Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:42:45 GMT
UC wrote:
On May 22, 11:51 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
UC wrote:
On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
then would'nt this "common ancestor"
have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
like an ape?
The term is 'simian'.
But "simian" is just a synonym for "like an ape". Why do you think that
the existence of one term for something invalidates all other terms for
the same thing? It's odd that a person who claims to be so knowledgeable
about language doesn't know about synonyms.
The TERM is 'simian', that's my point.
Yes. And as I have pointed out, calling it *the* term is absurd, when
there are such things as synonyms. What silly made-up rule are you
appealing to in order to forbid calling the chimp-human ancestor an ape?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Common ancestor between man and ape
- From: backspace
- Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
- From: UC
- Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
- From: UC
- Common ancestor between man and ape
- Prev by Date: Re: In the News: Romney Elaborates on Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: uno scimmione senza ragione
- Previous by thread: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
- Next by thread: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|