Digg and Reddit send new flock of creationists here: have fun!

Let's do it!

Justice a la Hacksaw Jim Duggan. Beautiful. Count me in.

Okay, John. That's one.

Oh, and if they post the same thing 3 times, that's the server acting up, and it only counts as one, OK?

Your server's been acting up for the last 40 years?!?

And they repeat the same tired things a heck of a lot more than three times, too...

Okay, John. That's one.

Hey, is this like the new Christian website Ive herd about?!?!? Pharynlugas some king from Exodus right?!?!?

I herd you wrote about that guy who like disproved evilution with stalactights. That's so cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL Jesus is king!!! Creed 4eva.

I just want to get right to the 2x4.

More recent news: http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

I hope they stick around for the Creation Museum Carnival this weekend!

Moses, even I no that 2X4=8. Home scool rox!?! JEsus is king.

Christian Burnham,

That first comment (#6) has my entire office wondering why I am cackling like a rabid hyena. Thanks!

:)

While we are discussing broken things, I note that the zebra fish may be as exceptional an evo-devo creature as I believe PZ claim Drosophila is. It may be that zebra fish Hox expression isn't representative for all fish.

Maybe PZ has already posted divined these things or they are wrong, but just in case, here it is. It is a study on fin expression in fish:

"Dr Davis said: "In tetrapods, these studies showed that there were these two separate phases of Hox genes that turn on within the developing appendage. Early in the development there is the first phase, and then there is a second very characteristic phase which plays a role in where fingers and toes form.

"But if you look at a zebrafish during development, it has the first phase, but it doesn't have this second hallmark phase.

"Based on this, the hypothesis was that the second phase of Hox expression must be a developmental and evolutionary novelty that correlated with the origin of hands and feet."

However, Dr Davis and his colleagues decided to repeat the studies - but this time using paddlefish, which have a fin pattern similar to primitive fish.

He said: "We found a very clear second phase in their fins - and this tells us that the second key phase of Hox-expression is in fact a much more ancient pattern of development.

"It seems that some fish have always had this genetic toolkit to modify their fins - it just seems like tetrapods have modified it in this unique and elaborate way."

Dr Davis said the study was also interesting because it revealed that zebrafish were the "weirdos of the bunch".

He said: "They have done something very unique - they appear to have lost the second phase of Hox expression altogether."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6683261.stm

Creed 4eva.

Surely, this counts as all three, and then some.

Drats, beaten to the evo-devo punch. At least I can give an additional URL.

Nuh-Uh!!@ MAJEFF! I, liek, herd that creed was liek, satinist rokkers, but thn my yout pasteur sed they had Jesus Lord in thier harts, so idno.

I would not deny that Danio is almost as weird and exceptional as Drosophila. Any vertebrate that can go from a single-celled zygote to a functional, behaving, sensing, feeding, moving larva in two days is freakily specialized.

It's still very nifty, of course. Just not representative.

Jesus Christ! Why can't just one of those damn kids work on a Christian HVAC unit that cools to absolute zero? Sure could use one about now...

Oh, and if they post the same thing 3 times, that's the server acting up, and it only counts as one, OK?

Closing loopholes ruins the little man! :'(

One really can't blame these kids for being ignorant, because it's their parents and scientifically illiterate "teachers" that made them ignorant.

Eventually, these kids will grow up and leave home. Some of them will break the shackles of ignorance and become educated.

When that happens, they'll learn that their parents and teachers were lying to them about the nature and findings of real science.

Most of them won't, waldteufel. Most of them won't.

Unfortunately for society and for themselves, you are probably correct, stogoe.

(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

Hi Melanie. You're not a very convincing creationist. Where are the Bible verses?

Apart from a fallacious argument from popularity, do you have a point Melanie? We're familiar with that statistic, but you've omitted the interesting correlations with educational and political background.

Cheers,

B. Dewhirst

In regard to what Melanie posted, I COULD be polemic and point out that this tells you something about Americans, rather than about Evolution. But that would be grossly unfair... while U.S. Americans are most definitely affected by a certain amount of ignorance, every nation is to some degree or other.

Religion is a very potent instrument, it is fantastically suitable to control people. Make people truly believe in something and they are capable of doing anything in the name of the "greater good". After all, nobody thinks they are the evil-doers, unless there is doubt. Yet, religion eliminates doubt... and that is, where we get to the problem. People who have no doubts, people who unwaveringly believe they are doing the right thing without questioning their actions, lead to a culture which burns books, deports people or encourages strapping explosives to your body and blowing yourself up.

So, instead of believing, people should start thinking, questioning... applying the scientific method. Overcome the herd drive... and do not trust statistics that you have not falsified yourself.

Gute Nacht,

TheJerrylander

Welcome Contemporary Sky-God Worshipers!

Err, I mean, let's have an open and meaningful discussion about your delusional beliefs... oh, never mind.

Melanie's just stated the results of a survey, there wasn't anything to argue with there (unless you think the survey results are invalid.)

So, what're you saying, Melanie?

The self delusion will set you free! ;)

So, would attempts to convert octopi to Christianity be considered appropriate here? You could make up little waterproof Bibles, and I'm sure an octopus could fit one of those clerical collars over some body part or other...

The jerrylander,

Vas ist dis? "U.S. Americans"

Is this some kinda new Americans that we satan worshiping athiest are(sarcasm)? I am feeling pretty jaded and all. Cause the bible thumpers on the packerreport cybercafe( look under jerry falwell is dead thread) regard me as such( satan worshiping atheist). I was just wondering.

Long live king Pharynluga!!!! He slayed the Midnights for our lord! And then he ordered the Midnight virgins to appear on Girls Gone Wild!!
ps
Creed does rule!

You figgin' heathens. I'll have you know that Batman told me that Santa, and the tooth fairy were going to crash Balthasar, Gaspar, and Melchior's annual "Birth of the Saviour" party. The "reyes magos" give the most awesome-est presents, so I'm gonna crash that party with the help of my pet unicorn. I know the Three Wise Men are real because I left grass to feed their camels at night and the grass was gone in the morning! Those hungry camels even ate all the grass my neighbors left them too.

Jesus loves you. Jesus died for you on a cross so that you might have life. God has known you from the moment of conception and has been waiting for you to come to Him. And love is a thing that can never go wrong, and I am Marie of Roumania.

That would be the Christian god, right? Cthulhu has known you since when you had a tail in the womb :)

Jesus loves me? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA sure... he's the lovey-dovey type.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.--John 15:6
With that kind of love, I think I'll pass...

Sparrow craps on W (video).

http://tinyurl.com/3ahhe5

Firemancarl: What U.S. Americans are? Well, in case one should come upon some American who does not hold U:S. citizenship, as in Canadian, Mexican, Colombian, you name it, they tend to take offense when some European pale-face like myself says America and means the US (as I frequently do) -> thus the disambiguation. And, as far as the newness of the concept goes, it shoulda been around for some time now, when you all stopped being loyal subjects of the English crown ;)

Anyway, as the survey that Melanie posted shows, there apparently is almost no reason whatsoever to associate U.S. Americans (or, if you would rather call them Usamericans or inhabitants of the USA, or simply Americans) with atheism... present company excluded. Unfortunately, the association I have is that most US Americans adhere to superstitious beliefs in some big bearded guy living in the skies. And, for all the love I have for the USA and its people (and I truly do), it is just an aspect I find indeed highly disturbing...

I guess, due to the environment I am living in, I take secularism for granted. Thus, culture wars sometimes baffle me, especially in their fierceness. But then religion baffles me as well, particularly since those right-wing fundies always evoke memories of the Living Dead :)

Oh, and if they post the same thing 3 times, that's the server acting up, and it only counts as one, OK?

Myers the Merciful? That'll confuse the hell out of them -- I mean, into them. They won't expect it from the demon the folks at DI and Telic Thoughts have claimed you are, P.Z.

TheJerrylander, how often do Mexicans or Canadians describe themselves as "Americans"? North Americans, perhaps.

After two, can we whack them with a 1x3?

kmarissa: The problem is rather the other way around ;)
I tend to use the term America or American to refer solely to the US, which then causes some friend of mine, e.g. Carlos from Colombia, to say that he is American as well, but is not from the US.... so, I just wanted to avoid that... and see what I have gotten myself into :p

See, the problem is that I can't ever tell when they're actual Creationists or when it's satire. They lines just blur too much.

The Jerrylander, I get your point, I just suspect that in actual use, not only most USians but most Mexicans and Canadians too (and South Americans) would understand the term "American", without "North" or "South" in front of it, to refer to someone from the US.

kmarissa, yes, they certainly do... and I also think my buddies are just messing with me a bit ;) In fact, come to think of it, most of my Canadian buddies insist that they are Canadian and not American ;) To say it in the words of Sam Beckett (the time traveller, not the author): Oh, boy...

Anyway, it is getting late and I am getting incoherent ;)

Actually, in Spanish one would say "norteamericano" to refer to someone from the United States (Estados Unidos).

Thejerry

You said "U.S. Americans (or, if you would rather call them Usamericans or inhabitants of the USA, or simply Americans)"

I think I can help you there. You can just refer to us Yanks as "All y'all". That should help when speaking about(to)Americans,especially those who follow Dubbya ;)

With apologies to Christian Burnham post#6....

On a side note, think we can get an King Pharynluga t-shirt pritned up along with some made up farce of a bible verse?

While we are discussing broken things, I note that the zebra fish may be as exceptional an evo-devo creature as I believe PZ claim Drosophila is. It may be that zebra fish Hox expression isn't representative for all fish.

Ah, but that's because the term "fish" is disinformation.

Zebrafish Hox expression may well be representative for Teleostei, the clade with some 25,000 species that most "fish" belong to -- herrings, eels, anglerfish, just about everything, but not the sturgeons and paddlefish, for example, which belong to Actinopterygii, like Teleostei does, but not to Teleostei. The sister-group of Actinopterygii is Sarcopterygii, and that includes the coelacanths, the lungfish, and us.

"Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution."
-- Theodosius Dobzhansky

"Nothing makes sense in evolution without a good phylogeny."
-- Gina C. Gould et al. (2004)

History repeating itself!

King Pharynluga

Sumerian: lugal = "king".

Has anyone tried to use this paper to prove intelligent design yet? Maybe they think there is an Intelligent Composer.
(http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/5/405/abstract - sorry, don't know how to do links properly)

The most self centred use of the word American occurs in the English speakers in the two northern most countries in North America, who exclude Mexicans and ignorantly lump them in with their spanish speaking Central and South American neighbours.

Just think how much less confusing it would have been if Columbus had gotten the honour, not. We would all be Columbians and I would be living in British Columbia, North Columbia.

It's true that Canadians do not recognise 'American' as applying to us. One of our self criticisms is that we define ourselves more as being not-American than as Canadian.

Canadian nationalism is a funny thing, if it can truly be said to exist at all.

And for my second post, I for one would like to welcome our Creationist Overlords to the blog.

How would you like to be served?

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

The Jerrylander, I get your point, I just suspect that in actual use, not only most USians but most Mexicans and Canadians too (and South Americans) would understand the term "American", without "North" or "South" in front of it, to refer to someone from the US.

Actually no. "North American" would be understood by most of us as "USaian" (or whatever term you want). Mexico isn't really considered to be North American, and nobody cares about Canada (I'm sorry, but it's true).

When an English text is translated into Portuguese, "American" can be translated as "americano" or "norte-americano", but "America" in the sense used in the North is almost always rendered as "Estados Unidos" or abbreviated to "EUA".

Jesus loves you.[...]

Tell him that sorry, but I'm not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And for my second post, I for one would like to welcome our Creationist Overlords to the blog.

How would you like to be served?

I like mine over easy with the yolk slightly runny.

I received a very politically sensitive education in Spanish, mostly from S. American and Spanish (as in Spain) instructors. They insisted on having us use the term "estadounidenses" instead of Americanos or even norteamericanos.

I am Marie of Roumania.

Didn't you die in 1961?

and I am Marie of Roumania.

Goddamnit! I'm already engaged to the Spanish Infanta!
.

Speaking of sites like digg and reddit, I could use some help stamping out stupidity at clipmarks.com.
http://clipmarks.com/clipper/willhelm/
http://clipmarks.com/clipper/n2sooners/
http://clipmarks.com/clipper/joaaron2468/

Well, here in the third world we have a name for the citizens of the United States of America. In fact many.

Considering your current government, that name is crazy. CF GW Bush & Kent Hovind.

Disappointing. I was hoping for more fresh meat. I haven't seen a good creationist on this site in weeks.

Stanton: Are you familiar with Damon Knight's short story To Serve Man?

Christian Burnham: If you wouldn't insist on serving them very well done, you might entice more of them to comment.

One thing for sure, there's no such thing as a 'good scientific creationist', here or anywhere else. Lying for Jesus nails most of them.

JC: Lying for Jesus nails most of them

Actually, standing in for Jesus would get more of them nailed.

Life on Earth is too unlessenably complicated to be natural in origin. How did plants know the sun was there so they could point their leaves towards it? Plants do not heve eyes to see with, so why do they make themselves pretty to look at? Even at the level of the bacteria, single cells are so unlessenably complicated that they need powerful microscopes to see - how could evolution make creatures that are so small, we need ultra-high technology to see them? It can't have evolved it couldn't be seen.

http://intelligentdesignr.org.uk

Plants do not heve eyes to see with, so why do they make themselves pretty to look at?

A subjective evaluation of aesthetics as evidence for design. I have to admit, I've never heard that one before, and wasn't expecting it. There's only one possible explanation for this:

The author of post 64 is Kirk Cameron.

unlessenably complicated

Bah. 'Tis satire. It's sad that I can't tell the difference anymore.

I like the acrostic at http://intelligentdesignr.org.uk

Re: "[US-]American": it is very common in Germany (where I suspect JerryLander is from) to specify the tie to the US in this way. People often do say simply "Amerikaner" for a Yank, but will tend to use the more specific form when, for example, talking about "the American government" or "American history" or "an American university" or what have you. (BTW, you'll also very frequently see "aus dem US-amerikanischen" -- rather than englischen -- for translations of books by U.S. authors.)

Latin Americans (and, to some extent, Spaniards) are even bigger sticklers about this. In Spanish, americano simply doesn't have the default meaning of "U.S." I recall having coffee with a Brazilian woman in Barcelona many years ago. The barista asked her, "Are you American?" She answered, "Yes, from Rio."

Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form...

Well, so much depends on how poll questions are phrased. I'm guessing the results would have been somewhat different if the question had been "Are you credulous enough to ignore modern science in favor of fables written thousands of years ago by a bunch of nomads who knew very little about how the universe works?"

That might have brought the percentage down to, I dunno... 48%?

Mexico isn't really considered to be North American, and nobody cares about Canada (I'm sorry, but it's true).

All the land from the Rio Grande to the end of Panama is North America, however. There is no continent of Central America. The term "Central America" seems to be used as a weapon by the US to marginalize the Spanish-speaking part of the continent.

As for nobody caring about Canada, don't be sorry! It's absolutely true, and as a Canadian, I'm damn proud not to suffer the slight regard, the harassment, the disrespect, and the low opinion that people have of "Americans" around the world. That is also the truth.

What is the correct collective noun for a group of creationists? "Flock" seems lame for the wingless (whatever their aspirations) and "Wunch" has already been taken for bankers so it can't be that.

A quiver of creationists a la Cold Comfort Farm's Quivering Brethren perhaps?

I prefer the term "clump of creationists."
This particular batch is especially moronic, if you ask me.

Are they a clump or a batch, then?

If any young-earth creationists or intelligent design are reading this, I used to be one, then I read books by actual mainstream scientists and I was cured! Read more about it and the evidence that persuaded me on my blog at http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/ I also have a site connected with my religion and science course that I teach at http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/science/ I hope you find it educational!

A "buttpropellor" of creationists?
A "mousetrap" of creationists?
A "load of horseshit" of creationists?

And for my second post, I for one would like to welcome our Creationist Overlords to the blog.

How would you like to be served?

On the third offence with good backswing, a nice wristy action and a stylish follow-though.

A Hamhock of creationists?

A Dembster of designers?

From Intelligent Designr

We have published many scientific papers in respected scientician journals such as "Creation Weekly", "Bible Study" and "The intelligent designr Magazine" . All of these papers have been rigourously peer-reviewed by biblical scholars and other Jesusians, as well as ourselves, and all are in agreement as to their scientific proof.

Clasic :D I'm going to have to remember the term Jesusians.

A Delusion of Creationists.

Okay, Melanie (#22) does seem to be a fer-real creationist, but she didn't have much to say--and really nothing to argue about (as chuko noted at #27, followed by silence from Melanie).

"intelligent designr" (#64) looked promising, but upon further review (check the link), (s)he's a blatant parody.

So are there currently any actual cdesign proponentsists here at all?

Hello?

Echo....

A Gallop of Creationists (Nod to 'ol Gish)

A Planetoid of Pharyngulinguists

A clown of creationests.

Creation Science Museum cognitorex
Creation Science Get a Home With Unique Theosophy for Killing our own Species
(( from/with Blognonymous.com))

With majority approval certain states kill criminal offenders every year.
Our military at present is in the business of killing people most days.
If humans are held to be a scientifically evolved animal, then the rule not to kill would not be solely a God and Bible based edict. (He made us and He made the Rule; animals would not create the 'Do not kill' fiat on their own you see.)
So you make a museum that shows that dinosaurs (scientifically known to predate humans by millions of years) and humans were created co-terminously by the spiritual force that you base your entire existence on.
So. And ergo too. If carbon dating is valid God does not therefor exist.
Hence the moral edict to not kill is man made, (with exceptions for electrocutions, protecting oil supplies and blowing up abortion clinics) and has no valid authority.
Wait. This makes no sense.
You can ignorantly but morally kill people if the dinosaurs came first......but not if God made us and the dinosaurs at the same time ......but..with exceptions....you can kill some of the people .....some of the time....or...I am confused.

A befuddlement of creationists?

"Jesus Christ! Why can't just one of those damn kids work on a Christian HVAC unit that cools to absolute zero? Sure could use one about now...

Posted by: Jerry Falwell | May 24, 2007 04:28 PM "

Unwanted physics interlude: that's technically impossible.

A creche of creationists, of course.
A Goldberg of ID[iots].

A clusterfuck of creationists, no doubt.

I like this tangent!

A crapload of creationists?

A shitload of creationists?

A cretin of creationists!

HImm I like this game.

A mess of creationists
A coterie of creationists
A poke of creationists

i think I still like Steve_C's

"clump of creationists."

although mass creationist infestations like this could be a

a swarm of creationists

"What is the correct collective noun for a group of creationists?"

Lots of good answers to this above. But I think its obvious:
I found myself surround by a clod of creationists!

Clod... LOL.. I was just thinking exactly the same thing, but decided I prefered to suggest "a hod of creationists!"

LOL @ "buttpropellor" and "Goldberg"

I don't think Melanie is a creationist. I think she was pointing out the alarming statistics.

My vote's on "Delusion of Creationists."

Truth tRuth trUth truTh trutH

By convolving "load of horsesh*t" with the story of Eden:

"an APPLE of creationists".

That's Melanie from A Bump in the Beltway (beltwaybump.com); I doubt very much that she's a creationist, though I believe she is a Christian.

Might I suggest

"A Hovind of Creationists"?

1 Hovind = 100 Behe

1 Behe = 100 Dembski

I quite like #74.

Here are my suggestions:

An ark of creationists.

A flagella of IDers.

Also, from #97, we get 1 Hovind = 10 millidembskis. Any suggestions for who might equal a microdembski?

A Cordova?

A klatch of cacophonous creationists.

The proper collective noun for creationists is:

A clade of creationists.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aclade

RE: No 98 - the only problem with an ark of creationists is that, alas, they did not come in two by two.

Or would they come 7 x 7? (Do creationists count as clean or unclean?)

Hey, if no one says "Dominion of Canadians" or "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuelans" or "Federative Republic of Brazilians," don't expect us to say "United States of Americans." Like the others, we just use our last name.

-- CV

Life on Earth is too unlessenably complicated to be natural in origin.

if you wish to be an IDiot, feel free to use the term "irreducibly complex".

I think it was designed (by Behe?) for just the usage you seek, and it's not even trademarked.

which gives me an idea...

Bah. 'Tis satire. It's sad that I can't tell the difference anymore.

ditto.

Delusion of Creationists gets my vote too. Now, if only I could pinch myself and make them all disappear.

"Jesus Christ! Why can't just one of those damn kids work on a Christian HVAC unit that cools to absolute zero? Sure could use one about now...

Posted by: Jerry Falwell | May 24, 2007 04:28 PM "

Unwanted physics interlude: that's technically impossible.

DAMN!!!!

Some suggestions in honor of Genesis:

"a Void of Creationists"

"a Rib of Creationists"

"a Serpent of Creationists"

"a Fig Leaf of Creationists"

If creationists are delusional, then why did God create Thorazine? Huh? Huh? Huh?!

HAH! CREATION WINS!

'Americans' usually means citizens of the country south of mine, to most people. North Americans means Canada and the US to most people. Mexico should be included but rarely is. It seems to stand alone, Americawise. Then there's Central America. South America.

Of course there's the United States of Brazil so maybe when South Americans refer to the United States, that's what they mean.

Sigh...

Personally, I tend to avoid referring to people from the USA as "Americans". I have friends from Colombia and Argentina, although I have not (yet) asked them about their feelings on the term. Meanwhile, you will notice that I referred to the "USA" and not the "US"; there is also a "United States of Mexico", and I have heard of people asking for correction on that one.

As for the collective word for creationists, there have been many good offerings, and I will have to think for a while before I can choose a favourite. But "buttpropellor" is a pretty good word, any way one looks at it.

Since no-one has offered this as a collective noun:

"A confusion of creationists".

Because that's what strikes me most about creationist and religious arguments; not just the delusion, but the sheer confusion. There is an absence of sense in the way they confuse basic ideas, such as what evidence is, and what follows logically from that evidence.

On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. — Charles Babbage

While we are discussing broken things, I note that the zebra fish may be as exceptional an evo-devo creature as I believe PZ claim Drosophila is. It may be that zebra fish Hox expression isn't representative for all fish.

Maybe PZ has already posted divined these things or they are wrong, but just in case, here it is. It is a study on fin expression in fish:

"Dr Davis said: "In tetrapods, these studies showed that there were these two separate phases of Hox genes that turn on within the developing appendage. Early in the development there is the first phase, and then there is a second very characteristic phase which plays a role in where fingers and toes form.

"But if you look at a zebrafish during development, it has the first phase, but it doesn't have this second hallmark phase.

"Based on this, the hypothesis was that the second phase of Hox expression must be a developmental and evolutionary novelty that correlated with the origin of hands and feet."

However, Dr Davis and his colleagues decided to repeat the studies - but this time using paddlefish, which have a fin pattern similar to primitive fish.

He said: "We found a very clear second phase in their fins - and this tells us that the second key phase of Hox-expression is in fact a much more ancient pattern of development.

"It seems that some fish have always had this genetic toolkit to modify their fins - it just seems like tetrapods have modified it in this unique and elaborate way."

Dr Davis said the study was also interesting because it revealed that zebrafish were the "weirdos of the bunch".

He said: "They have done something very unique - they appear to have lost the second phase of Hox expression altogether."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6683261.stm

While we are discussing broken things, I note that the zebra fish may be as exceptional an evo-devo creature as I believe PZ claim Drosophila is. It may be that zebra fish Hox expression isn't representative for all fish.

Ah, but that's because the term "fish" is disinformation.

Zebrafish Hox expression may well be representative for Teleostei, the clade with some 25,000 species that most "fish" belong to -- herrings, eels, anglerfish, just about everything, but not the sturgeons and paddlefish, for example, which belong to Actinopterygii, like Teleostei does, but not to Teleostei. The sister-group of Actinopterygii is Sarcopterygii, and that includes the coelacanths, the lungfish, and us.

"Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution."
-- Theodosius Dobzhansky

"Nothing makes sense in evolution without a good phylogeny."
-- Gina C. Gould et al. (2004)

History repeating itself!

King Pharynluga

Sumerian: lugal = "king".