Erm, brain rot settling early, though I am still young :-(
On 03:48 AM 12/16/96 -0500, Neyir Cenk Gokce wrote:
>On 11:32 PM 12/7/96 -0800, Nicola Gebendinger wrote:
>>plant for the waste-water processing plant machine. The second analogy
>>are mammals' arms. A cat has front paws, structured for climbing, a dog
>>also, but structured for running, a man has arms, a bat has wings. Look
>>at the bones and at the muscles. They are all the same: anatomists use
>>the same words for them in all these animals. (My instructor of
>>comparative anatomy used arm for the front leg of all vertebrates and leg
>>for the hind leg.) But do they have the same function? No, they don't.
>>(And remember that the Earth monolith disappears early in the movie and
>>in the book.)
>The biological term for this is ..... bats wings/human arms/feline forelegs
>similar structure different function. there is also .... bats
>wings/butterfly wings/pterodactyl wings similar function, different structure.
I mean, I wrote this at work, putting the dots to check my terminology back
home, and then just plain forgot! So:
The biological term for this are "homologous structures"--bats wings/human
arms/feline forelegs
similar structure different function. There are also "analogous
structures" bats
wings/butterfly wings/pterodactyl wings similar function, different
structure. Another analogous example is the eyes of mammals and those of
octupi, which serve the same function but have been evolved independently.
To strech the biological jargon further, we can say that the monoliths have
at best a phenotype similarity, ie they look similar but their underlying
purpose and function are different, as Nicola says.
>>===================
>> Hpalencar, you stated the following: "The word feminism conveys
>>two distinct things: that women are equal to men in all ways, at all
>>times, in all things; and that it is morally wrong to treat any human
>>creature with less dignity and respect than another."
>>
>> Agreed, on the second statement. But are you sure on the first?
>>With my best will, I doubt very much that with my anatomical equipment
>>I'll ever be able to bear a child or nurse it. Even if you point a gun to
>>my head and threat with killing me if I don't get pregnant. I'm a simple
>>male, after all...
>> If you want men and women to be equal always and anywhere, you'll
>>have to engineer them to stay hermaphrodites all their life instead of a
>>month or so in their mother's womb.
>ROTFL! Molto bene, Nicola--I *do* believe in the *equality* and not the
>*superiority* of women and men, though some people who brand themselves
>feminists think more about the latter than the former, even if they don't
>admit it. Others have talked about Friday (RAH) and she is both female
>*and* equal to any man she meets--ok, even superior to some, though this
>superiority has nothing to do with her sex, it is rather like I might be
>superior to Nicola, say, in basket-weaving and he might be superior to me in
>bead-sorting, etc.
OK, OK, it smells right off of narcism posting a followup to my followup but
I read something jsut today about the above. It seems that there are
different kinds of feminists, and "cultural feminists" which my source
define as: "'pro-censorship feminism' stems from a particularly simplistic
group within the wider movement. This is "cultural feminism" and it appeals
to women who like simple, clear-cut solutions to difficult problems, who
distrust the process of academic debate, who prefer only to think in black
and white (when they think at all) and who like a sense of superiority" H.
Bowles, _Attitude 9_, Oct.96
This is what I object to, and not the idea of equality etc. Just to make
myself clearer :-)
--Cenk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Cenk Gokce, Ankara, TR ([log in to unmask])
|