Forum menu
Graham see that top one Homo sapiens? They are humans the others are hominids not humans.
My understanding is that [i]Homo sapiens[/i] are [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human ]"modern humans"[/url].
"Early humans" could refer to anything in the genus Homo, cf. [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans ]Archaic_humans[/url].
But whatever, I think you realise it wasn't a taxonomical point.
No early humans would refer to early humans
Not according to the [url= http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species ]Smithsonian Institute Human Origins project[/url] , but what would they know eh?
As I said, it wasn't a taxonomical point. Feel free to replace "early humans" with "our genetic predecessors and their contemporaries" if that makes it clearer for you.
Well this is going well isn't it!
That link talks about early human species so its correct in a sense. But thats different from early humans.
Oh and its taxanomic.
*sigh*
Okay here's some text from the [url= http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/intro-human-evolution ]Introduction to Human Evolution page on the Smithsonian site[/url]:
[b]Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans[/b]. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many [b]early human[/b] species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of [b]early humans[/b], and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.[b]Early humans[/b] first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.
Seems to me they clearly use the terms "early humans" and "early human species" there. As distinct to "modern humans".
The second paragraph is talking about Homo sapiens is it not? So they are using early human species and early humans to mean different things. The first paragraph is about hominids and the second about Humans. With that condusing tripe on its web site I wouldnt trust them. Its a classic example of why you need to be precise and why we have latin names.
Late to this thread...it's an interesting one, as I see it civil partnerships for heterosexual couples are controversial for some people because they would be seen to weaken the case for marriage.
But marriage is now a very weak institution anyway, especially since no-fault divorce.
I say this as a very bitter brother, whose sister has suffered horribly since her husband left her for another woman and got out of his marriage easier than your average car rental agreement.
The statistics on lower divorce rates aren't historically meaningful since the marriage rate is so historically low in the first place. Many people are not getting married in the first place, but still having children and then splitting up - thirty years ago they would have most likely been married.
[b]badnewz[/b] Difficult and horrible for her, but would you really rather they stayed together in a marriage which fundementally wasn't working, developing years of bitterness and loathing. Perhaps she now be able will meet someone more worthy of her? Marriage is a mutual endeavour, not a sentence. Surely?
I am for the CP availablity - might be something I'd consider with my (female) partner, although marriage would be my preferred option. Perhaps CP could be like a provisional drivers licence?!
badnewz Difficult and horrible for her, but would you really rather they stayed together in a marriage which fundementally wasn't working, developing years of bitterness and loathing. Perhaps she now be able will meet someone more worthy of her? Marriage is a mutual endeavour, not a sentence. Surely?
It's a tough one mate. There were clearly problems in the marriage, so we weren't surprised it ended. But I have a nagging feeling that if marriage was taken more seriously, and harder to get out of, he wouldn't have acted the way he did, in my opinion getting away scot free (he pays child maintenance, but has since had another kid).
I suppose my issue is what a vulnerable position the whole thing put her and my family in, as she couldn't afford the house on her own (I offered to step in but she didn't want that). She now rents nearby, and we are looking at extending our place so she and her kids have the option of moving in at some point. This is the saving fact of the situation, we have our own place, no mortgage, so the option is always there.
Sorry to derail the thread a bit, the situation has been getting to me recently and felt the need to write about it.
not a derailment at all - I think you have to judge marriage and CP by what happens when they go wrong, espescially for the kids. Hope she does ok.
OP is missing one link. For me (and I suspect others) the refusal to get married and this sort of 'CP for all' carry on is largely about winding up religious and sanctimonious friends and relatives. It's far too satisfying to just roll over and let all that go.
the state taking marriage seriously does not mean the population would take it seriously. If it was very difficult to get out a marriage it probably wouldn't have stopped your ex BiL being a douche. If he doesn't care, he doesn't care, shackling him to your sister - or more worryingly shackling your sister to a douche, probably isn't a great idea. You/the state can't force him to stay living with your sister if he wants to be elsewhere. Keeping them together is likely to lead to more harm than good in the long run.But I have a nagging feeling that if marriage was taken more seriously, and harder to get out of, he wouldn't have acted the way he did
The financial side of it is a pita and still arises when you aren't married to your partner (been there, got the T shirt)
You/the state can't force him to stay living with your sister if he wants to be elsewhere. Keeping them together is likely to lead to more harm than good in the long run.
THIS
He has behaved badly forcing him to stay with your sister/,making it harder for them to separate. Its hard to see how this has made the situation better
Growing up in a loveless house with an unhappy marriage is unlikely to help kids get positive outcomes.
Its to simplistic [ and wrong] to argue that if every divorced couple stayed together then their kids would have better outcomes.
Its to simplistic [ and wrong] to argue that if every divorced couple stayed together then their kids would have better outcomes.
Absolutely agree!
[based on my own anecdotal and observed experience] I would suggest that in many cases, the married couple who attempt to stay together for the sake of the children when their own relationship has 'broken down irretrievable' are often only delaying the inevitable ... and this often eventually does occur when children are in their teens which can often compound issues for the kids as they [the kids] struggle to use their parents relationship as a reference point for their own emerging sense of the world ...
I case anyone is interested the couple mentioned in the OP lost their case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845