Re: KT boundry event

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


John Harshman wrote:



The point about mammals being fish is a cladistic one.

What has that to do with language?

Word usage has everything to do with language. Perhaps your point is
that the vernacular term "fish" is not generally used to refer to the
clade Gnathostomata. Sure.


Bingo! We have a winner!



Usually it's used to refer to any member of
Gnathostomata that's not a member of Tetrapoda, with a few ambiguous
cases near the origin of the clade (is Ichthyostega a fish? Tiktaalik?).

Tiktaalik is not a fish.

Because you say so? What's the rule, the one only you know, that tells
us what's a fish and what isn't?


He's quite an interesting case. Is he an
amphibian? Has anyone considered the possibility that he was adapting
to life in the water from a form that had already adapted for land?
Just asking.

Very unlikely and unparsimonious. It's always possible to imagine that,
but we have no evidence to suggest it.

He's an intermediate form of some kind. Close to, if not, an amphibian.
'Amphibian' is a word specifically coined to refer to frogs, newts,
salamander, toads, etc.

Again you are so confused about nested groups that your writing descends
to word salad. Yes, "amphibian" originally was coined for certain modern
species. Then, when fossils were found, it was used to any such fossil
inferred to have a non-amniotic egg. Later, when we got our acts
together, it was changed to refer to the crown group defined by frogs,
salamanders, and caecilians. What were once considered fossil amphibians
were divided among amphibians, non-amphibian, non-amniote tetrapods, and
non-tetrapod tetrapodomorpha. So in fact Tiktaalik is not an amphibian
(and not even by the old meaning, since it's not even a tetrapodomorph).
Tiktaalik is a fish. It had, as far as we can tell, no terrestrial
ancestors. It's a fish, in the classical sense, just as much as a
mud-skipper is, and it may have used its fins in the same way.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=amphibian

There was probably no vernacular term for such animals as a set.

Once there wasn't. Now there is. You don't think "ambphibian" is vernacular?

But I wouldn't say it's wrong, precisely, to call tetrapods "fish".


But it IS wrong, precisely, to call tetrapods 'fish'.

Only to a person who rejects any flexibility in language, as you do.

The vernacular language should be allowed to remain vernacular. It's
not designed to do the job of scientific language.

Words go back and forth between the vernacular and scientific language
all the time, and vernacular meanings are influenced by scientific
meanings all the time. Is there a problem?

It's
not in general usage, but the surprise value leads some people
(obviously not you) to think about their evolutionary history.

They can think about any time they like, but that does not give you the
right to abuse the English language. Men are not fish. Men WERE fish.

I really don't know why you make such a big deal out of this. Most
people know what I mean. It doesn't cause outrage or discomfort.

It does to me. It leads to chaos and misunderstandings.

But only to you. Why should we change our speech, if you are the only
one for which this chaos and misunderstanding happens?

It's not part of
the vernacular language.

Right. That;'s my argument.

Then you're right about that little point.

That's my point. Stay away from the vernacular.

Why? What harm is done? You must be really fun at poetry discussions.
"No, your love is NOT a red, red rose. A rose is a flower, not a woman."

Poetry? Of course poetry. I love poetry. What has that to do with using
verncular language as scientific language?

It has to do with flexibility of communication.

At least not yet. (The part about birds being
dinosaurs is getting to be that way, though.)

Not if I have anything to say about it.

You have nothing to say about it. But why do you care so much? You seem
quite irrationally exercised on this subject.

I'm a language purist.

Apparently you think language should be frozen at the point you learned
to speak it.

Nope, I never said that, and do not believe that.

Sure you do. You don't want "dinosaur" to change meaning, but you are
happy for "coelacanth" to have changed before you were born.

Change before that point is OK, or you would be speaking
PIE. Language purists are foolish.

All of us?

Yes. You're like Knut ordering the tide to stand still. OK, I'll admit I
fight the occasional losing battle too. I'm one of the few people who
still insist that "data" is plural. And I refuse to say "nucular". But
language changes. Get used to it.

So, it is SIMPLY FALSE to say men or any mammal is a fish. It's false
on several levels. The gasoline I bought this morning has been
converted to heat and then to angular momentum. It's now no longer
gasoline.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

It has to do with change.

But what does it have to do with evolution?

It has to do with change. Evolution is a kind of change.

Not only don't you understand nested groups, you don't understand nested
categories. Channel-surfing is a kind of change too, but it's neither
gasoline combustion nor evolution. There is no relevance.

Once something has changed, it's no longer what it was before. Fish
become mammals and stop being fish. Whales have to breathe air because
they're mammals and no longer fish. If they were still fish, they would
not have lungs and breathe air.

You do understand, don't you, that there is lots of evolutionary change
within both fish and mammals?

Really? I had not heard that!

The point is that you can't just say "evolutionary change" to justify
your need to have these disjunct groups.


Whether something is a "different thing"
after some particular amount of change is arbitrary.

RIGHT! Ring the bell! Shout it from the rooftops: "Whether something is
a "different thing" after some particular amount of change is
arbitrary.

What do you think I have been arguing all this time?

No idea. If it's arbitrary, then why do you care so much?

Because there are limits to how far you can stretch the language. A
'man' is not a 'fish'.

Perhaps you are not the arbiter of stretching. Perhaps the language will
stretch further than you think.

And becoming a new
thing doesn't prevent you from still being the old thing too.

Yes, it does. It prevents whales from breathing underwater, for
instance. It also prevents turtles and other reptiles from laying eggs
in the ocean.

Sigh. Nested groups, yadda yadda.

Nope, irrelevant. Part of what it means to be a mammal means that the
creature is no longer a fish. Breathing air, endothermy, milk, etc. do
not occur in fishes. That makes mammals no longer fish.

That's circular reasoning again. If mammals were fish, then all those
characters would indeed occur in fish. The only reason you can say they
don't is that you exclude mammals from being fish. By the way, there are
traditional fish that breathe air, and some that are endothermic. No
"milk", exactly, but there are equivalent forms of parentally-produced
nutrition, I'm sure.

And evolutionary innovations don't remove group membership either. If
making milk required that a species be removed from its old group,
pigeons would not be birds.

That's
your lack of understanding of nested groups again.



Mammals existed before the KT boundry.

They did not change names at that
time just because some of them survived.

They had been around much longer that 'earlybirds'.

Have they? Not by the most common definitions, in which Mammalia is
defined as a crown group and Aves includes Archaeopteryx. The fossil
record of birds by this definition actually predates, by just a bit, the
fossil record of mammals. And anyway, wouldn't being around much longer
make things worse for you?

Not necessarily. Anyway, it does not matter. The 'mammals' of this time
were not the same sort of thing as mammals of today. It's a mistake to
call them mammals anyway. We have to use terms like 'mammal-like
reptiles' to get around these problems.

Was this a mammal-like reptile?

Was WHAT a mammal-like reptile?

The animal described in the link.

I didn't see it.

You didn't see the link, or you didn't see the animal because you didn't
look at the link?

I did not see the link at first.

Try it now. Mammal or not?


I have no idea. Mammoid?

Correct. You have no idea. So how do you manage to make the same
judgment about birds and non-birds?

I have no idea what to call primitive mammals other than 'primitive
mammals'. We have to come up with a good scientific name.

No, we don't. Because "primitive mammals" are not a group. They're
merely what you have left once you remove "derived mammals" (whatever
group you consider that to be) from mammals. The word for that in
systematics is "wastebasket taxon" or "paraphyletic group". We don't use
them, because they aren't real.

That's not what I was taught.'Homo' is the root in 'homonid' to
distinguish them from simians.

How long ago were you taught?


1970's.

Need I point out that that was a long time ago? And words change?
Scientific terms are no exception.

Yes, and I checked that. It still is current. 'Hominoids' is the
current term that includes both ancestors of humans and apes.

I imagine you can still find it around in an old definition. But please
don't confuse "hominoid" with "hominid". The first refers to Hominoidea,
a superfamily, and the second to Hominidae, a family.

Here's an explanation of the modern definitions of both:

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

Simians, primates, hominids, hominins, homo, all are differentiated to
a much higher degree in language than avians are.


No idea what that means.


Not all primates are simians.
Not all simians are hominids.
Not all hominids are homo.

'Ape', 'man', 'simian', 'monkey', etc. are vernacular terms that apply
to living creatures. They should not be used to characterize ancient
animals, which have evolved considerably to become the modern forms.

If we believed that, then there would be no fossils under those names.
Yet there are. Apparently everyone other than you is, once more, wrong.
What does this have to do with birds, by the way?

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_08.html




'Hominid' is historical (modern back to ancient); 'primate' is modern
only, across various species.

This is nonsense. All hominids are primates. If you think differently,
you are (once again) the only person in the world who does, and
therefore (by the only rules language has) you are wrong.



The term 'primate' refers across species, but not back in time
(although I suppose it could be used that way, but that would not be
the best usage).

It's universally used that way. But why wouldn't that be the best usage?
Because you say so?

To clarify that we're talking about modern versus ancient life.

So you admit that you have just invented this usage, and want everyone
to adopt it?

I admit nothing of the sort.

Why not? You did.



The term 'avians' is probably best. 'Earlybirds' is another possibility
(not, I emphasize 'early birds').

You are inventing a new word to no purpose.

It was just a joke.

But "avians" wasn't. Same thing.

'Avians' is already in use.

Apparently, as a synonym for "bird".


Its application is different.

As it happens, no. What makes you think so, other than your personal
definition?

As it happens, yes it is.

Have you notice that you never justify your pronouncements? Find me a
place where "avian" means something other than "bird".

We distinguish between 'men' (modern species) from
ancient species which we do not call 'men'.

In fact we do call some ancient species "men". H. neanderthalensis, H.
heidelbergensis, etc.

But there IS a point where we refuse to call them 'men', is there not?
Australopithecines are very recent, yet we do not call them 'men'.

True but irrelevant.

It's quite relevant. It could hardly be more relevant.

See, here is the part where you're supposed to explain why it's relevant.

And these guys lived only a scant few millionm years ago:

True but irrelevant. It's not their age but their physical
characteristics that lead us to that decision.

Why are we so critical about our own lineage that we distinguish such
slight differences?

Who says we don't do that with other groups too? It's just that you are
entirely ignorant of the other groups. I assure you, there are plenty of
names for extinct birds too.

"Australopithecus africanus (Fossils)

A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar
to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater.
Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and
500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar
body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech.
The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the
teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they
are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and
Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of
humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to
afarensis. "


Here's the dope on 'hominid' from a page on this site:

"The word "hominid" refers to members of the family of humans,
Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common
ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the
superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are
called hominoids."

That's a bit out of date. Needs a rewrite. Sorry.

What's wrong with it?

See the wikipedia link above. Here, I'll repeat it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominoidea

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

What were you trying to show here? Look under the heading "Some
Prehistoric Primates".

The word 'primate' is unfortunately both a vernacular and scientific
one, unlike 'Dinosauria' and 'dinosaur'. The Latin form is
indistinguishable, then, from the English one.

Wrong, as it happens. The Latin form is Primates, any given member of
which is a primate. Exactly the same as Dinosauria/dinosaur. In the case
above, "primates" is the English plural of "primate". It's a vernacular
word. But of course it's identical in scope to the Latin: a primate is a
member of Primates, neither more nor less. Just like a dinosaur is a
member of Dinosauria.

We usually
restrict "men" to the genus Homo, or even to Homo sapiens. Men, of
course, are hominids too. But you have not explained why, because we
restrict the scope of "men" in some way, we also have to restrict the
scope of "bird" in the particular way you happen to like.

I was giving an example of a case in which it seemed essential to use a
different term. It seems we're much more sensitive about our own
lineage than that of birds. I don't see the reason to treat birds any
differently than humans. If Australopithecines are not 'men'.
Archaeoptryx is not a bird.

Your problem is that you could use exactly the same reasoning to show
that any word should be used to describe a more restrictive group than
it already does. If australopithecines are not men, horses are not
mammals. Same logic entirely.

Nope. Ancient members of equus are not 'horses' either. 'Horse' is a
vernacular word that refers to the modern animals. Use terms such as
Cormohipparion, Sinohippus, Astrohippus, but not 'horse'.

Everyone other than you calls these "horses". Even Hyracotherium is a
horse.

They're wrong.

Once again, everyone but you is wrong, and yet you claim to appeal to
common usage. Do you see the contradiction?

There is no 'common usage' for Cormohipparion, Sinohippus, etc. These
extinct animals were not known during the formation of English. 'Horse'
is an old English word that long predates the concept of
Cormohipparion, Sinohippus, etc.

True. But interestingly, the English word "horse" is used by everyone
except you to apply to all those fossils. Cormohipparion doesn't have
its own vernacular word, but it shares that word -- horse -- with other
genera of horses, including Equus. Likewise, there are modern genera of
birds that have no English common names, just the names of their genera
(Parotia, for example). But they are still birds.

Are you saying you cannot read the book and make up your own mind?

I have no great interest in reading the book right now, and perhaps
ever. At any rate, you're just hiding behind it.

No. I am tring to get you to understand the relationship between
language and the formation of concepts.

Oddly, "read the book" doesn't help me understnd anything.

Plesiosaurs had to come onto land to lay eggs, right?

Nobody knows that I am aware. But what does that have to do with
dinosaurs anyway? Surely you're not under the impression that
plesiosuars were dinosaurs.

Close enough for our purposes here.

If our purpose were to remove all meanings from words, perhaps. Even
your dictionary is no help to you here. What exactly is a dinosaur, if
plesiosaurs are dinosaurs?

It depends on when the avian became 'extinct'. Archaeoptryx is not a
'bird'.

Only because you say so. By the way, you are also inconsistent in your
use of "avian". Above, you claimed it included birds. Here you say it
doesn't.

HUH? Birds and their immediate predecessors are 'avians'.

Ah, I see. I saw "the avian became extinct" and I thought you meant
"avians became extinct". Never mind.


2. Dinosaurs are extinct because a dictionary says so.

The usage of the word 'dinosaur' is recorded in the dictionary. That
usage reflects what people mean when they use this word.

Some people. It's in flux right now. Scientifically educated people
commonly refer to birds as dinosaurs.

That's confusing and literally false.

I'm sorry you're confused. But it's true.

It's false.

Examples: all the people arguing with you in this newsgroup. All the web
sites you can find saying that birds are dinosaurs. Hundreds of magazine
articles saying birds are dinosaurs.

They're wrong when they sauy that, even r=though it may be true that
'Aves' belong to the 'Dinosauria'.

And they're wrong because you say so, of course. In common usage, "bird"
is synonymous with "Aves", and "dinosaur" is synonymous with
"Dinosauria". The referents have just changed a bit since the words were
coined. After all, dinosaur is just a borrowing of Dinosauria into English.

Dictionaries, of course, don't
keep up.

They maintain a record of established usage in the face of faddish
nonsense.

Or in the face of permanent change. They lag behind actual change. They
can't help it.

3. But Latimeria is a coelacanth even though a dictionary says
coelacanths are extinct. This is different because it is, so there.

Not quite the same kind of case. The coelacanths that were thought
extincet were 'fish' too.

The question isn't about fish, but about coelacanths. Your justification
for birds not being dinosaurs was that dinosaurs are extinct according
to the dictionary.

No, the reason I say birds are not dinosaurs is that dinosaurs are
extinct in fact, and that is reflected in the dictionary, restricting
our usage of the vernacular term.

That's circular. Dinosaurs are extinct in fact if and only if you say
that birds aren't dinosaurs. You can't use that as justification for
saying that birds aren't dinosaurs.

You want to say that birds are dinosaurs, right? I ask: what kind of
dinosaurs are birds? You would say: "relatively small, toothless,
winged, bidpedal, warm-blooded, hard-shelled-egg-laying, feathered". To
which I say: "Those are birds."

And I say: of course they're birds. Are you nuts? Suppose you ask: what
kind of mammals are armadillos. I would say they're nearly toothless,
large-clawed, shelled mammals. To which you say "Those are armadillos".
And I say, "Well, duh."


But 'dinosaur' is not like 'mammal'. That's the rub!

Why? Because you say so? You really need to stop making naked assertions
and offer some justification for your claims. In what way is "dinosaur"
not like "mammal"?

Part 1 is true because you have arbitrarily decided that toothed birds
don't count.

What toothed birds?

The toothed birds that everyone except you says are birds.

What toothed birds? Name them!

Ichthyornis, Hesperornis, Sinornis, Archaeopteryx, just to start. Show
me someone who says that any of the first three isn't a bird. (You can
find creationists who say that Archaeopteryx isn't a bird, so I omit
that one.)

Did these beasts pre-date the KT event?

Yes.

If so, they're just avians.

Only because you, just last week, redefined the words to be so. Nobody
else uses them that way. I thought you claimed to be going by
established usage. But everyone except you calls them birds. Where's
your established usage now?

Part 2 is true, but some non-avian dinosaurs had wings too.

Pterosaurs?

Pterosaurs, as it happens, aren't dinosaurs.


I know they aren't 'counted' as dinosaurs, which is actually kind of
silly.

Why?


'Cause they're cute!

When you get facetious, it's generally because you have no real response.

But Microraptor gui is a
dinosaur, and so is Caudipteryx. Look them up.

Did you look them up yet?

Nope.

OK, just believe me then. They're non-avian dinosaurs with wings.

Part 3 is irrelevant because most non-avian dinosaurs were bipedal too.

Many were not.

But most were. So it isn't a distinquishing feature of birds.

Relatively small, toothless, winged, bidpedal, warm-blooded,
hard-shelled-egg-laying, feathered.

That's nice.

What 'dinosaurs' could be described like that?

Most enantiornithines would fit. But they're birds by my definition, and
you were probably asking for a non-bird by my definition, right? I can't
offhand think of one that is both winged and toothless. All the winged
ones I think of had at least a few teeth (though Caudipteryx comes quite
close) and all the toothless ones I think of didn't have wings as far as
we can tell. I say "as far as we can tell" because the difference
between wings and just plain forelimbs is the presence of large
feathers, and those don't preserve as a rule. So Struthiomimus might fit
the bill, but we don't know whether it had big feathers on its arms or not.

I certainly think that science should be allowed to progress. The word
'dinosaur', however, is not a scientific one, but one that resides
today primarily within the vernacular usage. Its usage is governed by
vernacular standards, not scientific ones, and this is what is
represented in the dictionaries.

If you want to say 'Aves' are 'Dinosauria', I have no objection. But
"birds are dinosaurs" is false.

Sorry if I blew your mind. You know, I tell people that birds are
dinosaurs all the time, and the general response is either "yes, I knew
that" or "really? I didn't know that".

I say: you have trouble with English.

Yes, that's what you say. You have trouble understanding that you saying
something doesn't make it so.

I understand what you mean, but I claim that it is false because the
English vernacular language does not work the same was as the
scientific language.

To the extent this is true, you have a point with fish; people seldom
use the word to refer to anything other than a traditional fish. You
have a point that's fast disappearing with dinosaurs, since inclusion of
birds is becoming common, as scientific discoveries filter out to the
public. And you are just plain, glaringly, screamingly wrong with birds,
since Archaeopteryx and other Mesozoic "avians" have always been called
birds by everyone who has ever said anything about them.

And even with fish, it's not wrong to say that mammals are fish. It's
just unusual use of language, not misuse. Loosen up a little. You could
consider it poetic language if that will help you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Word usage has everything to do with language. ... that the vernacular term "fish" is not generally used to refer to the ... record of birds by this definition actually predates, by just a bit, the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Word usage has everything to do with language. ... that the vernacular term "fish" is not generally used to refer to the ... There was probably no vernacular term for such animals as a set. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Word usage has everything to do with language. ... that the vernacular term "fish" is not generally used to refer to the ... Your problem here is just like your problem with birds. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... When is it believed that amphibians arose? ... And this has something to do with saying that humans are fish? ... That's not best usage. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Tiktaalik is not a fish. ... Only to a person who rejects any flexibility in language, ... That makes mammals no longer fish. ... pigeons would not be birds. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading