Re: How transitional fossils are determined

[hersheyh]

[snip]

Thought I would respond to Hawks, since, unlike UC, he actually tries
to make an argument.

>Hawks:
>
>"We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to
>make a political argument.

Here lies the crux of UC's lament and Hawks argument. He thinks that any
instance of smuggling taxonomic principles into everyday language
involves making a political argument.

> That's what "humans are apes" ultimately is
>-- it's an argument that we aren't as great as we think we are.

Or, instead, it is the equivalent of an astronomer pointing out to
someone that the 'sun' is, in fact, a 'star'. That is that the *scientific*
understanding of what the 'sun' is has changed. The fact is, as
UC keeps saying, that humans *are* classified within the same
group as the other great apes. And in that sense, humans are
indeed 'apes'.

Moreover, Hawks argument can also be applied to always
*keeping* the word 'ape' as meaning the other great apes but
not humans. That too can be described as a "political" argument,
but one that argues that humans *are* as great as older cultures
thought we were.

Frankly, I am a pluralist and try not to use the words in a
*political* manner. *When* one correctly points out that
humans really do belong to the same biological classification
category as the other great apes and, in that sense, are
"apes", that does not either diminish humanity's unique
abilities and features nor does using the term (casually)
to refer to the other great apes enhance humanity's
uniqueness.

>Whether humans are special or not should be derived from biology;

Again, how does ignoring or lying about where humans are classified
either enhance or detract from our specialness?

I am more than willing to point out humanity's highly derived
features that differ from the other great apes, who, in turn, have
undergone less change from the ancestral common ancestor.

> I
>don't think we need to make the argument by applying Orwellian
>coercion to the meanings of English words. Biologists control
>taxonomic terminology, and that's where science should aim.

And, as I point out, *when* biologists use the term 'ape' to be
inclusive of humans, they are indeed pointing out the position
of humans in a taxonomic scheme that has changed. Just like
astronomers, *when* they describe the 'sun' as a 'star', are
pointing out their relationship to a taxonomic scheme that has
changed. In both cases, some people undoubtedly regarded
the change as being 'Orwellian' and 'political'. Both relegate the
'sun' or 'humanity' to a larger category that they regarded as
making the object less "special". But that loss of specialness
is purely in their minds. The sun is no less special to us
because we recognize that it is a star than humanity is any
less special because we recognize that, in biological classification,
humans are included in the group of 'great apes'.

> I don't
>think I'm being old-fashioned, nor am I promoting the idea that humans
>aren't part of the primate phylogeny. I'm only promoting the idea that
>we use taxonomy for its intended purpose, and not insist that English
>do the job instead.

We can, however, change the *taxonomic* use of the term to at least
recognize phylogeny. Again, I have no problem with using 'ape' in
its traditional meaning when applied to what I am going to see at
the zoo or when I specifically want to refer to the other great apes
that lack features of human specialness: for example, do apes
use tools can be asked without noting the obvious fact that humans
certainly do. But someone using the *traditional* meaning as
political weapon to emphasis human uniqueness or deny human
relatedness to the other great apes is doing exactly what Hawks
is talking about.

>We aren't apes. And it's OK to teach your children that chimpanzees
>are apes, not monkeys. Because that's what I do."

I would also point out here, that taxonomically, the apes are included in
the category Catarrhini which includes both the great apes and the other
Old World monkeys. So, in the context of categorization, chimpanzees
are a species that are within the category of Old World monkeys. In that
sense, chimpanzees *are* monkeys. That neither makes them lesser or
more than they are. And it certainly is not a "political" or "Orwellian"
statement. Unless, of course, you don't accept modern taxonomy.

In *traditonal* taxonomy, the group of "monkeys" included both the
Old World and New World monkeys and excluded the lesser and
greater apes. This is now considered to be misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

"Thus, the two sets of groups, and hence names, do not match, which causes problems in relating scientific names to common names. Consider the superfamily Hominoidea. In terms of the common names on the right, this group consists of apes and humans, and there is no single common name for all the members of the group. One possibility is to create a new common name, in this case "hominoids". Another possibility is to expand the use of one of the traditional terms. For example, in a 2005 book, the vertebrate palaeontologist Benton wrote, "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans",[10] thereby using "apes" to mean "hominoids". The group traditionally called "apes" must then be called the "nonhuman apes".
As of July 2011, there is no consensus as to which approach to follow, whether to accept traditional paraphyletic common names or whether to use monophyletic names, either new ones or adaptations of old ones. Both approaches will be found in biological sources, often in the same work. Thus, although Benton defines "apes" to include humans, he also repeatedly uses "ape-like" to mean "like an ape rather than a human", and when discussing the reaction of others to a new fossil writes of "claims that Orrorin ... was an ape rather than a human""

Modern taxonomy prefers monophyletic over the paraphyletic
groupings of "traditional" taxonomy. So in that sense the
claim that chimps, in the technical taxonomic sense, are
monkeys and that humans, in the technical taxonomic sense,
are great apes is due to a change in taxonomy. One that
better reflects underlying reality and that actually involves
far greater change in other "common" or "traditional" terms
than it does for humans.

Unlike the case with humans, the statement "apes are a subgroup of
the Old World monkeys" or "birds are the living descendants of
dinosaurs" doesn't bother most people. But the logic
is the same and does differ from "traditional" taxonomy.

Modern taxonomy uses a branching model of relatedness that was
often violated in traditional taxonomy (typically for arbitrary reasons
of either incidental similarity (fish) or incidental differences (birds) or
incomplete knowledge.

>http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-apes-2012.html

[snip]

[UC]

On Jul 10, 1:44 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Thought I would respond to Hawks, since, unlike UC, he actually tries
> to make an argument.
>
> >Hawks:
>
> >"We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to
> >make a political argument.

I should point out that I do not agree with Hawks' use of the term
'political' here. Hence, his claim is not the same as my claim. He
distorts the use of 'political' in a way that does not fit traditional
usage of the term 'political'.

> Here lies the crux of UC's lament and Hawks argument.  He thinks that any
> instance of smuggling taxonomic principles into everyday language
> involves making a political argument.

I agree. See above. It is indeed 'smuggling taxonomic principles into
everyday language' but I don't see where he gets 'political
purposes'.

[jillery]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
<hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>[snip]
>
>Thought I would respond to Hawks, since, unlike UC, he actually tries
>to make an argument.
>
>>Hawks:
>>
>>"We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to
>>make a political argument.
>
>Here lies the crux of UC's lament and Hawks argument. He thinks that any
>instance of smuggling taxonomic principles into everyday language
>involves making a political argument.

To the degree that politics is philosophy, I agree.

IIUC I think Neil Tyson discusses your general point in the Youtube
video Wiki Trix cited. Tyson said some people complain that science
diminishes our place in the Universe, that we used to be special and
in the center, and now we are an unimportant smudge on a small planet
orbiting one of countless average stars orbiting in one of countless
galaxies. His reply is that science exalts our connection to the
Universe, that to know that we are made from atoms that stars
transformed in their bowels and in their death throes ejected these
atoms out into space to be incorporated in a new generation of stars
and us. It may be insulting to some people like UC to be called an
ape, but it reminds me that I have a connection to all life on Earth.

[UC]

On Jul 10, 5:34�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
>

And you are mistaken if you think that is my position. It is neither
insulting nor exalting, just incorrect. It is simply lexically
ignorant.

[jillery]

Nobody mentioned you. Get over yourself.

[hersheyh]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:39:16 PM UTC-4, UC wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:34�pm, jillery &lt;69jpi...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
[snip]

> >It may be insulting to some people like UC to be called an
> > ape, but it reminds me that I have a connection to all life on Earth.
>
> And you are mistaken if you think that is my position. It is neither
> insulting nor exalting, just incorrect. It is simply lexically
> ignorant.

It is certainly a modification of past lexical usage (in a very particular context;
when ape is used to imply a counterfactual taxonomic relationship of humans
and the other great apes. Broadening that meaning doesn't make the newer
use of 'ape' "incorrect"; just different. It could only be "incorrect" if words were
made to be unchangeable in meaning. The idea that words never change
meaning and never broaden in meaning is what is lexically ignorant.

[Grandbank]

On Jul 10, 10:57�am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 1:44�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Thought I would respond to Hawks, since, unlike UC, he actually tries
> > to make an argument.
>
> > >Hawks:
>
> > >"We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to
> > >make a political argument.
>
> I should point out that I do not agree with Hawks' use of the term
> 'political' here. Hence, his claim is not the same as my claim. He
> distorts the use of 'political' in a way that does not fit traditional
> usage of the term 'political'.

So, in a nutshell, would it be safe to say that you are a silly little
man who wants the always changing flow of language to be frozen where
it was when you first learned it? Are there any other common usages
that you dislike? Have you started muttering to passers-by on the
sidewalk yet?

>
> > Here lies the crux of UC's lament and Hawks argument. �He thinks that any
> > instance of smuggling taxonomic principles into everyday language
> > involves making a political argument.
>
> I agree. See above. It is indeed 'smuggling taxonomic principles into
> everyday language' but I don't see where he gets 'political
> purposes'.

Out of his own ass. The same place you get your arguments.

KP

[UC]

On Jul 10, 7:36�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:39:16 PM UTC-4, UC wrote:

> > On Jul 10, 5:34�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >It may be insulting to some people like UC to be called an
> > > ape, but it reminds me that I have a connection to all life on Earth.
>
> > And you are mistaken if you think that is my position. It is neither
> > insulting nor exalting, just incorrect. It is simply lexically
> > ignorant.
>
> It is certainly a modification of past lexical usage (in a very particular context;
> when ape is used to imply a counterfactual taxonomic relationship of humans
> and the other great apes. �Broadening that meaning doesn't make the newer
> use of 'ape' "incorrect"; just different. �It could only be "incorrect" if words were
> made to be unchangeable in meaning. �The idea that words never change
> meaning and never broaden in meaning is what is lexically ignorant.

Those making the 'change' cannot appeal to their own use as evidence
of 'change'.

[Grandbank]

Since you acknowledge that meaning/usage of words can legitimately
change, please explain what a change in the the usage of the word
"ape" *should* look like to be semantically correct.

KP

[UC]

It is a mistake to think that changing scientific knowledge affects
meaning directly. If we were to find The Higgs boson tomorrow, that
does not change the meaning of the word 'matter'. It may change the
understanding of matter, but not the meaning of the word 'matter'.

I don't think any change in the meaning of the word 'ape' is necessary
or useful. Words have stable meanings for a reason. Communication
becomes impossible if you need a ticker tape to check on what words
mean.

In French and Italian, there is one term for the English terms
'monkey' and 'ape'. Those who advocate using 'ape' to include 'humans'
would have to realize that, even if successful, it would have no
impact on other languages, which defeats the whole enterprise.

If someone refers to a monkey as an 'ape', by the way, that is
legitimate. It is still current.

[Kermit]

So most people do not know that the sun is a star?

Do *you refuse to call it a star?

> If we were to find The Higgs boson tomorrow, that
> does not change the meaning of the word 'matter'. It may change the
> understanding of matter, but not the meaning of the word 'matter'.
>
> I don't think any change in the meaning of the word 'ape' is necessary
> or useful. Words have stable meanings for a reason. Communication
> becomes impossible if you need a ticker tape to check on what words
> mean.

Communication also becomes impossible if words are set in stone,
unchanging and unresponsive to change.

As a network administrator, I would find my job *extremely tedious and
clumsy if I could not use a technical vocabulary, mostly derived from
common language in the last 50 years. Heck, in the last 20.

How fast are we allowed to change words? Must we wait for you to die?

Adm. Grace Hopper, I believe, first wrote an official log entry on a
"bug" in the 1950s. (It was a pun; a moth had gotten into a printer
and jammed or shrot-circuited it. She was well aware of its slang/
technical usage among the electronic circuitry crowd.) I have heard
credible claims that "bug" in that sense goes back to the mid-
eighteenth century. Of course, "logs" used to be real logs, cast
overboard tied to a rope, to determine a ship's speed (and written
down in a journal).

Why are you claiming the right to determine when any group of people
can use words as they see fit?

>
> In French and Italian, there is one term for the English terms
> 'monkey' and 'ape'. Those who advocate using 'ape' to include 'humans'
> would have to realize that, even if successful, it would have no
> impact on other languages, which defeats the whole enterprise.

The "enterprise" is a group of people who are communicating with each
other. Since I converse with nobody in any language other than
English, it is hardly a handicap to me if French anthropologists do
not change their word usage. In any event, don't they have an official
approval process for French language which everybody ignores? I don't
care if *you use the word in the more traditional way; why should I
care if an Italian does or not?

>
> If someone refers to a monkey as an 'ape', by the way, that is
> legitimate. It is still current.

Yes, but since I find it misleading, I do not. I will even use "old
world" and "new world" as modifiers, if it seems appropriate -
depending on whom I am speaking to.

Kermit

[UC]

On Jul 11, 12:31�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > It is a mistake to think that changing scientific knowledge affects
> > meaning directly.
>
> So most people do not know that the sun is a star?

They understand that the sun is the same kind of object as a star,
only closer. They still call the night-time sky points of light
'stars' and the daytime globe 'the sun'.

> Do *you refuse to call it a star?
>
> > If we were to find The Higgs boson tomorrow, that
> > does not change the meaning of the word 'matter'. It may change the
> > understanding of matter, but not the meaning of the word 'matter'.
>
> > I don't think any change in the meaning of the word 'ape' is necessary
> > or useful. Words have stable meanings for a reason. Communication
> > becomes impossible if you need a ticker tape to check on what words
> > mean.
>
> Communication also becomes impossible if words are set in stone,
> unchanging and unresponsive to change.

Quite the opposite.

Do you understand how important the subtleties of language can be?

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/u-s-dropped-bombs-two-t22526.html

> As a network administrator, I would find my job *extremely tedious and
> clumsy if I could not use a technical vocabulary, mostly derived from
> common language in the last 50 years. Heck, in the last 20.

But that affects only a tiny percentage of English vocabulary.

> How fast are we allowed to change words? Must we wait for you to die?

See above.

> Adm. Grace Hopper, I believe, first wrote an official log entry on a
> "bug" in the 1950s. (It was a pun; a moth had gotten into a printer
> and jammed or shrot-circuited it. She was well aware of its slang/
> technical usage among the electronic circuitry crowd.) I have heard
> credible claims that "bug" in that sense goes back to the mid-
> eighteenth century. Of course, "logs" used to be real logs, cast
> overboard tied to a rope, to determine a ship's speed (and written
> down in a journal).
>
> Why are you claiming the right to determine when any group of people
> can use words as they see fit?

Because it is morally indistinguishable from lying.

> > In French and Italian, there is one term for the English terms
> > 'monkey' and 'ape'. Those who advocate using 'ape' to include 'humans'
> > would have to realize that, even if successful, it would have no
> > impact on other languages, which defeats the whole enterprise.
>
> The "enterprise" is a group of people who are communicating with each
> other. Since I converse with nobody in any language other than
> English, it is hardly a handicap to me if French anthropologists do
> not change their word usage.

I don't see the point if your enterprise affects only English
speakers. The whole purpose of scientific language (taxonomical terms)
is that they are independent of any language.

> In any event, don't they have an official
> approval process for French language which everybody ignores? I don't
> care if *you use the word in the more traditional way; why should I
> care if an Italian does or not?

Not relevant in any case.

[UC]

On Jul 10, 7:36�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:39:16 PM UTC-4, UC wrote:

> > On Jul 10, 5:34�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >It may be insulting to some people like UC to be called an
> > > ape, but it reminds me that I have a connection to all life on Earth.
>
> > And you are mistaken if you think that is my position. It is neither
> > insulting nor exalting, just incorrect. It is simply lexically
> > ignorant.
>
> It is certainly a modification of past lexical usage (in a very particular context;
> when ape is used to imply a counterfactual taxonomic relationship of humans
> and the other great apes. �Broadening that meaning doesn't make the newer
> use of 'ape' "incorrect"; just different. �It could only be "incorrect" if words were
> made to be unchangeable in meaning. �The idea that words never change
> meaning and never broaden in meaning is what is lexically ignorant.

http://suite101.com/article/binomial-nomenclature-a30408

"Having a universal system of binomial nomenclature allows scientists
to, in essence, speak the same language when referring to living
things, and avoids the confusion of multiple common names that may
differ based on region, culture or native language."

[hersheyh]

More correctly it is RE-smuggling taxonomic principles into everyday
language. The original distinction between 'ape' and 'human' *was*
confirmed to be the taxonomic division (aka, Quadrumana and Bimana)
that biology used. Again, that taxonomic division was basically due
to arrogant human anthropocentrism that focused on *differences*
rather than common derived traits or phylogeny.

[hersheyh]

On Jul 11, 12:31�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > It is a mistake to think that changing scientific knowledge affects
> > > meaning directly.
>
> > So most people do not know that the sun is a star?

> They understand that the sun is the same kind of object as a star,
> only closer. They still call the night-time sky points of light
> 'stars' and the daytime globe 'the sun'.

And did I ever say that that wasn't just fine with me? So long as they
do, in fact, recognize that the sun is the "same kind of object as a star";
that is, the sun is in the same *categroy* as the other stars. Just like
'human' is in the same *category* as the other great apes.

Sometimes, and in context, it is important to stress that humans are
included in the group we call 'ape' (or stress that the sun is a star)
and in other contexts, we understand that we are talking about the '
other great apes' when we use the term 'ape' (or the other stars when
we use the word 'star'). I don't have an problem with understanding
what is meant. Why do you?

[snip]

[UC]

I have no problem with 'anthropocentrism' but I cannot for the life of
me see where you get 'arrogant'. ALL language reflects
'anthropocentrism'. We are the ones making language. I am sure ant
language would be built on the same principles (i.e., as they see the
world).

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:24:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Nor need they; responding to a would-be language authority
is a mark of tolerance and the desire to educate the
ignorant, not an "appeal"; you haven't the authority to rate
an appeal.
--

Bob C.

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

[UC]

On Jul 11, 2:33�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:24:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

Fuck you, you ignorant asshole. I have answered this innumerable times
and I'm not going to do it again.

[chris thompson]

Nominated, for clarity of expression, calm demeanor, and overall
integrity.

On Jul 10, 1:44�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-ap...
>
> [snip]

[Burkhard]

On Jul 11, 6:51�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Seconded

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nominated, for clarity of expression, calm demeanor, and overall
>integrity.

I sure hope there are no typos. I would hate for you to ignore all
that clarity, calm, and integrity if you had to put on your word cop
cap.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/11/12 9:46 AM, UC wrote:
> On Jul 11, 12:31 pm, Kermit<unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> It is a mistake to think that changing scientific knowledge affects
>>> meaning directly.
>>
>> So most people do not know that the sun is a star?
>
> They understand that the sun is the same kind of object as a star,
> only closer. They still call the night-time sky points of light
> 'stars' and the daytime globe 'the sun'.

And, sometimes, when the context calls for it, they call the nighttime
sky points of light "suns".

>> Why are you claiming the right to determine when any group of people
>> can use words as they see fit?
>
> Because it is morally indistinguishable from lying.

Now you are changing the meaning of "lying" far, far more than
biologists are changing the meaning of "ape".

>[snip to my main point]

> The whole purpose of scientific language (taxonomical terms)
> is that they are independent of any language.

No, that is not the whole purpose. The *main* purpose is for ease of
communication, which is also one of the purposes of letting "ape" mean
"human." Scientific language is not, by any stretch of the imagination,
independent of language. For plants and bacteria, in fact, the name
*must* have a meaning relevant to the organism, and it must follow some
Latin grammar conventions. For animals, the rules are looser, but
meaning relevant to the organism is still the tradition, even if there
are many exceptions.

Scientific taxonomy also serves the purpose of reflecting natural
relationships. Disallowing humans as apes would directly violate that
purpose big time.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Slow Vehicle]

By my count, that's seven times you have said that, but you're still
doing it...
How can we miss you if you won't go away?

[UC]

and supported my assertions, which you simply ignore, so I'm not going
to do it again.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:26:37 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jul 11, 2:33 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:24:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

<snip>

>> >Those making the 'change' cannot appeal to their own use as evidence
>> >of 'change'.

>> ...responding to a would-be language authority...

(That's you; note the qualifier)

>> ...is a mark of tolerance and the desire to educate the

>> ignorant, not an "appeal"; you haven't the authority to rate
>> an appeal.

>Fuck you, you ignorant asshole. I have answered this innumerable times
>and I'm not going to do it again.

Ah, the standard "UC Debating Technique".

Yes, you have, and regardless of your disclaimers the answer
always seems to reduce to "I'm an authority and I say
everyone else here is wrong"; "you ignorant asshole" is a
good example of your ultimate response when you've been
repeatedly refuted.