Re: KT boundry event

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Mark Isaak wrote:

On 20 Apr 2006 13:24:02 -0700, uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


Noone Inparticular wrote:


Quit screwing with the meanings of words!!!!!

I don't believe I've seen a more obdurately wrong poster here on T.O.
in a long, long time.

It's too late to change the meaning of the term 'dinosaur' to mean
something that's not extinct. The damage is already done, so to speak.

Why does the same principle not apply to the coelacanth?


The situations are more than a little different. Fossils of the
coelacanth were first discovered (I believe) long after those of dinos.

How is that relevant? It can't have been more than 30 or 40 years after,
anyway. If that long. But how is it relevant?

In any event, coelacanth are just fish, certainly not as spectacularly
different from other fish as giant dinosaurs are from iguanas.

Iguanas? Where did iguanas enter the discussion?

the term
'dinosaur' was invented speciufically to refer to these gigantic (and
surely extinct) creatures.

Why is size relevant? And extinction is what we're arguing about.
Dinosaurs are extinct if and only if birds aren't dinosaurs. You just
can't use that as proof that birds aren't dinosaurs.

The main problem with the coelacanth is that it is rare. Close to
extinct.

Apparently it's not so rare, just in places we seldom look. But how is
that relevant either? You're just tossing out features by which
coelacanths differ from dinosaurs without saying why they should matter.
Coelacanths have fins too. Does that mean the example isn't relevant to
dinosaurs? Don't see it myself.

Or if it
does, what should we use as the common name of the living fish which
we call the coelacanth?

Since it was an fish unknown in the west, it never was given a western
name. I suppose we should use a local name for the fish.

Not what he's asking. Regardless of the common name we assign to the
living species, question is whether we should also call it a coelacanth.
If not, why not? If so, why is it different from the bird/dinosaur case?
I'll lay good odds that the original dictionary definition of the word
"coelacanth" specified that they were extinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth


The term 'dinosaur' refers to: "any of various large extinct reptiles".
That's what the word means.

Demonstrably false.

Tell Merriam-Webster, not me!

Did the pre-Latimeria definition of "coelacanth" say that they were
extinct? Want to bet?

Pretty much everybody agrees that various *small*
extinct reptiles are dinosaurs, too. So we know that meanings can
change with further understanding.

The reference can change.

Then why can't it change to refer to birds too?

And it is a well-established principle of taxonomy that all
descendents of something in taxon X are also members of taxon X.
There are reasons for that rule. Can you give any reason why we
should break the rule for just one certain class?


Men or any mammls are not fish. They have transmogrified.

Yes. They're transmogrified fish, just as whales are transmogrified
mammals. Transmogrification happens all the time, but we tend to call it
evolution.

So, we cannot say living birds are
dinosaurs. It's not allowed by the definition.

According to the rules of nomenclature, we *must* say that living
birds are dinosaurs. Anything else is not allowed by the definition.

Nope. Sorry. Birds aren't fish either. Were fish, not 'are' fish.

You apaparently have trouble with tenses, like 'were' and 'are'.

Why do you say that birds aren't fish? It's actually a useful way to
think. When, exactly, did the ancestors of birds stop being fish, and
what event made the difference?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... It's too late to change the meaning of the term 'dinosaur' to mean ... coelacanth were first discovered long after those of dinos. ... In any event, coelacanth are just fish, certainly not as spectacularly ... different from other fish as giant dinosaurs are from iguanas. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Quit screwing with the meanings of words!!!!! ... coelacanth were first discovered long after those of dinos. ... In any event, coelacanth are just fish, certainly not as spectacularly ... different from other fish as giant dinosaurs are from iguanas. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... I didn't start using the term 'dinosaurs' and say 'dinosaurs are ... Nobody said dinosaurs are birds. ... Birds are fish too, by the way. ... Some of these groups are extinct, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Not different from Mesozoic birds, ... I didn't start using the term 'dinosaurs' and say 'dinosaurs are ... Birds are fish too, by the way. ... Some of these groups are extinct, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Birds used to be fish, ... Theropod dinosaurs in all likelihood had a ... Some of these groups are extinct, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading