Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Jul 11, 5:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
UC wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:54:32 -0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Jul 11, 3:46 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

It's either up to you, or it's up to the
majority of the people who use the term. It's a clear cut either-or,
the majority or UC. Which should we abide by, the majority or UC?

The majority's usage is recorded in the damned dictionary!

Oh, so archaeopteryx *is* a bird...

Thanks for conceding that.

No, THAT is not a matter of usage...we have discussed this before...

Apparently you have a personal definition of "usage". If, when referring
to Archaeopteryx, someone says "this bird", that's usage. And it's a
usage you say is wrong for reasons you have never been able to make
clear. Nobody (including, I suspect, you) is able to tell what we should
or should not be calling a bird according to your notion.

The overwhelming majority, when referring to Archaeopteryx, call it a
bird. So by your expressed criterion above (as recorded in the
dictionary, incidentally) it's correct to call Archaeopteryx a bird.

So could you explain why it's wrong nevertheless?

The issue of usage would concern the vernacular term 'bird', not the
Linnaean term 'Archaeopteryx'. The issue of 'Archaeopteryx' would be
the classification of Archaeopteryx as 'Aves', not as 'bird'.
'Archaeopteryx' cannot be classed as 'bird' because 'bird' is not a
Linnaean term. There is NO vernacular term for Archaeopteryx, not
'bird', not anything.

Are you with me? There is NO USAGE issue for 'Archaeopteryx'. It is
merely a name, and is essentially meaningless.

.

Relevant Pages