Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne

sphenisc said:
"Hey Mom, there's an envelope here marked "Gas Bill", what is it?"
"It's a letter for the Gas company saying how much money we owe them."
"Where should I put it?"
"Put it in that the pile on the shelf of other bills I haven't paid yet."
Click to expand...

I'm not getting the point you're trying to make. Are the highlighted errors deliberate? Are they relevant?
 
sphenisc said:
...... classification is done on the basis of empirical observation rather than "truth by definition".
Click to expand...

No it isn't, and "truth by definition" seems a pretty meaningless phrase.

I was only half joking when I said the choice is animal mineral and vegetable. There simply aren't any other basic categories for anything bigger than a single cell.
 
zooterkin said:
I'm not getting the point you're trying to make. Are the highlighted errors deliberate? Are they relevant?
Click to expand...

"Hey Mom, there's an envelope here marked "Gas Bill", what is it?"
"It's a letter from the Gas company saying how much money we owe them."
"Where should I put it?"
"Put it in that the pile on the shelf, of other bills I haven't paid yet."
Click to expand...
FTFM

Apologies. The first answer is an example of a definition, the second is a classification. The point being that the essential properties of gas bills required for to create a definition are distinct from how we happen to classify gas bills subsequently.
 
What are you not understanding, sphenisc? Semantics aside, which part of the fact that humans are animals are you struggling with?
 
MikeG said:
What are you not understanding, sphenisc? Semantics aside, which part of the fact that humans are animals are you struggling with?
Click to expand...

I think he's point-scoring with grammar/semantics.

"As it should be, since humans aren't animals by definition." was assumed to mean that the definition of animal ruled out humans being classed as animals.

If he'd said "As it should be, since humans aren't animals , by definition." that would have been the meaning but the comma makes a difference.

I suspect he's labouring the point that we're animals through being part of a classification system. However, I think even that's wrong as each of the categories in the tree has a definition, so Hom Sap can be defined as an animal via that series.
 
MikeG said:
What are you not understanding, sphenisc? Semantics aside, which part of the fact that humans are animals are you struggling with?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think that conclusion isn't based on observations but is true by definition.
 
MikeG said:
No it isn't
Click to expand...

Then WTF are we paying Dinwar for?

and "truth by definition" seems a pretty meaningless phrase.
Click to expand...

It's a highly significant phrase.

By definition, triangles have three sides. There's no point in looking for a four-sided triangle because, by definition, if it has four sides it isn't a triangle.
By observation the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, at least until you start asking questions about what a triangle would be like if they didn't, which then leads on to investigating non-Euclidean geometry ...yada ...yada ...yada

Things true by definition are largely uninteresting. If we define humans as animals then there's no point in discussing evidence for it.


I was only half joking when I said the choice is animal mineral and vegetable. There simply aren't any other basic categories for anything bigger than a single cell.
Click to expand...
Yeah - I took it as a joke.
 
sphenisc said:
As it should be, since humans aren't animals by definition.
Click to expand...

Only if you define human as "not being animal" e.g. because you yourself as a human does not like it so you would rather use a circular definition :
Animal:
noun
1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
2.
any such living thing other than a human being.


Human/human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:
Click to expand...

In other word you use the definition 2 of animal which surprise surprise use human as definition so to define human against animal you (you as indefinite not you as sphenic) use human.

Most of us use definition 1 which is biological and not arbitrary circular. e.g. human interchangeably with homo sapiens. Because when you speak of biology that is the only valid definition.

By any other fair and non arbitrary definition OTOH human are animal, a vertebrate mammals great ape.

But people don't like it so they define arbitrarily "human as not being animal".

Yes I know they use the old definition with animalistic having negative connotation and the assumption is some sort of moral or behavioral superiority.

What is this ? The 18th century ?

Human are animals. They are animals with different, superior if you will, intellectual and social behavior but they are animals.
 
Aepervius said:
Only if you define human as "not being animal" e.g. because you yourself as a human does not like it so you would rather use a circular definition :


In other word you use the definition 2 of animal which surprise surprise use human as definition so to define human against animal you (you as indefinite not you as sphenic) use human.

Most of us use definition 1 which is biological and not arbitrary circular. e.g. human interchangeably with homo sapiens. Because when you speak of biology that is the only valid definition.

By any other fair and non arbitrary definition OTOH human are animal, a vertebrate mammals great ape.

But people don't like it so they define arbitrarily "human as not being animal".

Yes I know they use the old definition with animalistic having negative connotation and the assumption is some sort of moral or behavioral superiority.

What is this ? The 18th century ?

Human are animals. They are animals with different, superior if you will, intellectual and social behavior but they are animals.
Click to expand...

Not only that: humans are not animals because they are defined as animals; they are defined as animals because they are, in fact, animals.
 
Ladewig said:
Welcome to the forum.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
 
Designated Hitter said:
Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...



Look what you wrote! :D
 
Designated Hitter said:
Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, our DNA is greater than 98% the same as Chimpanzees. It's slightly less for Gorillas. A bit less still for Orangs. So the conclusion of this is that........our closest common ancestor is a penguin!
 
Designated Hitter said:
Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...

Just like gravity.

ETA: Though isn't the US one of the places where evolution isn't properly taught, at least in some states?
 
Last edited:
Designated Hitter said:
Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.
Click to expand...

The idea that "micro-evolution" is somehow different from what creationists call "macro-evolution" is as silly as the idea that "micro-walking" (walking to the fridge for a beer) is a different process than "macro-walking" (walking to Albuquerque for Beerfest).

Read.

Read.

Read.

...and read.

Designated Hitter said:
Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...

Creationists misunderstand (or simply intentionally mis-state) the meaning of the term "theory", as it is used in science.

Read.

Read.

Read.

...and read.

It will help your arguments conform with reality.
 
Last edited:
Designated Hitter said:
Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, Designated Hitter. Please keep posting. Now that you posted the "just a theory" canard, I only need one more creationist misconception in this thread for a bingo line. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom