Can you give me transitional forms?

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

Man is one example, so is dog, cat, ant, salmon ... any living or previous
living spcies you want to pick.

Only works, though, if you actually understand what a transitional form is.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jun 17, 10:27 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

Tell me what you think you mean by a "legitimate" "transitional form".

Or go look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils (down toward
the bottom of the page)
or, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
or, http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
or, browse http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
or do a web search...

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

On Jun 17, 9:51 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:

Man is the form. Monkey is the form. The transitional form is
somewhere inbetween. Even if you have your own philosophical twist on
the definition it doesn't change the classical definition. Everything
is not a transitional form as you claim it to be. That is a
supposition.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:12:27 -0700 (PDT), biblear...@hotmail.com
wrote:

I doubt that it will do any good, but a good intro source is
http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution

Frankly, I think that you will accept nothing, no matter how
compelling, as a"transitional form" illustrating human evolution.

[Slow Vehicle]

<snip>

> Man is the form. Monkey is the form.

Fist problem. last common ancestor shared by humans and apes was not
a "monkey".

> The transitional form is somewhere inbetween. Even if you have your own philosophical twist on
> the definition it doesn't change the classical definition.

Second problem. *My* "philosophical" "twist" on"the definition" is
not at issue, yet. I asked _you_ what _you_ meant by a
"legitimate" :transitional form", because I suspect (given your
penchant for flexibility) that you will simply deny _any_ definition
as "suppositional", without any support other than _your_
"philosophical" "twist".

> Everything is not a transitional form as you claim it to be.

Third problem. Demonstrate where I claimed "everything is a
transitional form". Is this just another one of your triflin' ways
with the truth?

>That is a supposition.

...like clockwork...

So: if you really are interested in pursuing it, tell me what _you_
think "legitimate" "transitional form" means. If, as I suspect, your
definition boils down to the fact that you suppose "legitimate"
"transitional forms" do not exist, despite all evidence, why even ask
the question?

[John Harshman]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>

What exactly do you mean by "transitional forms"? Under my definition,
any Homo (other than H. sapiens) or Australopithecus species would
count. How about you?

[Ernest Major]

In message
<99934825-12c9-4482...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
biblear...@hotmail.com writes

>Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus
habiline grade Homo
erectine grade Homo
heidelbergine grade Homo
Homo sapiens idaltu

--
alias Ernest Major

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:51 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"

[...]

>> Only works, though, if you actually understand what a transitional
>> form is.
>
> Man is the form. Monkey is the form. The transitional form is
> somewhere inbetween.

QED

[jonathan]

<biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99934825-12c9-4482...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>

Shouldn't the question become the transition from
geology to biology? And wouldn't any 'mssing link'
be something which has equal properties of both?
Where no matter how carefully one looks at that
transitional form, it's impossible to tell whether
it's geology or biology, both and neither at the
same time?

Take a close look at these pictures, and explain
how purely geological processes can produce them.
There's a contradiction with the standard current
explanation. Which is that they are too pristine
or uneroded to have formed over geologic time
as theorized. And they appear to have formed
too fast for a geological explanation.

These 'things' pretty much come in two uniform
sizes and completely cover the ground in all
directions to every horizon. Countless billions
of them per square mile.


Small
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML


Large
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML


In about two months, the $2.5 billion Mar Science Lab hopefully
will touch down near the peak of Hale Crater, and we'll have
a better answer.


Jonathan


s

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

On Jun 17, 3:45 pm, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <biblearcheol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:99934825-12c9-4482...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>
> Shouldn't the question become the transition from
> geology to biology?  And wouldn't any 'mssing link'
> be something which has equal properties of both?
> Where no matter how carefully one looks at that
> transitional form, it's impossible to tell whether
> it's geology or biology, both and neither at the
> same time?
>
> Take a close look at these pictures, and explain
> how purely geological processes can produce them.
> There's a contradiction with the standard current
> explanation. Which is that they are too pristine
> or uneroded to have formed over geologic time
> as theorized. And they appear to have formed
> too fast for a geological explanation.
>
> These 'things' pretty much come in two uniform
> sizes and completely cover the ground in all
> directions to every horizon. Countless billions
> of them per square mile.
>

> Smallhttp://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P295...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06AS...
>
> Largehttp://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544...

>
> In about two months, the $2.5 billion Mar Science Lab hopefully
> will touch down near the peak of Hale Crater, and we'll have
> a better answer.
>
> Jonathan
>
> s

That's weird.

[Harry K]

On Jun 17, 9:27 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

What is your definition of a transitional form?

Harry K

[Dale]

On 06/17/2012 12:27 PM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

I could be wrong, I'm kind of a neophyte, but the current trend is to
believe two separate paths of evolution, not one to the other


--
Dale

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

jonathan wrote:
> <biblear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:99934825-12c9-4482...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

[...]

> Take a close look at these pictures, and explain
> how purely geological processes can produce them.

[...]

> Small
> http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML

I'd guess that the chances of those images being formed by purely geological
processes must be something in the order of the probability that an image
like this can be formed by purely temperature changing processes.

http://monthlyfeature.ruralwaterusa.com/files/2011/11/snowflake3.jpg

[Rolf]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.

[UC]

On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>
> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.

No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.

[Will in New Haven]

It is hard fact. Nothing lasts forever (but the earth and sky) goes
offstage singing Kansas song, badly.

--
Will in New Haven

[Dan Espen]

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

Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and
humans.

Most of the dictionary sites define ape as:

A large primate (families Pongidae and Hylobatidae) that lacks a tail,
including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons.

Not sure why the dictionary sites haven't caught up to modern biology.

--
Dan Espen

[Harry K]

Knock you head against the wall, kick, bite, scream all yu want. We
Are a member of the Great Apes crowd and came from a common ancestor
of what you are thinking of as "Ape".

Harry K

[UC]

No, apes we are not. We are men. That's why we have the words 'ape'
and 'man', in recognition of the difference.

Vernacular language is not Linnean.

[Kermit]

On Jun 18, 6:49 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

To answer both Dan and Harry above -

UC has a point. Dictionaries describe how people use words, and the
most common usage for English speakers for "ape" is something like
"tailless primates, but not humans". It is exclusionary, and similar
in that respect to "Gentiles" or "foreigners".

Of course, UC, you are rather OCD about language (which would work
better if you were always right, rather than just occasionally). "Ape"
has always been a flexible term, and you know that it is used in a
more biologically sensible manner by biology-oriented people. I have
family members that still use "animal" to mean "non-plant living thing
that's not a human" but will you dispute me if I say that humans are
animals? These uses of animal and ape are misleading and frequently
indicate a profound confusion about biology, and I'd rather encourage
clear thinking on the subject. Language is a living thing, and if
folks misuse words out of ignorance that's a shame, but if they find a
new use for words, that's simply doing what has always been done.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Jun 17, 9:27 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

http://sciencerevolution.net/hominidtrans.html

Kermit

[UC]

Yes, but, as we have discussed many times, vernacular usage has
nothing to do (usually) with origins or descent. Thus the word 'tree',
for example refers to any kind of perennial tall plant that has woody
stem, is usually taller than it is wide, and grows until it dies. It
refers to a form of plant growth, not a line of descent.

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

Sometimes vernacular language lines up with Linnean, but it doesn't
always, and should not 'have to'.

Note how in English the suffix '-fish' is applied to animals that are
not 'fishes' (starfish, cuttlefish, jellyfish, etc.).

[Steven L.]

On 6/17/2012 12:27 PM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>

This timeline picture may help. Note how many species there were.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive



-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

On 6/17/2012 1:12 PM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:51 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>>
>> Man is one example, so is dog, cat, ant, salmon ... any living or previous
>> living spcies you want to pick.
>>
>> Only works, though, if you actually understand what a transitional form is.
>
> Man is the form. Monkey is the form. The transitional form is
> somewhere inbetween.

Evidently you are unaware that monkeys are not apes.




-- Steven L.

[Karel]

You are being obtuse, as your reference shows:
"For other uses, see Tree (disambiguation)"

That is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(disambiguation)

You could ignore all language ambiguities, but that
does not look like a sensible strategy. To me, at
least. YMMV.

Regards,

Karel

[Mark Isaak]

Vernacular language is not yours to rule. It is for everyone, to mold
as they please. We are apes. Deal with 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

[UC]

On Jun 18, 12:49 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 6/18/12 7:51 AM, UC wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 10:44 am, Harry K<turnkey4...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 6:49 am, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no>  wrote:
>
> >>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>
> >>>> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
>
> >>> No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
>
> >> Knock you head against the wall, kick, bite, scream all yu want.  We
> >> Are a member of the Great Apes crowd and came from a common ancestor
> >> of what you are thinking of as "Ape".
>
> >> Harry K
>
> > No, apes we are not. We are men. That's why we have the words 'ape'
> > and 'man', in recognition of the difference.
>
> > Vernacular language is not Linnean.
>
> Vernacular language is not yours to rule.  It is for everyone, to mold
> as they please.  We are apes.  Deal with it.

No, we are not 'apes' in vernacular usage. Deal with it. If you go to
the zoo to see 'apes', you will find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edhNNmdXqzE
http://youtu.be/SF-de26hK7o
http://youtu.be/Owx8Pa5eCdk

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:49:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 6/18/12 7:51 AM, UC wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 10:44 am, Harry K<turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 6:49 am, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>>>
>>>>> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
>>>
>>>> No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
>>>
>>> Knock you head against the wall, kick, bite, scream all yu want. We
>>> Are a member of the Great Apes crowd and came from a common ancestor
>>> of what you are thinking of as "Ape".
>>>
>>> Harry K
>>
>> No, apes we are not. We are men. That's why we have the words 'ape'
>> and 'man', in recognition of the difference.
>>
>> Vernacular language is not Linnean.
>
>Vernacular language is not yours to rule. It is for everyone, to mold
>as they please. We are apes. Deal with it.

Still, vernacular language requires pronouns to agree with their
antecedents in number. 'Everyone' is singular. Deal with it.
(Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself)

UC is capable of going on and on for thousands of posts on the
'vernacular' vs. 'Linnean' subject, historically based on either
humans are apes, humans are fish, or dogs are wolves. We can stop it
simply by not reacting, especially when the post count starts to
exceed a few dozen.

[UC]

In contemporary usage, most especially in the US, 'they' is being
used, much to my dismay, a pseudo-singular pronoun.

[Steven L.]

For a while, feminists and others advocated adding new gender-neutral
pronouns to Modern English, rather than accepting the allegedly sexist
use of the male pronoun as generic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

In the above sentence, the gender-neutral pronoun "hu" could be used:

"It is for everyone, to mold as hu pleases."

Spivak proposed the gender-neutral pronoun "E":

"It is for everyone, to mold as E pleases."

(If ants could speak, would they use different pronouns for the queens
and the workers?)



-- Steven L.

[jillery]

Oh boy. Learn some science.

[UC]

On Jun 18, 3:58 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> >> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>
> >> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
>
> >No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
>
> Oh boy.  Learn some science.

Science doesn't enter it at all, you see. It's entirely a matter of
semantics, what you call things. That's what semantics is, you see.

[Kermit]

Didn't say it had to. I do say that if a group of folks are
biologically inclined, the word usage may change in their group. In
fact, it already has. Whether or not it catches on elsewhere remains
to be seen.

>
> Note how in English the suffix '-fish' is applied to animals that are
> not 'fishes' (starfish, cuttlefish, jellyfish, etc.).

Yeah, I have a cousin who is rather standoffish.

She's an animal, and she *is a fish (but not a shellfish)

Kermit

[Slow Vehicle]

Just FYI, from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/35pitfalls.php

"It is common to use the words 'great ape' to refer to chimpanzees,
bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. However, this reflects an outdated
view of classification. Humans are the closest living relative of
chimpanzees and bonobos, and their branch on the tree of life is
nested in among gorillas and orangutans. There is no unique set of
traits that set chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans apart
from humans. Technically speaking, humans are not just closely related
to great apes; we are great apes. You can reinforce the correct
conception with phrasing such as 'The great apes, including humans,
are omnivorous.' "

...could that be any more clear?

[Slow Vehicle]

[UC]

On Jun 18, 5:37 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 3:58 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> > > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > > >> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >> > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>
> > > >> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
>
> > > >No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
>
> > > Oh boy. Learn some science.
>
> > Science doesn't enter it at all, you see. It's entirely a matter of
> > semantics, what you call things. That's what semantics is, you see.
>

> FYI, fromhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/35pitfalls.php

>
> "It is common to use the words 'great ape' to refer to chimpanzees,
> bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. However, this reflects an outdated
> view of classification.

In fact, it has nothing to do with 'classification' at all, just as
the word 'tree' doesn't. It is not any more 'outdated' than 'tree' is!

> Humans are the closest living relative of
> chimpanzees and bonobos, and their branch on the tree of life is
> nested in among gorillas and orangutans. There is no unique set of
> traits that set chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans apart
> from humans. Technically speaking, humans are not just closely related
> to great apes; we are great apes. You can reinforce the correct
> conception with phrasing such as 'The great apes, including humans,
> are omnivorous.' "

None of this is of any merit or importance whatsoever!

[Slow Vehicle]

Nonsense.
The clade that contains humans contains chimpanzees and bonobos.
That clade is included in the clade that contains gorillas.
That clade is included in the clade that contains orang-outangs; that
one in the clade that contians gibbons, and so on. Just because you
don't like it does not mean it has no merit...you may disagree, but
that puts you outside the pale of mainstream biological thought.
Even when you disagree with an exclamation point!

[Bill]

I object!
Your objection is overruled.
I...I strenuously object!!

[Richard Norman]

UC has no problem with clades and fully accepts (I think) that chimps
and bonobos and gorillas and orangs belong to the same group as
humans. He just wants us to call it using a different name; it is
just the word 'ape' that is the problem. He knows that word usage
changes over time but simply denies that these particular words have
changed in this particular time even though most people trained in
biological thought have changed the word usage.

Many of us old geezers are fully comfortable using paraphyletic and
polyphyletic groupings: reptiles, algae, invertebrate, ... There is
no absolute requirement that we be strict cladists in everything we
say and do.

[hersheyh]

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:27:05 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.

Technically, of course, humans *are* apes. So I presume you want a
list of the species that are on the modern human side of the divergence of
humans from its closest living relatives, the two modern species of
chimpanzees.

Unfortunately the chimpanzee lineage is poor in fossils because they
lived in areas which did not produce much in the way of fossils, so
intermediates in that lineage are a bit more of a guess. But the
hominid lineage really does show intermediacy in any feature you
want. Bipedalism. Tool making. Teeth (reduction of canines).
And, lastly, but not unimportantly, an increase in brain size (except
in some creationists).

All of those intermediate species have transitions that make them
more hominid like and less chimpanzee like. All of the hominids
are transitional (have transitional features) between the last
common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, starting with the
genus Australopithicus, through Paranthropus to at least three
species in the genus Homo (habilis, erectus, and sapiens).

Archaic members of the species H. sapiens also differ and thus
are transitional between H. erectus features and modern H. sapiens
features.

But even a perfunctory search would have discoverd this. So I
really presume you are engaged in using rhetorical squirming
to avoid a conclusion you don't like.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevop2.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Here, for example, and I am too lazy to point you to the many other sites
saying the same thing, is a time line of when these fossils existed.
That is, where they are in the ordered fossil record. The timing is
important. We *know* that the human and chimp ancestor split
from one another around 5 million years ago.

But again, you are not really interested in knowing that bipedalism
is a transition to modern humans that occurred well before the
change in cranial capacity nor that the transition to stone tool use
preceded modern humans.

[hersheyh]

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 1:12:27 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:51�am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
> >

> > Man is one example, so is dog, cat, ant, salmon ... any living or previous
> > living spcies you want to pick.
> >
> > Only works, though, if you actually understand what a transitional form is.
>
> Man is the form.

Modern humans are a species called Homo sapiens. It differs from man-like
species that existed in the past from which H. sapiens arose, such as
H. erectus and H. habilis.

Monkey is the form.

Monkey refers to many many species of primates.

See for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World_monkey
which only includes the old world monkeys from which
the great apes arose.

The split occurred when Africa and the Americas were closer together
(the Atlantic was smaller) 40 million years ago.

Among living species and
among extinct ones. There is no single monkey "form". And even in the
vernacular sense of "modern primates that are not great apes", "monkey"
does not include H. erectus or H. habilis or even the chimpanzee.

> The transitional form is
> somewhere inbetween.

Modern human and modern monkeys have no transitional form. They have
transitional ancestral forms that long preceded the split between
humans and chimpanzees. In that sense, a chimpanzee or gorilla
or organutan *is* transitional between "old world monkey" and
"modern human" in that they have features that are more "monkey"
like and others that are more "hominid like".

> Even if you have your own philosophical twist on
> the definition it doesn't change the classical definition. Everything
> is not a transitional form as you claim it to be. That is a
> supposition.

If you want a serious answer, which you probably don't, use serious
language and be precise about what you want. I have suggested
transitional features entirely within the hominid lineage that differ
from and are intermediate between features seen in modern
chimpanzees or ancestral apes.

[Charles Brenner]

On Jun 17, 11:44 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>

> What exactly do you mean by "transitional forms"? Under my definition,
> any Homo (other than H. sapiens) or Australopithecus species would
> count. How about you?

If I understand correctly Australopithecus and human diverged a few
million years ago, several-fold more recently than the human-chimp
common ancestor. Does the chimp branch have a comparable history? Or
are modern chimps pretty much like that common ancestor?

[John Harshman]

We don't really know. With current data it's most parsimonious to
suppose that modern chimps are more like the common ancestor
(morphologically, that is) than we are. The ancestor presumably was not
bipedal and had a skull morphology much more like a chimp's than yours.

There are no fossils clearly on the chimp lineage. There are no fossils
clearly on the chimp/human lineage, though Ardipithecus and Olorin have
sometimes been advanced as one. If so, that would complicate the claims
in the previous paragraph.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jun 18, 5:31 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have no problem with that...if the objection is phrased as, "That's
not how I choose to use it" rather than, "That is without merit!".
There is room for differences in style (see, for example, "clearer/
more clear"). I still maintain that Pluto is a planet...and have to
translate ferrous/ferric into Fe2+ and Fe3+...

[UC]

On Jun 18, 7:31 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Correct,

> He just wants us to call it using a different name; it is
> just the word 'ape' that is the problem.  He knows that word usage
> changes over time but simply denies that these particular words have
> changed in this particular time even though most people trained in
> biological thought have changed the word usage.

Not among the general public.

>
> Many of us old geezers are fully comfortable using paraphyletic and
> polyphyletic groupings:  reptiles, algae, invertebrate, ...  There is
> no absolute requirement that we be strict cladists in everything we
> say and do.

Correct.

Listen to the trees!

http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Trees-John-Sexton/dp/0821219529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340068364&sr=8-1&keywords=listen+to+the+trees

[UC]

On Jun 18, 7:31 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Tree
Rock
Fish
Water
Bark
Leaf
Dog
Wolf
Book
Tire
Milk
Stream
Ape
Man
Kitten
Turtle

all of these are vernacular words

[Richard Norman]

And many of these are also words used in technical discussions with a
different meaning.

We went all through this a number of years and thousands of posts ago.
My favorite examples are "fruit" or "berry", both of which have
popular usage that differs from biological usage. Eggplant is a
fruit; strawberries and blackberries are not berries but grapes are.
You do not get to complain about how biologists use those words --
they simply are the proper English language term for the specified
concept.

Similarly, "ape" is used differently in popular speech and in
biological usage. You do not get to complain about how biologists use
that word. In this news group, we have enough biologists so we use
the term deliberately in the biological sense just to enrage gullible
bystanders. But we use it quite properly.

In particular, YOU do not get to complain about anything because you
are not the decider on these issues. Well, you can complain but it
will get you nowhere.

[UC]

On Jun 18, 10:33 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> Many of us old geezers are fully comfortable using paraphyletic and
> >> polyphyletic groupings: reptiles, algae, invertebrate, ... There is
> >> no absolute requirement that we be strict cladists in everything we
> >> say and do.
>
> >Tree
> >Rock
> >Fish
> >Water
> >Bark
> >Leaf
> >Dog
> >Wolf
> >Book
> >Tire
> >Milk
> >Stream
> >Ape
> >Man
> >Kitten
> >Turtle
>
> >all of these are vernacular words
>
> And many of these are also words used in technical discussions with a
> different meaning.

...which does not invalidate their vernacular usage....

>
> We went all through this a number of years and thousands of posts ago.
> My favorite examples are "fruit" or "berry", both of which have
> popular usage that differs from biological usage.  Eggplant is a
> fruit; strawberries and blackberries are not berries but grapes are.
> You do not get to complain about how biologists use those words --
> they simply are the proper English language term for the specified
> concept.
>
> Similarly, "ape" is used differently in popular speech and in
> biological usage.  You do not get to complain about how biologists use
> that word.

Stay out of vernacular contexts then (which is 99.999% of all usage).

[hersheyh]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 6:29:31 PM UTC-4, UC wrote:
> On Jun 18, 5:37�pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 1:52 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 18, 3:58 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT), UC
> >
> > > > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > > > >> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
> >
> > > > >> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
> >
> > > > >No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
> >
> > > > Oh boy. Learn some science.
> >
> > > Science doesn't enter it at all, you see. It's entirely a matter of
> > > semantics, what you call things. That's what semantics is, you see.
> >
> > FYI, fromhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/35pitfalls.php
> >
> > "It is common to use the words 'great ape' to refer to chimpanzees,
> > bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. However, this reflects an outdated
> > view of classification.
>
> In fact, it has nothing to do with 'classification' at all, just as
> the word 'tree' doesn't. It is not any more 'outdated' than 'tree' is!

Why are you bragging that you are satisfied with kindergarten taxonomy?
Bragging about your personal ignorance certainly is not something
I would do. But perhaps creationists are proud of their biological
ignorance?

Tree, in fact, is a vague term -- like bug. The same species of plant
can be a tree or a shrub depending on environment. And there is no
real unified group of plants called "tree".

Kindergarten taxonomy:

monkey
ape
human
fishy
doggie
kitty (including lions and tigers)
tree
vegetable

>
>
> > Humans are the closest living relative of
> > chimpanzees and bonobos, and their branch on the tree of life is
> > nested in among gorillas and orangutans. There is no unique set of
> > traits that set chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans apart
> > from humans. Technically speaking, humans are not just closely related
> > to great apes; we are great apes. You can reinforce the correct
> > conception with phrasing such as 'The great apes, including humans,
> > are omnivorous.' "
>
> None of this is of any merit or importance whatsoever!

If you want to ask an intelligent question, you need to understand a bit
more than kindergarten taxonomy and phrase questions precisely.
But you aren't really interested in asking intelligent questions, are you?

[UC]

On Jun 18, 10:44 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > In fact, it has nothing to do with 'classification' at all, just as
> > the word 'tree' doesn't. It is not any more 'outdated' than 'tree' is!
>
> Why are you bragging that you are satisfied with kindergarten taxonomy?
> Bragging about your personal ignorance certainly is not something
> I would do.  But perhaps creationists are proud of their biological
> ignorance?
>
> Tree, in fact, is a vague term -- like bug.

It is not 'vague' at all. I bet you can walk outside and spot a tree
with no difficulty whatsoever!

>The same species of plant
> can be a tree or a shrub depending on environment.  And there is no
> real unified group of plants called "tree".

Who said there was?

>
> Kindergarten taxonomy:
>
> monkey
> ape
> human
> fishy
> doggie
> kitty (including lions and tigers)
> tree
> vegetable
>
>
>
> > > Humans are the closest living relative of
> > > chimpanzees and bonobos, and their branch on the tree of life is
> > > nested in among gorillas and orangutans. There is no unique set of
> > > traits that set chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans apart
> > > from humans. Technically speaking, humans are not just closely related
> > > to great apes; we are great apes. You can reinforce the correct
> > > conception with phrasing such as 'The great apes, including humans,
> > > are omnivorous.' "
>
> > None of this is of any merit or importance whatsoever!
>
> If you want to ask an intelligent question, you need to understand a bit
> more than kindergarten taxonomy and phrase questions precisely.
> But you aren't really interested in asking intelligent questions, are you?

I'm interested in informing you about how to use language.

[Harry K]

And teh "apes" you see in the zoo are not the common ancestor them we
came from.

Get an education or at least quit exposing your stupidity here.

Harry K

[Slow Vehicle]

(snip)

> Stay out of vernacular contexts then (which is 99.999% of all usage).

(snip)

Who died and made you Daniel Webster?

[jillery]

Too bad for you that the OP isn't a vernacular context.

>> In this news group, we have enough biologists so we use
>> the term deliberately in the biological sense just to enrage gullible
>> bystanders.  But we use it quite properly.
>>
>> In particular, YOU do not get to complain about anything because you
>> are not the decider on these issues.  Well, you can complain but it
>> will get you nowhere.

I have noticed that UC argues grammar and word use in a similar way as
evolution-deniers; repeatedly post unsupported and/or irrelevant
assertions; ignore argument and/or facts which refute assertions; and
claim authority and expertise while demonstrating the opposite.

[jillery]

You're not helping.

[Richard Norman]

I have no problem with people using "ape" in common speech to exclude
humans, just as people use "wolf" to exclude dogs. Others here may
disagree, but I think forcing the biological usage of these terms is
as bad as forcing biological usage of "fruit" or "berry."

The issue here is the reverse: it is YOUR demand that we stop using
the biological meaning in areas where that meaning is appropriate. You
failed to acknowledge the section where I wrote " In this news group,

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:57:06 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think you might not have been around some years ago when UC went on
and on about exactly this subject. It was thousands of posts --
something similar to our current Dr Dr Kleinman stuff, always
rehashing exactly the same points. UC is absolutely bull-headed about
two subjects, vernacular usage and translation of German philosophy,
claiming special expertise in semiotics to support his positions.

[UC]

That's good.

>
> The issue here is the reverse: it is YOUR demand that we stop using
> the biological meaning in areas where that meaning is appropriate. You
> failed to acknowledge the section where I wrote " In this news group,
> we have enough biologists so we use the term deliberately in the
> biological sense just to enrage gullible bystanders. But we use it
> quite properly."

Would you demand that every time someone breaks a bone he has to say
'I fractured my tibia' or 'metatarsal'?

Of course not. You have to consider the context and the function of
the usage.

[UC]

Don't confuse me with them, or the blur issue.

> repeatedly post unsupported and/or irrelevant
> assertions; ignore argument and/or facts which refute assertions; and
> claim authority and expertise while demonstrating the opposite.

We ALREADY have a meaning for 'ape' and 'tree' and those usages are
NOT WRONG, so stop trying to 'correct' them.
Men are NOT 'apes'. We all know the difference, and it has nothing to
do with common descent. The concept 'ape' entails certain features
that men do not share, and vice-versa. Men are completely bipedal; no
ape is. All apes have dark skin and thick body hair. Men have the
power of reason and language. No ape has this, at least not to the
same degree. While we are perfectly capable of recognizing our kinship
with the apes, we must not forget that we are men and they are apes.
These things form the foundation of the semantic distinction between
'ape' and 'man'.

[Harry K]

Perhaps then you should study up on the subject first?

Harry K

[Walter Bushell]

In article <47evt79utc6pjf9co...@4ax.com>,

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Many of us old geezers are fully comfortable using paraphyletic and
> polyphyletic groupings: reptiles, algae, invertebrate, ... There is
> no absolute requirement that we be strict cladists in everything we
> say and do.

Yes, there is.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Kermit]

Normally in such circumstances it isn't funny to enrage gullible
bystanders.

I have said something similar frequently over the years because my
friends know I was a former Army medic and nurse, because they have
asked me for clarification.
Last month, a friend showing me his hand splinted and taped:
" I broke my ...phalanges?"
"No, *metaphalanges, the phalanges are the wrist bones."

Context is important.
In medicine, martial arts, evolutionary biology, and gardening, I use
vocabulary differently from the common vernaculum. The words are
either used differently from, or are more specific than, common usage.

>
> Of course not. You have to consider the context and the function of
> the usage.

In this context, for instance, we have biology-literate people who
understand this use of "ape", and creationists who are irritated by
its implication. A win-win situation.

Kermit

[jillery]

So that's one more characteristic his style has in common with
evolution-deniers, to mindlessly beat a single theme into to the
ground. I am grateful to have missed that earlier opportunity. You
have my sympathies.

[UC]

Ordinary vernacular language refers to things (or concepts), not to
lineages. It's really all that simple. When I use the word 'fish' I am
not referring to 'everything descended from fishes eons ago', but
simply to something like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--a1GPAf-nZI/TWW4SW9mzOI/AAAAAAAABCQ/4x3ut12YiQg/s1600/100316184706_fish_2.jpg

This is a brute fact which cannot be denied; it is IN FACT how people
use language, and you cannot argue about what are in fact ordinary
usages.

If I call these trees....

http://semprul.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/tree1.jpg
http://thebigvideogamestore.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/fastest-growing-trees-1.jpg

I am in fact using the word correctly....

[jillery]

Exactly so. Recognize the context of the words, and accept the
implicit meaning of the person making the point, unless and until
there arises confusion between context and meaning.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 11:35 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So that's one more characteristic his style has in common with

> evolution-deniers, ***to mindlessly*** beat a single theme into to the

> ground.  I am grateful to have missed that earlier opportunity.  You
> have my sympathies.

Split infinitives! Auuuggghhhh!

[Kermit]

Whites and colored people.
Americans and foreigners.
Christians and unbelievers.
Clean and dirty.
Healthy and unhealthy.
Jews and Gentiles.

These pairs of terms *are semantically clear (even if the boundaries
aren't, always).

But folks can start associating various characteristics with the
dichotomy, and perceptual problems arise.
We have all seen Americans who think that all foreigners envy the US;
we have seen racists who think that Australian aborigines are "more
closely related to Africans than whites are"(1), and we have all known
Christians who think that non-Christians have nothing better to do
than plot against the One True Faith.

These words are semantically clear, but there are times when
misconceptions associated with their usage(2) demands comment, whether
direct or indirect. In the context of these threads, we hear "ape"
used by creationists who think that gorillas are more closely related
to orangutans than they are to us, if they even accept that they are
related. They are not even "more similar to each other". We cannot
coherently address the nested hierarchy of morphology and humanity's
place in it without clarifying the relationship of the various apes -
including us.


(1) *So many things wrong with that...
(2) Usually in the form of "The not-X have more in common with each
other than they do to X".

[UC]

In biological context, Linnean terms should be used. Don't use
vernacular terms in a Linnean fashion. Use each in its appropriate
context.

[UC]

The notion of 'relationship' or 'relationship by descent' has nothing
to do with it. All trees have certain features that make them 'trees',
and in the concept of 'tree' again there is no notion of
'relationship', although obviously deciduous trees and evergreens have
a quite distinct appearance, it is not semantically relevant in the
concept 'tree'.

> They are not even "more similar to each other".

In most ways, yes they are.

> We cannot
> coherently address the nested hierarchy of morphology  and humanity's
> place in it without clarifying the relationship of the various apes -
> including us.

Who's asking you to do that? We are talking about what it means to use
the word 'ape'.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

'Ape':

http://kewe.info/thewei/_/valued_life_/western_gorilla_sumatran%20orangutan.jpe

(covered with body hair, lives in trees to a greater or lesser extent,
not fully bipedal, not capable of language or making weapons or tools)

Man:

http://www.funver.com/images/stories/environment/Sentinel/sentinel_1.jpg

(almost hairless, fully bipedal, capable of language and making
weapons and tools)

These are the gross differences between men and apes that 'justify'
giving them distinct names.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:35:04 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

An unfortunate tendency by some here, though, is to confuse his style
which you rightly point out has commonality with evolution-deniers
with his actually being an evolution denier. Hence the emphasis here
to try to convince UC that humans and the other apes belong to one
clade and to argue that he is stupid to deny that. He doesn't deny
it. He may be stupid but not on that account.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:23:01 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <47evt79utc6pjf9co...@4ax.com>,
> Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Many of us old geezers are fully comfortable using paraphyletic and
>> polyphyletic groupings: reptiles, algae, invertebrate, ... There is
>> no absolute requirement that we be strict cladists in everything we
>> say and do.
>
>Yes, there is.

My bad. I forgot that such an absolute requirement is permanently
etched as the second item in the list of Chez Watt rules.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 11:41 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

Which has NOTHING to do with how languages work. Things are named
based on their general appearance. A volcanic island or non-volcanic
island is still called 'island' regardless of its geological origins.
What matters is that it is a small piece of land surrounded by water.
Nobody is making a 'knowledge claim' by using the word 'island'.
Nobody is making a 'knowledge claim' by using the word 'ape'. It is a
means of identifying items in the environment, that's all. Gorillas
and Orangutans are similar enough to one another for us to use a
common name ('ape') for them, just as sharks and tuna are ('fish'). We
don't need to be 'educated' out of a perfectly reasonable usage.

By distinguishing between 'apes' and 'men' we do NOT deny common
descent. It has, I repeat. NOTHING to do with it.

There are thousands of types of glass, made in different ways and
having different properties.

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

http://www.stripes.com/news/the-making-of-a-leica-1.51968

"The firm has used samples of moon rock in its glass research. "The
moment we can synthesize glass at will, we will cut the cost of lenses
by 40 percent," he said."

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/18/12 10:09 AM, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:49:37 -0700, Mark Isaak

> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/12 7:51 AM, UC wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 10:44 am, Harry K<turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 18, 6:49 am, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man transformation.
>>>>
>>>>>> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
>>>>
>>>>> No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
>>>>
>>>> Knock you head against the wall, kick, bite, scream all yu want. We
>>>> Are a member of the Great Apes crowd and came from a common ancestor
>>>> of what you are thinking of as "Ape".
>>>>
>>>> Harry K
>>>
>>> No, apes we are not. We are men. That's why we have the words 'ape'
>>> and 'man', in recognition of the difference.
>>>
>>> Vernacular language is not Linnean.
>>
>> Vernacular language is not yours to rule. It is for everyone, to mold
>> as they please. We are apes. Deal with it.
>

> Still, vernacular language requires pronouns to agree with their
> antecedents in number. 'Everyone' is singular. Deal with it.
> (Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself)

"They", in modern usage, can be construed as singular. That this
dismays UC is a bonus.

> UC is capable of going on and on for thousands of posts on the
> 'vernacular' vs. 'Linnean' subject, historically based on either
> humans are apes, humans are fish, or dogs are wolves. We can stop it
> simply by not reacting, especially when the post count starts to
> exceed a few dozen.

True, and I should expand my comments into a larger point.

The purpose of language is, first and foremost, communication. An
ungrammatical sentence whose meaning is clear is far, far better than a
grammatical sentence which is unclear. Grammar police like UC rarely
make their pronouncements because their suggestions would improve
clarity; they make them so that they can feel superior to the criminal
underclass they are correcting. They deserve to be kicked in the butt,
because their actions are interference in language, not its enhancement.

The usage of "ape" is a perfect example. UC is correct that the words
"ape" and "man" have been different in the past. But what if that
difference is not what you want to talk about? If someone wants to say
that the group defined by the defining characteristics of apes also
includes humans, a simple, clear, and therefore CORRECT way to say that
is, "We are apes." To then say "No, we're not" is just plain wrong, in
light of what point was intended.

I'll note in passing that a secondary purpose of language is art, which
is not served by strict adherence to rules, either. The level of rigor
which UC wants serves no purpose anywhere.

--
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

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/18/12 4:40 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> [...]
> There is room for differences in style (see, for example, "clearer/
> more clear"). I still maintain that Pluto is a planet...and have to
> translate ferrous/ferric into Fe2+ and Fe3+...

Fe2+ is ferrous. Fe3+ is ferrouser.

[Slow Vehicle]

<snip>

> Fe2+ is ferrous. �Fe3+ is ferrouser.

<snip>

..."more ferrous"...

[UC]

On Jun 19, 4:09�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>

Rather unlikely unless you deliberately try.

> Grammar police like UC rarely
> make their pronouncements because their suggestions would improve
> clarity; they make them so that they can feel superior to the criminal
> underclass they are correcting.

False. It is precisely for clarity.

> �They deserve to be kicked in the butt,

> because their actions are interference in language, not its enhancement.

False.

>
> The usage of "ape" is a perfect example. �UC is correct that the words
> "ape" and "man" have been different in the past. �But what if that
> difference is not what you want to talk about?

Then use other words, Linnean language. That's what that language is
for.

[jillery]

I'm glad to see you finally admit you're wrong.

[jillery]

You accuse me of confusing your style with that of evolution-deniers,
but then you continue to post just like them. ISTM it's you who is
doing the confusing here.

>> repeatedly post unsupported and/or irrelevant
>> assertions; ignore argument and/or facts which refute assertions; and
>> claim authority and expertise while demonstrating the opposite.
>
>We ALREADY have a meaning for 'ape' and 'tree' and those usages are
>NOT WRONG, so stop trying to 'correct' them.

The scientific meaning of 'ape' is no more wrong than any other
meaning, so *you* should stop trying to 'correct' *them*.

>Men are NOT 'apes'. We all know the difference, and it has nothing to
>do with common descent. The concept 'ape' entails certain features
>that men do not share, and vice-versa. Men are completely bipedal; no
>ape is. All apes have dark skin and thick body hair. Men have the
>power of reason and language. No ape has this, at least not to the
>same degree. While we are perfectly capable of recognizing our kinship
>with the apes, we must not forget that we are men and they are apes.
>These things form the foundation of the semantic distinction between
>'ape' and 'man'.

The concept 'ape' describes a set, which includes gorillas,
chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons, orangutans, and humans as subsets of
it. If you said chimpanzees are not humans you would be quite correct,
just as chimpanzees are not gorillas. But as long as you insist that
the vernacular meaning unconditionally takes precedence, then you will
remain quite wrong.

[jillery]

And here's another mindless point for you to mindlessly waste your
time on.

[UC]

There is no 'scientific' meaning of 'ape', DUMBASS! It is and always
has been a VERNACULAR term. That's my point!

> >Men are NOT 'apes'. We all know the difference, and it has nothing to
> >do with common descent. The concept 'ape' entails certain features
> >that men do not share, and vice-versa. Men are completely bipedal; no
> >ape is. All apes have dark skin and thick body hair. Men have the
> >power of reason and language. No ape has this, at least not to the
> >same degree. While we are perfectly capable of recognizing our kinship
> >with the apes, we must not forget that we are men and they are apes.
> >These things form the foundation of the semantic distinction between
> >'ape' and 'man'.
>
> The concept 'ape' describes a set, which includes gorillas,
> chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons, orangutans, and humans as subsets of
> it.

Nope, that's 'Hominidae', and it includes Homo, Pan, Pongo, etc..

The concept 'ape' includes gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons,
orangutans, etc.

> If you said chimpanzees are not humans you would be quite correct,
> just as chimpanzees are not gorillas.  But as long as you insist that
> the vernacular meaning unconditionally takes precedence, then you will
> remain quite wrong.

Moron.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 4:50 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Kermit
>
> >In biological context, Linnean terms should be used. Don't use
> >vernacular terms in a Linnean fashion. Use each in its appropriate
> >context.
>
> I'm glad to see you finally admit you're wrong.

Why do you say that?

[chris thompson]

On Jun 19, 11:34 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

>
> In biological context, Linnean terms should be used. Don't use
> vernacular terms in a Linnean fashion. Use each in its appropriate
> context.

That might be true- if taxonomy and systematics had not changed since
the time of Linnaeus.

Chris

[chris thompson]

..."Bueller".

Chris

[UC]

On Jun 19, 4:56 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

By 'Linnaen' I mean scientific terminology.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 4:51 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you understand the difference between a concept (such as 'ape) and
a clade (such as 'Hominidae')? They are different things. 'Ape' is a
concept, which can be used figuratively. You can accuse someone of
being a 'big ape'. You cannot accuse someone of being a Hominidae.
That is one of the differences between Linnaen terminology and
vernacular terminology.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 4:09 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>

No, it's not. The right way to say it is that 'Homo sapiens and Pan
and Pongo (etc) are all included in the class 'Hominidae'. That way
you can have both. 'Ape' ALREADY HAS A MEANING THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE
MAN; we have the words 'man' and 'ape' because we have good reasons to
distinguish between men and apes. The main use of language is
reference, NOT classification. We use words like 'tree', 'apple',
'car', 'store', 'ham', 'forest', etc., to refer to them for practical
purposes. 'Honey, can you go to the store and get me some ham? Take my
car and be sure to avoid the forest'.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 4:52 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

"A minority viewpoint is that Homo diverged from a common ancestor
with Pongo perhaps as early as 13 million years ago, so that Pan is
more closely related to Gorilla. This alternative is supported by
characteristics uniquely shared between humans and orangutans, such as
dental structure, thick enamel, shoulder blade structure, thick
posterior palate, single incisive foramen, high estriol production,
and beard and mustache. There are at least 28 such well-corroborated
features compared with perhaps as few as one unique feature shared
between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these
physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is
that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and
African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If
this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans
and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary
relationship.[14][15] This hypothesis has been proposed as an
explanation as to why early hominids, such as the australopiths, not
only look more like orangutans than modern African apes, but also
share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil
relatives, such as a thickened posterior palate and anterior zygomatic
roots."

I'm inclined to give this some weight.

[UC]

On Jun 19, 5:17 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:


More on this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm

[Matthew Bladen]

In article <jrqm9t$kp8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak

Not only in modern usage; the earliest OED example is from 1526, with
fairly continuous evidence up to the late 19th century. THEY pron.
hasn't yet been revised for the third edition, so there isn't yet any
20th-century material.

[snip]

--
Matthew

[Richard Norman]

That may be true in Linnean speech, but certainly not in vernacular!
;-)

[Harvest Dancer]

The correct word is "did" not "does". For someone who is such a
stickler about proper language, I'm surprised that you made such an
elementary error.

"Ape HAD a meaning that DID not include man."

Jason Harvestdancer

[chris thompson]

Just when did "Linnaen" [sic] become a synonym for "scientific"? Your
language here is as precise as your language concerning humans and
other Great Apes. And yes, that is using "ape" in its proper context.

Thank you for the admission.

Chris

PS: It's "Linnaean".

[UC]

nope

[UC]

On Jun 19, 7:28 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Chris
>
> PS: It's "Linnaean".

OK thanks.

[jillery]

Because its true. The context of the OP is about a Linnean
relationship, that of transitional forms between ape and man. You
inserted your off-topic aside wrt vernacular distinctions, which
preclude by definition any relationship between ape and man. Your
implicit assumption that the word "ape" itself identifies context is
nonsensical.

[jillery]

When looking up the scientific meaning of DUMBASS and Moron, they use
you as the type specimen.

Thank you for your reply.

[jillery]

Both 'ape' and 'clade' are concepts. Yes, they are different
concepts. That you conflate the two concepts is part of the problem
here.

It's absolutely possible to accuse someone of being a Hominidae, but
it's very unlikely that the person so accused would know what it
means.

[Attila]

UC wrote:

> On Jun 18, 10:44 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Jun 18, 6:49 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>
>> > > biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > > Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man
>> > > > transformation.
>>
>> > > What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
>>
>> > No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
>>
>> Knock you head against the wall, kick, bite, scream all yu want. We
>> Are a member of the Great Apes crowd and came from a common ancestor
>> of what you are thinking of as "Ape".
>>
>> Harry K
>
> No, apes we are not. We are men. That's why we have the words 'ape'
> and 'man', in recognition of the difference.

My cat, Moixa, says "No, felines we are not. We are cats. That's why
humans have the words 'feline' and 'cat'. We cats use 'meow' and
'brrrp'".

>
> Vernacular language is not Linnean.

And chickens crow in the morning? My dog has fleas? Lagavulin is the
best single malt?
Vernacular language[sic] has many sentences. Live with it.

[Attila]

Richard Norman wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:49:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>

>>On 6/18/12 7:51 AM, UC wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 10:44 am, Harry K<turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 18, 6:49 am, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 18, 8:16 am, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Just the ones you think are legitimate for ape to man
>>>>>>> transformation.
>>>>
>>>>>> What transformation? We still are apes. Learn some biology.
>>>>
>>>>> No, we are not 'apes'. Learn some English.
>>>>
>>>> Knock you head against the wall, kick, bite, scream all yu want.
We
>>>> Are a member of the Great Apes crowd and came from a common
ancestor
>>>> of what you are thinking of as "Ape".
>>>>
>>>> Harry K
>>>
>>> No, apes we are not. We are men. That's why we have the words 'ape'
>>> and 'man', in recognition of the difference.
>>>

>>> Vernacular language is not Linnean.
>>

>>Vernacular language is not yours to rule. It is for everyone, to
mold
>>as they please. We are apes. Deal with it.
>
> Still, vernacular language requires pronouns to agree with their
> antecedents in number. 'Everyone' is singular. Deal with it.
> (Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself)

I'm sorry too but I have to disagree with you here. "everyone", "each
candidate", "someone", etc. are interesting cases in English. In terms
of verbal agreement they function as singulars. "Everyone needs a
friend." is fine but *"Everyone need a friend" is ungrammatical for
every variety of English I'm aware of. Pronoun binding is another
kettle of fish. "Everybody leaves their wallet at home once in a while"
is perfectly fine for me and I'm sure for most English speakers. I
sometimes wonder if it has to do with avoiding a gender decision that
using a singular pronoun would require. If you want a singular pronoun
bound to "everybody" you have to decide betweeen "Everybody leaves his
wallet at home once in a while" and "Everybody leaves her wallet at
home once in a while". Using a plural possessive pronoun solves the
dilemma. To me, "Every student must bring his textbook to class" sounds
a bit old fashioned and I'm 70.

Interestingly, collective nouns like "committee" act in yet another
way. They can take either singular or plural verbal agreement depending
on whether it is meant as an entity or a group of people. So we get,
"This committee is no longer active" versus "The Committee are advised
by the Senior Treasurer". Of course in the latter sentence we still
need singular agreement with the demonstrative so *"These Committee are
advised by the Senior Treasurer" is completely impossible.
Fascinating, eh?
(Sorry, sometimes I can't stop myself either) ;)
<snip>