recidivist:
There's nothing politically correct about using the standard definition of the term "species" that is used by all biologists, unless you regard any adherence to convention as political correctness.
Yes. For example, if you're brain dead, you're still human, but you're no longer a person in the technical sense of that term.
No. Homo sapiens is just the Latin name for the species "human being". The two are synonymous.
How do you define it? And why does it matter?
I'm not sure how one thing must follow from the other. Also, I'm not sure how you define speciesist. But again, let's suppose that you're right. So what if Darwin was racist and speciesist? What turns on that?
You mean like the reality of evolution? I agree with you, then. Just because you think evolution is unfashionable, it doesn't mean it isn't real.
Then tell me what the direction of evolution is, and what it would look like if evolution went "in reverse"? And how could it go in reverse, anyway?
Human culture is part of nature, so rights do exist in nature.
What's the direction then, and how can I see it in the fossils?
How does an identical twin differ from a clone?
I've made no such claim.
I've lost track of what you're arguing. Do you know what you're arguing, and can you sum it up for me? Your posts come across as a fairly undirected scattergun barrage.
That's because you are adhering to politically correct ideas of what the word human means.
There's nothing politically correct about using the standard definition of the term "species" that is used by all biologists, unless you regard any adherence to convention as political correctness.
Are you saying there are humans who are not people?
Yes. For example, if you're brain dead, you're still human, but you're no longer a person in the technical sense of that term.
Are you saying there are humans who are not homo sapien?
No. Homo sapiens is just the Latin name for the species "human being". The two are synonymous.
How do you define the term hominid?
How do you define it? And why does it matter?
If [Darwin] was racist, he must also have been speciest, but there is no evidence he was.
I'm not sure how one thing must follow from the other. Also, I'm not sure how you define speciesist. But again, let's suppose that you're right. So what if Darwin was racist and speciesist? What turns on that?
He simply viewed humanity with the same objective detatchment he viewed other animals. That his opinions have become unfashionable has nothing to do with their validity.
You mean like the reality of evolution? I agree with you, then. Just because you think evolution is unfashionable, it doesn't mean it isn't real.
What on earth would it mean for evolution to "go into reverse". What is "forwards" for evolution? As far as I am aware, evolution doesn't have a direction.
I would say millions of years of fossilized evidence contradict you.
Then tell me what the direction of evolution is, and what it would look like if evolution went "in reverse"? And how could it go in reverse, anyway?
Rights are state sanctioned propaganda; they don't exist in nature.
Human culture is part of nature, so rights do exist in nature.
It beggars belief that you believe in something which is plainly a social construct whilst simultaneously denying that human evolution has a direction which is clearly visible in the fossil record.
What's the direction then, and how can I see it in the fossils?
Aren't identical twins clones?
No, they're identical twins.
How does an identical twin differ from a clone?
It's kind of hard to talk about the relationships between things when they are in a state of perpetual, directionless chaos, as you claim human evolution is.
I've made no such claim.
I've lost track of what you're arguing. Do you know what you're arguing, and can you sum it up for me? Your posts come across as a fairly undirected scattergun barrage.