Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[Atheos canadensis]

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

So you want to discuss categorization but refuse to discuss categorization unless I promise to never bring up a point you can't refute. That's some fine intellectual honesty you have they, Just.

Perhaps you could then answer my earlier question that you (surprise) refused to answer. It seems we disagree that biological categories are distinct from biological lineages. Would you at least make very explicit your reasons for thinking they are distinct topics?

How exactly is putting humans and non-humans in the same category different from putting them in the same lineage? If you can't/won't answer this then how can you justify asserting repeatedly that categorization is not about relationships. If the same bare assertion you've repeated ad nauseum is all you are willing to offer then I think I am nearing the end of my patience with you.

 

[Jimmy D]

To me Justlookinla's evasion looks like a tacit admission his/her position is untenable. I'd move on if I was you AC, you're unlikely to get a straight answer to your question.

 

[justlookinla]

So you want to discuss categorization but refuse to discuss categorization unless I promise to never bring up a point you can't refute. That's some fine intellectual honesty you have they, Just.

If you wish to discuss relationship instead of categorization then by all means do it. I'm not interested in anything but the subjective categorization which categorizes humans as apes.

Perhaps you could then answer my earlier question that you (surprise) refused to answer. It seems we disagree that biological categories are distinct from biological lineages. Would you at least make very explicit your reasons for thinking they are distinct topics?

Already have.

"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."​

How exactly is putting humans and non-humans in the same category different from putting them in the same lineage? If you can't/won't answer this then how can you justify asserting repeatedly that categorization is not about relationships. If the same bare assertion you've repeated ad nauseum is all you are willing to offer then I think I am nearing the end of my patience with you.

I'm not at the end of my patience with you.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If you wish to discuss relationship instead of categorization then by all means do it. I'm not interested in anything but the subjective categorization which categorizes humans as apes.



Already have.

"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."
​

I'm not at the end of my patience with you.

I don't understand how this wiki is an answer to the question I posed. It is discussing the mutable nature of various taxonomic groups.

How does this explain why you think that putting humans in the same category as non-humans is different from saying humans and non-humans are related?

I would find it extremely helpful if you could answer this question in your own words rather than trying to divine how this wiki addresses it.

So, how is putting humans and non-humans in the same category different from putting them in the same lineage? Please be specific. Please don't just paste your wiki article again because that is not clarifying your argument for me.
​

 

[justlookinla]

I don't understand how this wiki is an answer to the question I posed. It is discussing the mutable nature of various taxonomic groups.

How does this explain why you think that putting humans in the same category as non-humans is different from saying humans and non-humans are related?

I would find it extremely helpful if you could answer this question in your own words rather than trying to divine how this wiki addresses it.

So, how is putting humans and non-humans in the same category different from putting them in the same lineage? Please be specific. Please don't just paste your wiki article again because that is not clarifying your argument for me.
​

The Wiki article simply points out the various subjective classifications concerning humans and apes. Yesterday it was this, today it's that, tomorrow it could be something else.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The wiki article simply points out the various subjective classifications concerning humans and apes. Yesterday it was this, today it's that, tomorrow it could be something else.

And how does that answer the question of why you think putting humans in the same category as non-humans is different from saying humans are related to non-humans?

Thanks for using your own words instead of pasting the entire sectiin again, but I know what the wiki says. I don't know how it comes anywhere near addressing how you justify asserting that categorization is different from relationships. Explain what distinction you think exists.

 

[justlookinla]

And how does that answer the question of why you think putting humans in the same category as non-humans is different from saying humans are related to non-humans?

It shows the subjective nature of the categorization.

Thanks for using your own words instead of pasting the entire sectiin again, but I know what the wiki says. I don't know how it comes anywhere near addressing how you justify asserting that categorization is different from relationships. Explain what distinction you think exists.

The article reflects the subjective nature of the categorization and the ever changing criteria which allows man to be subjectively classified as an ape. I've addressed my view of the distinction of man and ape....if one were to take the attributes of each, one would find significant differences between the two life forms.

If you wish to take certain attributes and use that to categorize man as an ape (as we see some doing in the article), that's your choice. It's just an example of the subjective nature of categorization.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It shows the subjective nature of the categorization.



The article reflects the subjective nature of the categorization and the ever changing criteria which allows man to be subjectively classified as an ape. I've addressed my view of the distinction of man and ape....if one were to take the attributes of each, one would find significant differences between the two life forms.

If you wish to take certain attributes and use that to categorize man as an ape (as we see some doing in the article), that's your choice. It's just an example of the subjective nature of categorization.

Perhaps we're talking past each other here because your response (while I appreciate that you did expand on your last post) doesn't answer the question I'm asking. So to be perfectly clear, would you answer this question?

Do you think that when biologists say that humans are in the same category (let's say hominoidea, which is mentioned in the wiki) as non-human animals they are not also saying that humans and non-human primates are part of the same evolutionary lineage?

And let me be perfectly clear so that your response actually addresses the question I'm trying to ask. I understand the point you are making. You are saying that the methods by which we place humans and non-humans in the same biological category (e.g. Ape, Hominoidea et.) are too subjective to be considered valid. You think that the differences between humans and non-human primates makes it obvious that they do not belong in the same category. I understand your position on this point. I am not asking you to explain why you think (for the reasons I just summarized) there is a clear distinction between humans and non-human primates. I am asking you to explain why you think that when we say that humans are in the same category as non-human primates we do not also mean that they are related to each other.

To be clear, I understand that you disagree that humans are related to and belong in the same category as non-humans. I understand that you think and that the methods by which biologists make infer such connections are too subjective to be valid. I am not asking whether you agree with the methods. I'm asking you to explain why you think that when biologists say humans and non-humans are in the same category as non-human primates they are not also saying the they are related.

I would really appreciate a yes or a no to that question. Obviously you should expand on your answer if you want to, but a nice solid yes or no to this straightforward question about your beliefs is ideal. If this post seemed to be repetitious it is because I want to be very clear about your opinion on this specific question. A simple yes or no would be perfect.

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps we're talking past each other here because your response (while I appreciate that you did expand on your last post) doesn't answer the question I'm asking. So to be perfectly clear, would you answer this question?

Do you think that when biologists say that humans are in the same category (let's say hominoidea, which is mentioned in the wiki) as non-human animals they are not also saying that humans and non-human primates are part of the same evolutionary lineage?

And let me be perfectly clear so that your response actually addresses the question I'm trying to ask. I understand the point you are making. You are saying that the methods by which we place humans and non-humans in the same biological category (e.g. Ape, Hominoidea et.) are too subjective to be considered valid. You think that the differences between humans and non-human primates makes it obvious that they do not belong in the same category. I understand your position on this point. I am not asking you to explain why you think (for the reasons I just summarized) there is a clear distinction between humans and non-human primates. I am asking you to explain why you think that when we say that humans are in the same category as non-human primates we do not also mean that they are related to each other.

To be clear, I understand that you disagree that humans are related to and belong in the same category as non-humans. I understand that you think and that the methods by which biologists make infer such connections are too subjective to be valid. I am not asking whether you agree with the methods. I'm asking you to explain why you think that when biologists say humans and non-humans are in the same category as non-human primates they are not also saying the they are related.

I would really appreciate a yes or a no to that question. Obviously you should expand on your answer if you want to, but a nice solid yes or no to this straightforward question about your beliefs is ideal. If this post seemed to be repetitious it is because I want to be very clear about your opinion on this specific question. A simple yes or no would be perfect.

Yes, it's been repetitious for quite a few pages now....but, what the hey.

"Do you think that when biologists say that humans are in the same category (let's say hominoidea, which is mentioned in the wiki) as non-human animals they are not also saying that humans and non-human primates are part of the same evolutionary lineage?"

I can only refer to the earlier Wiki article which shows that a human being, or not being, an ape is an ever moving categorization.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes, it's been repetitious for quite a few pages now....but, what the hey.

"Do you think that when biologists say that humans are in the same category (let's say hominoidea, which is mentioned in the wiki) as non-human animals they are not also saying that humans and non-human primates are part of the same evolutionary lineage?"

I can only refer to the earlier Wiki article which shows that a human being, or not being, an ape is an ever moving categorization.

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you'd actually answer the questions I ask. A reasonable person might stop to think that perhaps the same response they've been posting to almost every question is not actually a response to the question being asked.

I'm not asking you what you think of categorizing humans and non-human primates together. I know you disagree and I know you cite the wiki article as evidence that categorization schemes are too subjective to be valid. I'm asking what biologists mean when they place organisms in the same category. Understand?

Why do you think that when they place humans and non-human primates in the same category they are not also saying they are related to each other?

I'm not asking what you think of the validity of this practice, which is what all of your responses pertain to.

 

[justlookinla]

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you'd actually answer the questions I ask. A reasonable person might stop to think that perhaps the same response they've been posting to almost every question is not actually a response to the question being asked.

I'm not asking you what you think of categorizing humans and non-human primates together. I know you disagree and I know you cite the wiki article as evidence that categorization schemes are too subjective to be valid. I'm asking what biologists mean when they place organisms in the same category. Understand?

Why do you think that when they place humans and non-human primates in the same category they are not also saying they are related to each other?

I'm not asking what you think of the validity of this practice, which is what all of your responses pertain to.

The issue is about various subjective practices which identify humans as apes. The Wiki article is indicative of the this today, something else tomorrow nature of the categorization. What biologists mean changes over time, thus the subjective nature of whatever criteria one uses to categorize life forms.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The issue is about various subjective practices which identify humans as apes. The Wiki article is indicative of the this today, something else tomorrow nature of the categorization. What biologists mean changes over time, thus the subjective nature of whatever criteria one uses to categorize life forms.

What specific organisms biologists include in a given category may change with new research, but no matter what the organisms placed within a given group will be considered related to each other by biologists. Do you agree?

 

[justlookinla]

What specific organisms biologists include in a given category may change with new research, but no matter what the organisms placed within a given group will be considered related to each other by biologists. Do you agree?

Who knows? Change here, change there, it's this today, it's something else tomorrow. Thus the subjective categorization which claims humans are apes. Or not.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Who knows? Change here, change there, it's this today, it's something else tomorrow. Thus the subjective categorization which claims humans are apes. Or not.

If I say that you are related to non-human primates, would you take it to mean I was putting you in the same category as non-human primates?

 

[justlookinla]

If I say that you are related to non-human primates, would you take it to mean I was putting you in the same category as non-human primates?

If you say humans are apes, you're putting them into the same category as apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If you say humans are apes, you're putting them into the same category as apes.

So you agree that when I say that you are related to non-human primates, you would take it to mean I was putting you in the same category as non-human primates?

 

[justlookinla]

So you agree that when I say that you are related to non-human primates, you would take it to mean I was putting you in the same category as non-human primates?

No, I would say that if you claim that humans are apes, you're putting them into the same category.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No, I would say that if you claim that humans are apes, you're putting them into the same category.

You would no doubt put both a husky and a mastiff (to use your favourite examples) in the dog category. Would you also say they are related?

 

[justlookinla]

You would no doubt put both a husky and a mastiff (to use your favourite examples) in the dog category. Would you also say they are related?

I'd say that humans aren't apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'd say that humans aren't apes.

Where do you think our ability to reliably categorize organisms fails? Is it valid to put a husky and a mastiff into the same category?