Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 10
 [ 191 posts ] 
You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Clearly you have no interest in having an honest conversation, so I won't either.

Good day sir.


LEROY to a tee,

And just like LEROY, you'll be back in 2 hours repeating all the same bullshit again.



Prediction confirmed.

In another life, this was known as Shaker's Law - an observation about the relationship between the degree of flounce and the likelihood of actually prancing off the stage.

Everything else that needs to be said on that topic can be found here:

Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:Unfortunately, we're never going to get anywhere Nesslig20.

I am telling you why I won't accept something, and you reply that you've already addressed it.

It doesn't matter that you've addressed it. You've addressed it from a particular perspective, and I don't feel remotely obliged to restrain myself to that perspective for reasons I've given.

As such, you're not going to convince me for the rational reasons I've given, and I am not even sure I can write anything that you would agree with anyway, so let's just call it a day.



Quote-mining like a pro Creationist.

snip snip snip, shuffle, snip, snip


Sparhafoc wrote:you're not going to convince me


Nesslig20: Oh why are you so close-minded? Won't somebody think of the children?
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:10 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

This thread blew-up since I last read it but isn't it much ado about nothing? Or about the word "monkey". Are you not alienating each other more and more when you could have agreed to disagree a few pages ago or did I miss something?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:19 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

MarsCydonia wrote:This thread blew-up since I last read it but isn't it much ado about nothing? Or about the word "monkey". Are you not alienating each other more and more when you could have agreed to disagree a few pages ago or did I miss something?


To be honest, Mars, I think my first post in this thread was sufficiently open to both positions, and I have since repeatedly iterated the horses for courses notion.

viewtopic.php?p=179580#p179580

And yes, by chance, I said pages back we might as well call it a day:

viewtopic.php?p=180896#p180896


But there are certain types of people who can't accept anything other than complete and comprehensive subjugation. It's the same as 50 years ago, and the same as 50 years before that. There's something about drawing lines between groups of organisms that gets almost religious in fervor. Heresies must be stamped out root and branch.

As for alienating. I tend to feel a bit alienated when I am repeatedly called a retard. Dunno why! ;)
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:33 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

MarsCydonia wrote:This thread blew-up since I last read it but isn't it much ado about nothing? Or about the word "monkey". Are you not alienating each other more and more when you could have agreed to disagree a few pages ago or did I miss something?


Mostly it is due to one person having this weird tendency to make a response, but spreading them out among multiple posts.

The subject is mostly about how we disagree with how we use the words like "fish", "monkey" and "ape"

I accept that within science, the definition of the word ape has been changed ever since the taxon "pongo" became obsolete. Now we are recognized as being a species of ape, just like chimps, gorilla's and gibbons.

Just like even more recently the definition of "reptile" has been changed such that birds are now considered to be a subset of reptiles.

I realize that in general usage among the public, these words are not used in any rigorous sense like scientists use them. There are two different usages, the colloquial usage that doesn't mean anything (in the same sense that some people use "birds" to also refer to bats) and in the cladistic sense. The public might call a barbary ape an ape but it is not technically an ape and it might call a dimetrodon a lizard, but it is not even a reptile in the strict sense.

I do use the word "monkey" and "fish" in the same way. Cladistically speaking, we are still fish (colloquially not). There are scientists like PZ myers that use the word "fish" in this sense as well, and recognizes that it is paraphyletic in the colloquial use.

Sparhafoc doesn't agree with this for several reasons. I have addressed those but he doesn't care. He doesn't seem interested in answering questions that I ask him since he, as he puts it, won't follow my commands and do "tricks" for me. That is why I am no longer responding to him. The conversation is pretty much over.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:19 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1582Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:I see, so in your mind monkey is necessary an extant specie, so for example all extinct species of macaque are not monkeys.



do you understand that you have a very peculiar and particular way of defining monkey? do you understand that most people wont understand what you mean by monckey?



Do you understand why I expressly argued from the first page that the usage of the word 'monkey' is woolly and bullshit?

Do you understand why primatologists don't use the term 'monkey'? Do you understand that I don't use the term 'monkey'? Do you understand the use/mention distinction?

Just because the Font of All Knowledge here thinks that phylogenetic systematics pwns all, sadly, in the real world, it's just a wet dream.

Go and look in scientific journals on human and primate evolution and see if you can find references to apes or monkeys. You can't because no specialist primatologist uses such a woolly, half-baked word in place of all the rigorously defined ones.

Now, LEROY, as I told you already, read the damn thread. I've been saying this since the first fucking page.




precisely because I read the thread is because I am asking the question.

you seem to be implying that the term monkey lacks a robust definition, but then you made a meaningful statement using the term monkey.(you said that humans did not evolved form monkeys)

but don't worry, you already answered my question, you already made clear that with monkey you where talking about extent animals
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

leroy wrote:precisely because I read the thread is because I am asking the question.


Clearly not too well given the remainder of the response.



leroy wrote:you seem to be implying that the term monkey lacks a robust definition,...


Seem to be implying?

I've stated it repeatedly in no uncertain terms. I've gone to great lengths to show why it's a woolly word. I've shown the lack of utility in scientific terms.


leroy wrote: but then you made a meaningful statement using the term monkey.(you said that humans did not evolved form monkeys)


I made that statement instantly after writing:

the term 'monkey' is a modern English word used to talk about an extant subset of simians.


As in, it's not scientific, as in, no English speakers have any rules of engagement for this word that would prepare them to label extinct subsets of simians. I provided examples about how weird even basal catarrhines look. Maybe some English speakers would be comfortable calling some basal simians 'monkeys', I expect most wouldn't be at all sure, and this is simply because the word 'monkey' lacks any relevance to scientific rigor.

As I've argued throughout - among primatologists, there's no such confusion because 'simian' is robustly defined, and innately includes all members of its group, regardless of how long ago they lived and how different they look - so long as they possess that series of traits, they're simians.

The guy above is either bullshitting or clueless when he claims that scientists in relevant fields place humans in a group called 'apes'. I studied this 25 years ago, and have spent a significant portion of the intervening 2 decades involved in the field to some degree or other, mostly teaching and yet I never see scientific papers in human evolution classify us as apes. I tried some time back to talk about praxis and discourse, but far too nuanced for the clunky game of Timmy's Mallet going on here.

What a shame that it's all about who can piss higher up the fucking wall, and people that study zebra fish are assumed to be in a superior position of expertise than those who study primates and hominids. What total disrespect for the plurality of knowledge, for the requirement of specialisation. How fucking typical - I see it all the time in academia - snobby cunts who think only their field counts. In a similar forum to this I was a member of a few years back, the popular field studied by a significant chunk of members was behavioral psychology, and they acted in the exact same way, repeatedly stating they could simply subsume all other fields into their own. To me, this is the opposite of knowledge - it's boring old tribalism.

Also, see the quote marks there?


leroy wrote:but don't worry, you already answered my question, you already made clear that with monkey you where talking about extent animals


No.

Quite specifically, I reject that.

Instead, what I was talking about was the usage of the word in the English language by speakers who have no relevant knowledge in cladistics or taxonomy.

Please take a moment to make yourself aware of the use/mention distinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80 ... istinction

The use–mention distinction is a foundational concept of analytic philosophy,[1] according to which it is necessary to make a distinction between using a word (or phrase) and mentioning it,...


I was mentioning the word based on what I defined as being the way English speakers with no relevant scientific understand use it.

I was not using it myself, you can confirm that by the quote marks.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:19 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2340Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:Almost every thing he posted at me, he disagrees that tetrapods are fish. You can ask it himself. It it is clear.

here is an example.
If a child pointed at a human and said it was a fish, you'd tell them it's not a fish. For exactly the same reasons as you'd tell them that a human, gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan and gibbons are not fish.

Logically, this is exactly the same as with the word 'monkey'. That hominids descended ultimately from something we'd call a fish, and that hominids descended from a catarrhine simian which you might want to call a monkey is not remotely being questioned here.

Instead, it's the utility of such a sentence. I see no reason to ignore all the differences between fish and humans, or monkeys and chimpanzees, and I see no utility in encoding that obfuscation in words.


OK, read that. Not seeing where he said tetrapods aren't fish.
Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:02 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

hackenslash wrote:[
OK, read that. Not seeing where he said tetrapods aren't fish.


Well he said that humans and the other apes are not fish. So sure, you can say that (based on just this) he doesn't necessarily say that EVERY tetrapod are fish, just these particular few. But that is farfetched.

More he made this reductio ad absurdum argument.

Sparhafoc wrote:Sorry, but I am going to run with the argumentum ad absurdum. Some people here know how much I enjoy these - and I don't mean 'enjoy' in a spiteful sense, rather I think they offer a refreshing take on an argument that gets stuck following the same rut.

I've just come into possession of a child, a son. A 4 year old boy to whom I am now a father. He speaks English fairly well considering he didn't grow up in an English speaking country. Obviously, I hope to help in his intellectual development.

So, according to this thread, when he points at this:

Image

I should tell him it's a fish.


This?

Image

A fish carrying a fish


And finally....

Image

A school of fish.

Before dismissing it as ridiculous (it's meant to be fun for all of us). Think about what you are saying when you say that X is Y. And understand my point that it's not the same thing as saying that X came from Y.



To imply that it is ridiculous to state that these are fish. All of them are amniotes, so at the very least he is saying that amniotes are not fish. But I think it is safe to say he doesn't agree that frogs are fish. If he were to put frogs along side these he had shown, it would be conclusive that he doesn't agree that every tetrapod are fish.

Of course you can ask him yourself whether he agrees that tetrapods are fish (in the cladistic sense), but he probably won't answer it as he doesn't seem to answer any of my questions.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:14 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

leroy wrote:precisely because I read the thread is because I am asking the question.

you seem to be implying that the term monkey lacks a robust definition, but then you made a meaningful statement using the term monkey.(you said that humans did not evolved form monkeys)

but don't worry, you already answered my question, you already made clear that with monkey you where talking about extent animals


Yes it does seem weird that he thinks humans didn't come from monkeys at the same time that he doesn't seem to have an idea of what a monkey is. I have and by that definition I can tell whether something is a monkey or not, but that is besides the matter.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:17 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2340Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:Well he said that humans and the other apes are not fish. So sure, you can say that (based on just this) he doesn't necessarily say that EVERY tetrapod are fish, just these particular few. But that is farfetched.


So the answer is that you can't provide a citation, and that he never said this?

I don't know whether this is a linguistic problem, but I've read every word he's written in this thread, and my English is exceptional, as is his, and I know for a fact he never said it. I would have been happy to concede that maybe you read an implication that wasn't there and grasped the wrong end of the stick but, rather than countenance that possibility, you've dug deeper and deeper, becoming more and more condescending and insulting.

I've generally found you to be reasonably well-informed and I've enjoyed your contributions, but your performance in this thread has been nothing less than absolutely shocking, not least because of the incredible dogmatism you've displayed.

I'm going to ignore the rest of this post, because it's a continuation of that behaviour, and it's beneath you.

Trust me, as somebody who's known Sparhafoc for over a decade, and as much as I've enjoyed your contributions, were I to be choosing one of you to act as my second in a formal public debate on this subject, I'd choose him every day of the week, and twice on Sundays, and that's before your awful performance here.

Highly disappointing.
Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Given the bewildering and sometimes frustrating experience of this thread, Hack - I greatly appreciate your comment.

Discourse never works when ego is an ingredient.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:55 am
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

he doesn't seem to have an idea of what a monkey is.


:lol:

With all respect, kid. I was studying primates before you were born. Now show a little back.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:56 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
he doesn't seem to have an idea of what a monkey is.


:lol:

With all respect, kid. I was studying primates before you were born [how did you know when I as born, rhetorical]. Now show a little back.


Okay then, here is another question you won't answer.

So what is a monkey then?

And also a bonus, hackenslash is asking me to provide a citation where you say that tetrapods are not fish. I admit, you never explicitly stated this, however you did state that humans and other apes are not fish. And also you made that one reductio ad absurdum argument wherein you call a lizard a fish and a dog holding a bird a fish holding a fish and a picture with dogs, cats, birds, mice, weasels, snakes, a school of fish.

So what should I take it from this, that you don't agree that just these particular examples of organisms are fish or is it fair to say that you don't think that tetrapods in general are fish?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:02 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

hackenslash wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Well he said that humans and the other apes are not fish. So sure, you can say that (based on just this) he doesn't necessarily say that EVERY tetrapod are fish, just these particular few. But that is farfetched.


So the answer is that you can't provide a citation, and that he never said this?


I cited more than that though.

hackenslash wrote:I don't know whether this is a linguistic problem, but I've read every word he's written in this thread, and my English is exceptional, as is his, and I know for a fact he never said it.


Not in these words no. But it is clear he doesn't agree that humans, dogs, cats, birds, lizards are not fish.

So based on that it is still fair form me to take it as he doesn't seem to agree that tetrapods (all of these things are tetrapods after all) are not fish (in the cladistic sense that was arguing about).

Of course, you can still ask him yourself to know whether he now does or doesn't agree with this. I asked him, but he wouldn't answer it.

hackenslash wrote: I would have been happy to concede that maybe you read an implication that wasn't there and grasped the wrong end of the stick but, rather than countenance that possibility, you've dug deeper and deeper, becoming more and more condescending and insulting.


Well the implication was there, clearly.

And yes, I was being vitriolic in the beginning, and I apologized for that.

hackenslash wrote:I've generally found you to be reasonably well-informed and I've enjoyed your contributions, but your performance in this thread has been nothing less than absolutely shocking, not least because of the incredible dogmatism you've displayed.


Like what? I have asked him only one question after his reset, before the reset I admit I was being very vitriolic and I apologized for it, but after it I only asked one question. He didn't want to answer it, he doesn't want to acknowledge what I say.

hackenslash wrote:Trust me, as somebody who's known Sparhafoc for over a decade, and as much as I've enjoyed your contributions, were I to be choosing one of you to act as my second in a formal public debate on this subject, I'd choose him every day of the week, and twice on Sundays, and that's before your awful performance here.
Highly disappointing.


I don't see that it the case at all. I acknowledged his points, but he won't acknowledge mine. How is that bad performance?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:11 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2340Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:I cited more than that though.


You cited irrelevant bollocks that doesn't support your case.

Not in these words no. But it is clear he doesn't agree that humans, dogs, cats, birds, lizards are not fish.

So based on that it is still fair form me to take it as he doesn't seem to agree that tetrapods (all of these things are tetrapods after all) are not fish (in the cladistic sense that was arguing about).

Of course, you can still ask him yourself to know whether he now does or doesn't agree with this. I asked him, but he wouldn't answer it.


You realise that not all birds are ducks, right? You're reading an implication that isn't there. You're essentially asking him if birds are ducks and wondering why you're not getting a sensible answer.



Well the implication was there, clearly.


Clearly? Then why are you the only one who sees it?

It isn't there.

And yes, I was being vitriolic in the beginning, and I apologized for that.


I'm not only talking about the vitriol, I'm also talking about the snide condescension, which you haven't earned the right to deliver.

Like what? I have asked him only one question after his reset, before the reset I admit I was being very vitriolic and I apologized for it, but after it I only asked one question. He didn't want to answer it, he doesn't want to acknowledge what I say.


Except that he has acknowledged it and point out why he feels it to be irrelevant to the points he's making, which you're not addressing. That's what I mean by dogmatism. You aren't even beginning to consider the points he's made in the spirit he's made them.

I don't see that it the case at all. I acknowledged his points, but he won't acknowledge mine. How is that bad performance?


What you see is irrelevant, because I'm offering a value judgement based on 13 years of experience of your interlocutor, one of the clearest science communicators I know, with a wealth of expertise in human evolution, and yet you dismiss it like you'd dismiss the witterings of one of our creationist trolls, with condescension and well-poisoning. He explicitly acknowledged what you were saying, and proceeded to point out why he thought the use of nomenclature was misleading and problematic, at which point you've simply reiterated your talking points with more condescension. This is not my idea of acknowledging his points. You've simply talked past them, and in an extremely aloof and rude manner.

I can understand when presenting to dogmatic supernaturalists that frustration can take over, but you seem in this thread to be the very model of what Bertrand Russell was talking about when he dealt with anger at having your position challenged. Sparhafoc has presented valid points that actually have little to do with biology and more to do with the semantic content of the arguments, and explained in detail why he thinks it's a mistake to even employ non-rigorous nomenclature in such settings and, on the basis of the foregoing discussion, he's ahead by light-years, even if you are correct. You haven't demonstrated that you are in any robust fashion, and you've singularly failed to address his objections.

How you see it has no bearing on how it is, and this is how it is.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:33 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

hackenslash wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:I cited more than that though.


You cited irrelevant bollocks that doesn't support your case.


No I cited him using a reductio ad absurdum argument that made it look like it is ridiculous to say that all these tetrapods (at least these amniotes) are fish. That is relevant to the subject.

hackenslash wrote:
Not in these words no. But it is clear he doesn't agree that humans, dogs, cats, birds, lizards are not fish.

So based on that it is still fair form me to take it as he doesn't seem to agree that tetrapods (all of these things are tetrapods after all) are not fish (in the cladistic sense that was arguing about).

Of course, you can still ask him yourself to know whether he now does or doesn't agree with this. I asked him, but he wouldn't answer it.


You realise that not all birds are ducks, right? You're reading an implication that isn't there. You're essentially asking him if birds are ducks and wondering why you're not getting a sensible answer.


No, not at all.

When I ask him "do you agree that tetrapods are fish (in the cladistic sense that I am clarifying)?"
It is like asking "do you agree that ducks are birds?"

Ducks are a subset of birds (not the other way around of course, I know that).
And tetrapods are a subset of "fish" in the sense that I am defining it with cladistics.

Since he is saying that all these examples (looking back at previous citations) are not fish, then I am reading an implication that is there.

hackenslash wrote:
Well the implication was there, clearly.

Clearly? Then why are you the only one who sees it?

It isn't there.


It is there as I have explained. He says that all these are not fish and he gives examples of tetrapods....so what am I seeing what isn't there?

hackenslash wrote:
And yes, I was being vitriolic in the beginning, and I apologized for that.


I'm not only talking about the vitriol, I'm also talking about the snide condescension, which you haven't earned the right to deliver.


I would also apologize to that too. I honestly want to have a good conversation. Perhaps we should start all over again and begin with the clarification that whether he does or doesn't agree that tetrapods are fish (in the cladistic sense).

hackenslash wrote:
Like what? I have asked him only one question after his reset, before the reset I admit I was being very vitriolic and I apologized for it, but after it I only asked one question. He didn't want to answer it, he doesn't want to acknowledge what I say.


Except that he has acknowledged it and point out why he feels it to be irrelevant to the points he's making,


But those points are relevant. Of course, now we have to decide whether they are or are not. He is arguing that term like "fish" and "monkey" have no rigor. I am partially agreeing with him that the way these terms are often used have no meaning to them whatsoever, but words have no intrinsic meaning, they have usages so I can use them in a way that is consistent with cladistics which is what scientists did with the term "reptile" which now applies to birds, even though in everyday language, reptile doesn't apply to birds. We can do the same thing with the term "fish". Even if it is used in everyday language in a way that doesn't apply to tetrapods, I can use it in a way that is consistent with classification, in which case it does apply to tetrapods. PZ myers does the same thing. And AronRa does the same thing with the term "monkey".

This is a point I made dozens of times responding to his.
How is this point not relevant? Please explain.

hackenslash wrote:What you see is irrelevant, because I'm offering a value judgement based on 13 years of experience of your interlocutor, one of the clearest science communicators I know, with a wealth of expertise in human evolution, and yet you dismiss it like you'd dismiss the witterings of one of our creationist trolls, with condescension and well-poisoning.


Absolutely not true. I don't dismiss it out of hand. I address the point clearly and concisely.

hackenslash wrote:
He explicitly acknowledged what you were saying, and proceeded to point out why he thought the use of nomenclature was misleading and problematic, at which point you've simply reiterated your talking points with more condescension. This is not my idea of acknowledging his points. You've simply talked past them, and in an extremely aloof and rude manner.


That was when I was being vitriolic and yes, I wasn't showing the good side of me in that time. I apologize for that too, sincerely. And too be fair, he often did the same thing in return but he has also apologized for that and I accepted it.

hackenslash wrote:
I can understand when presenting to dogmatic supernaturalists that frustration can take over, but you seem in this thread to be the very model of what Bertrand Russell was talking about when he dealt with anger at having your position challenged. Sparhafoc has presented valid points that actually have little to do with biology and more to do with the semantic content of the arguments, and explained in detail why he thinks it's a mistake to even employ non-rigorous nomenclature in such settings and, on the basis of the foregoing discussion, he's ahead by light-years, even if you are correct.


As I said, I acknowledge the semantic aspects of term by saying "words don't have intrinsic usages". Even with science terms, there is no objective rule on what a term means other then how we define them under a specific context. In the context that I am arguing for is in cladistics, we are still "fish" in that sense of the term.

hackenslash wrote:
You haven't demonstrated that you are in any robust fashion, and you've singularly failed to address his objections.
How you see it has no bearing on how it is, and this is how it is.


I have addressed the objections of him you brought up and if you think I failed to address them, I would like to know in what specific way I have. If you think there are more objections of him that I haven't addressed yet either, let me know of them too.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:53 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Again, I apologize whenever I was being vitriolic. Hackenslash and Sparhafoc have criticized me for that with good reason.

If anyone wants to understand what I was trying to say here in this thread, here is it from another persons view, that is practically identical to mine.

I’m an Ape, and I’m Also a Fish wrote:Humans are hominoids. I know that sounds redundant. Blame anthropologists for a lack of taxonomic imagination. But the fact that I am a hominoid, I believe, is a significant fact. In everyday terms, it means that I am an ape.

Years ago, when my elementary school teachers delineated the tree of life in biology class, apes and humans were kept separate from each other. We belonged in our own group, the Hominidae, and the so-called great apes – orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees – formed another group, the Pongidae. The two groups were thought to have diverged from a common, primitive ape ancestor. But a combination of genetic and fossil discoveries changed this traditional view. Chimpanzees turned out to be our closest living relatives, with gorillas and orangutans on the next proximal branches to the group containing both us and Pan. Our family was not separate from the ape lineage. We are one kind of highly-intelligent, specialized ape.

In an essay published last week, written in response to a piece by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, anthropologist John Hawks called the statement that we are apes “a canard.” Ape is a vernacular English term, Hawks argues, and therefore the word should only be applied to gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees, but not us. To call humans apes, he says, is an act of “Orwellian coercion” meant to debase our cherished and easily-bruised sense of self-importance. We can say that we’re hominoids or hominids – those are appropriate technical terms – but Hawks would rather we leave “ape” well enough alone.

Hawks doesn’t allow comments on his blog, but, thankfully, the discussion spilled over onto Twitter and other blogs. Historian of science John Wilkins articulated a response to Hawks faster than I could. (I have about ten days before the first draft of my next book is due, so I’m a bit slow in keeping up with internet kerfuffles.) There is no impenetrable wall between technical terms and popular usage, or, as Wilkins wrote, “Experts introduce and revise terms that the folk pick up.” Wilkins uses the word “dinosaur”, and the recently-altered meaning of the term, as an example. The anatomist Richard Owen coined “dinosaur” in 1842, and the term trickled out into public understanding to represent big, fierce, and otherwise monstrous prehistoric reptiles. But since the late 1990s, at the very latest, birds have been recognized as dinosaur descendants, and, in a very real sense, are themselves dinosaurs. This altered understanding – in which there are avian and non-avian dinosaurs – is beginning to take hold. Whether born in popular or academic circles, terms change meaning according to our mutating view of Nature.

In the same way, the way we understand what an ape is has changed. A revised evolutionary picture is influencing the way we apply the word. I don’t share Hawks’ frustration over this point. In fact, I think such statements – which seem to fly in the face of what we previously believed to be true – help people ask questions about how organisms are related to each other. Saying “humans are apes” or “birds are dinosaurs” still sounds strange enough that such statements demand evidence and provide opportunities for engagement, in addition to being a reflection of recent revisions to evolutionary trees.

And the words we choose depend upon how specific we wish to be. In an evolutionary context, I am simultaneously an ape, a monkey, a primate, a mammal, a therapsid, a synapsid, an amniote, a tetrapod, and, to pick an arbitrary stopping point that suits this post’s purpose, a fish. You are a fish, too. Now, I typically don’t come home from an afternoon walk and tell my wife “There were so many fish walking around the park. Everyone’s out today” – such a statement would make it sound as if I had slipped into a Ray Troll painting – but, in an evolutionary sense, it still would have been true. Among other things, we’re fish. The term isn’t terribly specific, but it’s not inaccurate, either, as a newly-announced cousin of ours demonstrates.

The origin of the first vertebrates capable of crawling on land was one of the most important events in our evolutionary history. These creatures are known as tetrapods by virtue of having four (tetra) limbs, and a growing number of discoveries has begun to outline how fleshy-finned fish were adapted into the first amphibious vertebrates. Tiktaalik, a roughly 375 million year old “fishapod”, is the most famous of such creatures – the fish bears a suite of transitional features intermediate between those of more archaic fish and the earliest true tetrapods. But Tiktaalik is not alone. Other vertebrates, such as the vaguely salamander-like Ventastega and the flattened Panderichthys, also demonstrate that our bodies, as Neil Shubin so wonderfully articulated in Your Inner Fish, are modified from archaic fishy forms. And University of California, Berkeley paleontologist Brian Swartz has just described another creature relevant to this famous evolutionary event.

Named Tinirau clackae, the fossil creature at the center of Swartz’s study was not an early landlubber. Tinirau was a fully aquatic fish, and a fish quite similar to the iconic, fleshy-finned form Eusthenopteron (a prehistoric fish once believed to have been the starting point for tetrapod evolution). As Swartz points out, though, the relationships of these creatures to the next grade in the evolutionary transition – flattened fish with stouter, more limb-like fins such as Tiktaalik – is not entirely clear. Tinirau adds a little more resolution to the picture.

The six fossils of this fish, originally collected in the 1970s from roughly 387 million year old deposits Nevada, look like bony smears across rock slabs. But, in detail, much of the fish remain intact. The skull, a significant part of the backbone, and several sets of bones which supported the fins of Tinirau are visible in one of the better specimens, designated UCMP 118605. Those fin bones are especially important. Rather than being arrays of splint-like bones – as you can see in a perch, bass, or many other fish – the fin bones correspond to the bones in our own arms. The fins attached to the body by way of a single bone – the equivalent of the humeri in our arms and femora in our legs – and archaic precursors of our lower arm and leg bones can be seen in the collection of fin bones below. Over 380 million years ago, the basic form of our limbs was already in place, albeit in fish which swam through the Devonian sea.

In Swartz’s analysis, Tinirau came out relatively close to Panderichthys and Tiktaalik. While Tinirau probably was not a direct ancestor of either form, the fish still represents the bauplan from which the antecedents of the first true tetrapods evolved. Exactly when the first tetrapod with distinguished fingers and toes evolved, however, is another matter. Two years ago paleontologist Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki and colleagues described 395 million year old tracks from Poland which might have been made by tetrapods with differentiated digits. The tracks predate the earliest known body fossils of such creatures by about 20 million years.

There is more than one possible answer for the discrepancy. Perhaps there is a 20 million year record of early tetrapods that we simply have not uncovered yet. Then again, maybe the tracks were not made by tetrapods at all – impressions and tracks created by invertebrates have often been confused for the footprints of early tetrapods. And Swartz offers another possibility. Coelacanths and lungfish – fleshy-finned fish that are modern cousins of Tinirau – can move their stubby fins in alternating patterns resembling a walk, and modern lungfish which walk over soft sediments are capable of creating the same kinds of tracks Niedźwiedzki and co-authors described. The supposed tetrapod tracks may have been made by more archaic fish which used their fins to walk.

I don’t expect the idea that we are fish to pick up much popular currency. The everyday, paraphyletic meaning of the term is entrenched, and I don’t expect anyone to refer to the salmon in their sushi as a “non-tetrapodomorph fish.” But the idea is still a useful one as we explore our relationship to the rest of life on earth. After all, we share a common ancestry with every other living thing on the planet, and, for a time, our ancestors and kin were snake-like fish with thick fins supported by stacks of bone. The way those fish swam, and walked, through prehistoric seas formed the foundation for the flowering of vertebrate evolution on land, including the later origin of a lonely species of upright ape obsessed with its own beginnings.

References:

Schwartz, B. (2012). A Marine Stem-Tetrapod from the Devonian of Western North America PLoS One : 10.1371/journal.pone.0033683
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:he doesn't seem to have an idea of what a monkey is.


Sparhafoc wrote:With all respect, kid. I was studying primates before you were born.


Nesslig20 wrote:[how did you know when I as born, rhetorical]


How do I know? Because you're between the age of 20 and 26. You're certainly no older than that. And I studied primatology as part of my undergraduate around 24 years ago.

Not sure why you have such a boner over this, but your dislike of me speculating about your age and status is tough titties - that's just part of the price you pay for repeatedly calling someone a retard.


Nesslig20 wrote:Okay then, here is another question you won't answer.


No, I probably won't given your inability to engage with me civilly. At present, all you actually deserve, what you've earned by your behavior, are gesticulations with various appendages.



Nesslig20 wrote:So what is a monkey then?


:lol:

That's funny for 2 reasons.

1) If you were honest and interested in what I've got to say rather than using me as your public dry-humping board, you'd have asked me this in the first post rather than being a patronizing little oik.

2) I just wrote very clearly my definition of a monkey a couple of posts back and you replied to it in your usual condescending shitty tone.

There's that failed fucking discourse again, but you expect me to leap when you beckon. Disappointment looms. Learn to read.



Nesslig20 wrote:And also a bonus, hackenslash is asking me to provide a citation where you say that tetrapods are not fish. I admit, you never explicitly stated this, however you did state that humans and other apes are not fish. And also you made that one reductio ad absurdum argument wherein you call a lizard a fish and a dog holding a bird a fish holding a fish and a picture with dogs, cats, birds, mice, weasels, snakes, a school of fish.

So what should I take it from this, that you don't agree that just these particular examples of organisms are fish or is it fair to say that you don't think that tetrapods in general are fish?



That's a funny way to say:

'I'm sorry for repeatedly bullshitting about what you said, Sparhafoc, and within my apology I also want to add that I understand why you are now hostile to me because of my childish antagonism and repeated discoursive failures."

Apology accepted..... nah, up your arse, cretin, you're still using your failure of comprehension as a means of attacking what you clearly don't understand.

You're going to need to grovel on the floor before I play ball with you again. Properly fucking abase yourself. Go on - on your knees, worm. :mrgreen:
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:05 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1110Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Not in these words no. But it is clear he doesn't agree that humans, dogs, cats, birds, lizards are not fish.


Clear as mud. :lol:

Or rather, not clear as not mud.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:16 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 10
 [ 191 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WarK and 5 guests