Re: How transitional fossils are determined

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 2:02:33 PM7/10/12

to

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:58:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:14:30 -0700 (PDT), UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 9, 12:45 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:19:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>>> >On Jul 8, 1:48 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 11:21:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>>> >> <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com>:
>>> >> >On Jul 7, 2:09 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:01:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Slow Vehicle
>>> >> >> <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >On Jul 6, 12:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2:03 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > "Usage is insufficient to establish usage." (Well, "proper
>>> >> >> >> > usage", but that's a chimera, since usage is arrived at
>>> >> >> >> > through use, not by decree.)
>>> >> >> >> Over a long period of time. That's what 'usage' means' The word
>>> >> >> >> 'usage' also means 'custom'. The 'weight' of many centuries of usage
>>> >> >> >> cannot be arbitrarily and summarily dismissed, no matter what your
>>> >> >> >> 'authority'.
>>> >> >> >How many centuries did it take for "cab" to be twisted into referring
>>> >> >> >to a "motorized taxi"?
>>>
>>> >> >> >How many centuries of use constitute a "weight"?
>>> >> >> Apparently 0.1 century is good; that's about how long it
>>> >> >> took to make "mouse" refer to something other than "a small
>>> >> >> obnoxious rodent". UC studiously ignores this, along with
>>> >> >> the fact that usage of "ape" has included humans for
>>> >> >> approximately five times that long.
>>> >> >'Mouse' is used metaphorically in this case, of course.
>>> >> Oh, of course... |:-0
>>>
>>> >> Tell the class, Mr. Language Person: Even if correct, how
>>> >> does that make it *not* a change in meaning, in this case an
>>> >> additional meaning for an unchanged word? Sort of like the
>>> >> additional meaning of "ape" to include "human"?
>>> >It is not a change in meaning. It is simply a clever metaphor.
>>>
>>> No, it is not. For your edification:
>>>
>>> "met·a·phor (mµt“…-fôr”, -f…r) n. 1. Abbr. met., metaph. A
>>> figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
>>> designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
>>> making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or
>>> “All the world's a stage” "
>>>
>>> Using the term as a designator because of a *physical*
>>> resemblance does not make it a metaphor, it makes it an
>>> addition to the meaning. Like "beetle" in a discussion about
>>> cars.
>>
>>Nope, metaphorical ('figurative') extension of meaning. It has nothing
>>to do with the animal.
>>
>>> > The
>>> >biological reference is wholly unchanged.
>>>
>>> Yep, it only involved an *additional* meaning, as did "ape"
>>> when its meaning changed to include humans.
>>
>>It has not changed. Quit begging the question.
>
>
>You are using the phrase incorrectly. Bob is not begging the
>question. You haven't asked a question for him to beg. To the
>contrary, he is making a contrary assertion. More to the point Bob
>asked *you* a question, and you answered with another one of your
>repetitive, simple-minded, and unsupported assertions.

"When all you have is a hammer..."

Or in UC's case, a "repetitive, simple-minded, and
unsupported assertion"...
--

Bob C.

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

UC

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 2:40:48 PM7/10/12

to

On Jul 10, 2:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:58:51 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

What do you mean, 'unsupported'. I have at least the dictionary on my
side. You have NOTHING but bald assertions.

johnetho...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 5:57:09 PM7/10/12

to

On Jul 10, 11:40ï¿½am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2:02ï¿½pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:58:51 -0400, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>
> > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:14:30 -0700 (PDT), UC
> > ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > >>On Jul 9, 12:45ï¿½pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:19:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> > >>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

> > >>> >On Jul 8, 1:48ï¿½pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>> >> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 11:21:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> > >>> >> <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com>:

> > >>> >> >On Jul 7, 2:09ï¿½pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>> >> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:01:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Slow Vehicle
> > >>> >> >> <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com>:

> > >>> >> >> >On Jul 6, 12:14ï¿½pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >>> >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2:03ï¿½pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>> >> >> >> > "Usage is insufficient to establish usage." (Well, "proper
> > >>> >> >> >> > usage", but that's a chimera, since usage is arrived at
> > >>> >> >> >> > through use, not by decree.)
> > >>> >> >> >> Over a long period of time. That's what 'usage' means' The word
> > >>> >> >> >> 'usage' also means 'custom'. The 'weight' of many centuries of usage
> > >>> >> >> >> cannot be arbitrarily and summarily dismissed, no matter what your
> > >>> >> >> >> 'authority'.
> > >>> >> >> >How many centuries did it take for "cab" to be twisted into referring
> > >>> >> >> >to a "motorized taxi"?
>
> > >>> >> >> >How many centuries of use constitute a "weight"?
> > >>> >> >> Apparently 0.1 century is good; that's about how long it
> > >>> >> >> took to make "mouse" refer to something other than "a small
> > >>> >> >> obnoxious rodent". UC studiously ignores this, along with
> > >>> >> >> the fact that usage of "ape" has included humans for
> > >>> >> >> approximately five times that long.
> > >>> >> >'Mouse' is used metaphorically in this case, of course.
> > >>> >> Oh, of course... |:-0
>
> > >>> >> Tell the class, Mr. Language Person: Even if correct, how
> > >>> >> does that make it *not* a change in meaning, in this case an
> > >>> >> additional meaning for an unchanged word? Sort of like the
> > >>> >> additional meaning of "ape" to include "human"?
> > >>> >It is not a change in meaning. It is simply a clever metaphor.
>
> > >>> No, it is not. For your edification:
>

> > >>> "metï¿½aï¿½phor (mï¿½tï¿½ï¿½-fï¿½rï¿½, -fï¿½r) n. 1. Abbr. met., metaph. A

> > >>> figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
> > >>> designates one thing is used to designate another, thus

> > >>> making an implicit comparison, as in ï¿½a sea of troublesï¿½ or
> > >>> ï¿½All the world's a stageï¿½ "

>
> > >>> Using the term as a designator because of a *physical*
> > >>> resemblance does not make it a metaphor, it makes it an
> > >>> addition to the meaning. Like "beetle" in a discussion about
> > >>> cars.
>
> > >>Nope, metaphorical ('figurative') extension of meaning. It has nothing
> > >>to do with the animal.
>
> > >>> > The
> > >>> >biological reference is wholly unchanged.
>
> > >>> Yep, it only involved an *additional* meaning, as did "ape"
> > >>> when its meaning changed to include humans.
>
> > >>It has not changed. Quit begging the question.
>

> > >You are using the phrase incorrectly. ï¿½Bob is not begging the
> > >question. ï¿½You haven't asked a question for him to beg. ï¿½To the
> > >contrary, he is making a contrary assertion. ï¿½More to the point Bob

> > >asked *you* a question, and you answered with another one of your
> > >repetitive, simple-minded, and unsupported assertions.
>
> > "When all you have is a hammer..."
>
> > Or in UC's case, a "repetitive, simple-minded, and
> > unsupported assertion"...
> > --
>
> > Bob C.
>
> > "Evidence confirming an observation is
> > evidence that the observation is wrong."

> > ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ - McNameless

>
> What do you mean, 'unsupported'. I have at least the dictionary on my
> side. You have NOTHING but bald assertions.

Except the dictionaries that do not agree with you (it took me about 2
minutes to find the one I posted recently) and the fact that the usage
of 'ape' to include humans has been common for decades. You just make
yourself look like an idiot when you repeat the same nonsense over and
over.

UC

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 6:03:25 PM7/10/12

to

On Jul 10, 5:57�pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"
<johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 11:40 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:58:51 -0400, the following appeared
> > > in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:14:30 -0700 (PDT), UC
> > > ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > >>On Jul 9, 12:45 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:19:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> > > >>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

> > > >>> >On Jul 8, 1:48 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >>> >> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 11:21:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> > > >>> >> <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com>:

> > > >>> >> >On Jul 7, 2:09 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >>> >> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:01:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Slow Vehicle
> > > >>> >> >> <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com>:

> > > >>> >> >> >On Jul 6, 12:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > >>> >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2:03 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >>> >> >> >> > "Usage is insufficient to establish usage." (Well, "proper
> > > >>> >> >> >> > usage", but that's a chimera, since usage is arrived at
> > > >>> >> >> >> > through use, not by decree.)
> > > >>> >> >> >> Over a long period of time. That's what 'usage' means' The word
> > > >>> >> >> >> 'usage' also means 'custom'. The 'weight' of many centuries of usage
> > > >>> >> >> >> cannot be arbitrarily and summarily dismissed, no matter what your
> > > >>> >> >> >> 'authority'.
> > > >>> >> >> >How many centuries did it take for "cab" to be twisted into referring
> > > >>> >> >> >to a "motorized taxi"?
>
> > > >>> >> >> >How many centuries of use constitute a "weight"?
> > > >>> >> >> Apparently 0.1 century is good; that's about how long it
> > > >>> >> >> took to make "mouse" refer to something other than "a small
> > > >>> >> >> obnoxious rodent". UC studiously ignores this, along with
> > > >>> >> >> the fact that usage of "ape" has included humans for
> > > >>> >> >> approximately five times that long.
> > > >>> >> >'Mouse' is used metaphorically in this case, of course.
> > > >>> >> Oh, of course... |:-0
>
> > > >>> >> Tell the class, Mr. Language Person: Even if correct, how
> > > >>> >> does that make it *not* a change in meaning, in this case an
> > > >>> >> additional meaning for an unchanged word? Sort of like the
> > > >>> >> additional meaning of "ape" to include "human"?
> > > >>> >It is not a change in meaning. It is simply a clever metaphor.
>
> > > >>> No, it is not. For your edification:
>

> > > >>> "met a phor (m t -f r , -f r) n. 1. Abbr. met., metaph. A

> > > >>> figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
> > > >>> designates one thing is used to designate another, thus

> > > >>> making an implicit comparison, as in a sea of troubles or

> > > >>> All the world's a stage "
>

> > > >>> Using the term as a designator because of a *physical*
> > > >>> resemblance does not make it a metaphor, it makes it an
> > > >>> addition to the meaning. Like "beetle" in a discussion about
> > > >>> cars.
>
> > > >>Nope, metaphorical ('figurative') extension of meaning. It has nothing
> > > >>to do with the animal.
>
> > > >>> > The
> > > >>> >biological reference is wholly unchanged.
>
> > > >>> Yep, it only involved an *additional* meaning, as did "ape"
> > > >>> when its meaning changed to include humans.
>
> > > >>It has not changed. Quit begging the question.
>

> > > >You are using the phrase incorrectly. Bob is not begging the
> > > >question. You haven't asked a question for him to beg. To the
> > > >contrary, he is making a contrary assertion. More to the point Bob

> > > >asked *you* a question, and you answered with another one of your
> > > >repetitive, simple-minded, and unsupported assertions.
>
> > > "When all you have is a hammer..."
>
> > > Or in UC's case, a "repetitive, simple-minded, and
> > > unsupported assertion"...
> > > --
>
> > > Bob C.
>
> > > "Evidence confirming an observation is
> > > evidence that the observation is wrong."

> > > - McNameless
>
> > What do you mean, 'unsupported'. I have at least the dictionary on my
> > side. You have NOTHING but bald assertions.
>
> Except the dictionaries that do not agree with you (it took me about 2
> minutes to find the one I posted recently) and the fact that the usage
> of 'ape' to include humans has been common for decades.

So fucking what? It can have been wrong for decades, just like
'irregardless' and 'between him and I'.

> You just make
> yourself look like an idiot when you repeat the same nonsense over and
> over.

The latest Shorter Oxford, 6th edition? Would you accept that as
authoritative?

I would think Oxford has a good handle on English.

pnyikos

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 6:30:43 PM7/10/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

I see what is happening. A thread about transitionals hit the magic
1000 mark, and now it has splintered in to goodness knows how many sub-
threads in Google.

On Jul 10, 6:03�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:57�pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"
> <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 11:40 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 2:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:58:51 -0400, the following appeared
> > > > in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:14:30 -0700 (PDT), UC
> > > > ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>On Jul 9, 12:45 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> > > >>> > On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:19:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> > > >>> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

> > > > >>> > The
> > > > >>> >biological reference is wholly unchanged.
>
> > > > >>> Yep, it only involved an *additional* meaning, as did "ape"
> > > > >>> when its meaning changed to include humans.
>
> > > > >>It has not changed. Quit begging the question.
>
> > > > >You are using the phrase incorrectly. Bob is not begging the
> > > > >question. You haven't asked a question for him to beg.

This is vintage "jillery". Either [s]he is making a wisecrack to
promote a highly dubious, if not outright false, claim, or just
displaying her/his ignorance.

"Begging the question" really means, "Assuming something in dispute,
as though it were beyond cavil." I suspect "jillery" knows that and
is just trying to pick a fight. Of course, I may be wrong, in which
case "jillery" is just illustrating her/his ignorance.

> > > > > To the
> > > > >contrary, he is making a contrary assertion.

...one being supported by a subsidiary claim, which is itself in
dispute by its very nature: if it were true, the contrary assertion
would follow.

> > > > >More to the point Bob
> > > > >asked *you* a question, and you answered with another one of your
> > > > >repetitive, simple-minded, and unsupported assertions.

Does anyone know which question "jillery" was referring to here, and
what these unsupported assertions were?

> > > > "When all you have is a hammer..."
>
> > > > Or in UC's case, a "repetitive, simple-minded, and
> > > > unsupported assertion"...
> > > > --
>
> > > > Bob C.
>
> > > > "Evidence confirming an observation is
> > > > evidence that the observation is wrong."
> > > > - McNameless
>
> > > What do you mean, 'unsupported'. I have at least the dictionary on my
> > > side. You have NOTHING but bald assertions.
>
> > Except the dictionaries that do not agree with you (it took me about 2
> > minutes to find the one I posted recently)

I'm surprised it didn't take LONGER to find a dictionary that did not
agree with you, UC.

> >and the fact that the usage
> > of 'ape' to include humans has been common for decades.

Common among cladists, but I doubt that it is common in everyday life,
at least in the literal sense. You can call a person an ape, but it's
usually meant as an insult in everyday life.

> So fucking what? It can have been wrong for decades, just like
> 'irregardless' and 'between him and I'.
>
> > You just make
> > yourself look like an idiot when you repeat the same nonsense over and
> > over.
>
> The latest Shorter Oxford, 6th edition? Would you accept that as
> authoritative?
>
> I would think Oxford has a good handle on English.

Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.

Peter Nyikos

UC

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 9:41:56 AM7/11/12

to

Thanks a lot!

jillery

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 11:16:51 AM7/11/12

to

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 10, 6:30�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

>> Yes. �I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
>Thanks a lot!

Consider the source.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 1:50:37 PM7/11/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:40:48 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>> >>> "met�a�phor (m�t��-f�r�, -f�r) n. 1. Abbr. met., metaph. A

>> >>> figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
>> >>> designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
>> >>> making an implicit comparison, as in �a sea of troubles� or
>> >>> �All the world's a stage� "
>>
>> >>> Using the term as a designator because of a *physical*
>> >>> resemblance does not make it a metaphor, it makes it an
>> >>> addition to the meaning. Like "beetle" in a discussion about
>> >>> cars.
>>
>> >>Nope, metaphorical ('figurative') extension of meaning. It has nothing
>> >>to do with the animal.
>>
>> >>> > The
>> >>> >biological reference is wholly unchanged.
>>
>> >>> Yep, it only involved an *additional* meaning, as did "ape"
>> >>> when its meaning changed to include humans.
>>
>> >>It has not changed. Quit begging the question.
>>
>> >You are using the phrase incorrectly. �Bob is not begging the
>> >question. �You haven't asked a question for him to beg. �To the
>> >contrary, he is making a contrary assertion. �More to the point Bob
>> >asked *you* a question, and you answered with another one of your
>> >repetitive, simple-minded, and unsupported assertions.
>>
>> "When all you have is a hammer..."
>>
>> Or in UC's case, a "repetitive, simple-minded, and
>> unsupported assertion"...

>What do you mean, 'unsupported'.

Exactly what I wrote.

<snip irrelevant references to dictionaries, which has been
addressed, with the corrections ignored, several times>

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 2:26:18 PM7/11/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:03:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

<snip to...>

>I would think Oxford has a good handle on English.

Probably, as did all the older editions. Delayed from usage
changes, of course, but a good handle.

So why don't you quote the meanings of the following words,
from both the latest edition and the edition from, say,
1850? It might be instructive (for you; the rest of us are
familiar with the usage changes which seem to confuse you).
Note that references are required, which should be no
problem for you, given your instant access to definitions
and all...

Anyway, the words, all of which have figured in this
discussion:

Computer
Mouse
Gay
Cab

Or just snip all of that and whine again "IS NOT!"; your
choice.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 2:45:27 PM7/11/12

to

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
changes in usage occur.

What is it with these people and their demands that some
authority figure must have control?

UC

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 3:09:21 PM7/11/12

to

On Jul 11, 2:45�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>On Jul 10, 6:30�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>> Yes. �I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>
> >>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>Thanks a lot!
>
> >Consider the source.
>
> Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
> changes in usage occur.
>
> What is it with these people and their demands that some
> authority figure must have control?

You really are clueless. A total fucking dwerbnotfreyyy.

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 5:00:25 PM7/11/12

to

And you are helpless, impotent, powerless, to affect the community
celebrating the fact that "apes" as a group, include "humans".
No matter how you whine and bitch.

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 5:01:24 PM7/11/12

to

On Jul 11, 1:09�pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I thought "languageguy" taught us that neologisms are immoral...?

UC

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 5:03:32 PM7/11/12

to

Fuck you, you ignorant asshole. I have answered this innumerable times
and supported my assertions, which you simply ignore, so I'm not going
to do it again.

jillery

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 7:27:59 PM7/11/12

to

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:45:27 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>>Thanks a lot!
>>
>>
>>Consider the source.
>
>Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
>changes in usage occur.
>
>What is it with these people and their demands that some
>authority figure must have control?

It might have something to do with a trauma in their childhood.

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 10:01:04 PM7/11/12

to

You have _part_ of a _redacted_ definition from _one_ dictionary "on
your side", a definition that has been elided without admission...

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 10:03:16 PM7/11/12

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 11:04:51 PM7/12/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >[...]

> >>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>
> >>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>Thanks a lot!
>
> >Consider the source.
>
> Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
> changes in usage occur.

What on earth would lead you to think that?

I understand them, but what basis do you have for asserting that usage
now favors the cladophile definition of "ape"?

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 11:39:18 PM7/12/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

I note the failure to address the second challenge. But it will not
die. See below.

> You have _part_ of a _redacted_ definition from _one_ dictionary "on
> your side", a definition that has been elided without admission.

So now I've added a second dictionary, and given you the url so that
you can see the whole definition. And I do believe that the OED and
the Merriam-Webster dictionaries are still the "gold standard" of
english usage.

And by the way, what dictionary do YOU have to back you up? Some
dictionaries, even "Webster" dictionaries, aren't worth the paper they
are printed on. I once had one for which the only use I could find
was propping up a window.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 11:44:59 PM7/12/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

Are you admitting that talk.origins is a community where the vast
majority have like minds?

If so, do you realize that you've neutralized two of the most potent
verbal weapons in the arsenal of the propagandists who have a free run
of the place in talk.origins? The weapons are "paranoid" and
"conspiracy theory," expressions they salivate like Pavlov's dog every
time someone points out obvious cooperation in deceit by two or more
of them.

Are you one of these propagandists?

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 11:47:37 PM7/12/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Jul 12, 1:51 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:27:59 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:45:27 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared

> >>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
> >>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
> >>><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>[...]
>
> >>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>
> >>>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>>>Thanks a lot!
>
> >>>Consider the source.
>
> >>Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
> >>changes in usage occur.
>
> >>What is it with these people and their demands that some
> >>authority figure must have control?

See my reply of a few minutes ago to this bizarre question, somewhat
reminiscent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

> >It might have something to do with a trauma in their childhood.
>
> ....or their level of commitment to dogma, religious or
> otherwise, since when knowledge or belief descends to dogma
> it becomes about nothing other than authority.

So what dogma allows you to assert that "ape" is now proper usage for
ALL human beings?

Peter Nyikos

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 12:14:35 AM7/13/12

to

No, Peter. I was reminding Carol that by the very standards Carol
claimed were binding, admitting that humans are apes has been used by
an interlocking set of communities I keep identifying, and Carol keeps
pretending does not exist, for quite a while now, and therefore does
exist, and has existed. Carol thinks Carol can prevent others from
"changing" a word--but the "change" has happened. At this point,
going back to an exclusive use of "apes" would require a "change".

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 6:18:16 AM7/13/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:44:59 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<13d53524-264a-4788...@d32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):

> If so, do you realize that you've neutralized two of the most potent verbal
> weapons in the arsenal of the propagandists who have a free run of the place
> in talk.origins? The weapons are "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory,"
> expressions they salivate like Pavlov's dog every time someone points out
> obvious cooperation in deceit by two or more of them.

<ring! ring!> Arf! Arf!

Poor, poor, poor Peter. Everyone is against him. Why must they persecute him
so? Could it be because he's the single most dishonest creationist currently
posting on t.o?

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

From what? the acceptance of the inclusive use of "apes" by the
interlocking set of communities {cladophiles, some set of t.o.
participants}?

As I said just now on the other thread, I use the term "cladophile"
for systematists who will not tolerate the use of anything but clades
in a formal classification system.

To show how silly their terminology is...

Did you know that THEIR term for the exclusive use of "apes", not to
include humans is...

"stem humans" (or "stem homininae"?

Of course, they stoutly maintain that "stem humans" (or "stem
homininae") is not a formal taxon. They just use the term so much
they no longer bother to explain it unless you ask them. [At least,
that's been my experience with the resident cladophile, John
Harshman.]

Peter Nyikos

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:22:08 PM7/13/12

to

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:54:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<234a0247-aae0-4676...@j4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jul 13, 6:18 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:44:59 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <13d53524-264a-4788-8877-d9a943e2f...@d32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> If so, do you realize that you've neutralized two of the most potent verbal
>>> weapons in the arsenal of the propagandists who have a free run of the
>>> place
>>> in talk.origins? The weapons are "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory,"
>>> expressions they salivate like Pavlov's dog every time someone points out
>>> obvious cooperation in deceit by two or more of them.
>>
>> <ring! ring!> Arf! Arf!
>>
>> Poor, poor, poor Peter. Everyone is against him.
>
> "Everyone" means four people: Paul Gans, jillery, O'Shea, and Ron O.
> At least this year, so far.
>
> Roger Shrubber is getting to *look* like he is against me. Only time
> will tell.
>
> So now you know who really counts as "Everyone" in the World According
> to J. J. O'Shea.
>
> Space provided below for O'Shea to post his usual crap about me not
> understanding sarcasm.

You just showed that you don't.

> .
> .
> .
> .
>> Why must they persecute him
>> so? Could it be because he's the single most dishonest creationist currently
>> posting on t.o?
>
> That honor may belong to you, O'Shea, if Ron O is lying about him
> being a creationist.

Peter, Peter, Peter, you simply don't learn, do you?

>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Arf! Arf! Once again, Peter Nyikos has demonstrated that he is the single
most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:23:08 PM7/13/12

to

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:36:20 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <58c008pj1eb301pp2...@4ax.com>):

They have to be self-important, as no-one else thinks that they are of any
importance at all.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 6:50:48 PM7/13/12

to

On 7/12/12 8:04 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>
>>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>
>>> Consider the source.
>>
>> Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
>> changes in usage occur.
>
> What on earth would lead you to think that?
>
> I understand them, but what basis do you have for asserting that usage
> now favors the cladophile definition of "ape"?

You have apparently come in late, so you missed the point of dispute.
Nobody is claiming that usage *favors* "ape" being inclusive of humans;
the claim (and demonstrable fact) is that usage, for several decades
now, *includes* "ape" being inclusive of humans. UC thinks allowing
language change is an unpardonable sin until the dictionaries
acknowledge the language change, at which point it is all good. Most
others here (I would say all, but I do not yet know your view) believe
that language change can be okay before lexicographers bless it.

--
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

pnyikos

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 7:53:23 PM7/13/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Jul 13, 10:36 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:19:11 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
>
>
>
>
> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:06:33 -0400, UC wrote
> >(in article

> ><uranium-0c089cbb-fae7-4451-8824-f2cdbd95c...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>):

>
> >> On Jul 12, 10:59 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 11, 11:16 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> >>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> [...]
>
> >>>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>
> >>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>>>> Thanks a lot!
>
> >>>> Consider the source.
>
> >>> Nearly impeccable, unlike the hateful, vindictive liar that is played
> >>> by the dummy-analogue "jillery". AFAIK, the real name, occupation (if
> >>> any), place of work (if any) and even the gender of the ventriloquist-
> >>> analogue who actually types the words that appear under the byline
> >>> "jillery" have never been posted to talk.origins.
>
> >>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >> Jillery, 'Mark Isaak', and several others are all just ignorant cunts.
> >> They have no credibility whatsoever.
>
> >Oh, my.
>
> Two delusional self-important misogynists expressing their man-love
> for each other.

Were "jillery" not a consummate hypocrite, [s]he would realize that
anyone who is naive enough to fall for the expressions "paranoid,"
"paranoia," "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" for anyone
who points out obvious alliances among such groups as {jillery,
O'Shea, Gans} and {jillery, O'Shea, Ron O} will REALLY see "man-love
for each other" as paranoia on the part of "jillery":

But of course, it isn't paranoia. It is hypocrisy, insincerity,
hatefulness, and ye olde "drive a wedge between your adversaries" that
is being expressed, along with illogic where I am concerned.

I don't really know why "jillery" calls me a misogynist, but judging
from almost a decade and a half of experience in talk.origins and
talk.abortion, the "reasoning" might go like this.

1. As a supremely self-righteous persona, "jillery" looks upon
anything that reflects badly on her/him as morally reprehesible, even
if it is being caught red-handed in libel, and upon anything that
enhances her/his prestige as morally laudable, even if it is the same
libel.

2. As a grossly dishonest persona, "jillery" is quite capable of lying
that I know that [s]he is a woman, despite everything I've written in
the very post of mine that you see quoted up there.

3. And so, by the very act of having caught "jillery" red-handed in
libel a number of times, I am supposedly demonstrating misogyny [see
above about "self-righteous"].

One thing more: I strongly suspect that "jillery" is an abortion
rights fanatic, and that [s]he was projecting what others have said
about her/him onto a pro-life "UC" just to get her/his blood pressure
up, when [s]he called "UC" a "baby killer."

One reason is that I've almost never seen a pro-choice person being
accused of misogyny by habitual liars like "jillery", but accusations
of pro-life people being "misogynists" by abortion rights fanatics are
a dime a dozen.

I have given other reasons for suspecting "jillery" is an abortion
rights fanatic on the other splinter thread on which I've been
participating with UC.

> Ain't it romantic.

Not nearly as romantic as jillery's "love affair" [figure of speech,
not to be taken in the usual sense] with Ron O, for whom jillery has
repeatedly expressed appreciation; and Paul Gans is also far more
"loved" by her than UC is by me.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 10:10:59 PM7/13/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Jul 13, 6:50 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 7/12/12 8:04 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>
> >>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
> >>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>
> >>>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>>> Thanks a lot!
>
> >>> Consider the source.
>
> >> Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
> >> changes in usage occur.
>
> > What on earth would lead you to think that?
>
> > I understand them, but what basis do you have for asserting that usage
> > now favors the cladophile definition of "ape"?
>
> You have apparently come in late, so you missed the point of dispute.

Indeed, I only started looking after the thread reached the "notorious
1000" and broke into numerous splinters. And I've only looked at two
splinters so far.

> Nobody is claiming that usage *favors* "ape" being inclusive of humans;
> the claim (and demonstrable fact) is that usage, for several decades
> now, *includes* "ape" being inclusive of humans.

Whose usage? where? I'd like to see a demonstration of the fact
besides cladistic "shop talk".

I commented on that "shop talk" to Slow Vehicle. Anyone who accepts
that "shop talk" as "usage" will have to acknowledge that [s]he is:

A bacterium.

A protist.

A fish.

A stem fungus.

A stem flatworm.

A stem reptile.

A stem flying lemur (or maybe a stem tree shrew, depending on the
latest cladograms).

> UC thinks allowing
> language change is an unpardonable sin until the dictionaries
> acknowledge the language change, at which point it is all good.

I've seen some hints of that from the horse's mouth, but only hints.
Can you steer me towards a post where this is obvious?

> Most
> others here (I would say all, but I do not yet know your view) believe
> that language change can be okay before lexicographers bless it.

I agree in principle, but I'd like to see evidence of this particular
language change. So far, all I've seen is hand-waving and the usual
sending of me to look through a haystack of web search hits for
possibly nonexistent needles.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 10:30:06 PM7/13/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Jul 13, 3:23 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:36:20 -0400, jillery wrote

> (in article <58c008pj1eb301pp2d93b04gpqs1mtl...@4ax.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:19:11 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:06:33 -0400, UC wrote
> >> (in article

> >> <uranium-0c089cbb-fae7-4451-8824-f2cdbd95c...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>)

> >> :
>
> >>> On Jul 12, 10:59 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 11, 11:16 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> >>>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> [...]
>
> >>>>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>
> >>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>
> >>>>> Consider the source.
>
> >>>> Nearly impeccable, unlike the hateful, vindictive liar that is played
> >>>> by the dummy-analogue "jillery". AFAIK, the real name, occupation (if
> >>>> any), place of work (if any) and even the gender of the ventriloquist-
> >>>> analogue who actually types the words that appear under the byline
> >>>> "jillery" have never been posted to talk.origins.
>
> >>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>> Jillery, 'Mark Isaak', and several others are all just ignorant cunts.
> >>> They have no credibility whatsoever.
>
> >> Oh, my.
>
> > Two delusional self-important misogynists

I wonder whether "jillery" posted the above with the recollection that
I posted the following in reply to her/him in January 2011:

____________________________
Jillery, I saw someone referring to you as "she". If this is correct,
I apologize for referring to you as "he" earlier and congratulate you
on posting regularly to this male-dominated newsgroup.
========== end of excerpt
from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f1ac7ea0e6a78cb2
Message-ID: <777fbf96-2311-4f81-a5c8-
a53b43...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

> They have to be self-important, as no-one else thinks that they are of any
> importance at all.

On the contrary, Paul Gans thought of me as quite important in 1995
when I first posted to talk.origins, otherwise he would not have
begged and pleaded with me to include him on a list of scoundrels that
I called the Bandar-log.

He obviously thought it extremely important to discredit my list, by
getting me to put him on it without evidence that he had met the
criteria for it. Of course, I upheld my standards and refused for a
long time, even explaining to him how his efforts to meet the criteria
in one post fell laughably short.

Finally, a good while after he'd stopped pleading, and after he'd
posted some reprehensible things that really met the criteria, I put
him on.

Peter Nyikos

UC

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 11:23:19 PM7/13/12

to

> Message-ID: <uranium-777fbf96-2311-4f81-a5c8-
> a53b43505...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

>
> > They have to be self-important, as no-one else thinks that they are of any
> > importance at all.
>
> On the contrary, Paul Gans thought of me as quite important in 1995
> when I first posted to talk.origins, otherwise he would not have
> begged and pleaded with me to include him on a list of scoundrels that
> I called the Bandar-log.
>
> He obviously thought it extremely important to discredit my list, by
> getting me to put him on it without evidence that he had met the
> criteria for it. Of course, I upheld my standards and refused for a
> long time, even explaining to him how his efforts to meet the criteria
> in one post fell laughably short.
>
> Finally, a good while after he'd stopped pleading, and after he'd
> posted some reprehensible things that really met the criteria, I put
> him on.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Hello you! My name is Kelsey.

I'm an artist. I make stuffs.

Other than that, I enjoy reading, video games, smoking my hookah,
staying up way too late, swearing, and writing. I'm also teaching
myself French and Japanese because, well, why not?

I want to travel and see everything that I can, before life makes me
too bitter to appreciate it!

I'm like a coolfaced complicated mass of stubborness on the outside
and a simple down-to-earth goof ball on the inside.

Oh and I know I might appear scary and intimidating, I'm actually
pretty friendly and laid back, so feel free to say h

John Harshman

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 12:43:53 PM7/14/12

to

pnyikos wrote:

> I commented on that "shop talk" to Slow Vehicle. Anyone who accepts
> that "shop talk" as "usage" will have to acknowledge that [s]he is:
>
> A bacterium.
>
> A protist.
>
> A fish.

Nope. The first is a clade that doesn't include us; perhaps you meant
"prokaryote", which is paraphyletic, probably. The second is a
paraphyletic group that doesn't include us, and there's a name for the
group that does: eukaryotes. Fish, I'll give you. Sure, you're a fish.

Of course nobody has to say that. There are multiple meanings of the
word, and you're a fish only when the context is evolution.

> A stem fungus.
>
> A stem flatworm.
>
> A stem reptile.
>
> A stem flying lemur (or maybe a stem tree shrew, depending on the
> latest cladograms).

And here I thought you had understood what "stem" meant. No, none of the
above. Any "stem" taxon is by definition extinct. Instead you mean you
have to acknowledge that you are an opisthokont, a metazoan, an amniote,
and a...hmmm, not sure there's a name for that one. Also, your phylogeny
is out of date. Flatworms are not primitive metazoans, as you seem to
think, but secondarily simplified lophotrochozoans.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 3:11:38 PM7/14/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:04:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
>> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >[...]
>
>> >>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>>
>> >>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> >>Thanks a lot!
>>
>> >Consider the source.
>>
>> Apparently Peter is another one who fails to understand how
>> changes in usage occur.
>
>What on earth would lead you to think that?

Your support of UC's errors, specifically those involving
the nature and process of usage change, and by implication
("...you have the upper hand...") of his assertion that
there is some sort of authority which rules on such change,
perhaps?

>I understand them, but what basis do you have for asserting that usage
>now favors the cladophile definition of "ape"?

I said it's changed among professionals, and is in the
process of changing generally. The changed usage in such
popular-science books as have been noted in this thread, and
the comments of some of those professionals here, is all the
evidence required that this is the case.

>> What is it with these people and their demands that some
>> authority figure must have control?
>
>What is it with you that makes you think Humpty Dumpty's attitude
>towards words now is to be adopted by everyone?

That would seem to be actually UC's attitude, since both he
and Humpty assert their (nonexistent) individual prerogative
to define word usage.

>Oh. Wait. That's not what you are advocating, is it?

Nope.

>So what ARE you advocating?

I'm not "advocating" anything; I'm simply noting, as are
many here, that UC's assertion that usage change must
somehow be "approved" (apparently by him, but in any case
definitely *not* by actual change in usage) before being
"right", is incorrect. And the fact that he airily waves
away examples of usage changes, even going so far as to deny
etymological references which show beyond doubt that he's
wrong, and to attempt repeatedly to claim that the current
(supposed, but unreferenced) definition of "computer" has
always been the definition despite specific contradiction of
that claim in those etymological references, fails to do
much to advance his agenda.

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 1:42:56 AM7/15/12

to

Carol:
As I have pointed out to you before, you, putting your head between
your knees and loudly singing your "fuck you" song does _not_ destroy,
obviate, or affect in any way the evidence at which you choose not to
look.
I have offered you evidence.
You could web search your own evidence.
Calling someone who is not lying a liar is, well...lying. But you
know that, Carol. You know that.
Go back to your remarkable inept and unpleasant attempts at
plagiarized flirtation, or your stolen sports commentary, or your
stolen "humor" posts. As dishonest as they were, at least they made a
certain amount of sense.

Walter Bushell

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 12:37:04 PM7/15/12

to

In article <HrydndoJ1aR...@giganews.com>,

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Nope. The first is a clade that doesn't include us; perhaps you meant
> "prokaryote", which is paraphyletic, probably.

I thought whatever the first eukaryote evolved from was a prokaryote,
so procaryotes would be paraphyletic by definition.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

John Harshman

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 1:34:06 PM7/15/12

to

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <HrydndoJ1aR...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Nope. The first is a clade that doesn't include us; perhaps you meant
>> "prokaryote", which is paraphyletic, probably.
>
> I thought whatever the first eukaryote evolved from was a prokaryote,
> so procaryotes would be paraphyletic by definition.
>

That depends on what "prokaryote" and "eukaryote" means, and just what
the path of evolution was. I prefer to remain ambiguous.

hersheyh

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 1:48:44 PM7/15/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On July 13 pnyikos wrote:

>On Jul 13, 6:50 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
>> On 7/12/12 8:04 PM, pnyikos wrote:

>> Nobody is claiming that usage *favors* "ape" being inclusive of humans;
>> the claim (and demonstrable fact) is that usage, for several decades
>> now, *includes* "ape" being inclusive of humans.

> Whose usage? where? I'd like to see a demonstration of the fact
> besides cladistic "shop talk".

> I commented on that "shop talk" to Slow Vehicle. Anyone who accepts
> that "shop talk" as "usage" will have to acknowledge that [s]he is:

> A bacterium.

No. Bacterium refers to one or two of the branches of the group
inclusive of both humans and bacteria called
'cellular organisms'. I would acknowledge that humans are
"cellular organisms" and are thus differentiated from non-cellular
entities with some of the features we call 'life': viruses, viroids,
prions. We do not call humans 'bacteria' because that refers to
organisms without nuclei. We call humans 'cellular organisms'
because that is the feature that we still *share* with 'bacteria'.

> A protist.

No. Protists refers to several branches of the group called
eucaryotes. I would acknowledge that humans are 'eucaryotes'.
Humans are eucaryotes because of a feature we 'share' with
protists, namely a nucleus in our cell.

> A fish.

No. 'Fish' refers to several branches of vertebrate which have
retained an aquatic lifestyle with anaerobic metabolism primarily
through functioning gills. Humans (and all tetrapods) have a
fish-like ancestor from one of those lineages. I would say
that humans had a fish-like ancestor in a lineage that had
evolved 'lungs'. I would say that humans are 'vertebrates'.
That is the inclusive term that includes both humans and
all the organisms we call 'fish' because it is the feature
we 'share' with all 'fish'.

> A stem fungus.

The fungi are one branch of eucaryotes that branched quite
early and, most likely, is paraphyletic. The common
grouping of all fungi and humans would be called "eucaryote".
That is the one inclusive group name that includes both
humans and the fungi. Again, I have no problem with
saying that humans are "eucaryotes". Do you?

> A stem flatworm.

Flatworms are also more than one group that branched off quite early.
The inclusive group name that includes both all flatworms and
humans is called "true multicellular animal". [More technically,
'eumetazoa'.] I have no problem with saying that humans
are "true multicellular animals" or "eumetazoans". Or one
could include humans and flatworms in the classification group of
'bilatererians'. I have no current problem with saying that both
flatworms and humans are 'bilaterians'. [That may change in
the future. Worm phylogeny is a bit of a worm hole, so to
speak.]

> A stem reptile.

The grouping that includes both reptiles and humans is called
"amniotes". I have no problem saying that humans are "amniotes".
Do you?

> A stem flying lemur (or maybe a stem tree shrew, depending on the
> latest cladograms).

The grouping that includes both lemurs and humans is called
'primates'. I have no problem saying that humans are 'primates'.
Do you?

Oh, in addition, you failed to include other levels of classification
terms that also *includes* humans: 'deuterostome' and 'tetrapod'.
Again, I have no problem saying that humans are deuterstomes
(which distinguishes us from the invertebrates that are protostomes).
Nor with saying that humans are tetrapods (which includes amphibians
along with reptiles). Do you?

Simple rule. Use the term that *correctly* *includes* humans rather
than use a term that correctly (or incorrectly) *excludes* humans
in a cladistic reading.

There are, of course, a few odd-ball cases that don't completely
fit. Like the legless lizards and snakes and whales which are still considered
to be 'tetrapods'. But that is simply 'shop talk'.

Peter Nyikos

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 2:10:03 PM7/15/12

to

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:57:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jul 14, 3:11 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:04:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

<snip>

>> >...what basis do you have for asserting that usage

>> >now favors the cladophile definition of "ape"?

>> I said it's changed among professionals, and is in the
>> process of changing generally.

>A damned lie! There is NO evidence of this whatsoever!

Missed all the posts by those actually working in the field
which demonstrate that it's changed among professionals, and
the latest post by Attila ("RULE BRITANNICA!") which
demonstrates that it is indeed changing in general usage,
did you?

<snip>

hersheyh

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 3:05:07 PM7/15/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:48:44 PM UTC-4, hersheyh wrote:
> On July 13 pnyikos wrote:
>

> >On Jul 13, 6:50 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
> >> On 7/12/12 8:04 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >> Nobody is claiming that usage *favors* "ape" being inclusive of humans;
> >> the claim (and demonstrable fact) is that usage, for several decades
> >> now, *includes* "ape" being inclusive of humans.
>
> > Whose usage? where? I'd like to see a demonstration of the fact
> > besides cladistic "shop talk".
>
> > I commented on that "shop talk" to Slow Vehicle. Anyone who accepts
> > that "shop talk" as "usage" will have to acknowledge that [s]he is:
>
> > A bacterium.

>
> No. Bacterium refers to one or two of the branches of the group
> inclusive of both humans and bacteria called

> 'cellular organisms'. I would acknowledge that humans are
> "cellular organisms" and are thus differentiated from non-cellular
> entities with some of the features we call 'life': viruses, viroids,
> prions. We do not call humans 'bacteria' because that refers to
> organisms without nuclei. We call humans 'cellular organisms'
> because that is the feature that we still *share* with 'bacteria'.
>
> > A protist.

>
> No. Protists refers to several branches of the group called

> eucaryotes. I would acknowledge that humans are 'eucaryotes'.
> Humans are eucaryotes because of a feature we 'share' with

> protists, namely a nucleus in our cell.
>

> > A fish.
>
> No. 'Fish' refers to several branches of vertebrate which have

> retained an aquatic lifestyle with anaerobic metabolism primarily
> through functioning gills. Humans (and all tetrapods) have a
> fish-like ancestor from one of those lineages. I would say
> that humans had a fish-like ancestor in a lineage that had

> evolved 'lungs'. I would say that humans are 'vertebrates'.

> That is the inclusive term that includes both humans and

> all the organisms we call 'fish' because it is the feature
> we 'share' with all 'fish'.
>
> > A stem fungus.

>
> The fungi are one branch of eucaryotes that branched quite
> early and, most likely, is paraphyletic. The common

> grouping of all fungi and humans would be called "eucaryote".

> That is the one inclusive group name that includes both
> humans and the fungi. Again, I have no problem with

> saying that humans are "eucaryotes". Do you?
>
> > A stem flatworm.

>
> Flatworms are also more than one group that branched off quite early.
> The inclusive group name that includes both all flatworms and

> humans is called "true multicellular animal". [More technically,
> 'eumetazoa'.] I have no problem with saying that humans
> are "true multicellular animals" or "eumetazoans". Or one

> could include humans and flatworms in the classification group of

> 'bilatererians'. I have no current problem with saying that both
> flatworms and humans are 'bilaterians'. [That may change in

> the future. Worm phylogeny is a bit of a worm hole, so to
> speak.]
>

> > A stem reptile.

>
> The grouping that includes both reptiles and humans is called

> "amniotes". I have no problem saying that humans are "amniotes".
> Do you?
>
> > A stem flying lemur (or maybe a stem tree shrew, depending on the
> > latest cladograms).

>
> The grouping that includes both lemurs and humans is called

> 'primates'. I have no problem saying that humans are 'primates'.

> Do you?
>
> Oh, in addition, you failed to include other levels of classification

> terms that also *includes* humans: 'deuterostome' and 'tetrapod'.

> Again, I have no problem saying that humans are deuterstomes
> (which distinguishes us from the invertebrates that are protostomes).
> Nor with saying that humans are tetrapods (which includes amphibians
> along with reptiles). Do you?
>
> Simple rule. Use the term that *correctly* *includes* humans rather
> than use a term that correctly (or incorrectly) *excludes* humans
> in a cladistic reading.
>

> There are, of course, a few odd-ball cases that don't completely

> fit. Like the legless lizards and snakes and whales which are still considered

> to be 'tetrapods'. But that is simply 'shop talk'.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Well, I forgot to think like Peter. I now *presume* his claim is that the last common
ancestor to [eucaryotes, eumetazoa, amniotes, vertebrates, etc.] tended to
resemble modern [bacteria, flatworms, reptiles, fish, etc.] more than they resembled
humans. That may or may not be true in some of his examples (probably not true
for fungi, for example), but it does seem to be what he is claiming. But he can
certainly weigh in and tell us whether that is what he meant.

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 3:15:23 PM7/15/12

to

...except that it is Carol "UC" who equates using a word in a way
Carol "UC" has not blessed with smashing babies' heads against
trees...
...and it is Carol "UC" who lusts for the power to tell others how to
use words, even though Carol "UC" cannot even drum up a modicum if
consistency in word use, even here on T.O...

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 3:53:44 PM7/15/12

to

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:15:23 -0400, Slow Vehicle wrote
(in article
<b3ab2cc7-c302-4dae...@h8g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jul 13, 5:53ï¿œpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> On Jul 13, 10:36ï¿œam, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:19:11 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>
>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:06:33 -0400, UC wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <uranium-0c089cbb-fae7-4451-8824-f2cdbd95c...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com
>>>> >):
>>

>>>>> On Jul 12, 10:59ï¿œpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 11, 11:16 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>
>>>>>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>
>>>>>>> Consider the source.
>>
>>>>>> Nearly impeccable, unlike the hateful, vindictive liar that is played

>>>>>> by the dummy-analogue "jillery". ï¿œAFAIK, the real name, occupation (if

>>>>>> any), place of work (if any) and even the gender of the ventriloquist-
>>>>>> analogue who actually types the words that appear under the byline
>>>>>> "jillery" have never been posted to talk.origins.
>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>>>>> Jillery, 'Mark Isaak', and several others are all just ignorant cunts.
>>>>> They have no credibility whatsoever.
>>
>>>> Oh, my.
>>
>>> Two delusional self-important misogynists expressing their man-love
>>> for each other.
>>
>> Were "jillery" not a consummate hypocrite, [s]he would realize that
>> anyone who is naive enough to fall for the expressions "paranoid,"

>> "paranoia," "conspiracy theory" and ï¿œ"conspiracy theorist" for anyone

>> who points out obvious alliances among such groups as {jillery,

>> O'Shea, Gans} and {jillery, O'Shea, Ron O} will REALLY see ï¿œ"man-love

>> for each other" as paranoia on the part of "jillery":
>>

>> But of course, it isn't paranoia. ï¿œIt is hypocrisy, insincerity,

>> hatefulness, and ye olde "drive a wedge between your adversaries" that
>> is being expressed, along with illogic where I am concerned.
>>
>> I don't really know why "jillery" calls me a misogynist, but judging
>> from almost a decade and a half of experience in talk.origins and
>> talk.abortion, the "reasoning" might go like this.
>>
>> 1. As a supremely self-righteous persona, "jillery" looks upon
>> anything that reflects badly on her/him as morally reprehesible, even
>> if it is being caught red-handed in libel, and upon anything that
>> enhances her/his prestige as morally laudable, even if it is the same
>> libel.
>>
>> 2. As a grossly dishonest persona, "jillery" is quite capable of lying
>> that I know that [s]he is a woman, despite everything I've written in
>> the very post of mine that you see quoted up there.
>>
>> 3. And so, by the very act of having caught "jillery" red-handed in

>> libel a number of times, I am supposedly demonstrating misogyny ï¿œ[see

>> above about "self-righteous"].
>>
>> One thing more: I strongly suspect that "jillery" is an abortion
>> rights fanatic, and that [s]he was projecting what others have said
>> about her/him onto a pro-life "UC" just to get her/his blood pressure
>> up, when [s]he called "UC" a "baby killer."
>>
>> One reason is that I've almost never seen a pro-choice person being
>> accused of misogyny by habitual liars like "jillery", but accusations
>> of pro-life people being "misogynists" by abortion rights fanatics are
>> a dime a dozen.
>>
>> I have given other reasons for suspecting "jillery" is an abortion
>> rights fanatic on the other splinter thread on which I've been

>> participating ï¿œwith UC.
>>
>>> ï¿œAin't it romantic.

>>
>> Not nearly as romantic as jillery's "love affair" [figure of speech,
>> not to be taken in the usual sense] with Ron O, for whom jillery has
>> repeatedly expressed appreciation; and Paul Gans is also far more
>> "loved" by her than UC is by me.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> ...except that it is Carol "UC" who equates using a word in a way
> Carol "UC" has not blessed with smashing babies' heads against
> trees...
> ...and it is Carol "UC" who lusts for the power to tell others how to
> use words, even though Carol "UC" cannot even drum up a modicum if
> consistency in word use, even here on T.O...
>

Peter cares not for such trifles. What he cares about is that Mr. Language
Guy is on the other side from certain other people on the newsgroup. That's
sufficient for him. (Why, Ivan Petrovich, are those bells I hear? Arf! Arf!)

jillery

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 5:07:26 PM7/15/12

to

Typical rockhead dishonesty, to first ally himself to UC's insanity
and then to say he didn't really because he thinks other people do it
more. For someone who focuses on things which have nothing whatever
to do with the substance of a discussion, he seems to be a natural
bedfellow for UC.

jillery

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 5:14:31 PM7/15/12

to

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:53:44 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:15:23 -0400, Slow Vehicle wrote
>(in article
><b3ab2cc7-c302-4dae...@h8g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>):
>

>> On Jul 13, 5:53�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>> On Jul 13, 10:36�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:19:11 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>
>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:06:33 -0400, UC wrote
>>>>> (in article
>>>>> <uranium-0c089cbb-fae7-4451-8824-f2cdbd95c...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com
>>>>> >):
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 10:59�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 11:16 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>>
>>>>>>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider the source.
>>>
>>>>>>> Nearly impeccable, unlike the hateful, vindictive liar that is played

>>>>>>> by the dummy-analogue "jillery". �AFAIK, the real name, occupation (if

>>>>>>> any), place of work (if any) and even the gender of the ventriloquist-
>>>>>>> analogue who actually types the words that appear under the byline
>>>>>>> "jillery" have never been posted to talk.origins.
>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>
>>>>>> Jillery, 'Mark Isaak', and several others are all just ignorant cunts.
>>>>>> They have no credibility whatsoever.
>>>
>>>>> Oh, my.
>>>
>>>> Two delusional self-important misogynists expressing their man-love
>>>> for each other.
>>>
>>> Were "jillery" not a consummate hypocrite, [s]he would realize that
>>> anyone who is naive enough to fall for the expressions "paranoid,"

>>> "paranoia," "conspiracy theory" and �"conspiracy theorist" for anyone

>>> who points out obvious alliances among such groups as {jillery,

>>> O'Shea, Gans} and {jillery, O'Shea, Ron O} will REALLY see �"man-love

>>> for each other" as paranoia on the part of "jillery":
>>>

>>> But of course, it isn't paranoia. �It is hypocrisy, insincerity,

>>> hatefulness, and ye olde "drive a wedge between your adversaries" that
>>> is being expressed, along with illogic where I am concerned.
>>>
>>> I don't really know why "jillery" calls me a misogynist, but judging
>>> from almost a decade and a half of experience in talk.origins and
>>> talk.abortion, the "reasoning" might go like this.
>>>
>>> 1. As a supremely self-righteous persona, "jillery" looks upon
>>> anything that reflects badly on her/him as morally reprehesible, even
>>> if it is being caught red-handed in libel, and upon anything that
>>> enhances her/his prestige as morally laudable, even if it is the same
>>> libel.
>>>
>>> 2. As a grossly dishonest persona, "jillery" is quite capable of lying
>>> that I know that [s]he is a woman, despite everything I've written in
>>> the very post of mine that you see quoted up there.
>>>
>>> 3. And so, by the very act of having caught "jillery" red-handed in

>>> libel a number of times, I am supposedly demonstrating misogyny �[see

>>> above about "self-righteous"].
>>>
>>> One thing more: I strongly suspect that "jillery" is an abortion
>>> rights fanatic, and that [s]he was projecting what others have said
>>> about her/him onto a pro-life "UC" just to get her/his blood pressure
>>> up, when [s]he called "UC" a "baby killer."
>>>
>>> One reason is that I've almost never seen a pro-choice person being
>>> accused of misogyny by habitual liars like "jillery", but accusations
>>> of pro-life people being "misogynists" by abortion rights fanatics are
>>> a dime a dozen.
>>>
>>> I have given other reasons for suspecting "jillery" is an abortion
>>> rights fanatic on the other splinter thread on which I've been

>>> participating �with UC.
>>>
>>>> �Ain't it romantic.

>>>
>>> Not nearly as romantic as jillery's "love affair" [figure of speech,
>>> not to be taken in the usual sense] with Ron O, for whom jillery has
>>> repeatedly expressed appreciation; and Paul Gans is also far more
>>> "loved" by her than UC is by me.
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> ...except that it is Carol "UC" who equates using a word in a way
>> Carol "UC" has not blessed with smashing babies' heads against
>> trees...
>> ...and it is Carol "UC" who lusts for the power to tell others how to
>> use words, even though Carol "UC" cannot even drum up a modicum if
>> consistency in word use, even here on T.O...
>>
>
>Peter cares not for such trifles. What he cares about is that Mr. Language
>Guy is on the other side from certain other people on the newsgroup. That's
>sufficient for him. (Why, Ivan Petrovich, are those bells I hear? Arf! Arf!)

That's my impression as well.

hersheyh

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 6:30:04 PM7/15/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:48:44 PM UTC-4, hersheyh wrote:

> On July 13 pnyikos wrote:

> >On Jul 13, 6:50 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
> >> On 7/12/12 8:04 PM, pnyikos wrote:

A few nitpicking corrections of myself.

[snip]

> > I commented on that "shop talk" to Slow Vehicle. Anyone who accepts
> > that "shop talk" as "usage" will have to acknowledge that [s]he is:

> > A bacterium.

> No. Bacterium refers to one or two of the branches of the group
> inclusive of both humans and bacteria called
> 'cellular organisms'.

That is, regardless of whether one thinks of a single paraphyletic group called
"bacteria" or thinks of two groups (archaea and eubacteria, with eucaryotes
specifically branching from the former), the smallest group name that
includes both humans (a eucaryote) and all forms called 'bacteria' would
be the group of 'cellular organisms'.

I would acknowledge that humans are
"cellular organisms" and are thus differentiated from non-cellular
entities with some of the features we call 'life': viruses, viroids,
prions. We do not call humans 'bacteria' because that refers to
organisms without nuclei. We call humans 'cellular organisms'
because that is the feature that we still *share* with 'bacteria'.

> > A protist.

> No. Protists refers to several branches of the group called
> eucaryotes. I would acknowledge that humans are 'eucaryotes'.
> Humans are eucaryotes because of a feature we 'share' with
> protists, namely a nucleus in our cell.

That is, 'eucaryote' is the smallest grouping that includes both
all protists and humans.

> > A fish.

> No. 'Fish' refers to several branches of vertebrate which have
> retained an aquatic lifestyle with anaerobic

[sic] I meant aerobic.

> metabolism primarily
> through functioning gills. Humans (and all tetrapods) have a
> fish-like ancestor from one of those lineages. I would say
> that humans had a fish-like ancestor in a lineage that had
> evolved 'lungs'. I would say that humans are 'vertebrates'.
> That is the inclusive term that includes both humans and
> all the organisms we call 'fish' because it is the feature
> we 'share' with all 'fish'.

That is, 'vertebrate' is the *smallest* common term that includes both
humans (via tetrapods) and fish.

> > A stem fungus.

> The fungi are one branch of eucaryotes that branched quite
> early and, most likely, is paraphyletic. The common
> grouping of all fungi and humans would be called "eucaryote".
> That is the one inclusive group name that includes both
> humans and the fungi. Again, I have no problem with
> saying that humans are "eucaryotes". Do you?

Again, 'eucaryote' is the smallest group name that includes
both humans and fungi. Interestingly enough, it is also
probably the smallest grouping that includes humans
and plants, since both probably arose independently from
single-celled organisms. Because of that it would be
misleading to consider both humans and plants to be in a
common cladistic group called 'metazoan'. Someone is
certainly free to correct me on that.

> > A stem flatworm.

> Flatworms are also more than one group that branched off quite early.
> The inclusive group name that includes both all flatworms and
> humans is called "true multicellular animal". [More technically,
> 'eumetazoa'.] I have no problem with saying that humans
> are "true multicellular animals" or "eumetazoans". Or one
> could include humans and flatworms in the classification group of
> 'bilatererians'. I have no current problem with saying that both
> flatworms and humans are 'bilaterians'. [That may change in
> the future. Worm phylogeny is a bit of a worm hole, so to
> speak.]

Again, 'eumetazoan' or 'bilaterian' would be the smallest group
that contains both humans and all organisms called flatworms.

> > A stem reptile.

> The grouping that includes both reptiles and humans is called
> "amniotes". I have no problem saying that humans are "amniotes".
> Do you?

Amniote is the smallest group which contains both humans and
reptiles.

> > A stem flying lemur (or maybe a stem tree shrew, depending on the
> > latest cladograms).

> The grouping that includes both lemurs and humans is called
> 'primates'. I have no problem saying that humans are 'primates'.
> Do you?

> Oh, in addition, you failed to include other levels of classification
> terms that also *includes* humans: 'deuterostome' and 'tetrapod'.
> Again, I have no problem saying that humans are deuterstomes
> (which distinguishes us

and echinoderms

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:07:53 PM7/15/12

to

Despite your claims, there is no evidence of this usage spreading. I
took the trouble to check several dictionaries at the book store
tonight.

Apes are: gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees.

So, your claim is vacuous.

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:08:53 PM7/15/12

to

I am telling you not to lie. Isn't that reasonable request?

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:21:20 PM7/15/12

to

"Dictionaries". I _never_ claimed that the usage was in
"dictionaires"...yet. You are the one who thinks that dictionaries
are the be-all and the end-all of usage, Carol, even thought the
dictionaries themselves speak of description,not prescription (else,
why a "new words and usages" section?).
You can pretend that it isn't out there, in the links I have provided
you--but that only shows that, not only are you really, really bad at
language, you cannot even follow a link, or use a browser.
Your intentional inability doers not change reality, Carol. It
doesn't.

John Harshman

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:22:17 PM7/15/12

to

Not true. Opisthokonta is the group you have in mind there.

> Interestingly enough, it is also
> probably the smallest grouping that includes humans
> and plants, since both probably arose independently from
> single-celled organisms.

I believe this also is not true, though I don't know of a name for that
group offhand. But it's smaller than Eukaryota.

> Because of that it would be
> misleading to consider both humans and plants to be in a
> common cladistic group called 'metazoan'. Someone is
> certainly free to correct me on that.

It would be misleading because plants aren't metazoans.

>>> A stem flatworm.
>
>> Flatworms are also more than one group that branched off quite early.
>> The inclusive group name that includes both all flatworms and
>> humans is called "true multicellular animal". [More technically,
>> 'eumetazoa'.] I have no problem with saying that humans
>> are "true multicellular animals" or "eumetazoans". Or one
>> could include humans and flatworms in the classification group of
>> 'bilatererians'. I have no current problem with saying that both
>> flatworms and humans are 'bilaterians'. [That may change in
>> the future. Worm phylogeny is a bit of a worm hole, so to
>> speak.]
>
> Again, 'eumetazoan' or 'bilaterian' would be the smallest group
> that contains both humans and all organisms called flatworms.

This is slightly controversial. It depends on exactly where acoel
flatworms should go. Most flatworms are lophotrochozoans, and so is you
ignore acoels the least inclusive group would be triploblasts.

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:22:54 PM7/15/12

to

Nor am I lying, Carol. When you refuse to follow links I have
provided you, that does not make the evidence go away...it just
underlines how stupid you look, to what lengths you are willing to go
to preserve your superstitions.

Did you even look at the Britannica cite?

...I thought not....

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:24:31 PM7/15/12

to

On Jul 15, 6:08�pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not to mention, you, asking someone else _not to lie_ , is like Yao
Ming asking someone else not to be a tall Chinese person...

chris thompson

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:42:37 PM7/15/12

to

The usage is spreading. I teach my General Bio classes that humans are
apes. They have taken up the term, and refer to humans as apes. That's
how it works.

Chris

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:50:06 PM7/15/12

to

How long do you think it should take? It's been 150 years already! The
complete lack of any hint of of such usage is blindingly obvious.
Dictionaries are updated every year!

> �You are the one who thinks that dictionaries

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 8:57:25 PM7/15/12

to

No, sweetie. If you had been "published", as you claim, you would
know that the update cycle for a paper-printed didctionary is closer
to five years, or longer.
One more lie...

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 9:05:34 PM7/15/12

to

I said 'updated', not new editions. Merriam-Webster claims they update
every year.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/pr/eleventh.htm

"The new Eleventh Edition is the latest in a long line of Merriam-
Webster Collegiate dictionaries inaugurated in 1898. Since then, the
Collegiate Dictionary has sold more than 55 million copies and
consistently set the standard for college-level desk dictionaries in
this country. It is updated annually and completely revised and re-
edited every 10 to 12 years. "We firmly believe," Morse said, "that
this new edition will influence the future direction of dictionary use
and dictionary buying for years to come."

So, FUCK YOU!!!!!!

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 9:19:08 PM7/15/12

to

On Jul 15, 8:42�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Impressionable young minds, so eager to learn...

http://www.od43.com/Hitlerjunge_Quex_1.jpg

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 9:44:13 PM7/15/12

to

And _why_ would they need to "update",if the language was set in
stone, and never changed?
And notice the revision cycle--just as I said.
And. Carol: I don't care how many capslocks or exclamation points you
use--you still do not, nor will you ever, rise to my lowest and
slightest of standards, so, no, thank you.

Did you even look at the Britannica reference?
..I thought not...

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 9:46:25 PM7/15/12

to

And, Carol, your claim might mean something, if even _dictionatreis
claimed to be the prescriptive authority you pretend to..,did you ever
look at the Britannica reference? I know reading that may big words
makes your lips tired, but you really ought to try, at least...

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 9:48:04 PM7/15/12

to

Mostly for new words and new senses.

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 9:57:50 PM7/15/12

to

...which is my point, exactly--the language changes enough even in a
very few years, that dictionaries _need_ to be updated.
Thanks, Carol!
(did you eve even look at the Britannica entry?)

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 10:02:27 PM7/15/12

to

ape

A name originally (in medieval times) applied to the Barbary macaque
(Macaca sylvanus) of N. Africa (as were the Latin simia and Greek
pithecus) and, by extension, applied to other primates as these were
made known in Europe. As long-tailed monkeys ('tailed apes', or
cercopitheci) became better known, 'ape' came to mean primarily
'tail-less ape', and today commonly denotes a member of the Hominoidea,
comprising lesser apes (gibbons) and great apes (orang-utan, gorilla,
chimpanzee, and, in some usages, human).

How to cite this entry:
"ape" A Dictionary of Zoology. Ed. Michael Allaby. Oxford University
Press 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Sydney
University. 16 July 2012
<http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/views/ENTRY
.html?subview=Main&entry=t8.e517>

ape [OE] Until monkey came into the language in the 16th century, the
Old English word ape applied also to monkeys. The verb use 'to imitate
unthinkingly' was formed when 'ape' still meant 'monkey', and was
suggested by the way that monkeys sometimes mimic human actions. The
expression go ape is often thought to be a reference to the 1933 film
King Kong, in which a giant ape-like monster goes on the rampage through
New York, but the phrase is not recorded until quite a bit later: US
newspaper reports from 1954 and 1955 both say that 'go ape' is current
teen slang. The cruder version go ape shit is recorded from 1951.

How to cite this entry:
"ape" Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins. by Julia Cresswell. Oxford
Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Sydney University. 16 July
2012
<http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/views/ENTRY
.html?subview=Main&entry=t292.e278>

See also

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

And

"It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates,
but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over
words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I
desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference
between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I
certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called
man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians
against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of Natural
History." Carl Linnaeus to Johann Georg Gmelin. Uppsala, Sweden, 25
February 1747". Swedish Linnaean Society.
<http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_txt.php?id_letter=L0783>

Finally:

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

One cannot doubt that most people mean by "ape" the non-human primates
without tails (that is, they are defined in two negative ways); but as
the science takes hold and people begin to use scientific ideas in
ordinary language, ape is changing to mean Hominoidea, which includes
humans, just as Linnaeus' genus _Homo_ did.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 10:06:28 PM7/15/12

to

But (and here's the point) EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE UPDATED ANNUALLY THERE
IS NO HINT OF THIS USAGE IN THE ENTRIES!

http://youtu.be/MjbwCS_KKnw

SO, FUCK YOU!

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 10:18:52 PM7/15/12

to

Carol: You don't make the grade, so stop offering.
Seriously, you don't.
It isn't even remotely flattering. You do not rise to the least of my
standards (ever were I not in a seriously monogamous, committed,
exclusive relationship).

Did you ever even look at the dictionaries that disagree with you?
What are they? Tools of the counterrevolution?
What about the Britannica?

UC

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 10:29:58 PM7/15/12

to

What the FUCK has Britannica to do with anything? It's not a bleedin'
dictionary, in'nit?

jillery

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 11:31:49 PM7/15/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:02:27 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>ape [OE] Until monkey came into the language in the 16th century, the
>Old English word ape applied also to monkeys. The verb use 'to imitate
>unthinkingly' was formed when 'ape' still meant 'monkey', and was
>suggested by the way that monkeys sometimes mimic human actions. The
>expression go ape is often thought to be a reference to the 1933 film
>King Kong, in which a giant ape-like monster goes on the rampage through
>New York, but the phrase is not recorded until quite a bit later: US
>newspaper reports from 1954 and 1955 both say that 'go ape' is current
>teen slang. The cruder version go ape shit is recorded from 1951.

An interesting irony about this one. The meaning of 'big ape' is
someone who acts brutishly and thoughtlessly, and is used that way in
the original King Kong, by a woman in the audience as her toes are
trod upon by a careless fellow.

James Beck

unread,

Jul 15, 2012, 11:50:02 PM7/15/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:02:27 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

That's interesting. It seems like a bad idea to pretend that a subset
doesn't belong to its parent.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 1:58:31 AM7/16/12

to

On 7/15/12 7:29 PM, UC wrote:
> On Jul 15, 10:18 pm, Slow Vehicle<oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> [...]

>> What about the Britannica?
>
> What the FUCK has Britannica to do with anything? It's not a bleedin'
> dictionary, in'nit?

For meanings of words such as "ape", an encyclopedia is a much *better*
authority than a dictionary. If you care about what what words mean, it
is best to go to one who knows the meaning in depth, written by an
author who specializes in just that subject, not to someone who knows
little or nothing about the subject that the word refers to and also has
a hundred other different words to attend to that week.

--
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

Glenn

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 3:29:54 AM7/16/12

to

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:156c5655-ec8a-47df...@w6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 15, 8:07 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 1:42 am, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 14, 2:57 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 14, 3:11 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:04:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> > > > > <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:> > > > > >On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Bob Casanova
<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:16:51 -0400, the following appeared
> > > > > >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC
> > > > > >> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate,
UC.
> >

Everything needs a starting point. But they might want to excercise some
restraint outside the classroom, or they might call the wrong guy an ape and
find themselves knocked for a loop.
I doubt this is a usage that has really caught on yet, though. "Apes" still
largely refer to "other" apes besides humans. In my experience, I have never
heard anyone refer to humans as apes. They have always referred to humans as,
well, "humans".
Of course, there are evolutionists that I have heard say that humans are in the
taxonomic group endearingly called "the great apes", but that is not equivalent
to referring to humans as apes or humans are apes. I believe the vast majority
of humans, in their natural environment, are still defined and regarded as being
far superior to and separate from animals, including apes.
But in any event, good luck with the "great spreading". Perhaps we will soon get
an update from the Pope.

Walter Bushell

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 6:54:17 AM7/16/12

to

In article
<156c5655-ec8a-47df...@w6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The usage is spreading. I teach my General Bio classes that humans are
> apes. They have taken up the term, and refer to humans as apes. That's
> how it works.
>
> Chris

Already they are aping you.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 8:08:02 AM7/16/12

to

No, Carol, the 'Britannica' is the oldest English-language general
knowledge encyclopaeida still in production. Now that "the Brit" has
gone completely online, it actually does go through the kind of real-
time continuous updating that you seem to imagine has happened with a
ten-year-old paper dictionary.

Not sure why you would think that the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" was a
dictionary, but that's not the most confused thing you have ever
posted, either.

UC

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 9:21:42 AM7/16/12

to

On Jul 16, 1:58�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 7/15/12 7:29 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 10:18 pm, Slow Vehicle<oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> �wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> What about the Britannica?
>
> > What the FUCK has Britannica to do with anything? It's not a bleedin'
> > dictionary, in'nit?
>
> For meanings of words such as "ape", an encyclopedia is a much *better*
> authority than a dictionary.

You are insane.

>�If you care about what what words mean, it

> is best to go to one who knows the meaning in depth, written by an
> author who specializes in just that subject, not to someone who knows
> little or nothing about the subject that the word refers to and also has
> a hundred other different words to attend to that week.

The meaning of 'human' and 'ape' are mutually exclusive, just like
'human' and 'tree'.

UC

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 9:22:53 AM7/16/12

to

On Jul 16, 3:29�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > > Apes are: gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees.
>
> > > So, your claim is vacuous.
>
> > The usage is spreading. I teach my General Bio classes that humans are
> > apes. They have taken up the term, and refer to humans as apes. That's
> > how it works.
>
> Everything needs a starting point. But they might want to excercise some
> restraint outside the classroom, or they might call the wrong guy an ape and
> find themselves knocked for a loop.
> I doubt this is a usage that has really caught on yet, though. "Apes" still
> largely refer to "other" apes besides humans. In my experience, I have never
> heard anyone refer to humans as apes. They have always referred to humans as,
> well, "humans".
> Of course, there are evolutionists that I have heard say that humans are in the
> taxonomic group endearingly called "the great apes", but that is not equivalent
> to referring to humans as apes or humans are apes. I believe the vast majority
> of humans, in their natural environment, are still defined and regarded as being
> far superior to and separate from animals, including apes.
> But in any event, good luck with the "great spreading". Perhaps we will soon get
> an update from the Pope.

Yep. Good points.

UC

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 9:24:02 AM7/16/12

to

I am making the point that dictionaries are where one finds the
meanings of words, and the 'Britannica' isn't a dictionary.

Ron O

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 9:40:47 AM7/16/12

to

To ape the actions of others is an important factor in developing
culture. Monkeys taking nuts to a flat rock and pounding them with
other rocks as others of their group have done for generations.
Chimps fishing out termites with sticks. Birds pulling the tops off
milk bottles to drink the milk or pulling a bug out of a hole with a
stick. Getting a tattoo, your tongue pierced, or wearing your
baseball cap backwards. Monkey see, monkey do.

Ron Okimoto

SNIP:

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 9:48:20 AM7/16/12

to

On Jul 16, 7:24�am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > No, Carol, the 'Britannica' is the oldest English-language general
> > knowledge encyclopaeida still in production. �Now that "the Brit" has
> > gone completely online, it actually does go through the kind of real-
> > time continuous updating �that you seem to imagine has happened with a
> > ten-year-old paper dictionary.
>
> > Not sure why you would think that the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" was a
> > dictionary, but that's not the most confused thing you have ever
> > posted, either.

> I am making the point that dictionaries are where one finds the
> meanings of words, and the 'Britannica' isn't a dictionary.

...and the encyclopaedia widely regarded as the most scholarly English-
language general knowledge reference disagrees with you, so _of
course_ the continuously-updated "Brit" is less useful to you than a
seven-year-old edition of a paper dictionary.
And, of course, if your copy of one dictionary does not catalog a use,
the meshing communities of authors, educators, researchers, and
resources attesting to the fact that "humans are apes" is being used,
and has been used for at least half a century, just...don't exist, no
matter who nor how many.
Convenient, "innit".

UC

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 9:48:38 AM7/16/12

to

On Jul 16, 9:40�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > ape � �[OE] Until monkey came into the language in the 16th century, the
> > Old English word ape applied also to monkeys. The verb use 'to imitate
> > unthinkingly' was formed when 'ape' still meant 'monkey', and was
> > suggested by the way that monkeys sometimes mimic human actions.
>
> To ape the actions of others is an important factor in developing
> culture. �Monkeys taking nuts to a flat rock and pounding them with
> other rocks as others of their group have done for generations.
> Chimps fishing out termites with sticks. �Birds pulling the tops off
> milk bottles to drink the milk or pulling a bug out of a hole with a
> stick. �Getting a tattoo, your tongue pierced, or wearing your
> baseball cap backwards. �Monkey see, monkey do.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> SNIP:

Well if dogs and porpoises had hands....

What are the most intelligent animals, anyway?

UC

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 10:31:06 AM7/16/12

to

It's been 140 years since Darwin's Descent of Man, and 150 since
Origin of Species...this is not news. There is not even a HINT that
'humans are apes' has entered popular vocabulary as such.

Glenn

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 10:35:49 AM7/16/12

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 12:47:14 PM7/16/12

to

I was of course not referring to figurative usage, which is something
entirely different.