Text 1321, 79 rader
Skriven 2005-01-04 20:31:00 av Syvanen@ucdavis.Edu (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: How come every new ra
=================================



Brett Aubrey wrote:
> "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:craha1$1hoi$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > "Brett Aubrey" <brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:cr4gkm$2kf0$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > > "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cr2nlk$259n$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > >> <syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> > >> news:cqvso8$1a1e$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > >> >>" BTW, if we take
> > >> >> the 200,000 year figure, she was assuredly not Homo sapiens
> > >> >> sapien. But since I think your premise is flawed that the
first
> > >> >> human was having children with non-humans, let's at least
> > >> >> not call them sub-human (she's your ancestor too!)"
> > >> > Don't think we can say she was not homo sapien.  I once heard
that if
> > >> > we could resurrect homo erectus (1 mya) give him a clean
shave, a new
> > >> > suit and place him on the subway, he would likely pass as
human.
> > >>
> > >> The Genus name says that he is human.
> > >
> > > It's not so cut and dried as genus, it seems to me and Merriam
Webster:
> > >  Human:  Function: noun
> > >  : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly :
> > >    any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to
> > >    which the primate belongs
> > > Regards, Brett.
> >
> > Your points didn't negate what I said. If anything it expanded on
it.
> > Anything in Homo is said to be human on the bases of the name
alone. I
> doubt
> > if most people in anthro think apiths were human.
>
> Well, you said it was the genus name that says it's human (period).
I just
> pointed out that depending on the reference and the context, it can
be the
> genus name that says he is human, or the species name, or the family
name,
> or maybe even the sub-species name.  I don't view that as an
expansion of
> your point as much as simply giving the term "human" a much broader
range of
> definitions than just a member of Genus Homo, in line with my
experience and
> (in this case) M-W Online.  But feel free to think of it as an
expansion, if
> you so wish.
>
> To me it was a natural follow-on to my question to the initial
poster:
>     BTW, what is your definition of "human" - any Homo
>    sapiens sapien? any Homo sapien? any of genus Homo?

There is the biological species concept defined through studies of
extant life and there is what I will call the fossil species conept
that is based simply on observed differences in morphology.  They are
not necessarily the same.  That is the problem here with the various
Homos; different criteria are used in their definition.
Mike Syvanen

> 
> <snip>
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/4/05 8:31:07 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)