Re: Are we "special"?
Thomas Clarke (clarke@acme.ucf.edu)
15 Dec 1996 04:34:44 GMT
In article <32B236A1.7B69@scn.org> Phillip Bigelow <bh162@scn.org> writes:
>Thomas Clarke wrote:
>> In article <01bbe84f$fb5f2e40$LocalHost@dan-pc> "Rohinton Collins" <rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk> writes:
>> >Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote in article
>> ><58mmj8$qo0@news.cc.ucf.edu>...
>> >> What word should I use to distinguish this ability of humans from
>> >> the lack of that ability in non-human animals?
>
>> >Two words: Homo sapiens
>> Yes, I guess that does distinguish man from the other animals.
>The nomenclature has worked well for over two hundred years, Tom.
>You can be assured that it is still sufficient today!
You deleted what followed in my post, so forgive me if I repeat myself.
Yes it is good nomenclature, but it is just that nomenclature.
There is more to science than nomenclature, Philip, something I don't
think you have learned yet.
Man was the same species he was today 30,000 years ago.
So had there been biologists around they could have used the nomenclature
Home sapiens. However, the species would have just been a rather slim
hominid with an advanced tool kit and good ability to communicate by sound.
The same biological species today has much richer behaviors.
Bare nomenenclature does not capture this.
But then, I don't think you even get an inkling of what I am trying
to say. Why do I bother talking to you self-styled paleontolgists?
Go masturbate over your bones.
Tom Clarke
|