Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On 31 May 2007 13:31:24 -0700,
UC <uraniumcommitteechairman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 4:05 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31 May 2007 12:48:18 -0700,



UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 3:00 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31 May 2007 11:04:17 -0700,

UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 12:16 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(snip)
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx

No sir. All I have said is that:

1) In common parlance 'ape' is a word that is used most commonly to
refer to non-human tailless primates, occasionally to tailed primates,
and not normally to human beings.

Common parlance is not a fixed entity.

2) That for scientific purposes, we should (therefore) use scientific
terminology.

And ape does have a specific meaning in scientific terminology.

No, it does not. It is a term with varying and imprecise meaning.

Not when you talk to a scientist,

Is all talk directed to scientists? HELL NO? You assume too much.

I'm going to ask again for a specific example where there is confusion.
Even among the most rabid Creationists, the statement "humans are apes"
is understood.

I don't know what you mean. If you mean "descended from apes" I would
agree, but not 'are' apes.

I mean I walk up (figuratively) to John McCoy on talk.origins and say
"Heh, there, good ol' Honest John, you, I, Julius Caesar and that red-haired
comedian you see on TV are all apes."

Now, McCoy is going to freak out, likely open up a barrage of bull***,
non sequiturs and who knows what else, but you know what, he knows
exactly what I mean. His objection isn't that I'm allegedly misusing
some word that you have deemed fixed in meaning, but rather that I am
conveying the message that he, I, Julius Caesar and that red-haired
comedian you see on TV are related to all the other tailless primates.





and hell, not even if you talk to a
raving Creationist, who knows precisely what you mean, but will reject
the association, and very likely even reject the idea that we are
animals.

I don't understand your point. I know what 'ape' means: everything in
the dictionary under 'ape', depending on context and user.

The dictionary, as those that make dictionaries will tell you, is not
the final word.

What are you saying? That they are wrong, or that they are incomplete?
They cannot ALL be wrong.

I'm saying they are not the final word, and that language evolves in a fashion
that dictionaries never could (and have never actually tried) to be absolutely
definitive. It's not a matter of being right or being wrong, it's simply a
matter that you are attributing to them some authority which not even those
that produce them claim.





It is confusing and inexact to use ordinary English for scientific
purposes when such conditions exist.

I'm not sure. Could you indicate who precisely gets confused, with some
actual citations of those confused inviduals? Some individuals seem
to get angry at the association, but that would indicate that they are
not confused, but simply don't like the idea that they are animals.

We are 'animals'

A large number of people don't think so, and humans have frequently
throughout history been separated from animals. Why does calling us
animals get a pass, but not calling us apes?

'Animal' has a number of different meanings, and under some of those
meanings we are animals, but under others we are "more than" animals.

Every living thing that moves can be called 'animal' as opposed to
'vegetable' or 'mineral'.

We are capable of speech. 'Animals' are not.

We are the 'rational animal' (Aristotle), a sort of being set apart
from the animals.

We have the power of reason. Animals do not.

So are we animals or are we not animals?

Depends on whom you ask. "Rational animals" was an expression coined
by Aristotle.

But Catholics distinguish men from animals by virtue of the possession
of a 'soul'. (Not that I believe this, needless to say.)

Anthropologists distinguish men from animals by virtue of the power of
speech and reason possessed by men alone.

The other Homioidae are not bidpedal. Man alone is bidpedal, makes
tools, uses language, and has reason.

If I say "Humans are animals", am I violating your laws of language or
not? This is a very simple question, and I can't quite figure out why
you're not giving me your authoritative answer.





of course, and part of nature, but the word 'ape' is
not synonymous with 'Hominoidae'.

It doesn't have to be. We can be members of both groups.

Unclear what you mean. If we are members of both groups, that makes
the terms largely synonymous.

My vehicle is a member of the group "automobile". It is also a member
of the group "truck". It is also a member of the group "wheeled
transportation". None of those groups are synonomous.

But the case of 'ape' is different. When we say 'ape' we don't MEAN
merely 'mammal', but something more specific.

I'm giving you an example of a single entity that fits into three groups
(that do overlap, as many groups so often do). The meaning of ape has
changed. Nothing wrong with that. Words change all the time. Words
and the users of words are not and never have been bound by dictionaries,
nor have the producers of dictionaries ever proclaimed themselves the
final arbiter in the meaning of words. They simply report on common
(and in larger dictionaries historical) usage, though even the most
complete will not be guaranteed to have every usage to be found.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx



I'm getting well and vigorous over this argument that "words change
meaning all the time". Of coarse, why step with meening? Y not chaing
speelllling two?

And guess what, spellings do change, though it's pretty universal that
written language is far more conservative than spoken language.


The point is that meanings don't change willy-nilly or overnight!

But they do change.

They
don't change based on fiat or whims!

Some do. Some don't.

They change gradually over
decades and centuries, in an orderly fashion (usually).

What does "orderly" have to do with words? English has, over a
millennia picked up thousands and thousands of words, has altered
the meaning of many. As I said before, you picked the wrong language
to attempt to apply your principles to. English is, to be blunt,
a fucking mess.

Mostly, they
evolve from and extend accepted senses. You can't just start using
'ape' to refer to men and to gorillas, etc., when 'ape' and 'man' each
has a core meaning that specifically distinguishes them from each
other, regardless of biological ties. Men are NOT 'apes'.

Words have the meaning that they are assigned by those that use them.
If people, whether in a larger circle or a more specialized one, use
a word in a context that alters its meaning, and that word is accepted
by others, then by definition that word has a new meaning. It often
means that words can have simulatneously different definitions. Ape
is a word which has shifted in definition. It's original usage has
been altered over time.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx

.