Re: No flightless Insecta?

In message <uranium-1181939230.077063.257680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, UC <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On Jun 15, 4:14 pm, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:58 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



> On Jun 15, 3:35 pm, Will in New Haven

> <bill.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 3:26 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > On Jun 15, 2:55 pm, Will in New Haven

> > > <bill.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 6, 4:41 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > > On Jun 6, 4:35 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:24:12 -0000, UC > > > > > ><uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >On Jun 6, 4:14 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:25:21 -0700, UC > > > > > > >><uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >> wrote:

> > > > > > >> >On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Ken Denny <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> On Jun 5, 3:02 pm, "mel turner" > > > > > > >> >><mtur...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >> >> wrote:

> > > > > > >> >> > "UC" <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote > > > > > > >> >> >

> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >>>>news:uranium-1181065783.024695.11660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>http://gillesgonthier.com/Photos/insecta.html

> > > > > > >> >> > > Hexapoda include Insecta.

> > > > > > >> >> > >http://tolweb.org/Hexapoda

> > > > > > >> >> > And Insecta includes groups other than > > > > > > >> >> >Pterygota.http://tolweb.org/Insecta/8205

> > > > > > >> >> > Further, many Pterygota are secondarily flightless.

> > > > > > >> >> > cheers

> > > > > > >> >> I believe there are a number of coleoptera species > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> wings, are still flightless. Somewhat like > > > > > > >> >>ostriches or penguins.

> > > > > > >> >Let me ask this:

> > > > > > >> >Is flight primitive to or derived in Insecta?

> > > > > > >> Short answer: derived.

> > > > > > >> Long answer:

> > > > > > >> The old definition of Insecta included the Apterygota, > > > > > > >>which were
> > > > > > >> always wingless as a primitive condition. Hence all > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> of insects with wings would then be considered a > > > > > > >>derived character.

> > > > > > >Interesting (except you mean 'Insecta').

> > > > > > >> The apterygotes (deliberately Englishifying all > > > > > > >>technical words merely
> > > > > > >> to annoy you) include the proturans, the collembolas > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> the diplurans (two-pronged bristletails) and the thysanurans
> > > > > > >> (silverfish). The Tree of Life website you provided > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> separated out the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura, > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> from the insects, proper. That gave me the wrong > > > > > > >>impression that all
> > > > > > >> the primitively wingless insects were separated out to > > > > > > >>make the
> > > > > > >> insects, proper, all winged except as a derived trait. > > > > > > >>Of course I
> > > > > > >> did that without looking it up! John Harshman rightly > > > > > > >>corrected me to
> > > > > > >> note that the Archeognatha (bristletails) and > > > > > > >>Thysanura (silverfish)
> > > > > > >> are still insects (see tree of life > > > > > > >>athttp://tolweb.org/Insecta/8205)
> > > > > > >> The Pterygota (all the others) are the winged insects.

> > > > > > >> The tree of life site goes on to say "Many groups of > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> subsequently lost the ability to fly. Some of these > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> for example) have lost all remnants of wings. It is > > > > > > >>only through their
> > > > > > >> evident relationship with particular groups of winged > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> are closely related to psocids [book lice]; fleas are > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> flies) that it is clear that their ancestors had > > > > > > >>wings."http://tolweb.org/Pterygota/8210

> > > > > > >> So the pterygotes are primitively winged with many > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> wingless examples but there do exist insects outside > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> group that are wingless as a primitive condition.

> > > > > > >OK, that settles it then. The first Insecta were flightless.

> > > > > > And many insects are still flightless and many, many more > > > > > >have become
> > > > > > flightless. You can alter the spelling of any words in > > > > > >that statement
> > > > > > that you find disturbing, for some peculiar reason.

> > > > > Well, 'spiders' are 'insects' in the vernacular (as are > > > > >millipedes and
> > > > > centipedes), but Arachnida are not Insecta.

> > > > That is the vernacular of _spectacularly_ uneducated people. When I
> > > > was in fourth grade, which was 1954, everyone in my class knew that
> > > > spiders are not insects. Because they are not insects, you fucking
> > > > loon. You don't have the excuse of not being educated, which > > > >
> > > > are stupid.

> > > It is not a matter of education, as I repeat for the umpteenth time.
> > > As a matter of fact, the TRULY educated perosn will know that the word
> > > is not coterminal with 'Insecta' and will use it deliberately in
> > > refernce to spiders, to show his breadth of knowledge.

> > While most people who hear him will think him a moron and those who
> > know why he does it will KNOW him to be a moron. The biological fact
> > trumps the sophistry that says we have to continue making the errors
> > of our ancestors. Just as knowing that a vervet monkey is not an ape
> > trumps the knowledge that at some time in the past it was reasonable
> > to call it an ape.

> > While the map is not the ground, the most USEFUL maps approximate the
> > ground most closely.

> > Will in New Haven

> > --

> > - Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you actually argue? You simply say that someone is wrong. You
declare this to be true or that to be true but you must feel it is
beneath you to give any reasons or logical arguments. And yet, there
is no room beneath you. You are too low to kick but too wet to step
on. If I had a dog with a mind like yours, I would shave its ass and
make it walk backwards.

You actually want people to be ignorant. Calling a spider an insect is
ignoring major distinctions in order to keep the usage the same as it
was when people didn't KNOW those distinctions. What is the fucking
POINT of that? Is it to allow you to seem less of a moron?

Did the other kids TEASE you for calling a Mandrill an ape? Was a
teacher scornful when you called a spider an insect. Did someone beat
the living *** out of you for being such a damn pedant and wrong to
boot. Are your little feelings hurt because everyone involved in this
discussion finds you almost unbearable?

<Cue in theme from "MASH">

Will in New Haven

- Hide quoted text -



> - Show quoted text -

Read this:

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

After you read this, tell me what it says, in your own words.

It says that UC is engaging in the red herring fallacy.
--
alias Ernest Major

.