Playboy article on the common ancestor between man and ape
backspace
they are wrong
"...But evolution has never claimed that we came from monkeys for
apes: It's not possible since they are still here with us...."
Evolution doesn't claim anything you Cameron Smith is claiming
something - don't appeal to abstract authority.
"..Evolution holds that we have a common ancestor with monkeys,
specifically with chimpanzees....."
The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/f20412f90f39e7f7#f20412f90f39e7f7
that has been going strong now for over three months is that this
common ancestor was in fact a chimpanzee or whatever C.M. Smith wants
to call this primate.
Now his particular theory I shall call the Cameron M. Smith Theory of
Evolution about which he wrote a book here
http://www.amazon.com/Top-10-Myths-About-Evolution/dp/159102479X. And
thus based on the other thread his theory of evolution has been
falsified and it has been showed that he was just playing semantic
games in the Playboy article. I say the C.M Smith theory because there
is no general theory of evolution. There is no consensus view on what
exactly is the general theory of evolution. Smith from Portland State
University has been exposed as being clueless , yet everybody will
continue to talk about the Theory of Evolution and nobody will tell me
who's theory of evolution are they refering to. I am not saying the
general theory of evolution is wrong, because I don't know what is the
theory - nobody does.
TomS
<1187357391....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, backspace stated..."
>
>2 Feb 2006 Playboy article: Four Myths about Darwin's theory and why
>they are wrong
>"...But evolution has never claimed that we came from monkeys for
>apes: It's not possible since they are still here with us...."
>Evolution doesn't claim anything you Cameron Smith is claiming
>something - don't appeal to abstract authority.
It is called a "metaphor". In particular, "metonomy".
Remiscent of, "The White House announced ...".
Yes, evolution, literally and strictly speaking, is
something that occurs in the world of life on earth.
But, metaphorically, evolution is a theory. It is
a theory about how evolution happens.
And, metaphorically, evolution says such-and-such
because those who are experts in the field say
that.
--
---Tom S.
"... to call in a special or miraculous act of creation reduces every
conceivable world to accident."
Jacob Bronowski, in "American Scholar" v.43 (1974) page 400
John Harshman
> 2 Feb 2006 Playboy article: Four Myths about Darwin's theory and why
> they are wrong
> "...But evolution has never claimed that we came from monkeys for
> apes: It's not possible since they are still here with us...."
> Evolution doesn't claim anything you Cameron Smith is claiming
> something - don't appeal to abstract authority.
>
> "..Evolution holds that we have a common ancestor with monkeys,
> specifically with chimpanzees....."
>
> The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/f20412f90f39e7f7#f20412f90f39e7f7
> that has been going strong now for over three months is that this
> common ancestor was in fact a chimpanzee or whatever C.M. Smith wants
> to call this primate.
No. Nobody ever said the most recent common ancestor of humans and
chimpanzees was a chimpanzee. In fact it's clear that the common
ancestor was not any living species. The consensus is actually that the
common ancestor was an ape. But again, not any currently living species
of ape. It probably looked more like a chimpanzee than it looked like
you. We don't have a name for it because we probably haven't found any
of its fossils, and if we had we would be unable to determine that they
belonged to the ancestor. This is a limitation of paleontology.
You, by your semantic games, are creating disagreement where there is
none. You are hopelessly dishonest.
> Now his particular theory I shall call the Cameron M. Smith Theory of
> Evolution about which he wrote a book here
> http://www.amazon.com/Top-10-Myths-About-Evolution/dp/159102479X. And
> thus based on the other thread his theory of evolution has been
> falsified and it has been showed that he was just playing semantic
> games in the Playboy article.
There's only one person playing semantic games here. Three guesses.
> I say the C.M Smith theory because there
> is no general theory of evolution. There is no consensus view on what
> exactly is the general theory of evolution. Smith from Portland State
> University has been exposed as being clueless , yet everybody will
> continue to talk about the Theory of Evolution and nobody will tell me
> who's theory of evolution are they refering to. I am not saying the
> general theory of evolution is wrong, because I don't know what is the
> theory - nobody does.
What are your pragmatics?
By the way, do you read Playboy just for the articles?
Tiny Bulcher
> "On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:29:51 -0700, in article
>
> >2 Feb 2006 Playboy article: Four Myths about Darwin's theory and why
> >they are wrong
> >"...But evolution has never claimed that we came from monkeys for
> >apes: It's not possible since they are still here with us...."
> >Evolution doesn't claim anything you Cameron Smith is claiming
> >something - don't appeal to abstract authority.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> It is called a "metaphor". In particular, "metonomy".
<pedant>
Metonymy, actually.
</pedant>
TomS
<1187366374....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Tiny Bulcher stated..."
<blush>
Thank you.
Robert Weldon
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > What are your pragmatics?
>
> > By the way, do you read Playboy just for the articles?
>
There are articles in Playboy ?!?!?!? I will have to conduct some
research.
Vend
I don't think they are exactly peers.
JoeBussen
leer review?
Rolf
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187357391....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
your mind - why don't you just try to understand the principle of evolution?
Forget about any theory, just consider what it means: That due to genetic
changes; mutations and whatever else that might cause changes in the DNA
pool of a group of individuals within a species, in due time such changes
amy ahve accumulated ro such a degree that the descnendants - hundred or
thousand generations down in time are definitely and permanently different
from what they were at the starting point, hundreds of thousand years
before.
But you do not want to know or understand, and that is a fact.
Gerry Murphy
"nmp" <add...@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:46c5d398$0$227$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > What are your pragmatics?
> >
> > By the way, do you read Playboy just for the articles?
>
>
Peerer reviewed. 8-}
Dan Luke
Wow! Who knew?
--
Dan
"Don't make me nervous when I'm carryin' a baseball bat."
- Big Joe Turner
Harry K
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
> > By the way, do you read Playboy just for the articles?
>
Wouldn't the magazine be a bit on the soggy side afterward?
Harry K
Slimebot McGoo
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... nobody will tell me
>who's theory of evolution are they refering to.
That's on a need-to-know basis. You're out of the loop.
McGoo
Mike Dworetsky
news:13cca5h...@news.supernews.com...
> Playboy has articles?
>
> Wow! Who knew?
When I was a student my room mate claimed that he read Playboy mainly for
the fashion articles.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
richardal...@googlemail.com
Of course there are articles in Playboy.
They are there so that one can buy Playboy and say that it's because
of the articles, some of which are actually rather good.
It's the only reason I ever bought Playboy, even at a young and
impressionable age when I needed to screw up my courage to the hilt to
take a copy off the shelf with the nervous, studied nonchalance of an
17 year adopting the persona of a man of the world.
RF
RF
JTEM
> The consensus is actually that the common ancestor
> was an ape.
Which is not only misleading, but it reinforces the whack
jobs.
There's a very good chance that the common ancestor
was bipedal -- in a way that only humans are today.
backspace
> "nmp" <addr...@is.invalid> wrote in message
http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf is where I downloaded the
article.
http://www.toptenmyths.com has myth6 listed as:"..People came from
monkeys...." Yea, right it wasn't a monkey it only looked like one!
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>The consensus is actually that the common ancestor
>>was an ape.
>
>
> Which is not only misleading, but it reinforces the whack
> jobs.
Why exactly is it misleading?
> There's a very good chance that the common ancestor
> was bipedal -- in a way that only humans are today.
There certainly is a chance. I don't know if it's a good chance. But so
what? Is it your claim that a bipedal animal can't or shouldn't be
called an ape?
JTEM
> > There's a very good chance that the common ancestor
> > was bipedal -- in a way that only humans are today.
>
> There certainly is a chance. I don't know if it's a good chance.
> But so what? Is it your claim that a bipedal animal can't or
> shouldn't be called an ape?
It makes as much sense as calling those things in your
birdbath "Dinosaurs." Which is to say, it makes no sense.
John Harshman
Ah, you and UC. You are opposed to cladistic classification?
JTEM
> Ah, you and UC. You are opposed to cladistic classification?
I'm opposed to jackasses pretending to somehow combat
the ever-rising creationism/I.D. movement with language
that seems carefully selected to reinforce the other side.
Cj
"Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1187381215....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Never mind that, is there a centerfold?
John Harshman
Perhaps you can explain just *how* this language reinforces the other side.
Robert Carnegie
I wondered how come you were only now referring to an article dated
February 2006, I think you said. Many scientists do read _Playboy_
and you may have noticed that science did not collapse last year at
this news, which indicates its relative importance.
backspace
> >http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf is where I downloaded the
> > article.
> >http://www.toptenmyths.com has myth6 listed as:"..People came from
> > monkeys...." Yea, right it wasn't a monkey it only looked like one!
> Many scientists do read _Playboy_ and you may have noticed that science did > not collapse last year at this news
That depends on your pragmatics with "science". What is your intent
with the word
science, because it could mean anything? Are implying metaphysical
materialism or are you refering to Prof. Herrmann's defenition:
"Science is a process where human beings provide at the very least a
well reasoned description of what they observe".
Robert Carnegie
Well... Isaac Asimov for one.
JTEM
> Perhaps you can explain just *how* this language
> reinforces the other side.
If you were capable of listening to anything I say don't
you think our long history would be a lot different?
Ari H
So, if it was not an ape, what was it? A human? :-)
What about LCA of gorillas and modern humans, was it an ape?
If not, then what word would you use to classify it?
--
"Ja pilkut huusivat tuskissaan: 'Lisää vaseliinia, lisää vaseliinia!'"
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <faeh7k$2of$1...@news.cc.tut.fi>):
'creationist'.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
JTEM
> > It makes as much sense as calling those things in your
> > birdbath "Dinosaurs." Which is to say, it makes no sense.
>
> So, if it was not an ape, what was it? A human? :-)
A hominid.
> What about LCA of gorillas and modern humans, was
> it an ape? If not, then what word would you use to
> classify it?
Specifically, I was addressing the question of a
common ancestor between humans & chimps. But,
if the talk.origins website is to be believed, "Hominid"
works jus fine in the case of gorillas as well.
John Harshman
You don't appear to be saying anything. Why not make an attempt and see
what happens?
John Harshman
> Ari H <em...@ei.saatavilla.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>It makes as much sense as calling those things in your
>>>birdbath "Dinosaurs." Which is to say, it makes no sense.
>>
>>So, if it was not an ape, what was it? A human? :-)
>
>
> A hominid.
Very confusing statement these days, in which all apes are members of
Hominidae. Would you refer to chimpanzees as hominids? In modern terms,
they are. But they are also apes. So the question is what the important
difference is between chimpanzees and the common ancestor of chimps and
humans that lets you call one and ape but not the other one. Now repeat
the question but with gorillas, orangutans, gibbons.
>>What about LCA of gorillas and modern humans, was
>>it an ape? If not, then what word would you use to
>>classify it?
>
> Specifically, I was addressing the question of a
> common ancestor between humans & chimps. But,
> if the talk.origins website is to be believed, "Hominid"
> works jus fine in the case of gorillas as well.
That is indeed the modern classification. But you haven't answered the
question. All the apes are hominids, but they're still apes too. Why
can't you call extinct hominids apes?
Scooter the Mighty
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > What are your pragmatics?
>
> > By the way, do you read Playboy just for the articles?
>
> Isn't it a peer reviewed magazine?
More commonly leer reviewed.
Arkalen
wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > 2 Feb 2006 Playboy article: Four Myths about Darwin's theory and why
> > they are wrong
> > "...But evolution has never claimed that we came from monkeys for
> > apes: It's not possible since they are still here with us...."
> > Evolution doesn't claim anything you Cameron Smith is claiming
> > something - don't appeal to abstract authority.
>
> > "..Evolution holds that we have a common ancestor with monkeys,
> > specifically with chimpanzees....."
>
> > The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this thread
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b4...
> > that has been going strong now for over three months is that this
> > common ancestor was in fact a chimpanzee or whatever C.M. Smith wants
> > to call this primate.
>
> No. Nobody ever said the most recent common ancestor of humans and
> chimpanzees was a chimpanzee. In fact it's clear that the common
> ancestor was not any living species.
I found a nice way of seeing this, though it probably wouldn't be any
use for creationists : if primates' (and therefore our) most close
cousins are fruit-eating bats, that doesn't mean we evolved from bats.
In fact bats might be more justified in thinking they are evolved from
humans, since we are just very big hairless proto-primates, while they
have evolved flight and stuff.
Of course both point of views are false : actually both evolved from a
common ancestor that no longer exists today.
It's the same thing with chimps, but the fact that from our point a
view the common ancestor looked a lot like a chimp confuses things.
<snip>
TomS
<MvCyi.499$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>JTEM wrote:
>
>> Ari H <em...@ei.saatavilla.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It makes as much sense as calling those things in your
>>>>birdbath "Dinosaurs." Which is to say, it makes no sense.
>>>
>>>So, if it was not an ape, what was it? A human? :-)
>>
>>
>> A hominid.
>
>Very confusing statement these days, in which all apes are members of
>Hominidae. Would you refer to chimpanzees as hominids? In modern terms,
>they are. But they are also apes. So the question is what the important
>difference is between chimpanzees and the common ancestor of chimps and
>humans that lets you call one and ape but not the other one. Now repeat
>the question but with gorillas, orangutans, gibbons.
The Wikipedia article "hominid" suggests:
"A hominoid is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members
are the lesser apes (gibbons) and great apes.
A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae: all of the great apes.
A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees,
humans (excludes orangutans).
A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: chimpanzees and humans.
A hominan is a member of the sub-tribe Hominina: modern humans and
their extinct relatives.
A human is a member of Homo sapiens sapiens or Homo sapiens idaltu
and might also be used to refer to any extinct member of the genus Homo
or members from other hominan genera. ..."
Although I notice that "hominin" is often used recently to distinguish species
which are on the "human" side of the "human-chimp" split, where the older
usage favored "hominid".
--
---Tom S.
"... to call in a special or miraculous act of creation reduces every
conceivable world to accident."
Jacob Bronowski, in "American Scholar" v.43 (1974) page 400
JTEM
> > A hominid.
>
> Very confusing statement these days,
Not at all. Of course, you being incapable of seeing beyond
your own nose, I can understand why you'd feel that way....
The other side has demonstrated -- ad nauseum -- their
difficulty in digesting the concept of man evolving from
apes... to the point of rejection, no less. It is a barrier
to understanding, communication if you will, and thus
far your only strategy for overcoming this problem is to
insist that everyone see things in your terms.
It's quite ironic, actually, given your history of whining on
the subject of other people's communication skills...
> > Specifically, I was addressing the question of a
> > common ancestor between humans & chimps. But,
> > if the talk.origins website is to be believed, "Hominid"
> > works jus fine in the case of gorillas as well.
>
> That is indeed the modern classification. But you haven't
> answered the question.
Oh, okay: You're a turd you couldn't talk a fundy out of
a burning gay disco, never mind change the mind of a
creationist. This is because you're incapable of placing
yourself in another's shoes -- seeing from their point of
view -- and tailoring your message to your audience.
JTEM
> Although I notice that "hominin" is often used recently
> to distinguish species which are on the "human" side
> of the "human-chimp" split, where the older usage
> favored "hominid".
*Sigh*
Let's try it another way, hoping the point won't be lost this
time:
You're a car salesman, you want to sell a car, and a
potential customer comes on your lot. Problem is, this
customer is known for their strong aversion to the word
"Car." Yup. They hear that word and respond quite
strongly... quite negatively.
Now, the Harshman method would be to approach the
customer and roll out "car" as every other word. My
suggestion is that you should use "automobile" instead.
Granted, it may turn out that they react just as negatively
to "automobile" as they do to car, but we have no evidence
either way. On the other hand, we do have plenty of
evidence that saying "car" will create a problem, will keep
us from our goal.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>A hominid.
>>
>>Very confusing statement these days,
>
>
> Not at all. Of course, you being incapable of seeing beyond
> your own nose, I can understand why you'd feel that way....
>
> The other side has demonstrated -- ad nauseum -- their
> difficulty in digesting the concept of man evolving from
> apes... to the point of rejection, no less. It is a barrier
> to understanding, communication if you will, and thus
> far your only strategy for overcoming this problem is to
> insist that everyone see things in your terms.
But their objection is not to the words used; it's to the fact itself.
Whether you say humans are descended from apes, or apes and humans are
descended from a common ancestor, or whatever, it doesn't matter to
them. What matters is that humans are not related by descent to anything
else. Note, by the way, that the idiot who began this thread was not
complaining about humans being called apes, but about what he considers
to be weasel words trying to disguise such an idea.
> It's quite ironic, actually, given your history of whining on
> the subject of other people's communication skills...
I presume that you, since your communication skills are so sharply
honed, have as your major goal in all your posts, including those
directed at creationists, the giving of offense. And this does indeed
make it ironic that you suggest I should try not to offend creationists.
>>>Specifically, I was addressing the question of a
>>>common ancestor between humans & chimps. But,
>>>if the talk.origins website is to be believed, "Hominid"
>>>works jus fine in the case of gorillas as well.
>>
>>That is indeed the modern classification. But you haven't
>>answered the question.
>
> Oh, okay: You're a turd you couldn't talk a fundy out of
> a burning gay disco, never mind change the mind of a
> creationist. This is because you're incapable of placing
> yourself in another's shoes -- seeing from their point of
> view -- and tailoring your message to your audience.
Well, that certainly answered *a* question. Again, this is certainly odd
advice from a person who seldom posts anything that isn't 80% insult, at
a minimum.
JTEM
> But their objection is not to the words used; it's
> to the fact itself.
"Humans are apes" is not a fact, it's a convention.
As for this common ancestor, well, even an I.D.iot knows
that there's (supposed to be) a common ancestor to
birds and humans, but that this common ancestor is neither
a bird nor a human...
Anyhow, right now this is a political struggle. The fight is
over what we should be teaching students TODAY, and
what will be the accept "facts" of tomorrow. The goal here
is not to "Educate" the other side, it is to "Inform" them.
The difference? Glad you asked:
You don't need to put someone through a Computer
Science program in order to help them pick out the
best computer in the local electronics store. I mean,
you wouldn't "teach" them, you'd simply tell them,
and you'd tell them using words that they understand.
And as alien as that is to you...
In this case we're dealing with a bias as well as ignorance.
Smack into that bias and you fail. They'll gladly -- even
proudly -- remain dirt ignorant if you give them half an
excuse.
Stop giving them the excuse. That's all I'm saying. Stop
giving them the excuse.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But their objection is not to the words used; it's
>>to the fact itself.
>
>
> "Humans are apes" is not a fact, it's a convention.
Agreed. The fact I was referring to was the common ancestry of humans
and other species, whatever you want to call them.
> As for this common ancestor, well, even an I.D.iot knows
> that there's (supposed to be) a common ancestor to
> birds and humans, but that this common ancestor is neither
> a bird nor a human...
Yes, and they find that equally offensive.
> Anyhow, right now this is a political struggle. The fight is
> over what we should be teaching students TODAY, and
> what will be the accept "facts" of tomorrow. The goal here
> is not to "Educate" the other side, it is to "Inform" them.
>
> The difference? Glad you asked:
>
> You don't need to put someone through a Computer
> Science program in order to help them pick out the
> best computer in the local electronics store. I mean,
> you wouldn't "teach" them, you'd simply tell them,
> and you'd tell them using words that they understand.
>
> And as alien as that is to you...
>
> In this case we're dealing with a bias as well as ignorance.
> Smack into that bias and you fail. They'll gladly -- even
> proudly -- remain dirt ignorant if you give them half an
> excuse.
>
> Stop giving them the excuse. That's all I'm saying. Stop
> giving them the excuse.
I fail to see how any particular set of terms gives them more of an
excuse than any other. Doubtless this is part of my incapacity, but
could you help me by explaining? Why is "humans are apes" any more or
less an excuse for creationists to remain ignorant than "humans and apes
are descended from a common ancestor"?
JTEM
> Agreed. The fact I was referring to was the common
> ancestry of humans and other species, whatever
> you want to call them.
As was I. The only diffence between us was that I kept in
mind the people we both hope to reach....
JTEM
Oops...
> I fail to see how any particular set of terms gives
> them more of an excuse than any other.
"Nappy headed hos."
According to Harshmen: Nothing more than a rose
by another name...
> Doubtless this is part of my incapacity,
Confirmed.
> but could you help me by explaining?
It's interesting, but you & I first tangled.... how many
years ago? Whatever, we're talking "Years" here, not
months. In all that time I have never once seen you
display an ability to see beyond your own very narrow
perspective... not so much as a willingness to try.
Why don't you try THAT for a while, first, and then
come back to me with a request like this?
Good luck on that.
John Harshman
You are going back to your old habit of snipping out everything that
makes the discussion meaningful. Not a good idea if communication were
your goal.
As it happens, I don't think you hope to reach anyone. I've never seen
you engage in any real discussion with a creationist. Your universal
practice is to ridicule them and call them idiots. Is this tailoring the
message to the audience? Can you give an example of the sort of thing
you think I should be doing?
backspace
> I found a nice way of seeing this, though it probably wouldn't be any
> use for creationists : if primates' (and therefore our) most close
> cousins are fruit-eating bats, that doesn't mean we evolved from bats.
> In fact bats might be more justified in thinking they are evolved from
> humans, since we are just very big hairless proto-primates, while they
> have evolved flight and stuff.
> Of course both point of views are false : actually both evolved from a
> common ancestor that no longer exists today.
>
> It's the same thing with chimps, but the fact that from our point a
> view the common ancestor looked a lot like a chimp confuses things.
Lets presume that we do find fossils finely graded showing how an ape
turned into a human. In what way
would this either prove or disprove the existance of God? You still
don't have a mechanism. The control mechanism
was in the soft part the brain. You would need to explain how the
brain of the primate did real time multi-tasking and solved complex
feedback control loops without being "aware" of it, in the same way
the the human brain activly
thinks about abstract problems while walking around the park. The
human brain is solving a real time control problem by keeping the body
upright at the same time. In what way did this control mechanism
arise, where is the
theory that explains this?
Ernest Major
Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com> writes
>I found a nice way of seeing this, though it probably wouldn't be any
>use for creationists : if primates' (and therefore our) most close
>cousins are fruit-eating bats, that doesn't mean we evolved from bats.
>In fact bats might be more justified in thinking they are evolved from
>humans, since we are just very big hairless proto-primates, while they
>have evolved flight and stuff. Of course both point of views are false
>: actually both evolved from a common ancestor that no longer exists today.
The idea that bat are biphyletic and Megachiroptera are "primates"
hasn't panned out. The current consensus is that the closest relatives
of primates, among living organisms, are Scandentia (tree shrews) and
Dermoptera (colugos); the order is to the best of my knowledge
unresolved. After it's rodents and lagomorphs, the whole clade going by
the name of Euarchontoglires.
--
alias Ernest Major
Arkalen
> In message <1187707221.574427.161...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> writes
Oh, I thought it was still debated. That's too bad, I loved the idea
of being (more closely than otherwise) related to bats ^^
Thank you for clearing things up !
Arkalen
1) Did I ever talk about God ?
2) The control mechanism arose in parallel to the legs. For one thing,
you do realize that the control mechanism for walking, running etc on
four legs is quite complex and involves keeping complicated
equilibria ? So you start with four legs and a control mechanism which
as a side-effect of making you nimble permits you to stand on your
hind legs for seconds at a time.
Now say it is advantageous to stay on your hind legs for a bit more
than seconds at a time, such as to catch branches you will then swing
on. So your control mechanism will get a bit better at keeping your
equilibrium on your hind legs. And your hind legs will become
structurally better at supporting you in the first place. And as it
becomes more and more advantageous to be bipedal, the legs and the
control mechanisms will evolve together, bit by bit, always keeping in
step with each other. Or ever-so-slightly out of step for some people,
so you end up with klutzes and people with back pains. Which you can
observe every day around you.
Control mechanisms are the easiest thing to evolve, because they just
evolve with whatever they control; they are also innately flexible.
Scientists have already "evolved" six-legged walks (like those used by
insects) in little robots that had blank "brains".
Animals have been moving since they were unicellular, at which time
the control mechanisms are various proteins and chemicals that respond
to stimuli. When they became multicellular some cells specialised in
making others move, becoming neurons and muscles, and the thing is
when you're a microscopic swimming thing that doesn't even control its
movement that much... it just vaguely moves towards the light when it
can... well you don't need much of a control mechanism. A handful of
neurons do the trick, if you even need neurons. (it can just be your
appendages or muscle cells reacting directly to currents and
chemicals)
But swimming better, and responding to different stimuli gives a
survival advantage so you will evolve cells that respond to the other
stimuli, and they affect your two neurons who affect your six muscle
cells which make you move better. Then to swim more strongly you will
evolve slightly stronger legs, which work with six muscle cells. But
they work even better with twelve muscle cells ! So you'll evolve
twelve muscle cells, which makes you really strong and solid but you
know what ? With all those muscle cells you could actually do subtler
movements, and those freaks who have four neurons are able to exploit
this new potential. But why not have stronger legs, more numerous
muscle cells ? Back when you had two neurons they would have been
unmanageable, but with four it can be done.
I expect you can clearly understand how from there on control
mechanisms evolved in step with whatever they controlled until you get
to us. (cue laugh track)
JTEM
> You are going back to your old habit of snipping out
> everything that makes the discussion meaningful.
Talk about irony....
Look, jackass, I was "going back" to the point I was
always making!
But you can't see that, or at least to refuse to acknowledge
it...
> Not a good idea if communication
Like I said, "Irony."
John Harshman
We seem to be done here. As always, I am amazed.
JTEM
> We seem to be done here.
You pathetic excuse for a human... we were "Done" years
ago!
Seriously, did you check out your last reply? You accused
me of poor communication for reiterating my point!
And, yeah, for ignoring your attempts at obfuscation...
backspace
> 2) The control mechanism arose in parallel to the legs.
> Control mechanisms are the easiest thing to evolve, because they just
> evolve with whatever they control; they are also innately flexible.
Established by whom?
backspace
> >"...But evolution has never claimed that we came from monkeys for
> >apes: It's not possible since they are still here with us...."
> >Evolution doesn't claim anything you Cameron Smith is claiming
> >something - don't appeal to abstract authority.
> It is called a "metaphor". In particular, "metonomy".
> Remiscent of, "The White House announced ...".
Pragmatics, pragmatics - we all know that the intent is that a
specific human being at the White House announced something, not the
actual bricks painted white. In contrast we are never told who is the
person that has established that species transmutate into other
species as Darwin put it. Note that Darwin didn't establish this since
he didn't know about genes and thus couldn't specify the problem -
everything he said is irrelevant in the light of what we know today.
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are
told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
p.2
Arkalen
I've got no idea. Why don't you do some research instead of saying
something is impossible when you know nothing on the subject.
The only thing I said that wasn't on the order of "here's how it could
work" is about the evolution of six-legged walking in robots, and
simple google yields this :
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/392008.html
The reason I say control mechanisms are the easiest thing to evolve is
because people are already able to do tons of stuff with computer
"neural networks", and the "neurons" in those things are pathetically
simple compared to the real thing. Look it up.
backspace
> On Aug 24, 12:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 10:51 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> 2) The control mechanism arose in parallel to the legs.
>
> > Established by whom?
>
> > > Control mechanisms are the easiest thing to evolve, because they just
> > > evolve with whatever they control; they are also innately flexible.
>
> > Established by whom?
>
> I've got no idea. Why don't you do some research instead of saying
> something is impossible when you know nothing on the subject.
>
> The only thing I said that wasn't on the order of "here's how it could
> work" is about the evolution of six-legged walking in robots, and
> simple google yields this :http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/392008.html
It all depends on your intent with the word "evolution". Colloquially
we refer to engineers evolving robots and by this
we have the pragmatics of a conscious agent with a teleological goal
gradually directing a process towards a planned goal. Sapolsky says
that this pragmatics with "evolution" in biology is wrong:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/afa5efdde3bacecc/0d4c69fcdfa10428
Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" '''Robert
Sapolsky''' p.
73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is
directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than
vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of
my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in
lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong,
you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans
directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern
Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping."
Your pragmatics with evolved differs from Sapolsky's pragmatics - who
should I believe?
Bob T.
> On Aug 24, 5:06 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 12:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 10:51 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> 2) The control mechanism arose in parallel to the legs.
>
> > > Established by whom?
>
> > > > Control mechanisms are the easiest thing to evolve, because they just
> > > > evolve with whatever they control; they are also innately flexible.
>
> > > Established by whom?
>
> > I've got no idea. Why don't you do some research instead of saying
> > something is impossible when you know nothing on the subject.
>
> > The only thing I said that wasn't on the order of "here's how it could
> > work" is about the evolution of six-legged walking in robots, and
> > simple google yields this :http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/392008.html
>
> It all depends on your intent with the word "evolution". Colloquially
> we refer to engineers evolving robots and by this
> we have the pragmatics of a conscious agent with a teleological goal
> gradually directing a process towards a planned goal. Sapolsky says
>
> Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" '''Robert
> Sapolsky''' p.
> 73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is
> directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than
> vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of
> my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in
> lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong,
> you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans
> directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern
> Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping."
>
> Your pragmatics with evolved differs from Sapolsky's pragmatics - who
> should I believe?
I think you should believe a bunch of goat-herders from 4000 years ago
- they are the people I trust to understand the scientific principles
of biology above all others!
- Bob T.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arkalen
> On Aug 24, 5:06 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 12:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 10:51 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> 2) The control mechanism arose in parallel to the legs.
>
> > > Established by whom?
>
> > > > Control mechanisms are the easiest thing to evolve, because they just
> > > > evolve with whatever they control; they are also innately flexible.
>
> > > Established by whom?
>
> > I've got no idea. Why don't you do some research instead of saying
> > something is impossible when you know nothing on the subject.
>
> > The only thing I said that wasn't on the order of "here's how it could
> > work" is about the evolution of six-legged walking in robots, and
> > simple google yields this :http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/392008.html
>
> It all depends on your intent with the word "evolution". Colloquially
> we refer to engineers evolving robots
Gods learn to read sometime... This is not "car evolution" or
something ! Don't you know what genetic algorithms *are* ?
This is people who looked at how evolution works, and wondered "can we
use the same principles to create stuff", i.e. you write a program
that can mutate and recombine the characteristics of whatever you're
trying to optimize, then you run it a thousand times keeping the
"best" (those that are most like the desired result) every generation.
It's tricky, not exactly like biological evolution and isn't very fast
as far as optimization methods go, but that's how they EVOLVED that
six-legged gait in their robot.
backspace
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b4...
> No. Nobody ever said the most recent common ancestor of humans and
> chimpanzees was a chimpanzee. In fact it's clear that the common
> ancestor was not any living species. The consensus is actually that the
> common ancestor was an ape.
> You, by your semantic games, are creating disagreement where there is
> none. You are hopelessly dishonest.
My original question on the common ancestor wasn't mine but the wife
of Richard Leakey before she died. Evolutionists now seem to disagree
on two fundamental issues:
1) The common ancestor between man and ape was either a real ape or
only looked like one but wasn't an ape.
2) Evolution(whatever your pragmatics) happens by chance as the AAAS
insisted in 1991
Project 2061, Hartwig and Wagner "...Each type shares properties
common to all life, and yet each is different, as a consequence of
millions of years of chance evolutionary events...." And the other
view that evolution doesn't proceed by chance. (Again whatever is your
pragmatics with evolution). This was discussed here
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/051fb14fa2c1c401/#
The "common ancestor" and "chance evolutionary" events are at least
two issued that evolutionists on this forum have different pragmatics
with. Yet they all seem to insist that they are talking about exactly
the same thing or in other words that they all have the same intent
with the word "evolution". I have shown that they clearly don't have
the same intent.
Arkalen
> On Aug 17, 5:50 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this thread
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b4...
> > No. Nobody ever said the most recent common ancestor of humans and
> > chimpanzees was a chimpanzee. In fact it's clear that the common
> > ancestor was not any living species. The consensus is actually that the
> > common ancestor was an ape.
> > You, by your semantic games, are creating disagreement where there is
> > none. You are hopelessly dishonest.
>
> My original question on the common ancestor wasn't mine but the wife
> of Richard Leakey before she died. Evolutionists now seem to disagree
> on two fundamental issues:
> 1) The common ancestor between man and ape was either a real ape or
> only looked like one but wasn't an ape.
You're confusing "ape" and "chimpanzee" here I believe. Besides, as
humans is are apes technically the common ancestor between man and ape
is man.
The common ancestor between man and chimpanzee was definitely an ape,
as was the common ancestor between man/chimpanzee and gorillas and
orang-utangs. No "evolutionist" will argue with this.
However, the common ancestor between man and chimpanzee was not a
chimpanzee, any more than it was a man. It would probably look like a
chimpanzee to you because it was hairy and not very bipedal, but it
was not a chimpanzee or any existing species of animal.
Because of the "well, it probably *looked* like a chimpanzee" thing
you might find some evolutionists who are confused on the subject, or
who will try to explain the complexity of the situation to you and as
you don't understand a word they say you will assume they're
confused... But that's just noise. No evolutionist will go right out
and say "the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees was a
chimpanzee".
> 2) Evolution(whatever your pragmatics) happens by chance as the AAAS
> insisted in 1991
Oh dear. What part of "random mutation, nonrandom selection" don't you
understand ? The only reason you'll get evolutionists to argue on the
subject is by confusing the issue as to whether you're talking about
mutation, selection, or evolution as a whole. Which I don't doubt for
a second you are very adept at doing.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Aug 17, 5:50 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this thread
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b4...
> > No. Nobody ever said the most recent common ancestor of humans and
> > chimpanzees was a chimpanzee. In fact it's clear that the common
> > ancestor was not any living species. The consensus is actually that the
> > common ancestor was an ape.
> > You, by your semantic games, are creating disagreement where there is
> > none. You are hopelessly dishonest.
>
> My original question on the common ancestor wasn't mine but the wife
> of Richard Leakey before she died. Evolutionists now seem to disagree
> on two fundamental issues:
> 1) The common ancestor between man and ape was either a real ape or
> only looked like one but wasn't an ape.
Absolute nonsense! There is no disagreement whatsoever amongst
evolutionary scientist that the common ancestor of man and other apes
was an ape.
> 2) Evolution(whatever your pragmatics) happens by chance as the AAAS
> insisted in 1991
More absolute nonsense. Instead of wittering on about "pragmatics" (a
term whose meaning you apparently don't understand), why not try to
learn about science in general and evolutionary science in particular?
Evolution does not happen by chance. The mutations from which
beneficial traits are selected occur by chance, but the fact that we
refer to natural *SELECTION* means that evolution does *NOT* happen
"by chance".
> Project 2061, Hartwig and Wagner "...Each type shares properties
> common to all life, and yet each is different, as a consequence of
> millions of years of chance evolutionary events...." And the other
> view that evolution doesn't proceed by chance. (Again whatever is your
> pragmatics with evolution). This was discussed herehttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/051fb14...
>
> The "common ancestor" and "chance evolutionary" events are at least
> two issued that evolutionists on this forum have different pragmatics
> with. Yet they all seem to insist that they are talking about exactly
> the same thing or in other words that they all have the same intent
> with the word "evolution". I have shown that they clearly don't have
> the same intent.
Why not try do educate yourself in the subject? To do so you will need
to learn to read for comprehension. Doing so will provide you with the
"pragmatics" you so evidently lack.
RF
John Harshman
> On Aug 17, 5:50 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this thread
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b4...
>
>
>>No. Nobody ever said the most recent common ancestor of humans and
>>chimpanzees was a chimpanzee. In fact it's clear that the common
>>ancestor was not any living species. The consensus is actually that the
>>common ancestor was an ape.
>>You, by your semantic games, are creating disagreement where there is
>>none. You are hopelessly dishonest.
>
>
> My original question on the common ancestor wasn't mine but the wife
> of Richard Leakey before she died.
I don't believe you.
> Evolutionists now seem to disagree
> on two fundamental issues:
> 1) The common ancestor between man and ape was either a real ape or
> only looked like one but wasn't an ape.
> 2) Evolution(whatever your pragmatics) happens by chance as the AAAS
> insisted in 1991
> Project 2061, Hartwig and Wagner "...Each type shares properties
> common to all life, and yet each is different, as a consequence of
> millions of years of chance evolutionary events...." And the other
> view that evolution doesn't proceed by chance. (Again whatever is your
> pragmatics with evolution). This was discussed here
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/051fb14fa2c1c401/#
Again, you are confused on both points. Given your inability to
comprehend even the clearest statements it's a wonder you are able to
communicate at all. Perhaps if you stopped quote-mining sentence
fragments and began reading entire documents you would come to a better
understanding.
> The "common ancestor" and "chance evolutionary" events are at least
> two issued that evolutionists on this forum have different pragmatics
> with. Yet they all seem to insist that they are talking about exactly
> the same thing or in other words that they all have the same intent
> with the word "evolution". I have shown that they clearly don't have
> the same intent.
You have shown that you are unable -- or perhaps "unwilling" would be a
better term -- to understand anything you read.
"Controversy" #1 is about nothing more than what we call an animal we
all agree existed; since names are arbitrary labels, this is hardly
fundamental. #2 is wholly your fabrication.
backspace
> Oh dear. What part of "random mutation, nonrandom selection" don't you
> understand ?
Darwin never said "random mutation" in his Origin of Species nor had
such pragmatics when he said that "...chance is an incorrect
expression...." after using the word chance throughout his book.
But in
Cognitive Psychology 52 (2006) 170-194
Qualitative diverences between naïve and scientific theories of
evolution, Andrew Shtulman wrote
"....Philosophers of biology have long argued that Darwin's theory of
evolution was qualitatively
divergent from all earlier theories of evolution. Whereas Darwin's
predecessors and contemporaries
explained adaptation as the transformation of a species' "essence,"
Darwin explained adaptation
as the selective propagation of randomly occurring mutations within a
population....."
You seem to have missed my previous posts on Pragmatics. If you Google
with 'pragmatics' and 'natural selection"
you get these threads on the Google hit parade out of 166 000 pages:
nr.5:
Difference between random and non-random Natural Selection? - talk ...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/098acca749332b15
Survival of the fittest: What was Darwin's pragmatics?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902dbe5979d87f/bdab556847b77640#bdab556847b77640
See Gitt's book on information theory where he explains pragmatics and
Apobetics
http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/3893972552
"...He carefully and clearly delineates what is considered information
for the purposes of the theory, and the 5-level structure of
information, which includes Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics,
and Apobetics...."
Arkalen
> On Aug 25, 2:12 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Oh dear. What part of "random mutation, nonrandom selection" don't you
> > understand ?
>
> It depends who's theory of "random mutations" you are referring to.
> Darwin never said "random mutation" in his Origin of Species nor had
> such pragmatics when he said that "...chance is an incorrect
> expression...." after using the word chance throughout his book.
Darwin didn't even know about genetics ! Just because Darwin had the
idea of the basics of evolution, and published first, doesn't mean
everything he said was true or that evolution is just what Darwin
said !
That's like saying relativity is false because Newton never talked
about curved space.
Science isn't about what individual people say; it's about how the
world works. Just because some people find out something about how the
world works doesn't mean everything else they say is true as well !
What other theories of random mutation are there ? (other than trying
to find out how random they really are, and how important they are in
the evolutionary process)
> But in
> Cognitive Psychology 52 (2006) 170-194
> Qualitative diverences between naïve and scientific theories of
> evolution, Andrew Shtulman wrote
> "....Philosophers of biology have long argued that Darwin's theory of
> evolution was qualitatively
> divergent from all earlier theories of evolution. Whereas Darwin's
> predecessors and contemporaries
> explained adaptation as the transformation of a species' "essence,"
> Darwin explained adaptation
> as the selective propagation of randomly occurring mutations within a
> population....."
>
> You seem to have missed my previous posts on Pragmatics. If you Google
> with 'pragmatics' and 'natural selection"
> you get these threads on the Google hit parade out of 166 000 pages:
> nr.5:
> Difference between random and non-random Natural Selection? - talk ...http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/098acca749332b15
>
> Survival of the fittest: What was Darwin's pragmatics?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902db...
>
> See Gitt's book on information theory where he explains pragmatics and
> Apobeticshttp://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/389397...
> "...He carefully and clearly delineates what is considered information
> for the purposes of the theory, and the 5-level structure of
> information, which includes Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics,
> and Apobetics...."
The fact that googling "pragmatics" and "natural selection" yields
usenets posts by you indicates that you've completely invented it as
far as I'm concerned. But I'd be happy to find out what you mean by
it, care to explain ? (no, the two posts I got by googling weren't
enough for me to understand what you're talking about, and I'm not
about to buy a book on Amazon for your pretty eyes)
backspace
wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> >>Not a good idea if communication
John and JTEM I have been reading your replies to one another from
post 21 to 42. You both seem to agree that this
common ancestor was an ape but that evolutionists should conspire and
lie about this so as not to look ridiculous.
Am I reading your correctly?
On this thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902dbe5979d87f/bdab556847b77640#bdab556847b77640
post16 Harshman wrote
"...You want "pragmatics"? Here: humans and chimpanzees are descended
from a common ancestor. Their differences are due to the accumulation
of mutations fixed in their respective lineages after separation from
each
other. That's evolution..."
Now finally we know your pragmatics with common ancestor which differs
from that of McPherson.
Lets state for the record: Harsman believes that the common ancestor
was an ape while McPherson a fellow evolutionist don't. But you both
believe in evolution, but you obviously have different intent with the
word.
Arkalen
> On Aug 24, 3:39 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > >>Not a good idea if communication
> > We seem to be done here. As always, I am amazed.
>
> John and JTEM I have been reading your replies to one another from
> post 21 to 42. You both seem to agree that this
> common ancestor was an ape but that evolutionists should conspire and
> lie about this so as not to look ridiculous.
> Am I reading your correctly?
>
> post16 Harshman wrote
> "...You want "pragmatics"? Here: humans and chimpanzees are descended
> from a common ancestor. Their differences are due to the accumulation
> of mutations fixed in their respective lineages after separation from
> each
> other. That's evolution..."
> Now finally we know your pragmatics with common ancestor which differs
> from that of McPherson.
> Lets state for the record: Harsman believes that the common ancestor
> was an ape while McPherson a fellow evolutionist don't. But you both
> believe in evolution, but you obviously have different intent with the
> word.
Are you confusing "ape" and "chimpanzee" again ?
Arkalen
Nah ignore that post, sorry
JTEM
> The common ancestor between man and chimpanzee
> was definitely an ape,
That's just a convention. It makes every bit as much sense
to begin in the present, working backwards. Or, heck, we
could even do it another way.
I'm not arguing that we should change these conventions
simply for the comfort of a bunch of wing nuts. What I am
doing here is pointing out what should be obvious...
This is a political struggle. The goal isn't so much to
educate the other side as it is to defeat them.
Now, here's the thing: Up 'til now the other side has been
winning. One reason for this is because the other side is
a lot better at talking the language of the people they're
trying to influence... and when I say "A lot better" I mean
that they're good at it, while the pro-reality side shits big
time.
Ironically, if the twits who enjoy the "Communicate" whine
so much would simply _Listen_ to the other side, they'd
learnb a thing or to. They don't say the things they say
because they fail miserably at influencing the public --
as the fact of their success should demonstrate -- but they
say them because they work.
John Harshman
> On Aug 24, 3:39 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>
>>>>Not a good idea if communication
>>
>>We seem to be done here. As always, I am amazed.
>
>
> John and JTEM I have been reading your replies to one another from
> post 21 to 42. You both seem to agree that this
> common ancestor was an ape but that evolutionists should conspire and
> lie about this so as not to look ridiculous.
> Am I reading your correctly?
I can only speak for myself: no. It should come as no surprise to anyone
that you are not reading me correctly, since if you were it would be the
first time you had read anyone correctly.
What JTEM thinks will probably remain a mystery.
> On this thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902dbe5979d87f/bdab556847b77640#bdab556847b77640
> post16 Harshman wrote
> "...You want "pragmatics"? Here: humans and chimpanzees are descended
> from a common ancestor. Their differences are due to the accumulation
> of mutations fixed in their respective lineages after separation from
> each other. That's evolution..."
> Now finally we know your pragmatics with common ancestor which differs
> from that of McPherson.
I doubt that.
> Lets state for the record: Harsman believes that the common ancestor
> was an ape while McPherson a fellow evolutionist don't. But you both
> believe in evolution, but you obviously have different intent with the
> word.
No. You just don't understand. You don't want to understand, because
that allows you to manufacture fake disagreements and lets you feel as
if evolutionary biology has no content.
The argument, if there is one, is about what arbitrary word to use as a
label for the common ancestor of humans and chimps. This has no affect
on either the existence or the characteristics of that ancestor.
Arkalen
> Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The common ancestor between man and chimpanzee
> > was definitely an ape,
>
> That's just a convention.
I was using the modern, cladist definition of the word "ape". It's as
much of a convention as saying the sky is blue.
<snip stuff John Harshman apparently likes to debate but not I>
JTEM
> Absolute nonsense! There is no disagreement
> whatsoever amongst evolutionary scientist that
> the common ancestor of man and other apes
> was an ape.
...but only because, under the current convention,
humans are apes.
What's interesting here are the parallels between this
argument and whether some "dinosaurs" are birds. The
distinction in the latter case seems to be no more
significant than bipedalism is in the former.
If that was too subtle: What I'm saying is that if the
common ancestor between man and the great apes
was bipedal, then there's a lot more room for grey than
the common black-and-white views would acknowledge.
And if you require a conclusion....
I think the answer is to not waste any time arguing over
nonsense. Whatever you want to call the common
ancestor between man & chimps it remains the common
ancestor between man & chimps.
Arkalen
Actually in that sense it is *not* a convention to say that humans are
apes. It is the only way "apes" can be a clade, which is what makes
sense scientifically.
If there were just humans and chimps there might be a matter of
convention, but you are forgetting gorillas, orangs and so on. There
is no way "apes" can include gorillas and chimps, not include humans,
and still make sense scientifically.
If you want to make parallels to the situation with dinosaurs and
birds, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't call the common
ancestor of chickens and ducks a bird.
Of course the common ancestor of chickens and ducks was a bird ! And
it had probably been a bird for a long time too. You might have a
debate if you were looking at two very distantly related birds, so
distant that their common ancestor was close to the root of the "bird"
clade, but chickens and ducks are nested so highly in the tree there
is no doubt their common ancestor was a bird.
Same thing with humans and chimps. Humans and gibbons, now that common
ancestor might have not been an ape (well he was by definition, but
like the bird/dinosaur break we probably don't know exactly what he
looked like), but humans and chimps ? Those two that are so close it
would make more cladistic sense to group chimps under "Homo" ? *That*
common ancestor was definitely an ape.
JTEM
> Actually in that sense it is *not* a convention to
> say that humans are apes. It is the only way
> "apes" can be a clade, which is what makes
> sense scientifically.
It's just as easy -- and makes just as much sense --
to begin in the present and work our way backwards.
> If there were just humans and chimps there might
> be a matter of convention, but you are forgetting
> gorillas, orangs and so on.
I'm not forgetting anything. You're looking at the way
things are and assuming that it's the only way things
could ever be.
> If you want to make parallels to the situation with
> dinosaurs and birds, you seem to be saying that
> we shouldn't call the common ancestor of chickens
> and ducks a bird.
Wrong. That's just your way of choosing to look at
things.
> Of course the common ancestor of chickens and
> ducks was a bird !
Does the phrase "Begging the question" mean anything
to you? It should.
backspace
> I think the answer is to not waste any time arguing over
> nonsense. Whatever you want to call the common
> ancestor between man & chimps it remains the common
> ancestor between man & chimps.
In other words your intent with "common ancestor" is that it was a
"common ancestor" but not an ape?
Or it was an ape/human hybrid and the common ancestor to this hybrid
was a "common ancestor".
The common ancestor between me and my mom a thousand years ago was a
"common ancestor". From this sentence it is clear that my pragmatics
with "common ancestor" is that this "common ancestor" looked like a
human being. I don't know what intent you are trying to communicate
with "common ancestor" between man and ape.
And please you evolutionists must realize that you are loosing the
debate in the public domain. Try not to explode on pandasthumb.org or
around here, calmly state your case because it is obvious that this
common ancestor thread has totally stumped you, you don't know what to
say. All these rhetorical language games are being exposed.
Speak the truth , even pandasthumb.org recently said that at least
YEC are honest in what they are saying and are not trying to lie and
deceive like the ID'sts are doing. My goal is to see every person
confess the name of their true 'common ancestor" - Jesus Christ the
Son of God.
backspace
> Same thing with humans and chimps. Humans and gibbons, now that common
> ancestor might have not been an ape (well he was by definition, but
> like the bird/dinosaur break we probably don't know exactly what he
> looked like), but humans and chimps ? Those two that are so close it
> would make more cladistic sense to group chimps under "Homo" ? *That*
> common ancestor was definitely an ape.
Finally some honesty around here. But Arkalen this raises another
question. IF McPherson from Portland State disagrees with you as I
stated in my opening post then why should I believe you? Theories are
according to individual human beings. Why should I bother with your
theory but not Portland State University's McPherson's theory?
Arkalen
> Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Actually in that sense it is *not* a convention to
> > say that humans are apes. It is the only way
> > "apes" can be a clade, which is what makes
> > sense scientifically.
>
> It's just as easy -- and makes just as much sense --
> to begin in the present and work our way backwards.
What do you mean ?
> > If there were just humans and chimps there might
> > be a matter of convention, but you are forgetting
> > gorillas, orangs and so on.
>
> I'm not forgetting anything. You're looking at the way
> things are and assuming that it's the only way things
> could ever be.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by "begin in the present and
work our way backwards" but I still don't get it. Do you mean, say,
giving the same name to all the ancestors of a present species,
instead of giving the same name to all the descendents of an ancestral
species ? If you do that you'll get different branches meeting, how
will you name them ?
> > If you want to make parallels to the situation with
> > dinosaurs and birds, you seem to be saying that
> > we shouldn't call the common ancestor of chickens
> > and ducks a bird.
>
> Wrong. That's just your way of choosing to look at
> things.
Okay... Just to get things straight, how is the convention of saying
"the common ancestor of chickens and ducks is a bird" different from
the convention of saying "the sky is blue" in your mind ?
> > Of course the common ancestor of chickens and
> > ducks was a bird !
>
> Does the phrase "Begging the question" mean anything
> to you? It should.
I don't see why it should. Insofar as "bird" is a cladistic term that
includes chickens, ducks, and penguins, calling the common ancestor of
chickens and ducks a bird is an inevitable consequence.
The only way I can understand your argument is if you think we
shouldn't try to use cladistic names as much as we can... I never
said is wrong/impossible to say the common ancestor of chickens and
ducks wasn't a bird, I said it makes less scientific sense if you do.
Now if you hold that an arbitrary way of naming living things is just
as reasonable as one that reflects their evolution... we'll just have
to agree to disagree.
Arkalen
You have no reason to believe me, if you want authority you should ask
an expert. So either read a book, go to a university or talk to John
Harshman and the other actual scientists here.
I don't think McPherson really disagrees with me; at least I interpret
his words as saying we don't descend from *any present species* of
apes or monkeys, which is true. But you're right the statement is a
misleading; he probably got a bit carried away in "shut the
creationists up" mode.
"The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this
thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b4...
that has been going strong now for over three months is that this
common ancestor was in fact a chimpanzee or whatever C.M. Smith wants
to call this primate. "
And this is where I think you're confusing "ape" and "chimpanzee". The
common ancestor of humans and chimps was an ape, but it probably
wasn't the same species as a chimpanzee. One could argue chimps did
not change at all during all the time of human evolution but given the
scarcity of chimp fossils I'm not sure it's a justified assumption.
backspace
> "The consensus agreement amongst everybody around here from this
> that has been going strong now for over three months is that this
> common ancestor was in fact a chimpanzee or whatever C.M. Smith wants
> to call this primate. "
>
> And this is where I think you're confusing "ape" and "chimpanzee". The
> common ancestor of humans and chimps was an ape, but it probably
> wasn't the same species as a chimpanzee. One could argue chimps did
> not change at all during all the time of human evolution but given the
> scarcity of chimp fossils I'm not sure it's a justified assumption.
Are you yanking my chain? We have been going round in circles now for
over three months on the other thread debating this very point. I
don't care what you want to call this ape/chimp or whatever your
naming convention for a primate is. The thing scratched for fleas and
visually it didn't look like a human it looked like an ape/chimp/
gorilla/bonobo/primate or whatever.
Arkalen
I've got no idea what you've been doing for three months, I wasn't
there and I certainly don't feel like reading the whole thing. If to
you "scratched for fleas and didn't look like a human" means it was a
chimp be my guest. It also means gorillas and dogs and chimps are the
same to you but whatever. It's not a scientific argument.
JTEM
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Actually in that sense it is *not* a convention to
> > > say that humans are apes. It is the only way
> > > "apes" can be a clade, which is what makes
> > > sense scientifically.
>
> > It's just as easy -- and makes just as much sense --
> > to begin in the present and work our way backwards.
>
> What do you mean ?
I mean it's just as easy -- and makes just as much
sense -- to begin in the present and work our way
backwards.
Apparently you need to do some reading:
http://www.palaeos.com/Systematics/Cladistics/cladistics.htm
When you're done, you should be able to understand
what I mean by "begin in the present" [as opposed to
the past].
> I'm trying to understand what you mean by "begin in the
> present and work our way backwards" but I still don't get
> it. Do you mean, say, giving the same name to all the
> ancestors of a present species, instead of giving the
> same name to all the descendents of an ancestral
> species ? If you do that you'll get different branches
> meeting, how will you name them ?
Some cultures trace ancestory through maternal lines.
Some cultures trace ancestory through paternal lines.
A modern and ever more popular approach is to look
at both. Each example yields different results from the
other two.
Believe it or not (and you clearly don't), there is more
than one way we could map our evolutionary ancestors.
> > > If you want to make parallels to the situation with
> > > dinosaurs and birds, you seem to be saying that
> > > we shouldn't call the common ancestor of chickens
> > > and ducks a bird.
>
> > Wrong. That's just your way of choosing to look at
> > things.
>
> Okay... Just to get things straight, how is the convention
> of saying "the common ancestor of chickens and ducks
> is a bird" different from the convention of saying "the sky
> is blue" in your mind ?
Like I said, does the phrase "Begging the question" mean
anything to you?
You're not responding to anything I've said, either. I guess
that means we can say you fit two fallacious arguments
into one statement...
Anyhow, what I did was raise the example of some
"Dinosaurs," and the argument over they should be
considered dinosaurs or birds. Contrary to what you seem
to believe, the common ancestor to chickens and ducks
isn't relevant here.
> > > Of course the common ancestor of chickens and
> > > ducks was a bird !
>
> > Does the phrase "Begging the question" mean anything
> > to you? It should.
> I don't see why it should.
You made that much clear.
> Insofar as "bird" is a cladistic term that includes chickens,
> ducks, and penguins, calling the common ancestor of
> chickens and ducks a bird is an inevitable consequence.
Like I said, "Begging the question"...
JTEM
> One could argue chimps did not change at all during
> all the time of human evolution but given the scarcity
> of chimp fossils I'm not sure it's a justified assumption.
Given how far back bipedalism might've gone, there's a
great chance that chimps (from our perspective, even if
not in any true sense) "de-evolved" after their split from
the human line.
gregwrld
> On Aug 26, 1:16 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> And please you evolutionists must realize that you are loosing the
> debate in the public domain. Try not to explode on pandasthumb.org or
> around here, calmly state your case because it is obvious that this
> common ancestor thread has totally stumped you, you don't know what to
> say. All these rhetorical language games are being exposed.
>
> Speak the truth , even pandasthumb.org recently said that at least
> YEC are honest in what they are saying and are not trying to lie and
> deceive like the ID'sts are doing. My goal is to see every person
> confess the name of their true 'common ancestor" - Jesus Christ the
> Son of God.
Jesus is a dead guy and the bible just a book written by humans -
time you
grew up and got over it.
The "public" worships Brittany Spears and Justin Timberlake and
voted for
George Bush - that ought to tell you what public opinion is worth.
gregwrld
John Harshman
> Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually in that sense it is *not* a convention to
>>>>say that humans are apes. It is the only way
>>>>"apes" can be a clade, which is what makes
>>>>sense scientifically.
>>
>>>It's just as easy -- and makes just as much sense --
>>>to begin in the present and work our way backwards.
>>
>>What do you mean ?
>
>
> I mean it's just as easy -- and makes just as much
> sense -- to begin in the present and work our way
> backwards.
>
> Apparently you need to do some reading:
>
> http://www.palaeos.com/Systematics/Cladistics/cladistics.htm
>
> When you're done, you should be able to understand
> what I mean by "begin in the present" [as opposed to
> the past].
As you will notice soon if you haven't already, trying to get JTEM to
explain himself is pretty much useless. You have no idea what he means,
I have no idea what he means, but all that indicates to JTEM is that
we're idiots.
[snip more futility]
John Harshman
If one can follow your argument here, the claim would be that a bipedal
primate should not be called an ape. Is that it?
backspace
> his words as saying we don't descend from *any present species* of
> apes or monkeys, which is true. But you're right the statement is a
> misleading; he probably got a bit carried away in "shut the
> creationists up" mode.
You have not read the PDF link I gave to his article. He clearly
implied that this common ancestor was an ape then
apes wouldn't be around us at the moment - that was his pragmatics. If
you beg to differ, read the article and quote from
it. And please try to cut back on the sarcasm, can't we all just try
and act like adults around here.
backspace
wrote:
JTEM you are not exactly helping your side. I don't know if you are
actually serious in your responses to Harshman or are trying to be a
closet troll. I still can't figure out what it is that you believe
this common ancestor to be between man and ape. This creature that
split from the human line - what did it look like? Or what would it
have looked like to an observer back then. Please clarify your intent
with "...split from the human line....".
Arkalen
> Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Actually in that sense it is *not* a convention to
> > > > say that humans are apes. It is the only way
> > > > "apes" can be a clade, which is what makes
> > > > sense scientifically.
>
> > > It's just as easy -- and makes just as much sense --
> > > to begin in the present and work our way backwards.
>
> > What do you mean ?
>
> I mean it's just as easy -- and makes just as much
> sense -- to begin in the present and work our way
> backwards.
>
> Apparently you need to do some reading:
>
> http://www.palaeos.com/Systematics/Cladistics/cladistics.htm
>
> When you're done, you should be able to understand
> what I mean by "begin in the present" [as opposed to
> the past].
OK, I'm done and sorry I don't understand what you mean anymore than I
did before. Maybe ou could explain ? As in, with other words than
"begin in the present and work our way backwards" because you already
used those and they didn't help.
> > I'm trying to understand what you mean by "begin in the
> > present and work our way backwards" but I still don't get
> > it. Do you mean, say, giving the same name to all the
> > ancestors of a present species, instead of giving the
> > same name to all the descendents of an ancestral
> > species ? If you do that you'll get different branches
> > meeting, how will you name them ?
>
> Some cultures trace ancestory through maternal lines.
> Some cultures trace ancestory through paternal lines.
> A modern and ever more popular approach is to look
> at both. Each example yields different results from the
> other two.
Right. Because humans reproduce sexually, so every human will have two
parents. But species don't speciate sexually. Every species has one
ancestral species that spawned it and one only, except for rare cases
of hybridisation and such. (well, rare for vertebrates at least).
So that analogy doesn't work.
> Believe it or not (and you clearly don't), there is more
> than one way we could map our evolutionary ancestors.
Then why don't you give examples of such alternative ways ?
> > > > If you want to make parallels to the situation with
> > > > dinosaurs and birds, you seem to be saying that
> > > > we shouldn't call the common ancestor of chickens
> > > > and ducks a bird.
>
> > > Wrong. That's just your way of choosing to look at
> > > things.
>
> > Okay... Just to get things straight, how is the convention
> > of saying "the common ancestor of chickens and ducks
> > is a bird" different from the convention of saying "the sky
> > is blue" in your mind ?
>
> Like I said, does the phrase "Begging the question" mean
> anything to you?
>
> You're not responding to anything I've said, either. I guess
> that means we can say you fit two fallacious arguments
> into one statement...
I've explained why I didn't believe saying the common ancestor of
chickens and ducks was a bird was begging the question; obviously you
disagree, but I don't know why. Could you explain please ?
> Anyhow, what I did was raise the example of some
> "Dinosaurs," and the argument over they should be
> considered dinosaurs or birds. Contrary to what you seem
> to believe, the common ancestor to chickens and ducks
> isn't relevant here.
It's as relevant as invoking dinosaurs when trying to see if you could
call the common ancestor of humans and chimps and ape.
> > > > Of course the common ancestor of chickens and
> > > > ducks was a bird !
>
> > > Does the phrase "Begging the question" mean anything
> > > to you? It should.
> > I don't see why it should.
>
> You made that much clear.
Thank you, I like being clear ^^
> > Insofar as "bird" is a cladistic term that includes chickens,
> > ducks, and penguins, calling the common ancestor of
> > chickens and ducks a bird is an inevitable consequence.
>
> Like I said, "Begging the question"...
You've said that, what, six times ? And apparently I've been clear in
saying I didn't agree. Would you care to explain HOW exactly it's
begging the question then ?
Arkalen
wrote:
So it seems. I'm not bored yet though so that's okay ^^
Arkalen
> On Aug 26, 12:01 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think McPherson really disagrees with me; at least I interpret
> > his words as saying we don't descend from *any present species* of
> > apes or monkeys, which is true. But you're right the statement is a
> > misleading; he probably got a bit carried away in "shut the
> > creationists up" mode.
>
> You have not read the PDF link I gave to his article.
> He clearly implied that this common ancestor was an ape then
> apes wouldn't be around us at the moment - that was his pragmatics. If
> you beg to differ, read the article and quote from
> it. And please try to cut back on the sarcasm, can't we all just try
> and act like adults around here.
I completely beg to differ, but I don't know who this person is and I
don't know where the link to your article is. Saying that if X is an
ancestor then it shouldn't be around anymore is a common creationist
argument, so either he really said that and he's a creationist so
obviously I disagree with him, or (what seemed to be the case from the
quote) he's *referring* to the argument so as to refute it in which
case he's guilty of sloppy wording as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry about the sarcasm. If there was any in the post you're answering
to then we've got a problem because I don't see any. If you're talking
in general, I'll try to avoid it ^^
backspace
> I completely beg to differ, but I don't know who this person is and I
> don't know where the link to your article is. Saying that if X is an
> ancestor then it shouldn't be around anymore is a common creationist
> argument, so either he really said that and he's a creationist so
> obviously I disagree with him, or (what seemed to be the case from the
> quote) he's *referring* to the argument so as to refute it in which
> case he's guilty of sloppy wording as far as I'm concerned.
Here is the link http://www.toptenmyths.com He is a professor at
Portland State if I am not mistaken.
http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf - where he explains why the
common ancestor wasn't an ape.
Interesting to note this disagreement amongst the evolutionists about
the common ancestor. They use the same phrase but have different
intent with it and the same goes for Natural Selection. They all use
it but their intent differs.
Arkalen
> On Aug 26, 5:29 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I completely beg to differ, but I don't know who this person is and I
> > don't know where the link to your article is. Saying that if X is an
> > ancestor then it shouldn't be around anymore is a common creationist
> > argument, so either he really said that and he's a creationist so
> > obviously I disagree with him, or (what seemed to be the case from the
> > quote) he's *referring* to the argument so as to refute it in which
> > case he's guilty of sloppy wording as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Portland State if I am not mistaken.http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf - where he explains why the
> common ancestor wasn't an ape.
Huh, my computer doesn't want me to read pdf files today apparently so
I won't be able to address this.
> Interesting to note this disagreement amongst the evolutionists about
> the common ancestor.
Not really, the only disagreements are about semantics. Even in JTEM's
case. But I don't think anything will ever convince you of that so
never mind.
> They use the same phrase but have different
> intent with it and the same goes for Natural Selection. They all use
> it but their intent differs.
Yes, when millions of people use words they will always end up using
them differently somehow. Which is why it is extremely important to
define the terms you're using in debates. And which is why you
apparently feel like you're scoring huge points here even though all
we're doing is quibbling on semantics and sloppy word usage.
John Harshman
I'm going to presume that he means that the common ancestor shared more
features with us and not with chimps than we usually like to think.
E.g., that it was bipedal, and that the quadrupedal stance of
chimpanzees is derived. This is not a ridiculous notion, though it's not
exactly parsimonious given current knowledge either.
None of this seems to give creationists any comfort, so I can't see what
you're so excited about.
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
Haven't you reversed the direction of chain yanking? You've been
spending the last three months (taking you at your word for the
duration) pretending to confusion on this topic (and others).
"Scratching" for fleas is a red-herring; it's not a trait which
distinguishes other apes from humans.
At least you've given up (hopefully permanently) the claim that (it
claimed that*) any of the common ancestors of humanity with other
species looked like a baboon.
Your list of alternatives for the visual appearance is confused.
Suggesting that the common ancestor of humans and other African great
apes is particularly similar in appearance to gorillas, chimpanzees or
bonobos carries a whiff of the common creationist error that humans
evolved from a *living* species of ape. To claim that it looked like a
particular species of ape carries an implicit claim of specificity of
resemblance, which specificity is not expected. The common ancestor is
not expected to show derived human characters such as an enlarged
cranium, hairlessness and bipedality, but it is equally not expected to
show derived chimpanzee characteristics such as the prominent ischial
callosities**, or derived gorilla characteristics such as the silver
back hair of dominant males**. A naive observer might think it looked
like one of these specifically, but an educated observer would be
unlikely to agree (pace the lack of detailed knowledge of the
appearance).
Some people suspect that the common ancestor of humans and other African
great apes was more similar to humans that the other species.
The common ancestor of humans and other African great apes would look
like an ape and a primate. But humans are also apes and primates. It
would look more like a human than it would look like some apes (e.g.
gibbons) and most primates (i.e. Old and New World monkeys, tarsiers,
lorises, galagos and lemurs).
* It can be difficult to distinguish between a creationist's claims and
the words he is trying to put in others' mouths.
** If I'm mistaken on the derived nature of these traits please
substitute suitable examples.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
I hope that that statement can be ascribed to his co-writer Sullivan,
and not to McPherson Smith (you can't even get his name right). It's
badly phrased at best. (Describing chimpanzees as monkeys is also an
unusual usage.)
We are not descended from any *living* species of ape, which is perhaps
implied by his "It's not possible since they're still here with us". If
you read that rest of the article you'll see that is indeed what he
means. However his justification is simplistic; the actual argument
should be that stasis in one lineage so that the ancestral population is
morphologically the same as the current representative of that lineage
is implausible, even before taking account of the inferences that can be
made about the common ancestor from the distribution of traits in living
lineages.
--
alias Ernest Major
Augray
in <1188141676.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Aug 26, 2:43 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> > > > If you want to make parallels to the situation with
>> > > > dinosaurs and birds, you seem to be saying that
>> > > > we shouldn't call the common ancestor of chickens
>> > > > and ducks a bird.
>>
>> > > Wrong. That's just your way of choosing to look at
>> > > things.
>>
>> > Okay... Just to get things straight, how is the convention
>> > of saying "the common ancestor of chickens and ducks
>> > is a bird" different from the convention of saying "the sky
>> > is blue" in your mind ?
>>
>> Like I said, does the phrase "Begging the question" mean
>> anything to you?
>>
>> You're not responding to anything I've said, either. I guess
>> that means we can say you fit two fallacious arguments
>> into one statement...
>
>I've explained why I didn't believe saying the common ancestor of
>chickens and ducks was a bird was begging the question; obviously you
>disagree, but I don't know why. Could you explain please ?
He's just trying to be provocative. If you pursue the question, the
insults will begin.
[snip]
>> > > > Of course the common ancestor of chickens and
>> > > > ducks was a bird !
>>
>> > > Does the phrase "Begging the question" mean anything
>> > > to you? It should.
>> > I don't see why it should.
>>
>> You made that much clear.
>
>Thank you, I like being clear ^^
>
>> > Insofar as "bird" is a cladistic term that includes chickens,
>> > ducks, and penguins, calling the common ancestor of
>> > chickens and ducks a bird is an inevitable consequence.
>>
>> Like I said, "Begging the question"...
>
>You've said that, what, six times ? And apparently I've been clear in
>saying I didn't agree. Would you care to explain HOW exactly it's
>begging the question then ?
Claiming that the common ancestor of chickens and ducks wouldn't be a
bird is a completely arbitrary position to take.
Arkalen
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:21:16 -0000, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in <1188141676.291684.236...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
I didn't think I would say this, but the only way one could reasonably
argue that is by taking the UC route of "English people weren't around
to name it, so "bird" doesn't apply to it".
But I don't think UC believes that. "Reality" vs "crackpots" is a lot
like Tolstoi's happy vs unhappy families isn't it ?
Arkalen
Oops ! that was "But I don't think JTEM believs that" of course.
backspace
> I hope that that statement can be ascribed to his co-writer Sullivan,
> and not to McPherson Smith (you can't even get his name right). It's
> badly phrased at best. (Describing chimpanzees as monkeys is also an
> unusual usage.)
call an ape wouldn't be around if we had
descended from them. You must take note of his target audience - kids
and feeble minded adults. When selling atheism you try not to
complicate the discussion to much or you wind-up with the present
hilarious spectacle of Phd's in English, Engineering and Biology not
able to articulate their pragmatics with "common ancestor" in plain
English.
> We are not descended from any *living* species of ape, which is perhaps
> implied by his "It's not possible since they're still here with us". If
> you read that rest of the article you'll see that is indeed what he
> means.
> However his justification is simplistic; the actual argument
> should be that stasis in one lineage so that the ancestral population is
> morphologically the same as the current representative of that lineage
> is implausible, even before taking account of the inferences that can be
> made about the common ancestor from the distribution of traits in living lineages.
Let me rephrase your pragmatics with 'common ancestor':
"...We are not descendant from any present living species of ape.
There could be lineages of ape for which there is stasis so that the
apes 200000 years ago from this lineage is the same in appearance as
its present descendants, however this is implausible. There are
inferences we can make about the common ancestor between man and ape
200000 years ago from evaluating the traits in our present population
of chimpanzees, monkeys, humans and apes..."
This rephrased paragraph is a red herring. The point Smith made is
very clear:There wouldn't be any monkeys if we had evolved from a
monkey. What you are trying to say is the he is talking nonsense. I
neither agree nor disagree since I don't know what Smith believes
about language itself, which would influence his world view.
backspace
> Oops ! that was "But I don't think JTEM believs that" of course.
Arkalen kindly note that one should quote the relevant passage and not
the entire post. It is netiquette.