5 ms·
Still human remains.
by tokai 3y ago
Still human remains.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- iopq 3y ago[citation needed] it's humanoid remains, but not modern human
- tokai 3y agoRight back at you with the citation needed. Humanoid is not a taxonomic term anymore. All Homo are humans. Never said modern, which it obviously isn't.
- iopq 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human > Although some scientists equate the term "humans" with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member.
- swatcoder 3y agoThere's no citation for that claim and it would be unlikely for there to be one. It's just some dude's personal impression about a subjective matter (a word in transition), and carries no more weight than any other comment being made here. A more meaningful source would be a usage guide like Garner's Modern English.
- iopq 3y agoOkay, link to your source
- denton-scratch 3y agoActually, it is cited. The fragment you quoted is from the lede, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the material. So if you read on to the section "Etymology and definition", you find that the same claim is cited to Merriam Webster. As it happens, this citation is useless, because it doesn't support the claim. Basically, I think it's fraudulent to cite that claim to that MW article.
- DonHopkins 3y agoI don't wanna classify you like an animal in the zoo, but it seems good to me to know that you're Homosapien too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI
- silverquiet 3y agoI feel like this is peak HN pedantry, but it seems like there's some controversy amongst anthropologists these days as how to sort of colloquially define human; I've heard some say that any species in the genus homo should qualify.
- galangalalgol 3y agoAnd how to legally define human is extremely controversial and always has been.
- navane 3y ago[flagged]
- silverquiet 3y agoPerhaps my mind is so open that it's in danger of falling out, but when people say that that's so easy to define and then don't do so, I get really confused. I'm like, have you ever seen a dude who looks like a lady? It's a question that's bedeviled sports for a long time actually - in the 60's the Olympics required "nude parades" to check that competitors were in fact women, but obviously that had some problems. I believe they eventually settled on some sort of hormone ratio as the definition.
- iopq 3y agoYes, this dude looks like a lady: https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a/37840f84773c473e-66/s540x810/63354126dc1ffa77ee5b227c41f52e1d7b5e281d.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a...
- thaumasiotes 3y agoIn the classical Olympics, as in all Greek athletic competitions, all competitors were required to be nude during the events. You can't compete in clothes. It didn't cause any problems.
- 3y ago
- denton-scratch 3y agoI thought the term "humanoid" referred to bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry. Or to human-like robots.
- shiroiushi 3y ago"Humanoid" refers to anything with a human body morphology (i.e., bipedal, two legs, two arms, head). That can be actual humans, human-looking robots, bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry, or even Barbie dolls I suppose.
- kergonath 3y agoIt’s something that looks like human remains, and that needs to be imaged properly to have a definitive answer.