Text 1327, 74 rader
Skriven 2005-01-04 20:31:00 av Deowll (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: How come every new ra
=================================



"Brett Aubrey" <brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:crc4ml$217l$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> "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?
>
> Regards, Brett.
>
> <snip>

In order to avoid saying a lot of words I'll stick with Homo as being human. 
Apiths might cross that line if I knew more about them. I am aware that some 
people only consider AMH to be human. Heck some people only consider their 
near relatives to be human and have doubts about some of them.


>
>
---
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)