American Museum redefines "human"
and...@my-deja.com
order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
Andy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
wf...@ptd.net
>The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
>order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
>"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
>terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
>selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>
>Andy
>
andy, being a creationist, is confused: why cant scientists be more
like religious fanatics. they have rigid definitions which change
daily, but they deny they change. change is no problem if you simply
deny it happens...
David C. Fritzinger
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
> "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
Yes, isn't it terrible that scientists define the words they use in
their work. Not only that, but they try to give them relevent
definitions. Again, Andy, LEARN SOME SCIENCE!!! You have shown yourself
to be remarkably ignorant in every scientific discussion you have
participated in so far.
Dave Fritzinger
mel turner
>The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
>order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
How is that any change of definition? What is the former definition
you seem to have in mind, and where is this formal AMNH "new
definition" published? Citations? The "Turkana Boy" is indeed a fossil
of the early human species _Homo erectus_;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
it's an "ape" only in the very same sense that any human, living or
fossil, is a type of "ape" [= member of the primate family Hominidae].
>"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
>terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
>selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
Gosh, but you're very silly, in a pointless sort of way.
Did you know those evil physicists also have special
definitions for familiar words like "force" and "energy" and
"work"? Must all be part of the sinister scientific conspiracy
to confuse you...
cheers
and...@my-deja.com
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
> In article <92gojm$aj7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote...
>
> >The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> >order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
> How is that any change of definition? What is the former definition
> you seem to have in mind, and where is this formal AMNH "new
> definition" published? Citations? The "Turkana Boy" is indeed a
fossil
> of the early human species _Homo erectus_;
A "human" is a person like you or me. That definition had been stable
since at least 1533.
Redefining "human" to include apes is a change brought by the
evolutionists. Do apes have "human rights" under the new definition?
The AMNH claims that the ape "Turkana Boy" is an early human in its
prominent exhibit. BTW, AMNH claims that "Turkana Boy" is a Homo
ergaster, which is related to Homo erectus.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html [snip]
Turkana Boy is estimated by the AMNH to be 1.6 million years old, not
the 2.5 million years old claimed on a link in the second site above.
BTW, these sites seem to be dominated by polemics with creationists.
> >"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> >terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> >selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>
> Gosh, but you're very silly, in a pointless sort of way.
> Did you know those evil physicists also have special
> definitions for familiar words like "force" and "energy" and
> "work"? Must all be part of the sinister scientific conspiracy
> to confuse you...
You speak the Darwinists' dialect here of namecalling ("you're very
silly"!!) and avoiding the substantive issue. Do you deny that
evolutionists have changed the meanings of the words above -- and are
continuing to change them?
Also, you're wrong about physicists. They don't change their
definitions, or insist on using words without a fixed meaning.
pz
> The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
> "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
Errm, what? "Human" is a general term. Turkana Boy has always, as far as
I know, been classed in the genus Homo, and I rather doubt that the AMNH
has changed that.
Here's another word that's been redefined by those bastards: robin. Some
of those guys use that extremely specific term to apply to Erithacus
rather than Turdus, if you can imagine that.
--
pz
thewilkins
> In article <92gqr6$gqd$1...@news.duke.edu>,
> mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
> > In article <92gojm$aj7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote...
> >
> > >The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> > >order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
> >
> > How is that any change of definition? What is the former definition
> > you seem to have in mind, and where is this formal AMNH "new
> > definition" published? Citations? The "Turkana Boy" is indeed a
> fossil
> > of the early human species _Homo erectus_;
>
> A "human" is a person like you or me. That definition had been stable
> since at least 1533.
And what happened in 1533? Is that some religious definition? Moreover,
how do you know that Turkana Boy was not a person like you or me? What
is your evidence?
>
> Redefining "human" to include apes is a change brought by the
> evolutionists. Do apes have "human rights" under the new definition?
They do in New Zealand. They have the human rights allowed to humans of
their mental age (ie, up to age 5 or so) - they must be treated with a
duty of care.
>
> The AMNH claims that the ape "Turkana Boy" is an early human in its
> prominent exhibit. BTW, AMNH claims that "Turkana Boy" is a Homo
> ergaster, which is related to Homo erectus.
If it's Homo, it's human (and if it's human, it's ape, but not all apes
are human, and the Pan clade is arguably human at least).
>
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html [snip]
>
> Turkana Boy is estimated by the AMNH to be 1.6 million years old, not
> the 2.5 million years old claimed on a link in the second site above.
> BTW, these sites seem to be dominated by polemics with creationists.
>
> > >"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> > >terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> > >selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
> >
> > Gosh, but you're very silly, in a pointless sort of way.
> > Did you know those evil physicists also have special
> > definitions for familiar words like "force" and "energy" and
> > "work"? Must all be part of the sinister scientific conspiracy
> > to confuse you...
>
> You speak the Darwinists' dialect here of namecalling ("you're very
> silly"!!) and avoiding the substantive issue. Do you deny that
> evolutionists have changed the meanings of the words above -- and are
> continuing to change them?
Must be really troublesome for you when people learn differently from
what they thought in the past when they investigate. Bit like finding
out that "organic" doesn't necessarily mean "made by a living system".
Those damned 19th century chemists...
>
> Also, you're wrong about physicists. They don't change their
> definitions, or insist on using words without a fixed meaning.
Hmmm... Newtonian mass and relativistic mass? ISTR Kuhn had a lot to say
about these terms being incommensurate.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
rich hammett
> In article <92gqr6$gqd$1...@news.duke.edu>,
> mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>> In article <92gojm$aj7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote...
>>
>> >The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
>> >order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>>
>> How is that any change of definition? What is the former definition
>> you seem to have in mind, and where is this formal AMNH "new
>> definition" published? Citations? The "Turkana Boy" is indeed a
> fossil
>> of the early human species _Homo erectus_;
> A "human" is a person like you or me. That definition had been stable
> since at least 1533.
Andy, I am not like you.
Under certain definitions today, Jews and mud people are not human.
> Redefining "human" to include apes is a change brought by the
> evolutionists. Do apes have "human rights" under the new definition?
> The AMNH claims that the ape "Turkana Boy" is an early human in its
> prominent exhibit. BTW, AMNH claims that "Turkana Boy" is a Homo
> ergaster, which is related to Homo erectus.
Andy, what does "homo" mean in latin?
rich
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html [snip]
> Turkana Boy is estimated by the AMNH to be 1.6 million years old, not
> the 2.5 million years old claimed on a link in the second site above.
> BTW, these sites seem to be dominated by polemics with creationists.
>> >"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
>> >terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
>> >selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>>
>> Gosh, but you're very silly, in a pointless sort of way.
>> Did you know those evil physicists also have special
>> definitions for familiar words like "force" and "energy" and
>> "work"? Must all be part of the sinister scientific conspiracy
>> to confuse you...
> You speak the Darwinists' dialect here of namecalling ("you're very
> silly"!!) and avoiding the substantive issue. Do you deny that
> evolutionists have changed the meanings of the words above -- and are
> continuing to change them?
> Also, you're wrong about physicists. They don't change their
> definitions, or insist on using words without a fixed meaning.
> Andy
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
stev...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
_Extinct Humans_ (you ought to read it, if only to mine new and better
quotes), implicitly uses "human" to include even australopithecines and
ardipithecines. To use it to include all species assigned to genus
_Homo_ (from the Latin for "human") is hardly a novelty or bizarre. Of
course, the dividing line between _Homo_ and, say _Australopithecus_,
is conventional and rather arbitrary, rather than a fact of nature.
>
> "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>
"human" (and all other biological classifications) has to have rather
loose boundaries. Since species evolve by small steps into other
species, and even over time into species of other genera and higher
taxa, any biological classification must contain some "fuzziness."
This is not new; it is implicit in the very idea of evolution. There
is no fixed line between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, between fish
and early tetrapods, between non-human apes and humans. This is an
instance of the "sorites" problem: how many grains make a heap? If you
have the minimum number and take one away, does the heap cease to be a
heap? Likewise, how humanlike does an ape have to be to be human, and
is the parent of the first "true" human "truely" nonhuman?
>
> Andy
>
>
-- Steven J.
WickedDyno
thewi...@bigpond.com (thewilkins) wrote:
> <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<s>
> > Also, you're wrong about physicists. They don't change their
> > definitions, or insist on using words without a fixed meaning.
>
> Hmmm... Newtonian mass and relativistic mass? ISTR Kuhn had a lot to say
> about these terms being incommensurate.
Now, let's not get rogandy started on Kuhn again... :)
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Troy Britain
> The AMNH claims that the ape "Turkana Boy" is an early human in its
> prominent exhibit. BTW, AMNH claims that "Turkana Boy" is a Homo
> ergaster, which is related to Homo erectus.
So you're claiming that the "Turkana Boy" skeleton is merely an ape, is that
right? Well you better explain that to Duane Gish at the ICR, because he
seems to think it is really a Neanderthal and that Neanderthals are
completely human.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-171.htm
It is fascinating how creationists can't seem to get their story on _H.
ergaster/erectus_ fossils straight. Some creationists say they're all
"apes", some say they're all completely human, and others say some
specimens are "apes" and others are human.
Yes, very interesting that. The phrase 'intermediate form' comes to mind
for some reason.
Bye
Troy Britain (Amateur Naturalist)
Dave Oldridge
>The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
>order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
>"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
>terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
>selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
Give us a break! The Turkana Boy is not much more apelike than you are.
Please refer to the picture at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
Aand tell us, referring to the picture, what it is about the skeleton that
you think makes it a member of any genus other than homo. Be specific and be
prepared to explain all features in the picture in terms of your claim that
it is an "ape." Of course, cladistically, it is an ape, but then so are you!
By those criteria, I mean.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Dave Oldridge
Uh, actually, you can make a fairly good argument for the extra circulatory
equipment that supports the larger brain in h. habilis being enough of a
difference to mark off genus homo from other hominid genera. And, of course
it is present in h. erectus of which the Turkana boy has always been
considered a good example.
The only redefining I see here is someone trying to redifine "ape" to include
homo erectus. Cladistically, that's (sort of--ape isn't really an official
clade) correct, but then you must also include all of the gibbons, orangs,
gorillas, chimpanzees, ardepithecines, australopithecines and the several
species of humans, including h. sapiens.
and...@my-deja.com
stev...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92gojm$aj7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> > order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early
human.
> >
> I don't think the AMNH did the redefining. Ian Tattersall, in his
book
> _Extinct Humans_ (you ought to read it, if only to mine new and better
> quotes), implicitly uses "human" to include even australopithecines
and
> ardipithecines. To use it to include all species assigned to genus
> _Homo_ (from the Latin for "human") is hardly a novelty or bizarre.
Of
> course, the dividing line between _Homo_ and, say _Australopithecus_,
> is conventional and rather arbitrary, rather than a fact of nature.
The AMNH has a large placard devoted near the front of its exhibit
devoted to its expansive, and unsatisfactory, definition of "human".
This may be the result of questions about why it claims that Turkana
Boy is an early human, when its skull and small frame looks like that
of an ape.
I agree that AMNH may not be the first evolutionist to try to change
the meaning of "human". But it is unjustified. "Human" has a clear
social, scientific and legal meaning dating back hundreds of years.
> > "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> > terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> > selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
> >
> By the very nature of modern (neo-Darwinist) evolutionary theory,
> "human" (and all other biological classifications) has to have rather
> loose boundaries. Since species evolve by small steps into other
> species, and even over time into species of other genera and higher
> taxa, any biological classification must contain some "fuzziness."
That's what evolution should be proving, not assuming. But it
redefines common terms rather than proving its objective. How does one
now ask an evolutionist, for example, if humans all descended from a
common human father (Adam)?
> This is not new; it is implicit in the very idea of evolution. There
> is no fixed line between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, between fish
> and early tetrapods, between non-human apes and humans. This is an
> instance of the "sorites" problem: how many grains make a heap? If
you
> have the minimum number and take one away, does the heap cease to be a
> heap? Likewise, how humanlike does an ape have to be to be human, and
> is the parent of the first "true" human "truely" nonhuman?
You're making assumptions here about evolution being extremely
gradual. Even then, the traditional definition of "human" works fine:
organisms like you and me that adorn clothing, appreciate good and
evil, and recognize principles.
Andy
William "Dave" Thweatt
dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com wrote:
Not only do we attempt to define things we observe, we also argue
constantly among ourselves about pretty much everything. In every
measurement, observation or definition of terms there is a degree of
uncertainty. Even in the precise world of quantum mechanics, certain
unceratinties are certain. It tends to annoy undergrads when they are
taught these things, but they usually eventually get over it.
--
"If you want to know God's thoughts, first learn His language."
Superdave The Wonderchemist (old nickname from years ago)
Ph.D. Candidate
Theoretical Quantum Chemistry
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND 58105
Jon Fleming
>A "human" is a person like you or me. That definition had been stable
>since at least 1533.
Gee, Andy, your beloved M-W dictionary does't define "human" as "a
person like you or me". It defines "human" as " a bipedal primate
mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of
the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs".
That is, according to the M-W dictionary, any animal classified in the
family Hominidae is human.
The definition also gives the origin of the term as circa 1533 ... is
that the source for our claim of stability? The meaning of a term can
(and often does) change over time after its origin ...
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
thewilkins
> In article <1emerep.14qrtqf1ro07riN%thewi...@bigpond.com>,
> thewi...@bigpond.com (thewilkins) wrote:
>
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> <s>
> > > Also, you're wrong about physicists. They don't change their
> > > definitions, or insist on using words without a fixed meaning.
> >
> > Hmmm... Newtonian mass and relativistic mass? ISTR Kuhn had a lot to say
> > about these terms being incommensurate.
>
> Now, let's not get rogandy started on Kuhn again... :)
OK, then what about "atom" from Democritus to Dalton to Bohr to today?
mel turner
>In article <92gqr6$gqd$1...@news.duke.edu>,
> mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>> In article <92gojm$aj7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote...
>>
>> >The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
>> >order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>>
>> How is that any change of definition? What is the former definition
>> you seem to have in mind, and where is this formal AMNH "new
>> definition" published? Citations? The "Turkana Boy" is indeed a
>fossil
>> of the early human species _Homo erectus_;
>
>A "human" is a person like you or me. That definition had been stable
>since at least 1533.
I note that you don't cite any specific authority for this
original, correct definition. Got one?
BTW, do you know what the Latin word "Homo" means in "_Homo sapiens_"
or "_Homo erectus_"? [Perhaps that concept might be made a guide as
to what is called "human"...]
You say "a "human" is a person like you or me". How closely
similar is that similarity requirement implied by "like you or me"?
_Homo erectus_ was a hominid species that is indeed very closely
related to H. sapiens. It was completely unknown in 1533, so how do
you know that it would have been specifically excluded from your
sources' [you do have some, right?] "correct" definition of "human"?
_Homo erectus_ were indeed "like you or me" to a considerable degree,
but they were somewhat less "like you or me" than modern humans are.
>Redefining "human" to include apes is a change brought by the
>evolutionists.
Reading-comprehension difficulties? AFAIK, no evolutionist has
ever redefined "human" to include apes. On the other hand, "humans"
could be considered to be a particular subset of "apes", if "apes"
is seen as equivalent to either of the formal taxonomic groups
"Hominidae" or "Hominoidea". If it's not, then "ape" really has no
particular meaning or value to systematists. [The traditional concept
of "apes" might correspond to "all hominoid primates, except for
humans"; it's just an incoherent "everything-else" group]
BTW, do you know what "orang utan" means in Malay?
;-)
>Do apes have "human rights" under the new definition?
Non sequitur. 1] there is no "new definition", and
2] "human rights" [and "animal rights", for that matter] are
social and legal issues irrelevant to the work of systematic
biologists.
>The AMNH claims that the ape "Turkana Boy" is an early human in its
>prominent exhibit.
And so it is. Why do you insist on calling it an 'ape'?
It's no more [and no less] an "ape" than any modern human is.
Amusingly, creationists often seem to have real problems with
_H. erectus_ type fossils. Some call some specimens "just apes"
but call other specimens of the same species "fully human".
>BTW, AMNH claims that "Turkana Boy" is a Homo
>ergaster, which is related to Homo erectus.
Thanks. [I actually knew that, FWIW] _H. ergaster_ is quite
often lumped in with H. erectus [as it is in the t.o. fossil
hominids FAQ]; there's really a continuum from H. ergaster/H.
erectus to what has been called "archaic _H. sapiens_" or _H.
heidelbergensis_. [The number of separate species of fossil humans
recognized involve disputed judgement calls, as befits an
evolutionary continuum].
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html [snip]
>
>Turkana Boy is estimated by the AMNH to be 1.6 million years old, not
>the 2.5 million years old claimed on a link in the second site above.
>BTW, these sites seem to be dominated by polemics with creationists.
Yes, but the t.o. hominid FAQs are quite good. There are many other
primatology and paleoanthropology sites out there, most of which are
completely unconcerned with creationist nonsense. Here's a few I'd
kept [hope they're still current]:
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/chordata/mammalia/primates/hominidae.html
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/p]
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/index.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~mattf/PaleoAnthro.html
http://thunder.indstate.edu/~ramanank/index.html neands
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/lfopen-index.html
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/mammalia/primates/hominidae/hominidae.html
http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/courses/121/primatology/taxonomy.html
http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/anthro/people/faculty/cbramblett/ant301/thirteen.html
http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/anthro/people/faculty/cbramblett/ant301/fourteen.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/apeman/index.shtml
http://cyberfair.gsn.org/adelaar/index.htm
http://kroeber.anthro.mankato.msus.edu/biology/humanevolution/hominids.html
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/taxon.html
http://www.oneonta.edu:80/~anthro/anth130/links.html
http://www.cruzio.com/~cscp/index.htm
http://cgi.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/#
http://www.humboldt.edu/~mrc1/main.shtml
http://users.hol.gr/~dilos/prehis.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/links/evolinks.html
http://ampere.scale.uiuc.edu/anth102/austims.html
http://daphne.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm
http://www.zstarr.com/iho/science.htm
And of course there are those museums and things called "books"
and "libraries". Of course, some of the above sites do cite
relevant books and journal articles [as do the t.o. hominid FAQs]
>> >"Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
>> >terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
>> >selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>>
>> Gosh, but you're very silly, in a pointless sort of way.
>> Did you know those evil physicists also have special
>> definitions for familiar words like "force" and "energy" and
>> "work"? Must all be part of the sinister scientific conspiracy
>> to confuse you...
>
>You speak the Darwinists' dialect here of namecalling ("you're very
>silly"!!)
Oops. Sorry, that's actually a typo. I intended to write that
you were _acting_ very silly [the word "being" was meant to go after
the "you're". I'd prefer to comment on behavior, not necessarily on
the person.] Your fretting over scientific jargon does seem silly.
>and avoiding the substantive issue. Do you deny that
>evolutionists have changed the meanings of the words above -- and are
>continuing to change them?
Yes, I'd deny that. Science in general has more precise, special
uses for familiar words in specific contexts. Sure, jargon
can often be confusing, but it's often necessary for precise
communication. Evolutionary biology is very complex, so there are
complex sets of interrelated scientific concepts and terms [e.g.,
types of fitness, types of selection]. Sorry if it confuses you, but
it's not some sinister conspiracy.
>Also, you're wrong about physicists. They don't change their
>definitions, or insist on using words without a fixed meaning.
It's not different than biologists meaning something different
by 'fitness' or "selection" from the familiar non-scientific uses.
cheers
mel turner
>In article <92h93k$n2t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> stev...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <92gojm$aj7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
>> > order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>> >
>> I don't think the AMNH did the redefining. Ian Tattersall, in his book
>> _Extinct Humans_ (you ought to read it, if only to mine new and better
>> quotes), implicitly uses "human" to include even australopithecines and
>> ardipithecines. To use it to include all species assigned to genus
>> _Homo_ (from the Latin for "human") is hardly a novelty or bizarre. Of
>> course, the dividing line between _Homo_ and, say _Australopithecus_,
>> is conventional and rather arbitrary, rather than a fact of nature.
>
>The AMNH has a large placard devoted near the front of its exhibit
>devoted to its expansive, and unsatisfactory, definition of "human".
>This may be the result of questions about why it claims that Turkana
>Boy is an early human, when its skull and small frame looks like that
>of an ape.
Sounds like you don't know what [nonhuman] ape skulls and skeletons
look like. H. ergaster/erectus is clearly much more like a "human"
than an "ape".
>I agree that AMNH may not be the first evolutionist to try to change
>the meaning of "human".
You've not demonstrated that this is any change.
>But it is unjustified. "Human" has a clear
>social, scientific and legal meaning dating back hundreds of years.
And a clear biological meaning of what, dating back to when?
>> > "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
>> > terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
>> > selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>> >
>> By the very nature of modern (neo-Darwinist) evolutionary theory,
>> "human" (and all other biological classifications) has to have rather
>> loose boundaries. Since species evolve by small steps into other
>> species, and even over time into species of other genera and higher
>> taxa, any biological classification must contain some "fuzziness."
>
>That's what evolution should be proving, not assuming. But it
>redefines common terms rather than proving its objective. How does one
>now ask an evolutionist, for example, if humans all descended from a
>common human father (Adam)?
So you need to ask meaningful questions phrased meaningfully. Would
there ever have been a single pair of "first humans" [or "first _Homo
sapiens_"]? No. Do the genealogies of all currently-extant humans share
common individuals who were directly ancestral to all of us [e.g.,
"mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam"] who lived since the origin
of anatomically modern humans? Perhaps yes, according to some genetics
researchers and paleoanthropologists. Were they an actual couple who
were contemporaries of one another and the only humans alive at the
time? Again, no.
>> This is not new; it is implicit in the very idea of evolution. There
>> is no fixed line between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, between fish
>> and early tetrapods, between non-human apes and humans. This is an
>> instance of the "sorites" problem: how many grains make a heap? If you
>> have the minimum number and take one away, does the heap cease to be a
>> heap? Likewise, how humanlike does an ape have to be to be human, and
>> is the parent of the first "true" human "truely" nonhuman?
>
>You're making assumptions here about evolution being extremely
>gradual.
No. Even if evolution is sometimes fairly abrupt, his comments will
apply. Species and groups don't arise as single individuals in single
generations. [Unless you're an allopolyploid plant species...]
>Even then, the traditional definition of "human" works fine:
>organisms like you and me
"Like you and me" to what degree? E. coli is "like you and me" to a
significant degree. _Pan troglodytes_ is like you and me to a
extremely large degree. Homo ergaster was like you and me to an even
greater degree.
>that adorn clothing, appreciate good and
>evil, and recognize principles.
That's some odd 'traditional definition' you've got there. So, then
do you think nudists [and various groups of aboriginal peoples of warm
climates] are not human? And neither are small infants or people in
comas, or the legally insane, or otherwise severely mentally deficient
individuals? Tsk...
cheers
Buffalo Soldja
Walter Bushell
> In talk.origins and...@my-deja.com allegedly wrote:
> > In article <92gqr6$gqd$1...@news.duke.edu>,
> > mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
> >> In article <92gojm$aj7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote...
> >>
> >> >The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> >> >order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
> >>
> >> How is that any change of definition? What is the former definition
> >> you seem to have in mind, and where is this formal AMNH "new
> >> definition" published? Citations? The "Turkana Boy" is indeed a
> > fossil
> >> of the early human species _Homo erectus_;
>
> > A "human" is a person like you or me. That definition had been stable
> > since at least 1533.
>
> Andy, I am not like you.
>
> Under certain definitions today, Jews and mud people are not human.
also,
Americans, US Government employees, women, Gooks, Serbs, Croats,
Palestinians etc, etc. etc..
>
<Snip>
stev...@my-deja.com
dold...@istar.ca (Dave Oldridge) wrote:
> stev...@my-deja.com wrote in <92h93k$n2t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
-- [snip]
>
> >By the very nature of modern (neo-Darwinist) evolutionary theory,
> >"human" (and all other biological classifications) has to have rather
> >loose boundaries. Since species evolve by small steps into other
> >species, and even over time into species of other genera and higher
> >taxa, any biological classification must contain some "fuzziness."
> >This is not new; it is implicit in the very idea of evolution. There
> >is no fixed line between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, between fish
> >and early tetrapods, between non-human apes and humans. This is an
> >instance of the "sorites" problem: how many grains make a heap? If
you
> >have the minimum number and take one away, does the heap cease to be
a
> >heap? Likewise, how humanlike does an ape have to be to be human,
and
> >is the parent of the first "true" human "truely" nonhuman?
>
> Uh, actually, you can make a fairly good argument for the extra
circulatory
> equipment that supports the larger brain in h. habilis being enough
of a
> difference to mark off genus homo from other hominid genera. And, of
course
> it is present in h. erectus of which the Turkana boy has always been
> considered a good example.
>
saying that the assignment of genera to existing fossils is necessarily
arbitrary. Still, I don't think it is fatal to my broader point. If
the novel circulatory structures arose in a single mutation, there must
have been a time when a single breeding population contained
individuals with and without the structures -- proof that it did not
make the difference between species, much less genera. If the
structures arose by steps, then there were a series of intermediates
who weren't clearly either _Homo_ or _Australopithecus_. I think the
classic gradualist point, that only extinctions and missing fossils
make it possible to divide up the biological world into neat Linnean
categories, still holds.
>
> The only redefining I see here is someone trying to redifine "ape" to
include
> homo erectus. Cladistically, that's (sort of--ape isn't really an
official
> clade) correct, but then you must also include all of the gibbons,
orangs,
> gorillas, chimpanzees, ardepithecines, australopithecines and the
several
> species of humans, including h. sapiens.
>
"true apes" and "true men." Species which straddle THAT line are not
permissible. They differ among themselves on how to deal with "early
_Homo_" specimens, and especially with _erectus_-grade hominids, but
Andy obviously sides with the "they're all apes but _H. sapiens_" crowd.
>
> --
> Dave Oldridge
> ICQ 1800667
>
========================================================================
=====
> =================
> Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
> --me, 2000AD
>
>
stev...@my-deja.com
skeleton. Most paleontologists who've studied it, however, insist that
the skeleton below the skull is virtually that of a modern human, not
an "ape" as you use the term. The braincase is generally reconstructed
as extremely large by "ape" standards, as well.
>
> I agree that AMNH may not be the first evolutionist to try to change
> the meaning of "human". But it is unjustified. "Human" has a clear
> social, scientific and legal meaning dating back hundreds of years.
>
sapiens_, that works fine. If you assume (or rather, on the basis of
evidence, conclude) that we DO have ancestors who were not "human"
under your definition, then you have to decide how different from
modern _H. sapiens sapiens_ something can be and still qualify as
"human." That problem, and attempts to solve it, have been around for
less than two centuries -- and the attempts are fully justified,
whether or not you or I approve of a specific solution.
>
> > > "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> > > terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> > > selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
> > >
> > By the very nature of modern (neo-Darwinist) evolutionary theory,
> > "human" (and all other biological classifications) has to have
rather
> > loose boundaries. Since species evolve by small steps into other
> > species, and even over time into species of other genera and higher
> > taxa, any biological classification must contain some "fuzziness."
>
> That's what evolution should be proving, not assuming. But it
> redefines common terms rather than proving its objective. How does
one
> now ask an evolutionist, for example, if humans all descended from a
> common human father (Adam)?
>
evolution. Having, to the satisfaction of anyone able and willing to
understand the evidence, proved that evolution happens, they redefine
terms to fit the new, non-static, non-essentialist view of our
species. Of course, you already know the answer you would get if you
actually asked an evolutionist the question you propose. However, if
you insist on asking anyway, that's what species and subspecies names
are for. "Are all members of H. sapiens descended from a single mating
pair of H. sapiens who were, before they had children, the only members
of their species?"
>
> > This is not new; it is implicit in the very idea of evolution.
There
> > is no fixed line between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, between fish
> > and early tetrapods, between non-human apes and humans. This is an
> > instance of the "sorites" problem: how many grains make a heap? If
> you
> > have the minimum number and take one away, does the heap cease to
be a
> > heap? Likewise, how humanlike does an ape have to be to be human,
and
> > is the parent of the first "true" human "truely" nonhuman?
>
> You're making assumptions here about evolution being extremely
> gradual. Even then, the traditional definition of "human" works fine:
> organisms like you and me that adorn clothing, appreciate good and
> evil, and recognize principles.
>
(I don't know about "extreme"); even St*v*n J. G**ld doesn't defend
true saltationism. As for your traditional definition of "human:"
human adornment among LIVING populations runs from nudity coupled with
rudimentary piercings, tattoos, and painting, to the stuff worn at the
Queen's address to Parliament (Americans just don't dress up that
much). Obviously there's a great deal of room for gradualism, even
extreme gradualism, in adornment and clothing. That this is true with
regard to morality and ethics is less obvious -- but a great deal of
speculation has gone on on the problem of how either a culture or an
individual can progress from concepts of "good and bad," which should
be within the intellectual range even of a chimpanzee, much less a
child, to "good and evil," which is understood by most adult humans,
though exceptions occur, and sometimes end up in power. Speculation is
a long way from proof, of course, but it is evidence that there need
not be a hard-and-fast distinction between creatures capable of holding
principles and creatures incapable of doing so.
>
> Andy
>
>
-- Steven J.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
Andy is more than confused, Lake Turkana boy has always been
characterized as Homo (you know, our genus designation). The crazy
thing about this is that the only defence creationist have against the
existence of Homo erectus is to claim that they were humans, but they
just look different from us (you know, that variation within population
thing can come in very handy when explaining million year old fossils
with big brains). They used fire, made sophisticated tools, the
designation of Homo seems to fit. Andy should at least give some
explanation as to why he thinks that this is not the proper designation.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
Jabriol
On 28-Dec-2000, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
> "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>
> Andy
uuuuushhhhhh, remember the ole stupover dumb neanderthal the "APEMAN"
redifned now as another species of human?
Evolution has been redined many time over, the defintion must be reinvented
to suit the term, if not the actual evidence of today would contradict the
term.
same method used to seperate abiogensis from evolution to draw
pseudochristian support.
next you will know it.. the bonobo chimp will be declared Human and not tax
exempt.
~ 2001 Onda Way ~
Jabriol <Jabriol2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:92loch$7gqot$1...@ID-59510.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Evolution has been redined many time over,
* Hey,... NEW LIGHT,... just like your WatchTower cult does! They just keep
redefining what they believe and teach.
the defintion must be reinvented
> to suit the term,
* Just like the WT redefined and reinvented the meaning of the word
GENERATION when Armageddon didn't happen in 1975 as they predicted! :o)
--
Simms found this gem...
Examples of FINE SPIRITUAL FOOD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FROM "THE SLAVE":
"We need not here repeat the evidences that the 'seventh trump' began its
sounding in A.D. 1840, and will continue until the end of the time of
trouble" {WT Nov 1880 p1}; "masturbation is no mere innocent pastime but
rather a practice that can lead to homosexual acts" {WT May 15 1970 p315;
also WT Oct 1 1970 p604}; "If heaven were made the receptacle of the
heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane and INFANTS, it
would cease to be heaven to a considerable extent, and become a pandemonium
.. billions of ignorant, imbecile and degraded .. never formed characters
[not] fit companions for saints" {WT Oct 15 1896 p245} Fine JW Wisdom!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lowther
> That's what evolution should be proving, not assuming. But it
> redefines common terms rather than proving its objective. How does
one
> now ask an evolutionist, for example, if humans all descended from a
> common human father (Adam)?
Don't you mean Buri?
--
Scott Lowther
A&E Engineering
http://www.up-ship.com
jlwu...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The American Museum of Natural History has now redefined "human" in
> order to claim that its "Turkana Boy" ape skeleton is an early human.
>
> "Human" thereby becomes yet another example in the growing list of
> terms redefined or undefined by evolutionists: "fit", "natural
> selection", "neo-Darwinism", and "evolution" itself.
>
> Andy
>
Yes, Andy, the theory of evolution has undergone revisions since it
began. Scientific theories often "evolve" as scientists gain new
information and refine the theories. This is all part of the
scientific process. Evolution is actually stronger now than it was in
the past because of the changes its undergone.
>
--
A shocking crime was committed on the unscupulous initiative of few
individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive
acquiescence of all.
Tacitus (c. 55–c. 120), Roman historian, on the assassination of
Emperor Galba.
slimjim
Jail Bush Now!!