Observed change in kinds.

[[serious]]

If so, why would chimps want to use sign language at all?

Same reason def people do.

To communicate across a language gap. Humans can't speak chimp because of differences in the vocal tract, Chimps can't speak human for the same reason. Hence,

 

[juvenissun]

Count all human populations, about 50% of human can raise and use fire.
Use this 50% figure as a criterion.
5 year olds have 0.00001% in its population can light up fire with human assistance.
So, 5 year olds should be classified to the 5 year old kind. Human kind is not a 5 year old kind.

Still fails.

The 50% figure should not be used on the other 50% of human. Otherwise, it is not a criterion any more.

Your argument won't work.

Well, I guess you did point out a problem in using statistics in definition. That is why we do not usually see this kind of definition. OK, this is new to me. Should it be your credit or my credit? (I think it should still be mine. )

 

[[serious]]

Human is not only different. Human is different beyond comprehension.
You are absolutely blind if you do not see the degree of difference.

Please do not argue on this. The more you do, the more disgraceful you are. If you think too much that you are an animal, you WILL become a real animal.

Speak for yourself, I can comprehend the differences.

 

[[serious]]

The 50% figure should not be used on the other 50% of human. Otherwise, it is not a criterion any more.

Your argument won't work.

Well, I guess you did point out a problem in using statistics in definition. That is why we do not usually see this kind of definition. OK, this is new to me. Should it be your credit or my credit? (I think it should still be mine. )

The 50% figure should not be used on the other 50% of hominidae. Otherwise, it is not a criterion any more.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are created on Day 5 and I am created on Day 6. We are in different kind.

I was created 40 years ago. I think your math needs some work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your argument won't work.

The point is that no argument will convince you. No evidence will convince you. No rational appeal to logic and evidence will convince you. Your mind is made up, and there is no changing it.

 

[juvenissun]

The 50% figure should not be used on the other 50% of hominidae. Otherwise, it is not a criterion any more.

However, it would still work if we check the classification in a statistical sense. Since there is a statistical criterion in the definition.

I would think my argument is still valid after all.

 

[[serious]]

However, it would still work if we check the classification in a statistical sense. Since there is a statistical criterion in the definition.

I would think my argument is still valid after all.

Welcome back.

If we are discussing the characteristics of human kind, how are we using statistical measures to define it? Is any group for which 50% use fire human kind? How do we choose which groupings the fire use percentage metric can be applied to? Half of homo sapiens can raise and use fire. Half of hominidae older than 5 can use fire. What makes one valid and the other not?

If one grouping is not valid, then you still haven't defined what a kind is. What makes one grouping a possible kind and the other not?

Come on, we've been giving you pages of opportunity to define it any way you want!

As of now, my original position remains unchallenged:

For any definition of kind, change between kinds is either:
a. possible and has been observed.
-or-
b. unnecessary to explain the diversity of life on earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Welcome back.

If we are discussing the characteristics of human kind, how are we using statistical measures to define it? Is any group for which 50% use fire human kind? How do we choose which groupings the fire use percentage metric can be applied to? Half of homo sapiens can raise and use fire. Half of hominidae older than 5 can use fire. What makes one valid and the other not?

If one grouping is not valid, then you still haven't defined what a kind is. What makes one grouping a possible kind and the other not?

Come on, we've been giving you pages of opportunity to define it any way you want!

As of now, my original position remains unchallenged:

I still need to learn if it is feasible to include statistic conditions in any scheme of classification. But to your original response, I have no problem. It is a choice question and I certainly choose B.

Originally Posted by [serious]
For any definition of kind, change between kinds is either:
a. possible and has been observed.
-or-
b. unnecessary to explain the diversity of life on earth.

 

[Elendur]

I still need to learn if it is feasible to include statistic conditions in any scheme of classification. But to your original response, I have no problem. It is a choice question and I certainly choose B.

Originally Posted by [serious]
For any definition of kind, change between kinds is either:
a. possible and has been observed.
-or-
b. unnecessary to explain the diversity of life on earth.

If you're going to utilize statistics in a definition, you'd still need to define the population which you derive the statistics from.

Example:
If I define smart humans by the following:

Smart humans are those who are in the top 50% of a standardized intelligence test.
​

Then I'll need to provide a definition of what a human is.

It's not possible to define the population to fit the statistics, since it's possible to arbitrarily change the population to fit the bill. In fact, many individuals within the classification will be excluded even though included, which is a contradiction.

Example (close to yours):
Take a group A.
Assume group A have a 50% rate of being able to use fire.
Say that a group is "A-ish" if the group have a 50% rate of being able to use fire, or higher.
Take one person from the original population and assume that he/she cannot use fire.
That group consisting of that person is then, since he/she have a 0% rate, not "A-ish".

Which is a contradiction, since that person is a subset of group A which was assumed to be "A-ish".

 

[[serious]]

I still need to learn if it is feasible to include statistic conditions in any scheme of classification. But to your original response, I have no problem. It is a choice question and I certainly choose B.

Originally Posted by [serious]
For any definition of kind, change between kinds is either:
a. possible and has been observed.
-or-
b. unnecessary to explain the diversity of life on earth.

So do I. A mammal will always be a mammal, a vertebrate will always be a vertebrate, etc. That's the underpinning of cladistics.

I should clarify a bit to highlight the difference.

b. does not require change in kinds for evolution to progress from simple cells to current diversity.

 

[juvenissun]

So do I. A mammal will always be a mammal, a vertebrate will always be a vertebrate, etc. That's the underpinning of cladistics.

I should clarify a bit to highlight the difference.

b. does not require change in kinds for evolution to progress from simple cells to current diversity.

No. For example, I and you are NOT mammals. Because we have a better category to go to. Mammals has A, B, and C. But we have A, B, C, D, and E. So we are NOT mammals. ONLY when you have the idea of common ancestry, then you will recognize that ALL who has A, B, C, are mammals regardless what else they have.

In fact, my idea of statistical criteria would still work. Here is how:

We collect, for example, 100 mammals and try to tell if they are ALL humans. They all fit the criteria of mammal, but still in question that if they are humans. So apply a statistical criterion, for example, using fire, on these 100 individuals. If 50% (an assumed value) of the population fit the criterion, they the group (100 of individuals) can ALL be classified as human.

Of course, there could be some in the group that do not fit. But this is a statistical criterion and should be performed on a group of population. So we simply ignore those odd ones in the classification.

 

[juvenissun]

If you're going to utilize statistics in a definition, you'd still need to define the population which you derive the statistics from.

Example:
If I define smart humans by the following:

Smart humans are those who are in the top 50% of a standardized intelligence test.
​

Then I'll need to provide a definition of what a human is.

It's not possible to define the population to fit the statistics, since it's possible to arbitrarily change the population to fit the bill. In fact, many individuals within the classification will be excluded even though included, which is a contradiction.

Example (close to yours):
Take a group A.
Assume group A have a 50% rate of being able to use fire.
Say that a group is "A-ish" if the group have a 50% rate of being able to use fire, or higher.
Take one person from the original population and assume that he/she cannot use fire.
That group consisting of that person is then, since he/she have a 0% rate, not "A-ish".

Which is a contradiction, since that person is a subset of group A which was assumed to be "A-ish".

I read your reply slightly late. See my last post.

If we pick one from the group (50% can use fire) who can not use fire, then that is an acceptable case. Because the criterion is statistical in nature. So, if a dog, or a child showed up in the group, they are acceptable errors.

 

[RickG]

Here's a list of biological classifications. Would someone please let me know where "kind" fits in.

Life
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

 

[Mainframes]

No. For example, I and you are NOT mammals. Because we have a better category to go to. Mammals has A, B, and C. But we have A, B, C, D, and E. So we are NOT mammals. ONLY when you have the idea of common ancestry, then you will recognize that ALL who has A, B, C, are mammals regardless what else they have.

In fact, my idea of statistical criteria would still work. Here is how:

We collect, for example, 100 mammals and try to tell if they are ALL humans. They all fit the criteria of mammal, but still in question that if they are humans. So apply a statistical criterion, for example, using fire, on these 100 individuals. If 50% (an assumed value) of the population fit the criterion, they the group (100 of individuals) can ALL be classified as human.

Of course, there could be some in the group that do not fit. But this is a statistical criterion and should be performed on a group of population. So we simply ignore those odd ones in the classification.

This is the same as saying a Ferrari is not a car because it has a really good engine and goes fast.

 

[Elendur]

I read your reply slightly late. See my last post.

If we pick one from the group (50% can use fire) who can not use fire, then that is an acceptable case. Because the criterion is statistical in nature. So, if a dog, or a child showed up in the group, they are acceptable errors.

The problem is that you then allow for no way to identify those errors. The definitions are the most basic tool we have, if we allow for exceptions we will destroy the very purpose of a definition.

No. For example, I and you are NOT mammals. Because we have a better category to go to. Mammals has A, B, and C. But we have A, B, C, D, and E. So we are NOT mammals. ONLY when you have the idea of common ancestry, then you will recognize that ALL who has A, B, C, are mammals regardless what else they have.

Definitions are not exclusive. If a mammal is defined by having characteristics A, B and C then something which has the characteristics A, B, C, D and whatever else is a mammal.

In fact, my idea of statistical criteria would still work. Here is how:

We collect, for example, 100 mammals and try to tell if they are ALL humans. They all fit the criteria of mammal, but still in question that if they are humans. So apply a statistical criterion, for example, using fire, on these 100 individuals. If 50% (an assumed value) of the population fit the criterion, they the group (100 of individuals) can ALL be classified as human.

Of course, there could be some in the group that do not fit. But this is a statistical criterion and should be performed on a group of population. So we simply ignore those odd ones in the classification.

Since you have an arbitrary size of the group you can arbitrarily choose individuals to both fall within the definition and not. Which is a contradiction. That doesn't work.
If you want to utilize statistics to produce a definition, you'll need to define the group from which you derive the statistics. You can't get around that.

 

[[serious]]

No. For example, I and you are NOT mammals. Because we have a better category to go to. Mammals has A, B, and C. But we have A, B, C, D, and E. So we are NOT mammals. ONLY when you have the idea of common ancestry, then you will recognize that ALL who has A, B, C, are mammals regardless what else they have.

In fact, my idea of statistical criteria would still work. Here is how:

We collect, for example, 100 mammals and try to tell if they are ALL humans. They all fit the criteria of mammal, but still in question that if they are humans. So apply a statistical criterion, for example, using fire, on these 100 individuals. If 50% (an assumed value) of the population fit the criterion, they the group (100 of individuals) can ALL be classified as human.

Of course, there could be some in the group that do not fit. But this is a statistical criterion and should be performed on a group of population. So we simply ignore those odd ones in the classification.

Giraffes are not mammals. Mammals have A, B, and C. Giraffes have A, B, and C and a long neck.

Ford doesn't make cars. Cars have 4 wheels and an engine, Fords have 4 wheels, an engine and a ford logo.

Are mammals vertebrates? Why or why not?

Ultimately, such a system breaks down to species level or smaller since every species has distinguishing characteristics. Since we've seen speciation, we've seen change in kinds under this system.

 

[juvenissun]

Giraffes are not mammals. Mammals have A, B, and C. Giraffes have A, B, and C and a long neck.

Ford doesn't make cars. Cars have 4 wheels and an engine, Fords have 4 wheels, an engine and a ford logo.

Are mammals vertebrates? Why or why not?

Ultimately, such a system breaks down to species level or smaller since every species has distinguishing characteristics. Since we've seen speciation, we've seen change in kinds under this system.

You are going back to the old argument. I have no problem to let giraffe, dog, cow, etc. to be put in mammal kind (for now). But human should not be one of them. The difference is significant enough to set up a new kind for human.

If the Ford logo is so significant (e.g. has a nuclear engine), then Ford cars are entitled to be put into a different kind, may be: Imperial Platform. If so, then Ford cars are no longer in the car kind.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's a list of biological classifications. Would someone please let me know where "kind" fits in.

Life
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

None. It is an entirely different classification with a set of entirely different criteria.

 

[juvenissun]

This is the same as saying a Ferrari is not a car because it has a really good engine and goes fast.

Not good enough to worth that.