My great great granfather was not a monkey!!!!!

[john crawford]

Instead, why not start with the most general properties and work your way down to the specifics?

What do you mean, "instead?" That's exactly what I propose.

For instance, a eukaryote which has cellulose cell walls can be a plant, while a eukaryote with no such cell walls will be either a fungus or an animal, depending on whether it reproduces by spore or not. Under animals, we can divide them into further phyla based on whether they have gills and bones, gills and cartilage, scaly skin and exotherm, etc. Under the ones which possess, say, a backbone, fur and a placenta, we can pick out the ones which have similar body features like a long snout and so on. A certain set of such animals will be red, have large, pointed ears and a long bushy tail. And that's how we get from kingdom Animalia to Vulpes vulpes, the common red fox.

Makes much more sense than using the Bible as the basis for division of species, yes?

Not at all. It makes no more sense to start with eukaryotic cells than with human beings who are in the unique postition of having the intelligence to identify and categorize bacterial cells in the first place. After all, phylogenetic trees aren't commonly designed and created by various forms of bacteria any more than they are by non-human species of Anthropoid apes in Africa.

By establishing a special taxonomic classification for clever and wise Homo sapiens like yourself, Caphi, everyone in the world could see that biological taxonomies and phylogenies like those which Darwinist racial theorists commonly design and create are only anthropocentrically premised and oriented.

 

[gluadys]

By establishing a special taxonomic classification for clever and wise Homo sapiens like yourself, Caphi, everyone in the world could see that biological taxonomies and phylogenies like those which Darwinist racial theorists commonly design and create are only anthropocentrically premised and oriented.

If the standard phylogenetic tree is correct, it wouldn't matter which species you begin with, you will always end up with the same tree. And it will always show chimps to be the closest living relatives to humans and will always indicate the common ancestry of chimps and humans. You could begin with a peaches and cream cob of corn and still eventually get to this phylogeny.

 

[Hydra009]

By establishing a special taxonomic classification for clever and wise Homo sapiens like yourself, Caphi, everyone in the world could see that biological taxonomies and phylogenies like those which Darwinist racial theorists commonly design and create are only anthropocentrically premised and oriented.

lol, serious? Gee, don't you think that creating phylogenetic trees not on genetics, but on one's sense of self-importance is just a tad anthropocentric?

(psst, anthropocentric means human-centered)

 

[john crawford]

If the standard phylogenetic tree is correct, it wouldn't matter which species you begin with, you will always end up with the same tree. And it will always show chimps to be the closest living relatives to humans and will always indicate the common ancestry of chimps and humans. You could begin with a peaches and cream cob of corn and still eventually get to this phylogeny.

Since standard commonly designed phylogenetic trees are not designed correctly from a mutually common anthropocentric viewpoint, but only from an evolutionary perspective, (which is still anthropocentric, being designed by evolutionists from their anthropocentric viewpoint in the first place) it is not entirely unreasonable to classify human beings within those phylogenies as the only biological species capable of creating and commonly designing phylogenetic taxonomies in the first place.

Since all other living species of organisms may be biologically related to our own complex human physiology, it stands to reason that even former and extinct species may be phylogentically related to the anthropocentric complexity found only in the human species.

 

[john crawford]

lol, serious? Gee, don't you think that creating phylogenetic trees not on genetics, but on one's sense of self-importance is just a tad anthropocentric?

No more anthropocentric than phylogenetic trees created and commonly designed by racially anthropocentric geneticists who claim that the original 'species' of African people originated from a non-human species of African apes long before any other human racial groups or Darwinist 'species' even existed.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html