Most likely unnamed: AFAWK, we have no human fossils until early-Pleistocene H.erectus in Indonesia after c 2 Ma.Afr.coastal forests, and Homo went left -> S.Asian coasts -> Java H.erectus etc., google:
The Homo-Pan LCA (last common ancestor) 6 or 5 Ma (mill.yrs ago) likely lived in coastal forests along the Red Sea, and when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks 5.33 Ma, caused by the Zanclean mega-flood), Pan went right -> E.
- Mio-Pliocene hominoid (ape) evolution, google “aquarboreal”,
- Plio-Pleistocene Homo, google e.g. “human evolution Verhaegen”.
Most likely unnamed: AFAWK, we have no human fossils until early-Pleistocene H.erectus in Indonesia after c 2 Ma.
The Homo-Pan LCA (last common ancestor) 6 or 5 Ma (mill.yrs ago)
Homo sapiens.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Most likely unnamed: AFAWK, we have no human fossils until
early-Pleistocene H.erectus in Indonesia after c 2 Ma.
Habilis is generally regarded as the first human -- Homo.
Personally I find the naming convention repugnant. It limits thinking, sets parameters
that people appear unwilling to move beyond. No, screw all that...
The "Apes" evolved from us, not the other way around.
The ancestor to chimps had a
hand a lot more like ours, it walked upright and likely used tools in a way that only
humans do today, very unlike we witness in Chimps.
Gorillas almost certainly evolved from upright walkers but Chimps definitely did...
The Homo-Pan LCA (last common ancestor) 6 or 5 Ma (mill.yrs ago)
I'd put it a good million or more years more recent than that... possibly a lot more
recent.
Never been one to buy into "Molecular Dating." But only because it's sane.
There's
this thing called "Evolution," selective pressure, which causes changes to DNA or,
in it's absence, leaves it be. None of this "Clock like mutation" nonsense...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo
species as "human".
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >>sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >>and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >>species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo
species as "human".
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
That's what I get for making an obscure joke...
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >>>sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >>>and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >>>species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo
species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major >>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:Since Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >>>>sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >>>>and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >>>>species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo
species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 8:25:06 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, the following appearedIf the joke is what I suspect it is, you may join Martin as an apostate.
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:That's what I get for making an obscure joke...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major >>>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:Since Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >>>>>sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >>>>>and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >>>>>species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major >>>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:Since Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >>>>>sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >>>>>and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >>>>>species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major >>>>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:Since Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >>>>>>sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >>>>>>and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >>>>>>species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major >>>>>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:Since Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is >>>>scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:09:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major >>>>>>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:Since Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>>species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is >>>>>scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
That's what I said. So to paraphrase Wendy's celebrated Clara,
where's the "but"?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:52:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:09:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I thought I was clear; try this: "Homo" is accepted taxonomy
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote:Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest Major >>>>>>>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:Since Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're >>>>>>>>>> all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>>>>within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>>>species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is >>>>>>scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
That's what I said. So to paraphrase Wendy's celebrated Clara,
where's the "but"?
in the relevant scientific disciplines (primarily biology);
"human" is vernacular and has different connotations in
different cultures. Both are in some sense opinion, but not
in the same sense.
Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves consensus of supposed experts, ...
Most likely unnamed: AFAWK, we have no human fossils until early-Pleistocene H.erectus in Indonesia after c 2 Ma.
Habilis is generally regarded as the first human -- Homo.
Personally I find the naming convention repugnant. It limits thinking, sets parameters
that people appear unwilling to move beyond. No, screw all that...
The "Apes" evolved from us, not the other way around.
The ancestor to chimps had a
hand a lot more like ours, it walked upright and likely used tools in a way that only
humans do today, very unlike we witness in Chimps.
Gorillas almost certainly evolved from upright walkers but Chimps definitely did...
The Homo-Pan LCA (last common ancestor) 6 or 5 Ma (mill.yrs ago)
I'd put it a good million or more years more recent than that... possibly a lot more
recent.
Never been one to buy into "Molecular Dating." But only because it's sane. There's
this thing called "Evolution," selective pressure, which causes changes to DNA or,
in it's absence, leaves it be. None of this "Clock like mutation" nonsense...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>> within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo
species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:40:37 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 8:25:06 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:Only if I state that only Nestle is *real* chocolate;
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, the following appearedIf the joke is what I suspect it is, you may join Martin as an apostate.
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:That's what I get for making an obscure joke...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens >>>> sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis >>>> and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing >>>> species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
Pennsylvania companies don't qualify. :-)
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought, Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>>> within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been >renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought, >Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and
fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo >>>>>>>> sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo
neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires >>>>>>>> drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo
erectus
within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought, Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
Op zondag 29 januari 2023 om 02:10:07 UTC+1 schreef Bob Casanova:
...
Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves consensus of supposed experts, ...
Yes, but what are "experts"?
paleo-anthropologists who anthropocentrically believe they descend from australopiths??chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design.
Apparently, most if not all S.Afr.australopiths were fossil Pan, and E.Afr.apiths were fossil Gorilla:
objective (non-anthropocentric) descriptions are clear,
e.g. chimp-like features in S.African australopith crania:
Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category: their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed. Leakey 1981
The keystone nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees. Eckhardt 1987
P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial and facial features. Zihlman cs 1978
A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous. Ferguson 1989
In Taung, I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee. Woodward 1925
The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6, a juvenile Au.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978
In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee. Bromage 1985
I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passinghams curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of
In Taung, pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates.Bromage & Dean 1985
That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus. Schultz 1941
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're
all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>>> within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been >renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought, >Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and
fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
On 29/01/2023 10:36, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been
renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought,
Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and fruit-fly
specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
It used to be that there were 2 nomenclatural codes - the ICZN for
animals and some protist, and the ICBN (now ICNafp) for plants, fungi,
algae, other protists and bacteria - reflecting Linnaeus's plant-animal >dichotomy. (Now there are also a bacterial code, a virological code and >Phylocode.)
It is allowed to use the same names under the two different codes, and
there are quite a number of generic names which are current in both
codes. I have also recently stumbled across Echinacea being both a genus
of plants, and a superorder of sea urchins.
On 1/29/23 2:36 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're >>>>>>>>>> all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo >>>>>>>>> sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo
neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires >>>>>>>>> drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo >>>>>>>>> erectus
within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been
renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought,
Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and fruit-fly
specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
It is allowed for animal genus names to match plant (and algae and
fungi) names. There is a fairly long but still partial list of such
names at http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/rules.html. Bacteria names are
not supposed to match those of plants or animals, but even there there
is an exception: _Bacillus_ is also the name of a stick insect.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 11:36:12 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:I can't tell what may have been in the book you saw, but
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're >>>>>>>>>> all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>>>> within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence.
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been
renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought,
Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and
fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
this...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040550
...details a link between Drosophila melanogaster and
certain fungi on host plants. Perhaps there was some
confusion about this?
On 2023-01-29 16:59:49 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 11:36:12 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:I can't tell what may have been in the book you saw, but
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>> wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're >>>>>>>>>>> all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus >>>>>>>>>> within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence. >>>>>>>
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been
renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought,
Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and
fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
this...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040550
...details a link between Drosophila melanogaster and
certain fungi on host plants. Perhaps there was some
confusion about this?
No confusion. The picture and the text were quite clear.
On 2023-01-29 16:59:49 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 11:36:12 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:I can't tell what may have been in the book you saw, but
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>> wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're >>>>>>>>>>> all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of >>>>>>>>>> Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo
neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from
requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo >>>>>>>>>> erectus
within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is
scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence. >>>>>>>
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion.
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been
renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying
with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought,
Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and
fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
this...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040550
...details a link between Drosophila melanogaster and
certain fungi on host plants. Perhaps there was some
confusion about this?
No confusion. The picture and the text were quite clear.
On 1/29/23 10:17 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-29 16:59:49 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 11:36:12 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-01-29 01:09:19 +0000, Bob Casanova said:I can't tell what may have been in the book you saw, but
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:17:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:58:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote:Sure. But there's opinion, and there's opinion; one involves
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:14:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:23:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>>> wrote:True, of course. But AFAIK "human" has never had an actual
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:04:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:37:44 +0000, Ernest MajorSince Homo is (supposedly) scientifically rigorous, and
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/01/2023 04:14, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:22 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
Homo sapiens.No, that's the name of the *descendant* species (us). We're >>>>>>>>>>>> all descended from Howard.
Modern day humans are descended from earlier populations of Homo sapiens
sensu strictu. (And also, to a lesser degree, from Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo "altaiensis" and other taxa.)
To ask the question which species we are descended from requires drawing
species bpundaries. Some people go so far as to include Homo erectus
within Homo sapiens.
My understanding is some people go so far as to include all Homo >>>>>>>>>> species as "human".
"human" is not, such inclusion is a matter of opinion.
Both terms ultimately are matters of opinion. A difference is >>>>>>>> scientific terms ultimate settle on consensus based on evidence. >>>>>>>>
scientific meaning, while "Homo" is accepted taxonomy.
So you affirm our consensus that both terms are matters of opinion. >>>>>>
consensus of supposed experts, while the other doesn't.
Everything in taxonomy is a matter of opinion, at least in a
sense, just as is everything in many semi-"soft"
disciplines. There's a good bit of arbitrariness involved.
There used to be a genus of fungi called Drosophila. This has now been >>>> renamed, but I can't find what it's called now. Once when I was staying >>>> with a friend who was a mushroom lover I found a big colour book on
mushrooms in the bedroom I was in, and I was very surprised to find a
picture of one called Drosophila something. Not possible, I thought,
Drosophila is fruit flies. However, it was true (then): fungus
taxonomists don't necessarily know much about fruit flies; and
fruit-fly specialists don't necessarily know much about mushrooms.
this...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040550 >>>
...details a link between Drosophila melanogaster and
certain fungi on host plants. Perhaps there was some
confusion about this?
No confusion. The picture and the text were quite clear.
Apparently, you are referring to _Drosophila delineata_, a synonym of _Typhrasa gossypina_, a gill mushroom.
While looking for that, I found that there is also a fungus
_Melanogaster_ (a false truffle), which shares its genus name with _Melanogaster_ (a hover fly).
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific epithet
are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal, I would
be *most* interested.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 05:20:17 -0800 (PST), marc verhaegen ><littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:Afr.coastal forests, and Homo went left -> S.Asian coasts -> Java H.erectus etc., google:
Most likely unnamed: AFAWK, we have no human fossils until early-Pleistocene H.erectus in Indonesia after c 2 Ma.
The Homo-Pan LCA (last common ancestor) 6 or 5 Ma (mill.yrs ago) likely lived in coastal forests along the Red Sea, and when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks 5.33 Ma, caused by the Zanclean mega-flood), Pan went right -> E.
- Mio-Pliocene hominoid (ape) evolution, google “aquarboreal”,
- Plio-Pleistocene Homo, google e.g. “human evolution Verhaegen”.
Your topic title's question presumes it's possible to say from which
fossil species of ape we descended. Even with DNA, the most that can
be said is a fossil species is more or less related than others.
Also, to intelligently discuss your question, you would have to make
explicit your distinction between humans and apes.
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific
epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal,
I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural and taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow and butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work, as an alternative means, of finding more.
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific epithet
are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal, I would be *most* interested.
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific epithet
are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal, I would
be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural
and taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow
and butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work,
as an alternative means, of finding more.
Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including
12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and bacterial codes.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
On 2023-01-30 13:08:50 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific epithet >>> are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal, I would
be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural
and taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow
and butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work,
as an alternative means, of finding more.
Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including
12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and bacterial codes.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php"ashipunov.info sent an invalid response."
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific
epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal,
I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural and taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow and butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work, as an alternative means, of finding more.
Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including
12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and bacterial codes.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
--
alias Ernest Major
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:10:09 PM UTC, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific
epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal,
I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural and taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow and butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work, as an alternative means, of finding more.
Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including
12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and bacterial codes.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
--Lawsonia intracellularis was named after its discoverer, the Scottish veterinarian Gordon H.K. Lawson,
alias Ernest Major
Lawsonia inermis was named after a friend of Linnaeus, the Scottish physician Isaac Lawson,
I was hoping for a Scottish triple, but could not find the zoological one - the iczn database gave me a zero return - anyone has any idea?
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:20:09 PM UTC, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:10:09 PM UTC, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:Lawsonia intracellularis was named after its discoverer, the Scottish veterinarian Gordon H.K. Lawson,
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific
epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal, >>>>> I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural and >>>> taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow and >>>> butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work, as an >>>> alternative means, of finding more.
12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and
bacterial codes.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
--
alias Ernest Major
Lawsonia inermis was named after a friend of Linnaeus, the Scottish physician Isaac Lawson,
I was hoping for a Scottish triple, but could not find the zoological one - the iczn database gave me a zero return - anyone has any idea?
OK, found the species - Lawsonia variabilis Sharp, T Lawson was from Auckland, New Zealand, so probably not a triple crown, unless he was an emigrant and we can claim him nonetheless
On 30/01/2023 16:25, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:20:09 PM UTC, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:10:09 PM UTC, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:Lawsonia intracellularis was named after its discoverer, the Scottish veterinarian Gordon H.K. Lawson,
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including >>> 12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and >>> bacterial codes.
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific
epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal, >>>>> I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural and >>>> taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow and >>>> butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work, as an >>>> alternative means, of finding more.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
--
alias Ernest Major
Lawsonia inermis was named after a friend of Linnaeus, the Scottish physician Isaac Lawson,
I was hoping for a Scottish triple, but could not find the zoological one - the iczn database gave me a zero return - anyone has any idea?
OK, found the species - Lawsonia variabilis Sharp, T Lawson was from Auckland, New Zealand, so probably not a triple crown, unless he was an emigrant and we can claim him nonetheless
It seems likely that he was an emigrant, as his brother was a resident
of Scarborough. But where he emigrated from isn't made clear in the work
that established the genus.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/36494#page/7/mode/1up
Did you try Gordonia? (But while the synapsid has a Scottish connection,
the plant is named after "the eminent gardener Mr. James Gordon, near
Mile End" (London?), and the bacterium after the "American
bacteriologist Ruth Gordon".)
--
alias Ernest Major
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 5:20:08 PM UTC, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 16:25, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:20:09 PM UTC, Burkhard wrote:It seems likely that he was an emigrant, as his brother was a resident
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:10:09 PM UTC, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:Lawsonia intracellularis was named after its discoverer, the Scottish veterinarian Gordon H.K. Lawson,
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including >>>>> 12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and >>>>> bacterial codes.
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific
epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal, >>>>>>> I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural and >>>>>> taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow and >>>>>> butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work, as an >>>>>> alternative means, of finding more.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
--
alias Ernest Major
Lawsonia inermis was named after a friend of Linnaeus, the Scottish physician Isaac Lawson,
I was hoping for a Scottish triple, but could not find the zoological one - the iczn database gave me a zero return - anyone has any idea?
OK, found the species - Lawsonia variabilis Sharp, T Lawson was from Auckland, New Zealand, so probably not a triple crown, unless he was an emigrant and we can claim him nonetheless
of Scarborough. But where he emigrated from isn't made clear in the work
that established the genus.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/36494#page/7/mode/1up
Did you try Gordonia? (But while the synapsid has a Scottish connection,
the plant is named after "the eminent gardener Mr. James Gordon, near
Mile End" (London?), and the bacterium after the "American
bacteriologist Ruth Gordon".)
--
alias Ernest Major
Oh, excellent, thanks! Scarborough would do, North Yorkshire is part of the Wallace's Empire :o)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAQH_LNbBEo
On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific
epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal,
I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural
and taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow
and butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work,
as an alternative means, of finding more.
Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including
12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and bacterial codes.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
On 30/01/2023 20:48, Burkhard wrote:Bruce works in this case indeed better, and he is of course also referenced in Scots Wha Hae - I was thinking of William Wallace’s Invasion of Northern England in 1297, which if you believe Blind Harry (which arguably you should not) got him as far
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 5:20:08 PM UTC, Ernest Major wrote:
On 30/01/2023 16:25, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:20:09 PM UTC, Burkhard wrote:It seems likely that he was an emigrant, as his brother was a resident
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:10:09 PM UTC, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>> On 30/01/2023 12:40, Ernest Major wrote:
Lawsonia intracellularis was named after its discoverer, the Scottish veterinarian Gordon H.K. Lawson,On 30/01/2023 02:56, Mark Isaak wrote:Someone has already had a stab. There are over 1000 in total, including
If anyone knows of any instance where both genus *and* specific >>>>>>> epithet are the same for both a plant (or fungus or alga) and animal,
I would be *most* interested.
Google is our friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym_(biology)#Hemihomonyms
(It's probably got to the point where one could scrape nomenclatural and
taxonomic databases to hunt for hemihomonyms.)
You list of cross code duplicated generic names omits Napaea (mallow and
butterfly). Scraping WikiPedia's disambiguation pages might work, as an
alternative means, of finding more.
12 names duplicated between also three of the botanical, zoological and
bacterial codes.
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/os/homonyms/index.php
--
alias Ernest Major
Lawsonia inermis was named after a friend of Linnaeus, the Scottish physician Isaac Lawson,
I was hoping for a Scottish triple, but could not find the zoological one - the iczn database gave me a zero return - anyone has any idea?
OK, found the species - Lawsonia variabilis Sharp, T Lawson was from Auckland, New Zealand, so probably not a triple crown, unless he was an emigrant and we can claim him nonetheless
of Scarborough. But where he emigrated from isn't made clear in the work >> that established the genus.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/36494#page/7/mode/1up
Did you try Gordonia? (But while the synapsid has a Scottish connection, >> the plant is named after "the eminent gardener Mr. James Gordon, near
Mile End" (London?), and the bacterium after the "American
bacteriologist Ruth Gordon".)
--
alias Ernest Major
Oh, excellent, thanks! Scarborough would do, North Yorkshire is part of the Wallace's Empire :o)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAQH_LNbBEo
The English lands of the Bruce family were in Cleveland, which is not
that far from Scarborough. (I don't see how Scots Wha Hae links Wallace
to Scarborough.)
--
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally I find the naming convention repugnant. It limits thinking, sets parameters
that people appear unwilling to move beyond. No, screw all that...
The "Apes" evolved from us, not the other way around.
We evolved within the ape grouping.
JTEM is my hero:
Habilis is generally regarded as the first human -- Homo.
Yes, what is "habilis"? I doubt it's Homo s.s.
?OH, ?ER-1805, ?ER-1813 (2-1.5 Ma): diverse spp?? Australopithecus? Homo? Praeanthropus??
Personally I find the naming convention repugnant. It limits thinking, sets parameters
that people appear unwilling to move beyond. No, screw all that...
The "Apes" evolved from us, not the other way around.
That's a bit exaggerated.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:40:53 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,401 |
| Posted today: | 1 |