Observed change in kinds.

[juvenissun]

Behavior is not a criteria. Giant Pandas have a diet composed exclusively of bamboo, but that doesn't make them any less a Carnivora.

How many bamboo eating animals live on the earth? Why couldn't the panda be an unique category on itself? We do not do that because the earth has neither too little nor too much bamboo forest.

Criteria of classification is chosen by purpose. Behavior echoes the purpose and is important.

 

[juvenissun]

Then you aren't doing science. In science, you do not start with the conclusion.

What you are pushing is a dogma, the exact opposite of science.

We started with a purpose. Why don't you pick up a 10-year-old computer and write a research report on it?

 

[juvenissun]

You would also be wrong.

Sorry, but Post-Modernism is not going to fly. An interpretation made up on the spot and contradicted by all of the evidence is not on equal footing with an explanation backed by 150 years of biological science.

It would seem to me that every species of mammal could be described in such a manner since there is no single species of mammal that has all of the features found in all other mammals. All mammalian species have features that are specific to that species.


Prove it.

Correct. But if you need to classify, then you need to have preferences.

 

[juvenissun]

You might try and come up with an alternate definition of mammal, but under the common definition we are most definitely mammals.

That is why the "common definition" is not good enough. It makes inadequate classification. And it is misleading.

 

[juvenissun]

You are ignoring contradictory data on behavior. If a bonobo builds and lights a fire and a guy in Queens has am electric stove, we ignore that. I'm saying the underlying defining characteristic of a group doesn't get ignored if it's actually the underlying meaning of the term.

A bonobo does not do that.
A few exceptions are acceptable. Too many exceptions will show problems. Every classification system has exceptions. Some are quite serious.

 

[juvenissun]

Your syllogism is fallacious.

Δ is that with characteristic Ψ.
Φ has characteristic Ψ, but cannot be Δ because I said so.
Therefore Φ is not Δ.

It's not a logical deduction.

No no. the first line has TWO variables, not just one. That is where the trick is.

 

[[serious]]

A bonobo does not do that.
A few exceptions are acceptable. Too many exceptions will show problems. Every classification system has exceptions. Some are quite serious.

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

 

[juvenissun]

[QUOTE='[serious]www.youtube.com
[/QUOTE]

Cute.

 

[Mainframes]

Why is windscreen so important?

It isn't. It is just an extra characteristic that the other cars didn't have but it's presence still doesn't stop it being part of a car.

In the same way, humans are different to cats, dogs, cows etc BUT all share the defining characteristics that make us mammals.

We also share defining characteristics with crocodiles, fish, seagulls that make all of these vertibrates.

 

[juvenissun]

It isn't. It is just an extra characteristic that the other cars didn't have but it's presence still doesn't stop it being part of a car.

In the same way, humans are different to cats, dogs, cows etc BUT all share the defining characteristics that make us mammals.

We also share defining characteristics with crocodiles, fish, seagulls that make all of these vertibrates.

First, define car.

Based on that, determine how significant is the windscreen to the car.

If very significant, then set that car into a different kind of car, or even a entirely different kind (not car any more)

I don't see any problem with that.

 

[[serious]]

First, define car.

Based on that, determine how significant is the windscreen to the car.

If very significant, then set that car into a different kind of car, or even a entirely different kind (not car any more)

I don't see any problem with that.

Then ignore your primary diagnostic measure when it doesn't return the results you want?

 

[juvenissun]

Then ignore your primary diagnostic measure when it doesn't return the results you want?

Car kind should be defined as a system has wheel and can run. Has windscreen or not is not critical enough to change this definition, unless the windscreen can make the car float.

Human is defined on its much higher intelligence. This feature is so critical that makes human controls all other animals. As a consequence, this feature is significant enough to separate human out as a new kind.

The situation is similar to the separate between reptiles and amphibians.

 

[[serious]]

Car kind should be defined as a system has wheel and can run. Has windscreen or not is not critical enough to change this definition, unless the windscreen can make the car float.

Human is defined on its much higher intelligence. This feature is so critical that makes human controls all other animals. As a consequence, this feature is significant enough to separate human out as a new kind.

The situation is similar to the separate between reptiles and amphibians.

Reptiles are distinguished from earlier chordates by the presence of an amniotic egg.

So now we have a new definition of human: "Human is defined on its much higher intelligence." Great! One definition was found to not actually describe what you meant, so you are trying another approach. Intelligence tends to be very difficult to measure in a meaningful way, but let's set that aside and assume that humans are unambiguously more intelligent as a group than other animals. What about distinctions between humans? Are people or groups of greater intelligence more human? Why or why not? If a human fails to meet some threshold intelligence, are they human?

 

[juvenissun]

Reptiles are distinguished from earlier chordates by the presence of an amniotic egg.

So now we have a new definition of human: "Human is defined on its much higher intelligence." Great! One definition was found to not actually describe what you meant, so you are trying another approach. Intelligence tends to be very difficult to measure in a meaningful way, but let's set that aside and assume that humans are unambiguously more intelligent as a group than other animals. What about distinctions between humans? Are people or groups of greater intelligence more human? Why or why not? If a human fails to meet some threshold intelligence, are they human?

No. Intelligence is only a nature used to explain. It is not a criterion.
A good criterion is, still, using fire.
It seems we do not any intention to subdivide human kind so far. Do we?

 

[USincognito]

No. Intelligence is only a nature used to explain. It is not a criterion.
A good criterion is, still, using fire.
It seems we do not any intention to subdivide human kind so far. Do we?

 

[theophilus777]

I'ld first ask him to define the word "kind" in such a way that I can use that definition to determine if two random organism are of the same "kind".

That entirely misses the point, which is of foolish atheist origin, such as Noah needing to put the currently classified number of species onto a boat, when y'all should be smart enough to figger out yer talking about some really ancient words here, and nobody connected to that was worried about your specificity in the least.

Anachronism, we call that.

 

[USincognito]

That entirely misses the point, which is of foolish atheist origin, such as Noah needing to put the currently classified number of species onto a boat, when y'all should be smart enough to figger out yer talking about some really ancient words here, and nobody connected to that was worried about your specificity in the least.

Anachronism, we call that.

I'm sorry, but you're the one missing the point. Creationists toss around "kind" as if it were a scientifically valid concept. When you press them on it, they tend to talk in circles or give tautologies as examples, but never giving a scientifically valid definition that is amenable to explanatory and predictive power.

 

[[serious]]

No. Intelligence is only a nature used to explain. It is not a criterion.
A good criterion is, still, using fire.
It seems we do not any intention to subdivide human kind so far. Do we?

Ok, then what about people who don't use fire or animals that do? If the criterion can't reliably distinguish between humans and non humans, it doesn't help much. If you know when to make your special exceptions to the uses fire rule, that means you actually have another definition of human that you are using, but not stating. What is that underlying definition you are applying?

 

[Mainframes]

Ok, then what about people who don't use fire or animals that do? If the criterion can't reliably distinguish between humans and non humans, it doesn't help much. If you know when to make your special exceptions to the uses fire rule, that means you actually have another definition of human that you are using, but not stating. What is that underlying definition you are applying?

To take the car analogy further this is equivalent to saying that a car with a nitrous system (Fire....!!) isnt realy a car.....

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, then what about people who don't use fire or animals that do? If the criterion can't reliably distinguish between humans and non humans, it doesn't help much. If you know when to make your special exceptions to the uses fire rule, that means you actually have another definition of human that you are using, but not stating. What is that underlying definition you are applying?

No. The criterion is that human "can" "use" fire. It is valid based on animals "can not" raise or use fire.

For some people who can not "use" fire ... frankly, I can not come up with such an example. Can you? (Don't tell me that baby is not human. Otherwise, the conversation will end.)

You give fire to chimp, what would "he" do to it? Cooking?