Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[justlookinla]

I know, but still doesn't make much sense to me. I will drop it in favor of not derailing the thread.

I dunno why your name was referenced.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I know, but still doesn't make much sense to me. I will drop it in favor of not derailing the thread.

It is a weird thing to say. I assume he's referring to another thread you either started or participated in. Have you had this conversation with him before?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is a weird thing to say. I assume he's referring to another thread you either started or participated in. Have you had this conversation with him before?

Not that I recall, and I have been gone for so long I would be amazed if he remembered for that long.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

My opinion is that categorization is subjective.

I know this. But are you willing to actually engage in discussion by, you know, discussing the points I raise? So far you have refused to answer basically every question I asked you (I can paste them in if you've forgotten).

Perhaps you could elaborate on your support for asserting that all categorization is subjective. You could also address the fact that real classification systems work so well, producing consilient results (DNA, morphology, ERVs, embryology) that all produce the same pattern. This is a surprising result for such a subjective method. This mode of classification also predicts that we should find organisms with morphologies intermediate between groups that have been classified as related, and guess what we find? Example after example of fossils turning up that have a mosaic of features from different groups that have been classified as closely related.

The fact that your system is so arbitrary that you can't even say if humans have more in common with birds than apes does not mean that all classification systems are equally arbitrary.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Not that I recall, and I have been gone for so long I would be amazed if he remembered for that long.

I don't mean this as a personal criticism, though I suppose it can't help but come across as such, but I suggest that this is some of Justlookinla's trademark vague verbiage that allows him to not quite address whatever point was being made. I was suggesting he respond to your point about real classification systems being non-arbitrary and reliable. It seemed to me that you were interested in having the discussion that I'm just trying to start now, though I'm doubtful it is actually going to happen.

 

[justlookinla]

It is a weird thing to say. I assume he's referring to another thread you either started or participated in. Have you had this conversation with him before?

You're the one who brought sarah into the conversation. Why?

 

[justlookinla]

I know this. But are you willing to actually engage in discussion by, you know, discussing the points I raise? So far you have refused to answer basically every question I asked you (I can paste them in if you've forgotten).

Perhaps you could elaborate on your support for asserting that all categorization is subjective. You could also address the fact that real classification systems work so well, producing consilient results (DNA, morphology, ERVs, embryology) that all produce the same pattern. This is a surprising result for such a subjective method. This mode of classification also predicts that we should find organisms with morphologies intermediate between groups that have been classified as related, and guess what we find? Example after example of fossils turning up that have a mosaic of features from different groups that have been classified as closely related.

The fact that your system is so arbitrary that you can't even say if humans have more in common with birds than apes does not mean that all classification systems are equally arbitrary.

I've spent quite a bit of time responding to your repeated questions and will continue to respond. As I've pointed out many times, and will point out again, my focus is on categorization, not relatedness. Man isn't an ape, man is a far higher life form than an ape, again for the reasons I've given several times now.

Man is in a category unto itself. No higher life form.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've spent quite a bit of time responding to your repeated questions and will continue to respond. As I've pointed out many times, and will point out again, my focus is on categorization, not relatedness. Man isn't an ape, man is a far higher life form than an ape, again for the reasons I've given several times now.

Man is in a category unto itself. No higher life form.

-_- what do you think the category Homo sapiens sapiens is for? That's our own category, just for us. All species have categories just for themselves.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've spent quite a bit of time responding to your repeated questions and will continue to respond. As I've pointed out many times, and will point out again, my focus is on categorization, not relatedness. Man isn't an ape, man is a far higher life form than an ape, again for the reasons I've given several times now.

Man is in a category unto itself. No higher life form.

You have responded to my questions by refusing to answer them. This type of response has no value in a discussion. You say you want to focus on categorization, but you just ignored everything in my last post that discussed it. I know you think humans aren't in a category with any non-human, but when I try to provide more than assertion for my counterargument, you simply refuse to engage with the points I raise. This makes it impossible to have an actual discussion and I am not interested in simply throwing assertion back and forth.

Why do you think the fact that there are significant differences between humans and other apes completely negates the substantial similarities? As Sarah points out, humans do belong to their own special category, Homo sapiens. Everybody agrees that humans are distinct from other species of ape, but they also bear a great deal of similarity.

I'm sure your response will simply state that such similarities are subjective and worthless because you've made that very clear. But you should do more than simply assert this and actually provide a substantive rebuttal to my argument. My argument being that the consilience among various methods used to classify organisms, in addition to the fact that the results of these classifications allow us to predict what sort of morphologies we can expect to discover in the fossil record, indicate that those classifications are valid and not merely subjective impressions.

If real classification systems are so subjective, why do independent methods produce such consilient results? Why do they predict what we end up finding in the fossil record?

Do you object only to humans being called apes, or do you also generally object to humans being put in a category with any non-human animal?

For example, do you object to humans being classified as mammals?

As for this classification vs relationship business, perhaps you could help me out and at long last explain why you think those two things are different. You've refused to explain why you think there is a distinction and I have racked my brain, to no avail, trying to figure out why one might think that categorizing organisms is different from saying something about their relationships. So please, in the interest of clarity and discursive productivity, supply an answer to the following question:

What is the difference between saying two organisms are in the same category and saying they are related? (NOTE: I'm not asking you what you think distinguishes humans from other animals - please do not respond with such an answer)

 

[Atheos canadensis]

-_- what do you think the category Homo sapiens sapiens is for? That's our own category, just for us. All species have categories just for themselves.

Would you do me a favour? Would you mind putting on your creationist hat for a moment and trying to explain how one might disagree that the classification of organisms is synonymous with describing their relationships to one another?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You're the one who brought sarah into the conversation. Why?

Actually Sarah brought herself into the conversation and you ignored her. I explained my reasons to you and her already.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Would you do me a favour? Would you mind putting on your creationist hat for a moment and trying to explain how one might disagree that the classification of organisms is synonymous with describing their relationships to one another?

Well, if I were a creationist, I would view the classifications as being between animals that were similar to one another. Humans share similarities with other animals, that's just a statement of fact, but we certainly are distinct from chimpanzees, even by that categorization of being apes. I don't think that I would be insulted by calling humans apes, because I know ape is applied to certain traits that humans and some other animals have, and it isn't the same as calling us those animals.

 

[justlookinla]

-_- what do you think the category Homo sapiens sapiens is for? That's our own category, just for us. All species have categories just for themselves.

Great. Humans are the highest form of life.

 

[justlookinla]

You have responded to my questions by refusing to answer them. This type of response has no value in a discussion. You say you want to focus on categorization, but you just ignored everything in my last post that discussed it. I know you think humans aren't in a category with any non-human, but when I try to provide more than assertion for my counterargument, you simply refuse to engage with the points I raise. This makes it impossible to have an actual discussion and I am not interested in simply throwing assertion back and forth.

You embrace the value system which places humans and apes in the same category. That's your choice.

[QUOTE\Why do you think the fact that there are significant differences between humans and other apes completely negates the substantial similarities?[/QUOTE]

The differences pale in comparison to the similarities. Subjectively speaking of course.

As Sarah points out, humans do belong to their own special category, Homo sapiens. Everybody agrees that humans are distinct from other species of ape, but they also bear a great deal of similarity.

Not everybody agrees that humans are apes. They do not embrace that categorization.

I'm sure your response will simply state that such similarities are subjective and worthless because you've made that very clear. But you should do more than simply assert this and actually provide a substantive rebuttal to my argument. My argument being that the consilience among various methods used to classify organisms, in addition to the fact that the results of these classifications allow us to predict what sort of morphologies we can expect to discover in the fossil record, indicate that those classifications are valid and not merely subjective impressions.

The Wiki article I referenced a few pages ago pointed out the inconsistencies in categorization. What wasn't true yesterday is true today...and who knows about tomorrow.

If real classification systems are so subjective, why do independent methods produce such consilient results? Why do they predict what we end up finding in the fossil record?

That humans aren't apes because of categorization criteria is produced by consistent (not consiient) application of the criteria.

Do you object only to humans being called apes, or do you also generally object to humans being put in a category with any non-human animal?

I object to any life form being categorized with a human. But the original issue was humans being apes, so that's the issue I'll stick with.

For example, do you object to humans being classified as mammals?

See above.

As for this classification vs relationship business, perhaps you could help me out and at long last explain why you think those two things are different. You've refused to explain why you think there is a distinction and I have racked my brain, to no avail, trying to figure out why one might think that categorizing organisms is different from saying something about their relationships. So please, in the interest of clarity and discursive productivity, supply an answer to the following question:

What is the difference between saying two organisms are in the same category and saying they are related? (NOTE: I'm not asking you what you think distinguishes humans from other animals - please do not respond with such an answer)

I've said it probably a couple of dozen times now (or more), this is about categorization, not relationship.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Great. Humans are the highest form of life.

Meh, smartest, sure. Depends on what you want to measure to determine that. Our genetic material is about at the level of an earthworm.

 

[justlookinla]

Meh, smartest, sure. Depends on what you want to measure to determine that. Our genetic material is about at the level of an earthworm.

More intelligent, more creative, more inventive, more dominant....just to name a few.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Well, if I were a creationist, I would view the classifications as being between animals that were similar to one another. Humans share similarities with other animals, that's just a statement of fact, but we certainly are distinct from chimpanzees, even by that categorization of being apes. I don't think that I would be insulted by calling humans apes, because I know ape is applied to certain traits that humans and some other animals have, and it isn't the same as calling us those animals.

I think I understand the distinction. Obviously it is possible to classify things without making statements about their relationship. One can categorize footwear into shoes, boots, slippers, sandals etc. without inferring that they are related. It strains my brain somewhat to try to maintain this distinction in the context of biological classification wherein the categories (e.g. Homo sapiens, homonoidea, mammalia etc) are expressly meant to provide information about the organism's relationship to other organisms. Nonetheless I think I can see how one could discuss the validity of using patterns of similarity to group organisms into nested categories without discussing the validity of the relationships those patterns imply, although it feels very incomplete to me, like stopping a song mid-word.

This is what Justlookinla wants to do though, I assume because it puts him on more equal footing. The only possible statements are 1. I think the patterns of similarities seen in organisms are sufficient to put them in certain categories and 2. I think the similarities are less significant than the differences and thus these categories are invalid.

If we stop here then both positions are, as he says, subjective. And that seems to be as far as he is willing to go. He isn't willing to go beyond the assertion stage and discuss the evidence for why using similarities seems to be a valid method for looking at organisms.

Also, while I agree that the significance and implications one ascribes to the patterns we see in DNA and morphology are ultimately subjective, I don not agree, as Justlookinla has asserted, that the very existence of those patterns are subjective.

 

[PsychoSarah]

More intelligent, more creative, more inventive, more dominant....just to name a few.

More dominant now, we weren't always.

 

[justlookinla]

More dominant now, we weren't always.

The point is, using the criteria I listed, humans can't be classified as apes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You embrace the value system which places humans and apes in the same category. That's your choice.


The differences pale in comparison to the similarities. Subjectively speaking of course.



Not everybody agrees that humans are apes. They do not embrace that categorization.



The Wiki article I referenced a few pages ago pointed out the inconsistencies in categorization. What wasn't true yesterday is true today...and who knows about tomorrow.



That humans aren't apes because of categorization criteria is produced by consistent (not consiient) application of the criteria.



I object to any life form being categorized with a human. But the original issue was humans being apes, so that's the issue I'll stick with.



See above.



I've said it probably a couple of dozen times now (or more), this is about categorization, not relationship.

Okay, I think you and I are done for the moment. I'm tired of getting the same assertions whenever I attempt to prompt a real discussion.

You think that the differences between humans and other animals are so substantial that we cannot be put in the same category. I think that the multitudinous similarities and the patterns those similarities form are so substantial that it is absurd not to realize that humans are obviously a species of ape. Ultimately both positions are, as you say, subjective when left at that point, which seems to be as far as you're willing to go. The importance you ascribe to the differences is subjective and the importance biologists ascribe to the patterns of similarity are subjective. I agree with this point.

However I disagree that the very existence of these patterns, as you have asserted but refused to support, is subjective. The variety of independent methods that produce consilient results in addition to the predictive capacity of the resulting classification scheme make it absurd to claim that none of the patterns exist and just happen to produce these results. You are invited to provide an actual counterargument to this point.

Furthermore, if you were willing to engage in a real discussion rather than bald assertion, we would quickly see that while the importance ascribed to differences and similarities is subjective, the significance ascribed to the latter is justified by the consilient results and predictive powers of various methods whereas the significance ascribed to the former is supported by no more than your belief.

It is clear at this point that you want to remain at the first step where we just assert our subjective opinions and I am not interested in doing that. Let me know if you eventually decide to engage substantively with the points raised.