Observed change in kinds.

[juvenissun]

Cheatgrass uses fire, too. I guess they are in the human kind.

Actually, this is an example to show the purpose of the new system.

We WANT to classify human to be the only kind in the human kind, then we can add all kinds of screens, positive and negative, to make sure it will happen. It won't be hard at all.

 

[[serious]]

The new system can simply ignore that. Even the change is true (still a problem), it is rare enough and can be ignored.

Ignoring facts that don't give the desired results is a stated part of your model? Wow.lets just reflect on that for a minute.

 

[juvenissun]

Ignoring facts that don't give the desired results is a stated part of your model? Wow.lets just reflect on that for a minute.

This is a very common feature in ANY classification system. There are things fall on the boundary between two categories. We have to either put them on one category which they do not really fit, or we ignore them and treat them as exceptions. As long as they do not interfere the purpose of the classification, it is perfect acceptable.

 

[[serious]]

This is a very common feature in ANY classification system. There are things fall on the boundary between two categories. We have to either put them on one category which they do not really fit, or we ignore them and treat them as exceptions. As long as they do not interfere the purpose of the classification, it is perfect acceptable.

I'll go ahead and say that if any non vertebrate had a mammalian milk system, or any other unambiguous clear violation of the nested hierarchy, my model fails. It looks like just your system that ignores it's own failures.

 

[juvenissun]

I'll go ahead and say that if any non vertebrate had a mammalian milk system, or any other unambiguous clear violation of the nested hierarchy, my model fails. It looks like just your system that ignores it's own failures.

I would certainly recognize this useful criterion.

So, let's say:

Anything that milk, is a kind (name?)
Anything does not milk is another kind.

Good criterion.

The only thing is: one kind does not change into the other kind. The idea of changing is forbidden in the kind-system. I don't think such a system is any less useful than yours. You are just trying to squeeze a useless ideology into it.

 

[[serious]]

I would certainly recognize this useful criterion.

So, let's say:

Anything that milk, is a kind (name?)
Anything does not milk is another kind.

Good criterion.

The only thing is: one kind does not change into the other kind. The idea of changing is forbidden in the kind-system. I don't think such a system is any less useful than yours. You are just trying to squeeze a useless ideology into it.

If using "kind" as a substitute for clade, a mammal would be chiefly described as any milk producing species and would be included in, and have all other common traits of vertebrates, metazoa, eukaryotes, etc. Non mammal is not a clade as it would be paraphyletic.

Edit: and under This system, no kind needs to turn into another kind. The mammal kind is still all other kinds it originated from.

 

[juvenissun]

If using "kind" as a substitute for clade, a mammal would be chiefly described as any milk producing species and would be included in, and have all other common traits of vertebrates, metazoa, eukaryotes, etc. Non mammal is not a clade as it would be paraphyletic.

Edit: and under This system, no kind needs to turn into another kind. The mammal kind is still all other kinds it originated from.

The cladistics is not a bad system. All the criteria used in cladistics are mostly valid. The only problem is the way the system is presented (the tree diagram), which easily give a false impression of the idea of common ancestry. This idea totally came out of blue and does not belong to the system according to its method of organization. In fact, I believe that it is this classification system which gave people the idea of evolution, instead of the other way around. A creationist does can use this system without accepting the idea of evolution. Nothing will be lost if the ideology is taken off.

A kind can be subdivided into B, C, D kinds.
This absolutely does not imply A is the common ancestor of B, C, and D.

 

[[serious]]

The cladistics is not a bad system. All the criteria used in cladistics are mostly valid. The only problem is the way the system is presented (the tree diagram), which easily give a false impression of the idea of common ancestry. This idea totally came out of blue and does not belong to the system according to its method of organization. In fact, I believe that it is this classification system which gave people the idea of evolution, instead of the other way around. A creationist does can use this system without accepting the idea of evolution. Nothing will be lost if the ideology is taken off.

A kind can be subdivided into B, C, D kinds.
This absolutely does not imply A is the common ancestor of B, C, and D.

Actually, it does imply that. If you can come up with a better explanation for the nested hierarchy, please present it.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, it does imply that. If you can come up with a better explanation for the nested hierarchy, please present it.

No it does not. It is an interpretation. I can choose not to interpret that way.

For example, human would partially fit the criteria for mammal. So I set up a subkind under mammal as human kind. But the criteria for human kind is more than that for mammal. So you can not say human IS a mammal. Human is not a mammal. It is more than a mammal. Only human includes the features described by the mammal kind.

This illustrates the idea of common ancestry is a mis-concept induced by the scheme of classification. In other words, it is an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

We WANT to classify human to be the only kind in the human kind, . . .

Then you aren't doing science. In science, you do not start with the conclusion.

What you are pushing is a dogma, the exact opposite of science.

 

[Loudmouth]

No it does not. It is an interpretation. I can choose not to interpret that way.

You would also be wrong.

Sorry, but Post-Modernism is not going to fly. An interpretation made up on the spot and contradicted by all of the evidence is not on equal footing with an explanation backed by 150 years of biological science.

For example, human would partially fit the criteria for mammal. So I set up a subkind under mammal as human kind. But the criteria for human kind is more than that for mammal. So you can not say human IS a mammal. Human is not a mammal. It is more than a mammal. Only human includes the features described by the mammal kind.

It would seem to me that every species of mammal could be described in such a manner since there is no single species of mammal that has all of the features found in all other mammals. All mammalian species have features that are specific to that species.

This illustrates the idea of common ancestry is a mis-concept induced by the scheme of classification. In other words, it is an illusion.

Prove it.

 

[[serious]]

No it does not. It is an interpretation. I can choose not to interpret that way.

For example, human would partially fit the criteria for mammal. So I set up a subkind under mammal as human kind. But the criteria for human kind is more than that for mammal. So you can not say human IS a mammal. Human is not a mammal. It is more than a mammal. Only human includes the features described by the mammal kind.

This illustrates the idea of common ancestry is a mis-concept induced by the scheme of classification. In other words, it is an illusion.

You might try and come up with an alternate definition of mammal, but under the common definition we are most definitely mammals.

 

[juvenissun]

You might try and come up with an alternate definition of mammal, but under the common definition we are most definitely mammals.

This is exactly the trap I tried to point out.

You "read" the tree diagram and naturally agree that we ARE mammals. But you should NOT read it that way. It is a mis-representation.

This is the reason that there is a need to have a new system built from the root.

Mammals are animals that have milk.
Human has milk, but human is not an animal.
So, human is not a mammal.

See what's hidden in the Cladistics

 

[[serious]]

This is exactly the trap I tried to point out.

You "read" the tree diagram and naturally agree that we ARE mammals. But you should NOT read it that way. It is a mis-representation.

This is the reason that there is a need to have a new system built from the root.

Mammals are animals that have milk.
Human has milk, but human is not an animal.
So, human is not a mammal.

See what's hidden in the Cladistics

If you object to the term animal, why did you inject it into the definition?
Mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes distinguished from the reptiles and the birds by the possession of hair, three middle ear bones, mammary glands in females, and a neocortex (a region of the brain). (Wikipedia)
So, hair? Check.
3 middle ear bones? Check.
Mammary glands? Check.
neocortex? Check.
Hence, mammal.
Now, interestingly, every mammal also fits into the group Gnathostomata (having jaws) which all fit into the group Craniata (having skulls) which all fit into vertebrates, metazoa, eukaryotes, etc.

Why are all groups of features in a nested hierarchy like that? You don't have to inject terms you dislike into it. The physical features are enough.

 

[juvenissun]

If you object to the term animal, why did you inject it into the definition?
Mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes distinguished from the reptiles and the birds by the possession of hair, three middle ear bones, mammary glands in females, and a neocortex (a region of the brain). (Wikipedia)
So, hair? Check.
3 middle ear bones? Check.
Mammary glands? Check.
neocortex? Check.
Hence, mammal.
Now, interestingly, every mammal also fits into the group Gnathostomata (having jaws) which all fit into the group Craniata (having skulls) which all fit into vertebrates, metazoa, eukaryotes, etc.

Why are all groups of features in a nested hierarchy like that? You don't have to inject terms you dislike into it. The physical features are enough.

One problem is that it overlooked all behavioral criteria. Cow sounds mooo... and sheep sounds meee... and human can raise fire. Who said these criteria are not important? In fact, they are much more important than everyone on your list.

 

[[serious]]

One problem is that it overlooked all behavioral criteria. Cow sounds mooo... and sheep sounds meee... and human can raise fire. Who said these criteria are not important? In fact, they are much more important than everyone on your list.

You are ignoring contradictory data on behavior. If a bonobo builds and lights a fire and a guy in Queens has am electric stove, we ignore that. I'm saying the underlying defining characteristic of a group doesn't get ignored if it's actually the underlying meaning of the term.

 

[USincognito]

Mammals are animals that have milk.
Human has milk, but human is not an animal.
So, human is not a mammal.

Your syllogism is fallacious.

Δ is that with characteristic Ψ.
Φ has characteristic Ψ, but cannot be Δ because I said so.
Therefore Φ is not Δ.

It's not a logical deduction.

 

[USincognito]

One problem is that it overlooked all behavioral criteria.

Behavior is not a criteria. Giant Pandas have a diet composed exclusively of bamboo, but that doesn't make them any less a Carnivora.

 

[Mainframes]

One problem is that it overlooked all behavioral criteria. Cow sounds mooo... and sheep sounds meee... and human can raise fire. Who said these criteria are not important? In fact, they are much more important than everyone on your list.

To paraphrase, three different cars and one car, say a ford, has a heated windscreen so therefore isn't a car.

Obviously, clearly nonsense as is your argument.

 

[juvenissun]

To paraphrase, three different cars and one car, say a ford, has a heated windscreen so therefore isn't a car.

Obviously, clearly nonsense as is your argument.

Why is windscreen so important?