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

On Aug 24, 11:13 am, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 23, 3:26 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 23, 5:40 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:42 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 23, 11:26 am, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 23, 8:16 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 12, 7:48 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:53:30 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John
Wilkins):
Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:52:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@xxxxxxxxx>:
In article <mgspb3lq16b8p9cp0tsgds8kav7lvk7...@xxxxxxx>,
Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:57:15 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@xxxxxxxxx>:
In article <1i2ijmw.kbig65hdxyx3N%j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx>,
j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You wrote that "Recent" was a technical term while "recent" wasn't,
and that the difference was due to capitalization.

The capitalized version happens to be a technical term in geology, and
is therefore capitalized. It's not a technical term because it's
capitalized; It's capitalized because it's a technical term.

And in this, UC is correct.

UC found to be correct. Film at 11.

"Film at 11" my ass! That would rate an interruption to
*anything* being televised.

("We interrupt this coverage of the nuclear destruction by
rapacious aliens of all the great cities of North and South
America, Europe and Asia to bring you this news flash!")

That is a little hyperbolic.

Ya think?

Yeah. UC would be right at least twice before aliens invaded.

Ummm...OK. I would have said "once at most", but you may
well be correct.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

http://www.seaslugforum.net/showall.cfm?base=nonslug

"All these animals are called slugs. The word "slug" describes a body
shape rather than a group of species with acommonancestor.
Essentially, "slugs" are "snails" that have either lost their shells
or are in the process of losing their shells. This has happened many
times in snail evolution. The most obvious "slug groups" are the the
sea slugs and the land slugs."

Why should 'ape' or 'human' be treated any differently than 'slug'?
Humans are linguistically distinct from apes on the same sort of basis
that slugs are linguistically distinguished from snails.

Because linguistically and biologically you are wrong.

Not responsive, dumbass. I asked a question.

And I went on to say why you were wrong ***-gargler.

"Why should the terms 'ape' or 'human' be treated any differently than
'slug'? 'Humans' are linguistically distinct from 'apes' on the same
sort of basis that 'slugs' are linguistically distinguished from
snails.

Because linguistically and biologically you are wrong. If you were to
treat "slug" as a biological group, it would be polyphyletic. That's
why slugs of all types are referred to as "snails that have lost their
shell". If you were to treat humans as non-apes, you would be
referring to them as "apes that have x difference", which means you
would be referring to them as apes.

If you were to treat "slug" as a biological group, it would be
polyphyletic.

I'm asking only about how we treat the words. It is clear that many
English terms for animals have no relationship to their ancestral
classifications.

That is how we treat the word babboon-blower.

That's why slugs of all types are referred to as
"snails that have lost their shell".

No, they are referred to as 'slugs'. It is incorrect to refer to slugs
as 'snails'.

They are referred to as slugs, and as snails that don't have shells.

They can be described as "looking like snails without shells" for
those uninformed as to the meaning of the word 'slug'. But they are
NOT 'snails'.

In the vernacular people often say slugs are snails that don't have
shells.

That's a desription, not a word.

If you were to treat humans as
non-apes, you would be referring to them as "apes that have x
difference", which means you would be referring to them as apes.

By the way, what is your degree in?

Philosophy.

Bachelors, Masters, or PhD? University? Specific field?

Well?

BA. Ohio State. General philosophy, emphasis on Kant.

Have you referred to a spider as an insect in public yet?

Well have you?

Well?

No. Have had no opportunity. Have not seen any spiders when around
people.

Jason


.