I guess ‘eponymous’ wasn't on the LSAT

Now ... does Casey Luskin make Sal Cordova look good? Or is
it the other way around?

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

These clowns at the DI would be much funnier if more people would realize that they are performance artists with little talent and no expertise, except in lying and tripping over their own shoes.

Actually, what's most amusing about Casey's whining is his bemoaning the lack of a diagram and the resulting necessity to actually read stuff. I mean, if it were in comic book form it'd be a helluva lot easier for him.

It is unintentionally embarrassing for Luskin of course, but it is instructive too.

Creationists (however they label themselves) demand science to adhere to the same "standard" of sophistication they themselves have--an explanation that a 3rd grade Sunday School class can understand. (Before the inevitable backlash starts, please note that I've taught 3rd grade Sunday School).

The only time they aspire to "sophistication", is when they get a simple, accessible explanation of evolutionary science and have to muddy the waters.

dpr

@dpr - I prefer a 3rd grade level explanation! :-)

Remember, Casey is writing for his audience, which by and large are the pasty-faced, bible thumping ignoramuses who populate the big round churches along the freeway. They will read his utter bullshit and be awed. That's what he wants. Nothing else matters.

Frauds like the DI are not at all interested in real science. Casey
claims to be an earth scientist and an attorney. However, he exhibits none of the characteristics of either.

Now, I don't normally like coming out and saying derogatory things about people's intelligence or ability to comprehend stuff (though I concede I think it often). After all, I guess it takes all types to make up this wonderful world, but that is a really, really dumb thing for Luskin to say.

Even without a uni degree I can fully understand what Shubin is saying with "homologues to eponymous wrist bones....".

It's truly incomprehensible that they find it incomprehensible. The incomprehensibility is so incomprehensible that it's incomprehensible that Luskin followers could comprehend what he is even trying to say.

Understand?

RBH said:

These clowns at the DI would be much funnier if more people would realize that they are performance artists with little talent and no expertise, except in lying and tripping over their own shoes.

They're wearing shoes now? Zowie! Casey must have moved to the bigtime!

Usually if I don't know a word I...look it up.

Usually if I don’t know a word I…look it up.

Yes, Casey, no wrist bones except those described by Shubin, and illustrated on Page 38 of the book you cite.

Does it hurt being stupid, Casey?

homologues to eponymous

But, but, ...how can he look it up if "eponymous" isn't in the BIBLE!?

casey = case lost (again)

waldteufel said: Remember, Casey is writing for his audience, which by and large are the pasty-faced, bible thumping ignoramuses who populate the big round churches along the freeway. They will read his utter bullshit and be awed. That's what he wants. Nothing else matters.

Surely Nick has chosen one of the easiest subjects to be an expert in!

This is OT but I figured you guys would get a kick out of it.

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

The mighty Casey has struck out.

I suppose Luskin might have been thrown by the fact that "eponymous" doesn't normally mean "having the same name"- it means "named after a person". A better word for Shubin to use would have been "isonymous"- though it's not in my dictionary, it is a regular formation that means exactly what Shubin intended.

Eponyms are of course named after the Greek philosopher Eponymes.

Remember, Casey is writing for his audience, which by and large are...

— waldteufel

People, let us not go overboard on this. Eponym means something named after a person, real or imaginary. Spoonerism, boycott, Pavlovian are examples. I am not a biologist and I am not sure how the word is used in biology papers and discussions. It is possible eponymous might be used to mean "having the same name" in these fields.

So many books are made into movies with the same name. But sometimes a movie and a book share a name though they are not related. Is there a term for a movie and a book with the same name or two different cities with the same name? I have seen the word namesake being used for persons, as in "Abraham Lincoln, a bartender in Allentown, PA is short and plump unlike his famous namesake".

What is the best term for xxxx in the following sentence that would mean "identically named": Kwikmart, in the Main Street of London, Ontario is not quite as famous as Harrods of xxxx city in England?

Sorry this line of reasoning gives Crazy Luskin and his crazier apologists a chance to hit back. But the difference between us pro-science and them pro-IDiocy, is we strive for clear and open communications. Even if the open and clear communication has the potential to be quote mined, abused and misused.

Ravilyn Sanders said: People, let us not go overboard on this. Eponym means something named after a person, real or imaginary. Spoonerism, boycott, Pavlovian are examples. I am not a biologist and I am not sure how the word is used in biology papers and discussions. It is possible eponymous might be used to mean "having the same name" in these fields.

Ravilyn is correct. I also misunderstood Shubin's intentions. "Eponymous wrist bones" MEANS, bones named after whoever discovered or labeled them. These would be perhaps the Shubin bone, or the Myers bone. I think Shubin attempted to be erudite by deploying a 4-bit word where a few plebian 2-bit words would have served him better, and he picked the wrong word. He didn't know what it meant anymore than Luskin. Or, apparently, Myers.

Flint said: Ravilyn is correct. I also misunderstood Shubin's intentions. "Eponymous wrist bones" MEANS, bones named after whoever discovered or labeled them. These would be perhaps the Shubin bone, or the Myers bone. I think Shubin attempted to be erudite by deploying a 4-bit word where a few plebian 2-bit words would have served him better, and he picked the wrong word. He didn't know what it meant anymore than Luskin. Or, apparently, Myers.

Once again, it shows how utterly vacuous creationism, or ID or TtC or whatever iteration we're on now actually is.

It consists of nothing except some vague argument that evolution has skipped some tiny little detail, ergo, evolution must be totally wrong.

Not only does the ID emperor have no clothes, his entire defense is to point out that evolution's left shoelace is untied.

It is not their feet they are tripping over.

Steve S's comment hits the proverbial nail on the head. Luskin, inept as he is, is preaching to his choir and they love it. It doesn't really matter what/how the scientific community responds, they've already made up their minds and Luskin just reinforces that nonsense.

One of the strengths of the late Carl Sagan was that he spoke of and conveyed the essence of astronomy in an exciting fashion to the general public. All of his colleagues weren't liking his style, but he was extremely effective.

When it comes to evolution, noone is taking up a similar standard. They understandably write highly detailed studies and leave it up to the Luskins to subvert those writings through their pseudo-scientific analyses in support of their anti-evolution views.

Yes, Luskin made his point, idiot that he is.

I am astounded that people are actually arguing the eponymous isn't the best word, or it refers to a person not a thing etc.
Shubin DID use the word correctly (that's why Casey is a dolt).

Can no one use a word with more than 1 definition? The meaning is clear from context - this is NOT technical jargon - just English written at a college level.

from askoxford.com - online dictionary:

eponymous
/iponnimss/

• adjective 1 (of a person) giving their name to something. 2 (of a thing) named after a particular person.

— ORIGIN Greek eponumos, from onoma ‘name’

I thought Luskin's use of the word 'jargon' was telling too. What does he expect scientists to do when writing for other scientists, break everything down into words of two syllables? 'intermedium' and 'ulnare' aren't jargon, they're standard scientific terms meant to convey complex information accurately and concisely.

I do marvel at the fact that Luskin gets made to look like a fool about as regularly as Wile E. Coyote, and yet he just keeps coming back for more - the guy must have no shame.

I thought Luskin’s use of the word ‘jargon’ was telling too. What does he expect scientists to do when writing for other scientists...

Eponymes was the first person to use "junior" after his name.

With neither English nor Greek being my native language I didn't know the
meaning of the word 'eponymous' and had to look it up. My first try, Collins National Dictionary (London and Glasgow 1966, latest reprint 1977, claimed to have 60,000 references) did not have the word. However, I found it at my second try, in an English-Swedish dictionary from 1938 and of about the same size. And now Ravilyn Sanders has explained it to other PT readers.

With my previous lack of knowledge I was thus in the good company of Casey Luskin,
Neil Shubin and PZ Myers. Unfortunately.

Earlier in this thread there was a reference to 3rd grade Sunday school. My
favorite question to youngsters of that age who are fascinated by dinosaurs is why the animals in those days had so difficult names.

I am astounded that people are actually arguing the eponymous isn’t the best word, or it refers to a person not a thing etc. Shubin DID use the word correctly (that’s why Casey is a dolt).

Ravilyn Sanders said: People, let us not go overboard on this. Eponym means something named after a person, real or imaginary... Sorry this line of reasoning gives Crazy Luskin and his crazier apologists a chance to hit back.

Flint said: And I'm just as astonished that people can't admit that Shubin used the wrong word, but that this was a very minor error that does nothing to undermine his basic observations and analysis. I thought science was about admitting and correcting errors, rather than insisting that errors aren't errors and calling people dolts for pointing errors out.

Sprocket said: [snip] Eponyms are of course named after the Greek philosopher Eponymes.

The music business uses "eponymous" to describe an album/CD that has the same name as the artist who made it. The Tragically Hip actually entitled one of their albums "Hipeponymous". So the word *is* out there. And yeah, it was the wrong word this time.

Well, the title of PZ's post, and the barbs in the text, was to specifically mock Luskin for not understanding the definition of the work "eponymous". If there is a use of the word that means "same name", no one has yet documented it.

Thus, the unfortunate result is that the real reasons why Luskin's post reveals his ignorance is obscured by highlighting this red herring.

Flint said:

I am astounded that people are actually arguing the eponymous isn’t the best word, or it refers to a person not a thing etc. Shubin DID use the word correctly (that’s why Casey is a dolt).

Sorry, but no. Eponymous means (in BOTH of your definitions), naming something after a person. Now, this isn't to say Luskin didn't produce his usual invalid criticism, or that Shubin didn't make a compelling case for homology, or that Shubin's article omitted the actual names of the bones (intermedium and ulnare). Luskin is engaging in his usual game of denial through misrepresentation, laced with mockery. But nonetheless, Myers is wrong and Shubin used the word eponymous incorrectly, and it DOES NOT mean having the same name, it ALWAYS refers to something named after a person. And I'm just as astonished that people can't admit that Shubin used the wrong word, but that this was a very minor error that does nothing to undermine his basic observations and analysis. I thought science was about admitting and correcting errors, rather than insisting that errors aren't errors and calling people dolts for pointing errors out.

Divalent said: If there is a use of the word that means "same name", no one has yet documented it. Thus, the unfortunate result is that the real reasons why Luskin's post reveals his ignorance is obscured by highlighting this red herring.

The vocabulary issue is a red herring anyway. However, putting aside the fact that it is a red herring, I would argue that Shubin et al. are in fact making good use of the language. The classical meaning of 'eponym' (and therefore of 'eponymous') is shifting, part of the inexorable process of language change. You can see it happening in the entry under 'eponym' in the OED Additions Series 1993. (BTW, there wouldn't even have been a need for the OED Additions Series if the language were standing still.) You can see it even more clearly in "American Proprietary Eponyms," in which you find the following definition: "An eponym is a general term used to describe from what or whom something derived its name. Therefore, a proprietary eponym could be considered a brand name (trademark or service mark) which has fallen into general use" (http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/10056/american-proprietary-eponyms). Notice that in this definition an eponym does not have to be a person. Notice also that the author specifies 'proprietary eponym' when he wishes to make it quite clear that he will discuss what we have been calling names derived from 'proper nouns', reserving the word 'eponym' as a "general term". Now, considering the more generalized usage, and considering the context in which Shubin et al. were writing, I would argue that 'eponymous' works very nicely to convey the notion that THIS name is identical to THAT name, reinforcing the notion that THIS bone is a homologue of THAT bone. Neither 'homologous' nor 'analogous' would work as well because neither has to do with naming (nym) (and the word 'homologue' is already employed in the sentence). Nor would 'synonymous' work because the authors are not talking about an alternative name. Lacking a better term, the authors nonetheless succeed in making the point that THIS structure is equivalent to THAT structure, to the point of sharing the same name. It is the sharing of the name that is crucial here, NOT whether the original name was that of a person, or even a proper noun at all. (As you might guess, in my grammar classes I'm a big proponent of accepting and utilizing language change. For example, I have an ongoing friendly dispute with a colleague who opposes the use of 'their' as a singular pronoun. She sees it as an abomination; I see it as an example of English users neatly solving a problem. Eventually the grammar books will catch up, as 'their' as a singular pronoun has now entered into common usage.)

Ravilyn Sanders said: I don't remember it being used to mean "another thing of the same name".

Ravilyn Sanders, try googling 'proprietary eponyms' for examples of "another thing of the same name." Basically, you'll find that the attachment of the word 'proprietary' to eponym results in a generalizing of the original meaning of the word.

The McDonalds and their isonymous brethren from all over the world come together anually for the McDonald family reunion in Glasgow.

The intermedium and ulnare of Tiktaalik have homologues to isonymous wrist bones of tetrapods with which they share similar positions and articular relations.

Elf Eye said: The classical meaning of 'eponym' (and therefore of 'eponymous') is shifting, part of the inexorable process of language change.

"Eponym" or "eponymous" may not have been the optimal word for Shubin to use, at least regarding a potential audience of lay readers. It was certainly bound to cause at least a little bit of confusion among even some relatively educated readers (momentarily, myself included). I almost exclusively associate 'eponym' with something (disease, structure, place, thing, etc.) named for a person associated with its discovery or description (my background and exposure is medical, where eponyms of this type abound.) But a Luskin, at least a more insightful and honest one, could have avoided making himself a laughing-stock jackass by exploring a dictionary before putting his nonsense in writing in the public domain. There may well be better sources, but at the very least, Wikipedia includes, "The word eponym is often used for the thing titled." Which seems to me to be close to what Shubin intended. A number of other dictionaries were less helpful showing this usage.

My first post ever here, but let me say that the powerhouse assembled, in PT and elsewhere, to combat ID or other anti-evolution pseudoscience/religious nonsense as a "science" that should be taught in the public education curriculum is very impressive and gives me complete confidence that all legal challenges will forever be decided in favor of science/evolution. I get the impression that the ID/anti-evolution side is nearly as oblivious to the weakness and futility of their own position as to the enormous depth and breadth of the informed science community willing to do intellectual and legal battle. Clearly the ID/anti-evolution hope is primarily religious fervor and faith. Science education in the U.S. is safe because, clearly, no challenge to it will go unnoticed, nor suffer a shortage of profoundly capable and activist defenders. What a joy...keep up the good work.

Hi all,

Luskin studied geology - presumably paleontology too - at Michigan State University. He has no excuse for being an ignoramus.

John

John Kwok said: Hi all, Luskin studied geology - presumably paleontology too - at Michigan State University. He has no excuse for being an ignoramus. John

John Kwok said: Hi all, Luskin studied geology - presumably paleontology too - at Michigan State University. He has no excuse for being an ignoramus. John

John Kwok said: Hi all, Luskin studied geology - presumably paleontology too - at Michigan State University. He has no excuse for being an ignoramus. John

Luskin received his B.S. and M.S. in earth sciences from UCSD, having studied at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. He also is an attorney, having received his law degree from the University of San Diego. (San Diego Union-Tribune)

We can debate all we like about "eponymous" and the vagaries of the English language.

It still wasn't that hard for even an average person to understand what Shubin was saying, or what sort of comparison he was making.

Except, I guess, if your mind has become so compartmentalised that it simply refuses to stop and think about it for a moment, or enquire any further, before it tells your hand to write something silly.

Hey I said isonymous first! Homonymous might do as well.

But some of the rest of you, you are behaving like a gang- mutually supporting an unsupportable position. That doesn't help anybody, and it just reinforces for outsiders the IDers' view of evolutionaries as a clique. Stick to exposing the facts, they are quite strong enough without trying to insist against the plain evidence that individual evolutionaries are infallible.

Repeat- eponymous DOES NOT mean "having the same name". It never has, and extending its meaning to a brand is only using a brand NAME in the same way as a human NAME, just as a company was originally considered legally as a group of people. If the bones of the wrist were called Heberden's bone, Rumpelstiltskin's bone, the General Motors bone etc. it would have been valid, but they ain't.

Shubin was using the word wrongly. That doesn't make Luskin right in his criticism generally, but it does mean that the original article did not indicate the bones in question clearly for a literate layman.

Science crackpots have their uses - I have learned more about leg biology and its homology, as well as the etymology of eponymous, than I would have been prompted to do on my own.

It is interesting to actually see the repeated radiation of bones so clearly.

A question for the biologists here: can I assume that the bones that are missing (by homology) in some cases, but not noted as "missing" or "inferred" are simply devoid of mineralization? AFAIU some amphibians have more or less cartilage instead of bones in these places. And it would be more parsimonous than having bones actually go missing in some descendants, or worse, been recovered in lineages.

Or is it simply a case of "missing, but not drawn"?

Btw, why would one want to put down an arbitrary line between "fish" and "tetrapod", as PZ does?

Devonian times [Which I had read before this post, yay! But didn't get the homologies much, bummer.] puts all of the species in the first diagram down as lobe-fins, but also Tiktaalik and Panderichtys in the second.

Instead it has a rather interesting discussion of how early tetrapods probably were air breathers et cetera, but not necessarily or clearly "terrestrialized". Truly in the spirit of transitional forms. :-P

Doc Bill said: Yes, Casey, no wrist bones except those described by Shubin, and illustrated on Page 38 of the book you cite.

GuyeFaux said: May I suggest isonymous rather than eponymous? Two isonyms have the same form/spelling/meaning but were derived twice from the same root.

i·so·mor·phic adj. 1. Biology Having a similar structure or appearance but being of different ancestry. 2. Related by an isomorphism.

isonymous substitution (genetics) Any deoxyribonucleic acid base-pair substitution within an exon that does not result in change in the amino acid sequence for which it codes. Also known as synonymous substitution.

“Eponym” or “eponymous” may not have been the optimal word for Shubin to use, at least regarding a potential audience of lay readers.

Hey I said isonymous first! Homonymous might do as well.

— Sprocket

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

John Kwok said: Hi all, Luskin studied geology - presumably paleontology too - at Michigan State University. He has no excuse for being an ignoramus. John

Luskin has no excuse, but his actual alma mater was not MSU.

Luskin received his B.S. and M.S. in earth sciences from UCSD, having studied at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. He also is an attorney, having received his law degree from the University of San Diego. (San Diego Union-Tribune)

I've got to agree with Sprocket to some extent here. Luskin is dense for not understanding what Shubin meant, but Shubin didn't use quite the right word there. I'm not sure isonymous is quite right, either, meaning 'from the same name' (implying a different word of the same derivation). It's definitely much closer than eponymous, which really does mean 'named after a person', no matter how you bend it.

sparc said: casey = case lost (again)

Alton Brown used the word "eponymous" on his show Good Eats last night on the Food Network. He was referring to the name of a apice. So I guess Alton has a better vocabulary than Luskin and probably a better grasp of evoloutionary concepts as well.

Now if we all refer to the troll of many names who refuses to use his real name as "mentally hamstrung", would that be eponymous, homonymous, isonymous or ignominius?

Now if we all refer to the troll of many names who refuses to use his real name as “mentally hamstrung”, would that be eponymous, homonymous, isonymous or ignominius?

Fredgiblet said: This is OT but I figured you guys would get a kick out of it. http://controversy.wearscience.com/

Two things: (1) just substitute the words, "so-called", for 'eponymous', and everything works. Shubin uses 'eponymous' before 'wrist bones' because no such thing as a 'wrist bone' exists; instead, there are ulnare and segmentum, etc.; (2) despite what the learned Shubin and Myers say, Tiktaliik seems more similar to the 'lung-fish'---as Luskin points out---than it does to true tetrapods. The defining feature of tetrapods seems to be more the 'digits'---they have a very definite form. The 'Panderichthys' is a "fish", and it happens to have cranial features similar to tetrapods; but, as you can see, there are no 'digits' at all. However, if you compare 'Tiktaliik' to the 'Eustenopteron' in the upper box (which is an ancient lungfish), you'll see the immense similarity. I don't think Luskin's point has been sufficiently countered.

"Luskin isn't tripped up by the science - it's his command of the English language that lets him down".

Actually it seems that it's Shubin's language that let him down. When he says "homologues to eponymous wrist bones", that's sort of redundant. If he would have just said homologues to wrist bones, it would have been clear what he was saying. Eponynyms are understood to be something different from what he was saying. For example: In scripture, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are thought by some scholars to be eponymous personifications, that is, they are names given to Israelite tribal leadership, customs and practices even though the three of them may not have lived as real people.

Attorneys are usually pretty good with language and with two degrees in geology Luskin probably has knowledge of the science.

BlastfromthePast said: Tiktaliik [sic] seems more similar to the 'lung-fish'---as Luskin points out---than it does to true tetrapods. The defining feature of tetrapods seems to be more the 'digits'---they have a very definite form.