I finnaly got it...

[Isaksson]

My cousins are monkies.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My cousins are monkies.

Primates are split into three groups: apes, old world monkeys, and new world monkeys. Humans are a species of ape. Thus, your cousins are not monkeys.

Yay, science .

 

[AV1611VET]

Primates are split into three groups: apes, old world monkeys, and new world monkeys. Humans are a species of ape. Thus, your cousins are not monkeys.

Yay, science .

Only until I apply the rhetoric that a human gives birth to an ape, who then gives birth to a human, who then gives birth to an ape, which should be technically right, according to scientific software; but I take flak for that --- scientists don't like to hear that.

 

[Vene]

Sure, AV, it's correct, kind of misleading, but correct.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Only until I apply the rhetoric that a human gives birth to an ape, who then gives birth to a human, who then gives birth to an ape, which should be technically right, according to scientific software; but I take flak for that --- scientists don't like to hear that.

Sure they do: it's correct. It's like saying a human gives birth to a mammal who gives birth to a human. The only problem is that it's misleading: by going from one to the other, you imply that the human has given birth to a non-human, which isn't the case.

 

[Bombila]

I have been obliged in my time by good manners to apply the word 'human' to very young babies I could swear by appearances were nothing of the kind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure they do: it's correct. It's like saying a human gives birth to a mammal who gives birth to a human. The only problem is that it's misleading: by going from one to the other, you imply that the human has given birth to a non-human, which isn't the case.

Why is it misleading, if it's taxonomically* correct? And I'll one-best that, even: a bird gives birth to a dinosaur.

* Is that a word?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have been obliged in my time by good manners to apply the word 'human' to very young babies I could swear by appearances were nothing of the kind.

I'm not talking about aesthetics though, I'm talking taxonomy. You know --- stuff I know nothing about. Raw science.

 

[Vene]

It's misleading because you are moving from species to superfamily.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's misleading because you are moving from species to superfamily.

But a post where someone says, "We are just glorified apes", is OKAY?

 

[Vene]

AV, isn't that post correct? Are we not apes?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, isn't that post correct? Are we not apes?

According to your software, we are apes --- glorified apes. I'm just making a point here that technically then, apes can (and do) give birth to humans, who also give birth to apes.

I fail to see the problem here.

 

[Vene]

The problem is that like your challenges, it's purely semantics. And can you not read? The posters here said that it is correct.

 

[Bombila]

But a post where someone says, "We are just glorified apes", is OKAY?

I would interpret that statement as religious or aesthetic, having little to do with evolution other than to tacitly admit its validity.

'Glorified apes' = humans being that ape species chosen/touched by God.

or

'Glorified apes' = fancy, prettied up, decorative apes.

I would disagree with both, however, a theist might be justified in claiming the former (in fact, it is essentially a TE position, I think), and the latter implies that other apes are not so pretty, lovely, decorative, which is simple speciesism. Mrs. Gorilla is a raving beauty in Mr. Gorilla's eyes, and some apes (other than humans) can be judged pretty by even humans.

 

[Naraoia]

Primates are split into three groups: apes, old world monkeys, and new world monkeys. Humans are a species of ape. Thus, your cousins are not monkeys.

Yay, science .

Actually, apes are a subset of old world monkeys. Plus lemurs, tarsiers and co. are also primates. The groups you mention make up monkeys proper.

The tolweb tree is old but I don't think it's changed much since 1995.

(Yes, I'm being anal again .)

 

[Bombila]

Actually, apes are a subset of old world monkeys. Plus lemurs, tarsiers and co. are also primates. The groups you mention make up monkeys proper.

The tolweb tree is old but I don't think it's changed much since 1995.

(Yes, I'm being anal again .)

Evolutionary, my dear Watson: I have read that the anus has evolved several times. ;-p

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that like your challenges, it's purely semantics. And can you not read? The posters here said that it is correct.

I just like to bring it up every now and then because it exposes FLEAS.

(Fancy Language by Evolutionists, Atheists, and Scientists)

 

[AV1611VET]

I would interpret that statement as religious or aesthetic, having little to do with evolution other than to tacitly admit its validity.

'Glorified apes' = humans being that ape species chosen/touched by God.

or

'Glorified apes' = fancy, prettied up, decorative apes.

I would disagree with both, however, a theist might be justified in claiming the former (in fact, it is essentially a TE position, I think), and the latter implies that other apes are not so pretty, lovely, decorative, which is simple speciesism. Mrs. Gorilla is a raving beauty in Mr. Gorilla's eyes, and some apes (other than humans) can be judged pretty by even humans.

Say what ---

 

[Bombila]

Say what ---

This forum needs a 'tongue-in-cheek' smilie.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why is it misleading, if it's taxonomically* correct?

Because while it is ostensibly correct, the way it's worded leads people to the wrong/unintended conclusion.

And I'll one-best that, even: a bird gives birth to a dinosaur.

Actually, birds are oviparous. "Giving birth" is a mammalian thing.

* Is that a word?

Yes.