Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[justlookinla]

I have no reason to feel uncomfortable. I have actually provided support for my position. I just meant that if I were in the position you were in, i.e. being unable to mount a counterargument pertinent to the actual point being made, I would not be content to evade it as you have done be refusing to address it.

The counterargument is what the counterargument has always been. The subjective viewpoints.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The counterargument is what the counterargument has always been. The subjective viewpoints.

Denying its existence is not the same thing as rebuttal.

 

[justlookinla]

Denying its existence is not the same thing as rebuttal.

It's a subjective existence.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It's a subjective existence.

You must therefore also believe that patterns of DNA sequences that allow us to identify a criminal or members of our families exist only subjectively. Is this the case?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Apes will never produce humans.

How do you define "ape"?

 

[justlookinla]

You must therefore also believe that patterns of DNA sequences that allow us to identify a criminal or members of our families exist only subjectively. Is this the case?

This isn't about identifying criminals, this is about the subjective conclusion that humans are apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

This isn't about identifying criminals, this is about the subjective conclusion that humans are apes.

And in the context of that topic you have asserted that the patterns in DNA by which we infer such relatedness exist only subjectively. To examine this claim I'm trying to ascertain to what degree you consider the patterns in DNA reliable and real.

So again, do you believe that patterns in DNA sequences that allow us to identify, for example, members of a family lineage exist only subjectively? Please have the courtesy to give a direct response.

 

[justlookinla]

And in the context of that topic you have asserted that the patterns in DNA by which we infer such relatedness exist only subjectively. To examine this claim I'm trying to ascertain to what degree you consider the patterns in DNA reliable and real.

Depends on one's subjective view.

So again, do you believe that patterns in DNA sequences that allow us to identify, for example, members of a family lineage exist only subjectively? Please have the courtesy to give a direct response.

This isn't about family lineage. This is about categorizing humans as apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Depends on one's subjective view.



This isn't about family lineage. This is about categorizing humans as apes.

We're talking about using DNA to infer relationships between humans and other animals the same way we use DNA to infer relationship among our own species.

It's a very simple question. It would take you far fewer words to answer it than even one of the posts you've just made trying to avoid giving a direct response.

So again, do you believe that patterns in DNA sequences that allow us to identify kinship exist only subjectively?

 

[justlookinla]

We're talking about using DNA to infer relationships between humans and other animals the same way we use DNA to infer relationship among our own species.

It's a very simple question. It would take you far fewer words to answer it than even one of the posts you've just made trying to avoid giving a direct response.

So again, do you believe that patterns in DNA sequences that allow us to identify kinship exist only subjectively?

This isn't about family lineage. This is about categorizing humans as apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

This isn't about family lineage. This is about categorizing humans as apes.

Categorizing them as apes by assessing relatedness, particularly through DNA. Perhaps you could articulate your distinction between assessing human-ape relatedness using DNA and assessing human-human relatedness using DNA.

 

[justlookinla]

Categorizing them as apes by assessing relatedness, particularly through DNA. Perhaps you could articulate your distinction between assessing human-ape relatedness using DNA and assessing human-human relatedness using DNA.

Categorizing humans as apes subjectively. If one were to take the attributes of each, one would find significant differences.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Categorizing humans as apes subjectively. If one were to take the attributes of each, one would find significant differences.

Yes, I know you believe that using DNA this way is subjective. That's why I would like you to respond to this question:

What is your distinction between assessing human-ape relatedness using DNA and assessing human-human relatedness using DNA?

You believe the former is subjective while the latter is reliable, but you won't explain the difference. If you would just answer the question then we could again be discussing things instead of adding to this furious ball of nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, I know you believe that using DNA this way is subjective. That's why I would like you to respond to this question:

What is your distinction between assessing human-ape relatedness using DNA and assessing human-human relatedness using DNA?

You believe the former is subjective while the latter is reliable, but you won't explain the difference. If you would just answer the question then we could again be discussing things instead of adding to this furious ball of nothing.

It's not about relatedness, it's about categorization. Again, if one were to take the attributes of each, one would find significant differences.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It's not about relatedness, it's about categorization. Again, if one were to take the attributes of each, one would find significant differences.

That is a non-existent distinction. Please stop quibbling over semantics and answer my question. When we categorize humans as apes, we are by definition saying humans are related to other apes.

So again:

What is your distinction between assessing human-ape relatedness using DNA and assessing human-human relatedness using DNA? Why is the former subjective but the latter reliable?

 

[mickiio]

That is a non-existent distinction. Please stop quibbling over semantics and answer my question. When we categorize humans as apes, we are by definition saying humans are related to other apes.

So again:

What is your distinction between assessing human-ape relatedness using DNA and assessing human-human relatedness using DNA? Why is the former subjective but the latter reliable?

How does the pig fit in there too? His skin is more like our skin then the apes.

 

[lasthero]

How does the pig fit in there too? His skin is more like our skin then the apes.

No, it's not.

 

[justlookinla]

That is a non-existent distinction. Please stop quibbling over semantics and answer my question. When we categorize humans as apes, we are by definition saying humans are related to other apes.

So again:

What is your distinction between assessing human-ape relatedness using DNA and assessing human-human relatedness using DNA? Why is the former subjective but the latter reliable?

No, that's not a non-existent subjective distinction. Again and again, this about subjective categorization. Yesterday it was this, today it's that, tomorrow it's something else.

"Some and, recently, all, hominoids are also called "apes", but the term is used broadly and has several different senses within both popular and scientific settings. "Ape" has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for naming any primate with a humanlike appearance, particularly those without a tail.[7] Thus the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape". Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[1] but more recently to mean all members of Hominoidea. So "ape"—not to be confused with "great ape"—now becomes another word for hominoid including humans.[4][8]"

"The history of hominoid taxonomy is complex and somewhat confusing. Over time, authorities have changed the names and the meanings of names of groups and subgroups as new evidence—that is, new discoveries of fossils and tools and of observations in the field, plus continual comparisons of anatomy and DNA sequences—has changed the understanding of relationships between hominoids. There has been a gradual demotion of humans from being 'special' in the taxonomy to being one branch among many. This recent turmoil (of history) illustrates the growing influence on all taxonomy of cladistics, the science of classifying living things strictly according to their lines of descent."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape​

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No, that's not a non-existent subjective distinction. Again and again, this about subjective categorization. Yesterday it was this, today it's that, tomorrow it's something else.

"Some and, recently, all, hominoids are also called "apes", but the term is used broadly and has several different senses within both popular and scientific settings. "Ape" has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for naming any primate with a humanlike appearance, particularly those without a tail.[7] Thus the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape". Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[1] but more recently to mean all members of Hominoidea. So "ape"—not to be confused with "great ape"—now becomes another word for hominoid including humans.[4][8]"

"The history of hominoid taxonomy is complex and somewhat confusing. Over time, authorities have changed the names and the meanings of names of groups and subgroups as new evidence—that is, new discoveries of fossils and tools and of observations in the field, plus continual comparisons of anatomy and DNA sequences—has changed the understanding of relationships between hominoids. There has been a gradual demotion of humans from being 'special' in the taxonomy to being one branch among many. This recent turmoil (of history) illustrates the growing influence on all taxonomy of cladistics, the science of classifying living things strictly according to their lines of descent."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape​

This is another semantic smokescreen. Do you specifically object to using the word "ape" in particular to denote humans and chimps etc. or do you object to the idea that humans can be put in the same category as a non-human animal? I'll answer for you because I'm tired of you refusing to answer simple questions about your position (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). It's the latter. You don't believe humans and non-human animals are related to each other and that is why you don't want them placed in the same category, not because of the use of a particular word.

It doesn't matter that taxonomy is in flux. The point I'm making (which your post did not actually address) is that categorizing humans in the same group as non-human animals is by definition saying they are part of the same lineage. If you disagree with this, please explain your reasoning instead of simply refusing to talk about it.

And then we can work our way towards you answering the other questions I've posed repeatedly. That way we could actually have a discussion (note we are in the "Discussion and Debate" forum, not the "Refuse-to-clarify-or-support-one's-position" forum). I'll paste them below so you can ponder them in the meantime, and I'll include the questions in this post so you don't miss them. I'll put them in blue because I think it will look neat:

~ QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED BY jUSTLOOKINLA (or anyone else that cares to take a crack at it) ~
​

1. How do you think putting humans and non-human animals in the same biological category different from saying they are related to each other?

2. Do you specifically object to the use of the word "ape" to refer to the group that includes humans and non-human animals or do you primarily object to the idea of humans and non-human animals being put in the same category (i.e. lineage) at all?

3. Why do you think the patterns in DNA are a reliable means of assessing relationships between humans and other humans but exist only subjectively when assessing relationships between humans and non-humans?

4. Do you agree at least theoretically that consilience (if real) between the morphological and molecular patterns used to assess relationships is a good indication that both patterns are real and, if you disagree, can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

 

[justlookinla]

This is another semantic smokescreen. Do you specifically object to using the word "ape" in particular to denote humans and chimps etc. or do you object to the idea that humans can be put in the same category as a non-human animal? I'll answer for you because I'm tired of you refusing to answer simple questions about your position (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). It's the latter. You don't believe humans and non-human animals are related to each other and that is why you don't want them placed in the same category, not because of the use of a particular word.

I've answered for myself quite a few times now. From my post #292....

"Categorizing humans as apes subjectively. If one were to take the attributes of each, one would find significant differences."

It doesn't matter that taxonomy is in flux. The point I'm making (which your post did not actually address) is that categorizing humans in the same group as non-human animals is by definition saying they are part of the same lineage. If you disagree with this, please explain your reasoning instead of simply refusing to talk about it.

One could subjectively categorize humans and birds in the same group (air breathers) if one wishes. Choose your subjective criteria, apply it and VOILA'!, you have humans as apes.

And then we can work our way towards you answering the other questions I've posed repeatedly. That way we could actually have a discussion (note we are in the "Discussion and Debate" forum, not the "Refuse-to-clarify-or-support-one's-position" forum). I'll paste them below so you can ponder them in the meantime, and I'll include the questions in this post so you don't miss them. I'll put them in blue because I think it will look neat:

~ QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED BY jUSTLOOKINLA (or anyone else that cares to take a crack at it) ~
​

1. How do you think putting humans and non-human animals in the same biological category different from saying they are related to each other?

2. Do you specifically object to the use of the word "ape" to refer to the group that includes humans and non-human animals or do you primarily object to the idea of humans and non-human animals being put in the same category (i.e. lineage) at all?

3. Why do you think the patterns in DNA are a reliable means of assessing relationships between humans and other humans but exist only subjectively when assessing relationships between humans and non-humans?

4. Do you agree at least theoretically that consilience (if real) between the morphological and molecular patterns used to assess relationships is a good indication that both patterns are real and, if you disagree, can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

1. This isn't about relationships, it's about subjective categorization.

2. This isn't about relationships, it's about subjective categorization.

3. This isn't about relationships, it's about subjective categorization.

4. This isn't about relationships, it's about subjective categorization.