Clade

[Loudmouth]

I do not intend to learn biology in this thread. All I like to see is an example which is explained in a way that I can understand.

If you can't understand why your first sentence contradicts your second sentence, then there is nothing we can do.

 

[lasthero]

I've read Einstein's theories and also have a book by a physicist that had a section explained in layman terms as well as a section with the technical.

What was the book?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If you can't understand why your first sentence contradicts your second sentence, then there is nothing we can do.

Lol, that made me chuckle.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I like to believe you. But do you have a reference or two on this?

How Drugs are Developed and Approved

Clinical Trials and Human Subject Protection

These should get you on a good start. I would like to say that I did mention most drugs are tested on chimps prior to human use (especially those that are designed to treat critical conditions such as heart problems) but not all (a vitamin probably won't). There are also drugs that are available that don't go through this testing but are listed as such and inform people that they are untested prior to them agreeing to use it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought that since the title of this thread is "Clade" and Aron Ra used to be an active member here I thought it would be nice to link a mirror of one of his videos here. In this one he explains how by cladistics we are properly called "monkeys":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igq_niFmXNs

 

[juvenissun]

How Drugs are Developed and Approved

Clinical Trials and Human Subject Protection

These should get you on a good start. I would like to say that I did mention most drugs are tested on chimps prior to human use (especially those that are designed to treat critical conditions such as heart problems) but not all (a vitamin probably won't). There are also drugs that are available that don't go through this testing but are listed as such and inform people that they are untested prior to them agreeing to use it.

Thank you.

But I still can argue that we do not need the idea of common ancestor to pick chimps as the final drug tester. Among all animals, chimp is probably the one resembles most to human. Simply based on this obvious fact, the choice could be made.

Similarly, if I want to test a drug for dog, then the best object for the test would either be other dogs or wolf, fox, etc.

Similarity is certainly a good criterion for any classification scheme. And it does not take a slightest trace on the idea of common ancestor

--------

I started to see dogs barking around. May be this thread should be ended soon.

 

[juvenissun]

I gave you multiple scientific, peer reviewed research papers where a classification system based on evolution and common ancestry was shown to be useful.

Did you chicken out?

You had some credits in my recognition. Unfortunately, it almost drained out.

 

[Loudmouth]

You had some credits in my recognition. Unfortunately, it almost drained out.

Will we see a post from you that deals with the actual scientific research that I presented?

 

[Dizredux]

Thank you.

But I still can argue that we do not need the idea of common ancestor to pick chimps as the final drug tester. Among all animals, chimp is probably the one resembles most to human. Simply based on this obvious fact, the choice could be made.

Similarly, if I want to test a drug for dog, then the best object for the test would either be other dogs or wolf, fox, etc.

Similarity is certainly a good criterion for any classification scheme. And it does not take a slightest trace on the idea of common ancestor

--------

A fish and a porpoise can be similar in outward appearance. Should they be classified as a fish? Your classification scheme just based on simple external similarity doesn't seem to work to well as far as I can tell where the ones based on nested patterns of similarities or nested genetic makeup appear to work a whole bunch better especially since they closely parallel to each other.

You do realize that Linnean taxonomy of hierarchical nested features was developed long before the idea of a common ancestor.


Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you.

But I still can argue that we do not need the idea of common ancestor to pick chimps as the final drug tester. Among all animals, chimp is probably the one resembles most to human. Simply based on this obvious fact, the choice could be made.

Similarly, if I want to test a drug for dog, then the best object for the test would either be other dogs or wolf, fox, etc.

Similarity is certainly a good criterion for any classification scheme. And it does not take a slightest trace on the idea of common ancestor

--------

I started to see dogs barking around. May be this thread should be ended soon.

But now here is where things get interesting. Obviously some medical research requires mass numbers of animal test subjects to die. Given that monkeys are expensive and their numbers relatively limited, we can't risk using them for initial tests. Which is why other animals are used, they may not be as close as monkeys, but they will weed out most of the dangerous stuff and they are more numerous, such as pigs and rats. Anything that is going to kill a pig or a rat is almost certainly going to be dangerous to humans, so they and some other animals are used to weed out the worst of the worst so that the limited monkeys aren't all killed off. A monkey might seem like the obvious choice, but would a pig?

 

[juvenissun]

But now here is where things get interesting. Obviously some medical research requires mass numbers of animal test subjects to die. Given that monkeys are expensive and their numbers relatively limited, we can't risk using them for initial tests. Which is why other animals are used, they may not be as close as monkeys, but they will weed out most of the dangerous stuff and they are more numerous, such as pigs and rats. Anything that is going to kill a pig or a rat is almost certainly going to be dangerous to humans, so they and some other animals are used to weed out the worst of the worst so that the limited monkeys aren't all killed off. A monkey might seem like the obvious choice, but would a pig?

So, is the animal which share the "common ancestor" of monkey be used as preliminary tester? What is that? Pig or rat?

 

[juvenissun]

A fish and a porpoise can be similar in outward appearance. Should they be classified as a fish? Your classification scheme just based on simple external similarity doesn't seem to work to well as far as I can tell where the ones based on nested patterns of similarities or nested genetic makeup appear to work a whole bunch better especially since they closely parallel to each other.

You do realize that Linnean taxonomy of hierarchical nested features was developed long before the idea of a common ancestor.


Dizredux

Good. Then please tell me how does the idea of common ancestor improves the function of Linnaean taxonomy.

 

[juvenissun]

Will we see a post from you that deals with the actual scientific research that I presented?

I will not read an abstract like one you thrown to me before. If you think it is a good example to show your idea, then digested it and explained it in a simple way I can easily understand. if you don't, then go away. I do not want to know your knowledge.

 

[Dizredux]

Good. Then please tell me how does the idea of common ancestor improves the function of Linnaean taxonomy.

I haven't a clue of what you mean here. Could you clarify a little?

Dizredux

 

[juvenissun]

I haven't a clue of what you mean here. Could you clarify a little?

Dizredux

May be my question is wrong. But what I meant is:

If the Linnaean Taxonomy is a classification system developed earlier than the cladistic system, is the cladistic system "functions" better than the Linnaean system? If so, how?

Hope you understand what I mean. If the question is wrong, please correct it.

 

[CabVet]

Good. Then please tell me how does the idea of common ancestor improves the function of Linnaean taxonomy.

It changes it from stamp collecting to a classification that reflects biology.

 

[CabVet]

If the Linnaean Taxonomy is a classification system developed earlier than the cladistic system, is the cladistic system "functions" better than the Linnaean system? If so, how?

It changes classification from stamp collecting to a classification that reflects biology.

 

[juvenissun]

It changes classification from stamp collecting to a classification that reflects biology.

I like to see an example which illustrates that.

 

[CabVet]

I like to see an example which illustrates that.

Animals grouped together because they look alike: stamp collecting.

Animals grouped together because they are related to one another: biological sense.

Is it really that hard to understand? Here is an example, Linnaeus initially classified whales as fish (Pisces), an error that he later corrected, but this is what was published in the first editions of Sistema Naturae. And it is very easy to commit errors like these when you base your taxonomy on similarities rather than shared derived characters.

 

[juvenissun]

Animals grouped together because they look alike: stamp collecting.

Animals grouped together because they are related to one another: biological sense.

Is it really that hard to understand? Here is an example, Linnaeus initially classified whales as fish (Pisces), an error that he later corrected, but this is what was published in the first editions of Sistema Naturae. And it is very easy to commit errors like these when you base your taxonomy on similarities rather than shared derived characters.

Mistake in this example is due to misunderstanding, not due to the inferiority of the system. Similar situation happened in all classification systems.

Have a better example?