Re: Semi-slugs?

On Aug 28, 5:09 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:16:33 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in
<uranium-1188328593.103763.115...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :



On Aug 28, 1:11 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:57:53 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in
<uranium-1188320273.174030.145...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Aug 28, 12:50 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:15:06 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in
<uranium-1188317706.532523.298...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Aug 28, 11:33 am, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:05:49 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in <uranium-1188306349.354176.9...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:

On Aug 27, 7:31 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:11:06 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in
<uranium-1188220266.045966.85...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

[snip]

Of course, I could be
wrong.

Was that an epiphany of some kind?

No. I was wrong once before, in 1958.

Trust me, you've been wrong since then too.

I thought I had made a mistake,
but hadn't.

In that instance, it was a good thing you know how to ignore logical
contradictions.

Slugs are not snails
Dogs are not wolves
Humans are not apes

Yes, your rules apply to everyone except yourself.

No, to all speakers of English.

Then why do you constantly break them?

Are you speaking to me?

I replied to you, didn't I?

I don't break these 'rules' of which you
speak.

You used the term "mollusc evolution" (which mixes vernacular and
scientific terms, and therefore verboten), you used the words "snail"
and "slug" in a scientific context (also a no-no), you used the terms
"snail" and "slug" to refer to extinct creatures (said to be a
cardinal sin), and you used the expression "bird species" (a horrific
faux pas). And this is just in the last month.

No, these are no violations of any 'rules' that I may or may not have
uttered.

It's painfully obvious that these rules are just a sad attempt to
justify your claim that Archaeopteryx can't be called a "bird".

This is correct: Archaeopteryx can't be called a "bird", because he is
neither ancestral to any known species of bird nor anatomically within
the range of modern Aves. The best thing to call him is a 'proto-
avian' or 'avian dinosaur'. Is a hyena a cat or a dog? Correct answer:
neither. Why force it to be one or the other?

But
since you can't follow these rules to save your life, why should
anyone else?

Humans are humans, not apes..

They can be both humans *and* apes.

Nope. Just like slugs can't be called 'snails', because they lack
shells or have rudimentary shells. That's what makes them 'slugs'.

I also note that you don't
dispute that they're *your* rules. When are you going to found the
"Académie Anglaise"?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Semi-slugs?
    ... Archaeopteryx can't be called a "bird", ... They can be both humans *and* apes. ... "Slugs" are apparently not a natural group. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Playboy article on the common ancestor between man and ape
    ... humans are apes. ... common ancestor between man and the great apes ... Actually in that sense it is *not* a convention to say that humans are ... Of course the common ancestor of chickens and ducks was a bird! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ape in Shakespeare
    ... And all be turn'd to barnacles, or to apes ... They fall in love with humans, ... You are an idiot, and a racist one at that. ... Learn to live with the facts that humans are apes, dogs are wolves, and you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Semi-slugs?
    ... Dogs are not wolves ... Humans are not apes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... Viverravidae dogs or cats, because they are MORE PRIMITIVE than dogs ... Most people agree that bird is a category ... Most people agree that humans are apes and baboons aren't ...
    (talk.origins)