolutionary heritage.  \n\nThe creationist answer is, quite frankly, retarded.  They would have us believe that an all knowing and all benevolent entity created humans and chimps with a gene that produces vitamin C AND a gene that inhibits it's production.  An *intelligent* designer would just not have put in the genes for producing vitamin C in the first place!
131055
I'd like to think that you're asking this question with an earnest wish to get good informative answers. If that is the case, I invite you to see the link that Kurdiatcha left, or to do a web search for the term, or else, to read some good Evolution textbooks such as Ridley's "Evolution" or Freeman & Herron's "Evolutionary analysis", or Futuyma, or Stephen Jay Gould if you want something more entertaining.\nIf that is not the case, I'm not bothering anymore *sigh*
937655
All the claims based on human physiology have good non-aquatic possibilities such as adaptations to a savanna lifestyle, so it's not a compelling theory.\n\nIt does however seem entirely plausible that as generalists, our ancestors may have foraged around the water's edges and shallows, much like some monkeys do today.\n\nThere's a good list of the arguments for and objections (at the bottom) against the theory on Wikipedia at the link below
791663
Of course not!!\n\n\nThey evolved from gullible monkeys.
256328
man and monkey evolved from a common ancestor
478717
Humans are primates, so the answer to your question is Yes.\n\nA primate is defined as a hairy mammal with binocular vision and opposable thumbs. Lemurs, monkeys, apes, and humans are primates.\n\nWhat were you thinking primates are when you asked the question?
1181995
Humans and monkeys evolved from the same common ancestor.\nNow humans and monkeys are seperate species. \nComparisons between chimp and human DNA show the two species share 95 per cent of their genetic material.\nMonkeys aren't going to change into humans - this has nothing to do with Darwin's theory on human origins.
788917
Have a look at the limbs of a lizard.  Not too unlike ours - has all the same sections in the same places.  Some even have five "fingers".  \n\nWhen mammals came along they took the format much further - creating ungulates with two toes, horses with one, dogs with four and a dew claw.  \n\nEven whales have the skeletal bones of hands in their pectoral fins.  \n\nLemurs are supposedly more primitive than monkeys and apes, but go see them at a zoo.  I was lucky enough to hand feed one, and it has hands remarkably like a tiny human.  It was unreal.  \n\nThe format has changed constantly, built on a vertibrate format developed initially by fish.
971103
You've got a few misconceptions there.  I'm going to assume you are really asking a question and not just fishing for agreement, so I'll try and straighten them out.\n\nFirst of all, IF man evolved from other primates, it would be more proper to say that mankind arose from -A- primate.  To draw an analogy, if you build a house out of lumber from trees, it doesn't mean there are no trees left in the world... only the trees you used to make your house are gone.  So it is perfectly plausible for monkeys to still be around even though something else might have evolved from them.  Populations become isolated and develop different traits all the time - try comparing someone from China, Iceland, and Africa some time.\n\nSecondly, I don't suspect any evolutionist would say that man evolved from monkeys.  Instead they would suggest that they had a common ancestor, and both man AND monkeys are different from that ancestor, just in different ways.\n\nAnd last is the question of transition.  And transition implies you're going somewhere.  Since none of us know what life will be like a hundred million years from now, it may very well be appropriate to say that EVERYTHING now is in a state of transition from what it used to be from what it will be.  Looking for 'half-fins' and the like is a straw-man argument, though there is certainly no dearth of vestigal organs and DNA around in most species, if you only look for it.\n\nI respect your desire to dispute the validity of evolution.  Most true scientists WELCOME having their theories challenged - it can only make them stronger and get rid of bad ones.  But if you're going to tilt at a windmill, make sure your lance is pointed in the right direction!
621532
Be sure to check a few sources on this one, as you're starting with some misinformation, and getting some misinformation in response.  (Including ... don't take my word for anything either ... really, look it up, get a lot of reputable sources, and then the picture will become clearer).\n\nFirst, get away from the image that man evolved from what we now call "apes", like modern chimps.   We share a common ancestor, that looked very little like a modern chimp and very little like a modern or even early human.  This ancestor is not what we would now call an "ape."\n\nSecond, there is not a straight line of development from this pre-hominid ancestor to modern humans.  Branches happened many times, many of these branches died out (became extinct).  One of these extinct branches is the neanderthals.\n\n[Along these lines, a rule of thumb: Whenever you see a site or a book with that classic picture of a chimp on the left, with three or for increasingly erect figures marching proudly off to the right, with "Modern Man" marching proudly in front ... run like heck.  This is the *worst* picture you can imagine as it reinforces this wrong idea of man as a linear progression.]\n\nThird, Homo sapiens sapiens is a *subspecies* of Homo sapiens.  The only other subspecies was Homo sapiens idaltu, another now extinct branch.  So it is not quite correct to say that H. sapiens 'evolved into' H. sapiens sapiens.\n\nSummary: Evolution is not a line from one species 'evolving into' another.  Evolution is a tree ... with many branches, many of them (in fact most of them) dying out.\n\nI hope that helps.  Good luck.
766942
Personally I thought:\n\nMan, dolphin, pig, chimp\n\nAccording to Edward O Wilson, top animal behaviourist:\n\n1. Chimpanzee (two species) \n2. Gorilla \n3. Orangutan \n4. Baboon (seven species, including drill and mandrill) \n5. Gibbon (seven species) \n6. Monkey (many species, especially the macaques, the patas, and the Celebes black ape) \n7. Smaller-toothed whale (several species, especially killer whale) \n8. Dolphin (many of the approximately eighty species) \n9. Elephant (two species) \n10. Pig \n\nNo donkey I'm afraid!