Talk:Hominid

Incorrect definition

I object to saying that the 2nd definition (human ancestors) is incorrect. If it is incorrect, then so is most usage. Are you saying that all these are incorrect? The Merriam-Webster dictionary [1] American Heritage [2] and these scientific pages. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] RSchlafly 14:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a scientific term. It should be used as such. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. RSchlafly 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, but common =/= actual. As Conservative and others tell us, concensus does not make something right. I hope the current version is acceptable. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

No, it is not acceptable. On what basis do you say the latter usage is "incorrect"? Someone has proposed a new definition of "hominid" a few years ago. Maybe it will catch on, and maybe it won't. In the meantime, people need to know how to interpret the word "hominid" when they read it. RSchlafly 15:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I've edited to explain the difference between the taxonomic term and the colloquial term, as well as including the correct term for those species that are transitional between hominidae and homo sapiens sapiens. JohnSmith 15:45, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

Cave man

What wrong with "cave man"? It is a colloquial definition. Yes, it is not terribly precise, but neither is the term hominid as it is usually used. I say to put "cave man" back. RSchlafly 13:40, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Cave man may be colloquial, but it is not used in any kind of serious discussion among academics concerned with studying pre-historic humans. Cave man is a very loose term that is often used for inaccurate descriptions. I just don't consider it very professional or encyclopedic.Prof0705 13:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, if someone is going to the trouble to use the term "Hominid" then they have more than a passing understanding of evolution, and they're using the term for a specific purpose. I also think that in the first definition that we should strike the section that says that it's colloquially used to refer to modern humans. Although modern humans are hominids, typically people use hominid to refer to the evolutionary ancestors of man, also called the "hominina" tribe. This is one of the reasons I still prefer the original edit I made to this article: The taxonomic term hominid is used by modern biologists to refer to humans, as well as the "great apes," including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and their ancestors up to several millions of years ago. It is also colloquially used to refer to species ancestral to modern humans, including Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Ardipithecus, and Homo though the correct term for this group is hominina. I think this was more accurate and succinct. The fact is that there aren't truly two definitions of the term. There is the formal definition, and the way that definition is used informally. JohnSmith 14:13, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not think that your version is correct. First, the "taxonomic" definition is just a proposal of the last few years, and not even all modern biologists have adopted that usage. Second, saying that "hominina" is the "correct term" is also just a proposal. Third, readers using CP are much more likely to encounter the colloquial definition, even in a modern science book. Just a few years ago, it was the only definition. Fourth, your colloquial definition requires that the hominid be "ancestral", and that (probably) rules out Neanderthals, even tho everyone considers Neanderthals to be hominids. Fifth, it unnecessarily claims that Australopithecus is ancestral to humans, even tho it is hotly debated among evolutionists (and rejected by creationists).

There is another point here which seems to have been lost in all the edits. The modern evolutionists have redefined the word "hominid" to suit their taxonomic views. The new definition groups humans and apes more tightly, and downplays human distinctiveness. Maybe you agree and maybe you don't. It is just a definition, so the change cannot be correct or incorrect. It is just a preference on the part of modern biologists. This is CP, and a left-wing shift in definitions should be noted. RSchlafly 15:32, 17 May 2007 (EDT)