Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[Atheos canadensis]

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."



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.



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.

I understand that you think the methods used to put humans and non-humans in the same category are subjective. Let's try taking this slowly and focus on DNA (which was the subject at hand when I initially engaged with you).

Do you think that the DNA patterns used to put humans in the same category as non-human animals are subjective?

Please just answer the question rather than referring me to another post. I'm pretty sure I know your response but as I said I want to take this slowly and be absolutely certain about your beliefs.

 

[justlookinla]

I understand that you think the methods used to put humans and non-humans in the same category are subjective. Let's try taking this slowly and focus on DNA (which was the subject at hand when I initially engaged with you).

No, let's focus on the fact that the categorization is subjective.

Do you think that the DNA patterns used to put humans in the same category as non-human animals are subjective?

Please just answer the question rather than referring me to another post. I'm pretty sure I know your response but as I said I want to take this slowly and be absolutely certain about your beliefs.

The criteria used to put humans in the same category as apes is subjective.

"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."​

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No, let's focus on the fact that the categorization is subjective.



The criteria used to put humans in the same category as apes is subjective.

"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."​

So please state your position on using DNA patterns to make these categorizations. Are they subjective?

 

[justlookinla]

So please state your position on using DNA patterns to make these categorizations. Are they subjective?

My position has been stated over and over and over and over. Various subjective criteria is chosen to categorize humans as apes.

"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."

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

My position has been stated over and over and over and over. Various subjective criteria is chosen to categorize humans as apes.

"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."

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

And would you count the patterns found in DNA as one of these subjective criteria?

 

[justlookinla]

And would you count the patterns found in DNA as one of these subjective criteria?

I'd count the inequalities between humans and ape as an indicator that they were not both apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'd count the inequalities between humans and ape as an indicator that they were not both apes.

Is that a yes? Do you view these patterns as one of these subjective criteria?

 

[justlookinla]

Is that a yes? Do you view these patterns as one of these subjective criteria?

That's an indicator of subjective criteria for the distinguishing between humans and apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That's an indicator of subjective criteria for the distinguishing between humans and apes.

Sorry, could you rephrase that? When you say DNA patterns are an indicator of these subjective criteria, are you saying that yes, you think these patterns are an example of the subjective criteria to which you refer?

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry, could you rephrase that? When you say DNA patterns are an indicator of these subjective criteria, are you saying that yes, you think these patterns are an example of the subjective criteria to which you refer?

No, I said "I'd count the inequalities between humans and ape as an indicator that they were not both apes."

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No, I said "I'd count the inequalities between humans and ape as an indicator that they were not both apes."

I understand that. You think there are too many differences between humans and apes to put them in the same category.

But do you think DNA patterns are one of these subjective criteria to which you refer? When you said "no" at the start of your post, was it an answer to this question. Just want you to make this very explicit for my benefit.

 

[justlookinla]

I understand that. You think there are too many differences between humans and apes to put them in the same category.

But do you think DNA patterns are one of these subjective criteria to which you refer? When you said "no" at the start of your post, was it an answer to this question. Just want you to make this very explicit for my benefit.

When I said, "no", it was referring to a previous post.

My reason for repeating myself is for your benefit and I'll once again repeat myself. This isn't about common ancestry, this is about categorization.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

When I said, "no", it was referring to a previous post.

My reason for repeating myself is for your benefit and I'll once again repeat myself. This isn't about common ancestry, this is about categorization.

I'm trying to get your position on using DNA to categorize. Do you think DNA patterns are subjective criteria for categorization?

 

[justlookinla]

I'm trying to get your position on using DNA to categorize. Do you think DNA patterns are subjective criteria for categorization?

My position is what my position has always been. I'd count the inequalities between humans and ape as an indicator that they were not both apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

My position is what my position has always been. I'd count the inequalities between humans and ape as an indicator that they were not both apes.

Yes, I got that part. But do you think that DNA patterns are subjective criteria for categorization?

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, I got that part. But do you think that DNA patterns are subjective criteria for categorization?

As I've also said over and over and over and over, this isn't about relationship it's about categorization.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

As I've also said over and over and over and over, this isn't about relationship it's about categorization.

That's why I've asked you about using DNA to make these categorizations. So, are DNA patterns too subjective a criteria for categorization?

 

[justlookinla]

That's why I've asked you about using DNA to make these categorizations. So, are DNA patterns too subjective a criteria for categorization?

Over and over and over you've used this as a relationship viewpoint. Are you dismissing the relationship viewpoint?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Over and over and over you've used this as a relationship viewpoint. Are you dismissing the relationship viewpoint?

I'm not dismissing it, but I'm trying to start farther back than that and get your opinion on the merits of DNA as a means of categorising organism. So are DNA patterns too subjective a criteria for categorization?

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not dismissing it, but I'm trying to start farther back than that and get your opinion on the merits of DNA as a means of categorising organism. So are DNA patterns too subjective a criteria for categorization?

If you're not dismissing it, my position should be well known to you by now. This isn't about relationship.