Re: Harshman says we are all monkeys that only look like humans

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:15:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:23:40 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

John S. Wilkins wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:36:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Will in New Haven
<bill.reich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Apr 18, 5:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:49:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:



Shane wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:49:05 -0700 (PDT), unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:45 pm, backspace <Stephan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:36 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
No. It's more accurate to say that we're humans, and monkeys
too. Just as we're humans, and mammals too. But you don't care.
So if we are humans and monkeys at the same time then what would
a pure human look like?
I don't know what you mean by "pure human". But if you have an
apple and a fruit at the same time, what would a pure apple look
like?
IF you had a dog and monkey at the same time what would a pure
mammal look like? Fun these word games ain't it.
They would both be pure mammals. What would an impure mammal be?
Someone I'd like to meet if it was a she?
I'd be a bit more specific (so to speak) as to species, but who am I to
get in the way of your fun?
Nothing wrong with rishathra, assuming the existence of
non-human intelligent primates.
What about an intelligent cephelapod. Are you that much of a leg man?
It's a definitional thing; rishathra excludes non-primates,
and I'm a traditionalist. ;-)
Since primates are by definition terrestrial species, that rather limits
Niven Space.
Nonsense. Primates aren't defined by location. They're defined by
phylogenetic relationships. Though in fact it appears that in Niven
Space, humans aren't actually primates. We're not related to terrestrial
life at all, being descended from Pak. It's just the universe's most
amazing coincidence that we're almost identical to chimps.

ISTR that *all* the current (large African) primates were
descended from the Pak; there was a comment in one of the
later books about scattering Tree of Life in the jungle and
then organizing the resulting gorilla Protectors.

Doesn't matter. It's terrestrial life all the way down. And also, by the
way, inconsistent with the details of primate phylogeny even within the
supposed Pak-descended clade.

Sure; do you expect speculative fiction to *not* push the
envelope? It's not a textbook, either biology or physics.
--

Bob C.

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

.

Relevant Pages