Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Jun 12, 11:52 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
UC wrote:
On Jun 12, 10:45 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

UC wrote:

On Jun 12, 10:01 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

UC wrote:

On Jun 12, 9:39 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:14:48 -0000, UC
<uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:

[snip]

You're begging the question. You're assuming the very point at issue.

I'm not, the word ape includes humans, that is a statement of fact
that, even with your ducking and diving, you have been unable to
refute.

I don't know if he's been able to refute it, but he's just very bad at
refuting, so that's no big deal. But in fact the word "ape" usually does
not include humans.

Only among certain illiterate biologists is this usage common.

Would you mind backing up your claim that these biologists are illiterate?

Apparently you would.

And still would.

UC's mistake (well, one of them) is to suppose that
the cladistic meaning (which must include humans) is wrong or evil, when
it's merely a new and, at the moment, fairly rare meaning.

It's not evil, simply mistaken.

Why is it mistaken?

No reason, apparently.

Still no reason.



What's evil is the insistence that the
sense which excludes humans is wrong.

I wouldn't call that evil, simply mistaken.

Your mistake
is in taking the equally dogmatic position that the word "ape" *must*
include humans. In fact we have a great many words that encompass
paraphyletic or polyphyletic groups. Even if you think they all ought to
be changed (and what would "tree" mean, cladistically?) very few of them
have changed, even among scientists.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

I wasn't talking to you, but since you raised the point, I do find it
necessary to state the obvious frequently when talking to you, because
you are not good at noticing the obvious.

Casanova, Old One, and Isaak need to be told that the simple fact of
the matter is that 'ape' (vernacular) means what the vast majority of
vernacular English speakers think it means.

But it doesn't. It means what the people who are conversing at that
moment think it means. On TO, it frequently means "member of
Hominoidea". The fact that this meaning is fairly new and, in the wider
world, rare, doesn't mean that it's wrong. You may consider it
"non-standard" if you like.

And I also contest your view of what the vast majority think it means,
since you have claimed that the commonest meaning is as a synonym for
"monkey". In fact it usually means "nonhuman member of Hominoidea".

Calling humans "apes" has pedagogic value, which is why I do it.

No, it does not have any such value. It merely displays illiteracy on
your part.

Why? I have explained why it's useful, and all you have done is said "no
it isn't" without presenting reasons.

All
cladistic classification helps to drive home the point of evolution, and
in this case our connection to the rest of life. Your claim that it's
bad because it's confusing has never been substantiated. Your claim that
it's bad because it's new is just silly.

But vernacular language is NOT used cladistically, nor should it be
encouraged to be so used.

Sure it is, sometimes. And why shouldn't it be encouraged? You have
given no reason. Your pose as defender of vernacular orthodoxy is
becoming tiresom.

People use words such as 'fish' to refer to
present-day fishes, not ancient ancestors of terrestrial vertebrates,
even if they know the history of life in broad terms.

This is nonsense, and it's also irrelevant to your previous claim.
People *do* use "fish" to refer to all manner of extinct creatures,
including those that might be ancestral to tetrapods (if we could indeed
distinguish ancestors, which we can't). If you don't like calling
Tiktaalik a fish, what about Panderichthys? Or Eusthenopteron? Whatever
tetrapod-like characteristic you may use to disqualify something from
being a fish, you will find a more primitive form near that lineage that
lacks that characteristic.

I meant people in their daily lives, shopping at the grocery store,
etc. They use 'fish' to refer to living (or recently living, i.e.
FRESH) seafood: Salmon, cod, etc. Why are you bringing up Tiktaalik,
Panderichthys, or Eusthenopteron?

I will note that you have been hopelessly self-contradictory on the
subject of what can and can't be called by a particular common term.
Would you like to clarify on what can/can't be called a fish, and why?
How about the same for what can/can't be called a bird?

I think you are not being honest here. I have explained, repeatedly,
my positions. You're just too much of a biologist to be able to grasp
these things.

Or, more likely, you will just ignore all uncomfortable questions, as
you have consistently done so far, including in your last post.

It's hard to respond to questions that reveal fundamental
misunderstandings of the points already argued.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... not include humans. ... it's merely a new and, at the moment, fairly rare meaning. ... Tiktaalik a fish, what about Panderichthys? ... Because we aren't shopping for fish. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Obama surging in Montana
    ... If I'm forced to choose between humans and fish, ... One or two years of water to get farmers ... Early indigenous land use; Its becoming clear that before the great ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ...  Im not meaning to dispute or argue. ... Darwin realize that of the species he'd ... because it would depend on what you mean by humans. ... That's a strong misunderstanding of evolution. ...
    (rec.arts.books)
  • News: Skin Color Evolution In Fish And Humans
    ... Skin Color Evolution In Fish And Humans Determined By Same Genetic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... been considered possible to refer to humans as 'apes' except as ... changes in meaning and the acquistion of new knowledge. ...
    (talk.origins)