The tools of science

[Dark_Lite]

There is something called experience. We will remember today on tomorrow, and remember tomorrow on the day after. So, based on the experience of tomorrow and the day after, we would think that today is real. If today is real, so is likely yesterday, the day before, etc. etc. This is an elaborated definition of historical record.

...Just as it is so that if light operates the same on Earth and in our solar system, it is extremely likely that it operates the same everywhere else in the universe. I brought up Last Thursdayism more to counter mindlight's continued hypotheses about how light must somehow operate differently in order to rationalize the concept of a 6,000 year old universe. It was an argument reductio ad absurdum.

 

[gluadys]

Very good. Thank you. Human can not be classified together with other animals based on any criterion used in taxonomy. We have too many EXTRA characters that are not seen in any animals.

All species have extra characters not seen in any other animals. That's why they are called "specific characters". They define the species within the genus. "Generic characters" define the genus within the family and so on.

The larger the taxonomic group the fewer character traits all its members have in common. The smaller the taxonomic group the more special or extra characters they share with others in the same group over and above the characters they share with all members of the larger groups they belong to.

 

[Mallon]

All species have extra characters not seen in any other animals. That's why they are called "specific characters".

Aye. Google 'autapomorphy'.
Every species has characters not shared by any other, juvie. They're what make each species unique. The uniqueness of humans doesn't preclude them from being animals.

 

[laconicstudent]

There is something called experience. We will remember today on tomorrow, and remember tomorrow on the day after. So, based on the experience of tomorrow and the day after, we would think that today is real. If today is real, so is likely yesterday, the day before, etc. etc. This is an elaborated definition of historical record.

And a famous psychologist, Pahlov, proved that Dogs also have experience, through his bell study.

This ability of thinking is called logic. Only human has it.

Um.... So do most higher primates, along with cephalopods, cetaceans, porpoises, and ravens, just to name a few. They all display evidence of cognition, or logically using tools to an advantage.

Beyond the beginning of human, just like what you said, anything is possible, and the time does not have to have the same nature.

We discard such theories via parsimony.

 

[laconicstudent]

Very good. Thank you. Human can not be classified together with other animals based on any criterion used in taxonomy. We have too many EXTRA characters that are not seen in any animals.

Eh? What on Earth is a "Character"?

And no, there is no reason why we can't be classified in Kingdom Animalia through conventional taxonomy. We are motile, we are heterotrophs, we have specialized cells. Kingdom Animalia.

We are bilaterally symetrical, sub-Kingdom Bilaterian.

We have a true Coelom, Coelomata

We have notochord, nerve chord, pharyngeal pouch, deuterostome development, we are triploblasts. Phylum Chordata.

We have sweat glands, hair, middle ear bones, and a neocortex, Class Mammalia

We give birth to live young with a placenta, Cohort Eutheria

And a la, wikipedia: "

• retention of the collar bone in the pectoral girdle;[42]
• shoulder joints which allow high degrees of movement in all directions;[42]
• five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes;[42]
• nails on the fingers and toes (in most species);[43]
• a flat nail on the hallux (in all extant species);[43]
• sensitive tactile pads on the ends of the digits;[42]
• orbits encircled in bone;[44]
• a trend towards a reduced snout and flattened face, attributed to a reliance on vision at the expense of olfaction (most notably in haplorrhines, and less so in strepsirrhines);[44]
• a complex visual system with stereoscopic vision, high visual acuity and color vision;[42]
• a brain having a well developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a Calcarine fissure;[44]
• a large brain in comparison to body size, especially in simians;[42]
• differentiation of an enlarged cerebral cortex;[42]
• reduced number of teeth compared to primitive mammals;[42]
• three kinds of teeth;[44]
• a well-developed cecum;[44]
• two pectoral mammary glands;[42]
• typically one young per pregnancy;[42]
• a pendulous penis and scrotal testes;[44]
• a long gestation and developmental period;[42] and
• a trend towards holding the torso upright leading to bipedalism.[42]

Order, Primates


We have large brains that allow for advanced levels of cognition, Genus Homo

We have technology, Species Sapiens.

 

[juvenissun]

...Just as it is so that if light operates the same on Earth and in our solar system, it is extremely likely that it operates the same everywhere else in the universe. I brought up Last Thursdayism more to counter mindlight's continued hypotheses about how light must somehow operate differently in order to rationalize the concept of a 6,000 year old universe. It was an argument reductio ad absurdum.

The nature of light is not more complicate than that of time. If the nature of time can change, why not the nature of light? My argument is not directly related to OP, but is very pertinent.

 

[juvenissun]

All species have extra characters not seen in any other animals. That's why they are called "specific characters". They define the species within the genus. "Generic characters" define the genus within the family and so on.

The larger the taxonomic group the fewer character traits all its members have in common. The smaller the taxonomic group the more special or extra characters they share with others in the same group over and above the characters they share with all members of the larger groups they belong to.

Agree.

So, taxonomy based only on biological characters is way short to classify any life-form on its real nature. Your argument is very "creational" . One may argue that human is an animal. But that is very very partial and is terribly false.

 

[juvenissun]

Aye. Google 'autapomorphy'.
Every species has characters not shared by any other, juvie. They're what make each species unique. The uniqueness of humans doesn't preclude them from being animals.

So, the current taxonomy is very childish. It should only be the chapter one of the real taxonomy. I believe those "uniqueness" of animal characters can still be classified. And it should not be so hard. After that, we then can really see the uniqueness of human.

 

[juvenissun]

Eh? What on Earth is a "Character"?

And no, there is no reason why we can't be classified in Kingdom Animalia through conventional taxonomy. We are motile, we are heterotrophs, we have specialized cells. Kingdom Animalia.

We are bilaterally symetrical, sub-Kingdom Bilaterian.

We have a true Coelom, Coelomata

We have notochord, nerve chord, pharyngeal pouch, deuterostome development, we are triploblasts. Phylum Chordata.

We have sweat glands, hair, middle ear bones, and a neocortex, Class Mammalia

We give birth to live young with a placenta, Cohort Eutheria

And a la, wikipedia: "

• retention of the collar bone in the pectoral girdle;[42]
• shoulder joints which allow high degrees of movement in all directions;[42]
• five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes;[42]
• nails on the fingers and toes (in most species);[43]
• a flat nail on the hallux (in all extant species);[43]
• sensitive tactile pads on the ends of the digits;[42]
• orbits encircled in bone;[44]
• a trend towards a reduced snout and flattened face, attributed to a reliance on vision at the expense of olfaction (most notably in haplorrhines, and less so in strepsirrhines);[44]
• a complex visual system with stereoscopic vision, high visual acuity and color vision;[42]
• a brain having a well developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a Calcarine fissure;[44]
• a large brain in comparison to body size, especially in simians;[42]
• differentiation of an enlarged cerebral cortex;[42]
• reduced number of teeth compared to primitive mammals;[42]
• three kinds of teeth;[44]
• a well-developed cecum;[44]
• two pectoral mammary glands;[42]
• typically one young per pregnancy;[42]
• a pendulous penis and scrotal testes;[44]
• a long gestation and developmental period;[42] and
• a trend towards holding the torso upright leading to bipedalism.[42]

Order, Primates


We have large brains that allow for advanced levels of cognition, Genus Homo

We have technology, Species Sapiens.

A good exercise report.
But, it is only an exercise. It won't be useful in the real world.

 

[Mallon]

So, the current taxonomy is very childish. It should only be the chapter one of the real taxonomy. I believe those "uniqueness" of animal characters can still be classified. And it should not be so hard. After that, we then can really see the uniqueness of human.

I didn't understand a word of that.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The nature of light is not more complicate than that of time. If the nature of time can change, why not the nature of light? My argument is not directly related to OP, but is very pertinent.

And since when has the nature of time changed? In relativity, perception of time is relative to gravitational forces. It's still governed by the same laws. Why doesn't the nature of light change? Because there's no logical basis for it. There's zero reason to assume it would. mindlight's hypothesis is that the light we see from stars is somehow magically quantumly entangled in just such a way that the light doesn't really travel for billions of years to reach the Earth. I'm not even entirely sure if that's possible in quantum mechanics. But let's say it was possible. The sheer statistical impossibility of every single light particle being in such a state that the universe is really 6,000 years old is such a low number it should probably be below zero. So how is that remedied? "God did it." That is not science.

There is no demonstrable pattern of such things happening elsewhere in the universe, and there is no possible way of even verifying that idea short of sending a probe into the intergalactic medium with some sort of light scooper-upper. Even if we did have the ability to do that, I'm sure the light there will be the same as the light here. What we are able to test on Earth and within our own solar system gives us evidence in the complete opposite direction.

The evidence is stacked purely against this hypothesis. Given that the first hypothesis failed after he talked to his friend about how quantum mechanics, this second hypothesis is only more of a desparate attempt of somehow rationalizing a 6,000 year old universe with the clear perception that our universe appears to be old. The problem is, God is not a God of the Gaps, and that the evidence destroyed any notion of a 6,000 year old universe long ago.

 

[laconicstudent]

A good exercise report.
But, it is only an exercise. It won't be useful in the real world.

Juvenissun. I hate to break it to you, but in the real world, we classify species by taxonomy. We are animals, mammals, and Primates in the Genus Homo named the sapiens. It serves to illustrate common decent. You can simply flat out deny this as much as you wish, but it doesn't change the truth.

 

[laconicstudent]

So, the current taxonomy is very childish.

Do you have any basis for that statement?

It should only be the chapter one of the real taxonomy. I believe those "uniqueness" of animal characters can still be classified.

It has... species are classified by increasingly specific characteristics, until the species is classified based on their "unique" traits.

And it should not be so hard. After that, we then can really see the uniqueness of human.

Humans are unique. No biologist will ever say otherwise. I feel like you don't actually understand how taxonomy works. It groups different species together by general traits, and becomes increasingly specific until we reach the level of Genus and species, at which each species is named and categorized according to its own unique characteristics within that Genus.

 

[Sphinx777]

I feel like you don't actually understand how taxonomy works.

Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification. The word finds its roots in the Greek τάξις, taxis (meaning 'order', 'arrangement') and νόμος, nomos ('law' or 'science'). Taxonomy uses taxonomic units, known as taxa (singular taxon).

In addition, the word is also used as a count noun: a taxonomy, or taxonomic scheme, is a particular classification ("the taxonomy of ..."), arranged in a hierarchical structure. Typically this is organized by supertype-subtype relationships, also called generalization-specialization relationships, or less formally, parent-child relationships. In such an inheritance relationship, the subtype by definition has the same properties, behaviors, and constraints as the supertype plus one or more additional properties, behaviors, or constraints. For example, car is a subtype of vehicle. So any car is also a vehicle, but not every vehicle is a car. Therefore, a type needs to satisfy more constraints to be a car than to be a vehicle.

 

[juvenissun]

]And since when has the nature of time changed?[/COLOR] In relativity, perception of time is relative to gravitational forces. It's still governed by the same laws. Why doesn't the nature of light change? Because there's no logical basis for it. There's zero reason to assume it would. mindlight's hypothesis is that the light we see from stars is somehow magically quantumly entangled in just such a way that the light doesn't really travel for billions of years to reach the Earth. I'm not even entirely sure if that's possible in quantum mechanics. But let's say it was possible. The sheer statistical impossibility of every single light particle being in such a state that the universe is really 6,000 years old is such a low number it should probably be below zero. So how is that remedied? "God did it." That is not science.

There is no demonstrable pattern of such things happening elsewhere in the universe, and there is no possible way of even verifying that idea short of sending a probe into the intergalactic medium with some sort of light scooper-upper. Even if we did have the ability to do that, I'm sure the light there will be the same as the light here. What we are able to test on Earth and within our own solar system gives us evidence in the complete opposite direction.

The evidence is stacked purely against this hypothesis. Given that the first hypothesis failed after he talked to his friend about how quantum mechanics, this second hypothesis is only more of a desparate attempt of somehow rationalizing a 6,000 year old universe with the clear perception that our universe appears to be old. The problem is, God is not a God of the Gaps, and that the evidence destroyed any notion of a 6,000 year old universe long ago.

OK, obviously your argument is pulling back to science. Then the argument is much easier. In science, we do not know the nature of time. What we know is what you said. Beyond that, there must be more. Because we have questions unanswered.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have any basis for that statement?



It has... species are classified by increasingly specific characteristics, until the species is classified based on their "unique" traits.





Humans are unique. No biologist will ever say otherwise. I feel like you don't actually understand how taxonomy works. It groups different species together by general traits, and becomes increasingly specific until we reach the level of Genus and species, at which each species is named and categorized according to its own unique characteristics within that Genus.

Is every animal unique?
Yes, each animal has its own uniqueness. Taxonomy looks at those parts which are not unique and classify them. So, animals are classified accordingly.
Can we identify the uniqueness of each animal and make a list?
Yes.
Can we categorize the uniqueness according to the common function/nature of those uniqueness? For example, each animal may have a special way of defense.
Probably yes. It could be complicate. However, I have not seen any taxonomy tried that.
IF, it were done. Then we can also list the uniqueness of human. For example, how many ways human used to defense.
Then you can easily see why human must not be an animal.
-------
Do not just study science. Take a few more humanity courses. They will help you to understand better about science.

 

[Dark_Lite]

In science, we do not know the nature of time. What we know is what you said. Beyond that, there must be more. Because we have questions unanswered.

And those unanswered questions some how magically make the universe 6,000 years old? I hate to disappoint but none of the answers to those questions are going to point to a 6,000 year old universe. It will fill in the cracks of what we know, but it's not going to point in the direction of YECism. There is simply far too much evidence in basically every field of science that goes the complete opposite direction.

 

[Skaloop]

Is every animal unique?
Yes, each animal has its own uniqueness. Taxonomy looks at those parts which are not unique and classify them. So, animals are classified accordingly.
Can we identify the uniqueness of each animal and make a list?
Yes.
Can we categorize the uniqueness according to the common function/nature of those uniqueness? For example, each animal may have a special way of defense.
Probably yes. It could be complicate. However, I have not seen any taxonomy tried that.
IF, it were done. Then we can also list the uniqueness of human. For example, how many ways human used to defense.
Then you can easily see why human must not be an animal.
-------
Do not just study science. Take a few more humanity courses. They will help you to understand better about science.

So every animal (every living organism, actually) has unique traits which give it unique ways of performing certain common functions/natures, but for some reason this uniqueness in humans make them not animals? Because of how many ways humans can defend themselves? But humans are pretty defenseless; the only real unique defense they have is their intelligence. Other animals have armour, or speed for escape, or weaponized body parts, or social groups, or communication... humans are no more unique than any other species.

 

[laconicstudent]

Is every animal unique?
Yes, each animal has its own uniqueness. Taxonomy looks at those parts which are not unique and classify them. So, animals are classified accordingly.

No, you are wrong. Species are classified based on the traits that make them unique within their Genus.

Can we identify the uniqueness of each animal and make a list?
Yes.

Yes, this is called modern taxonomy and is shown in the phylogenetic tree.

Can we categorize the uniqueness according to the common function/nature of those uniqueness? For example, each animal may have a special way of defense.
Probably yes. It could be complicate. However, I have not seen any taxonomy tried that.

Probably not, because that is a silly method of classification.

IF, it were done. Then we can also list the uniqueness of human. For example, how many ways human used to defense.
Then you can easily see why human must not be an animal.

This is a problem, because you are completely misunderstanding the biological definition of an Animal.

Do not just study science. Take a few more humanity courses. They will help you to understand better about science.

Just like my theology class gives me a greater understanding of calculus? Or how my Lifespan Development Psychology class gives me a deeper understanding of classical artwork?

No.

 

[juvenissun]

And those unanswered questions some how magically make the universe 6,000 years old? I hate to disappoint but none of the answers to those questions are going to point to a 6,000 year old universe. It will fill in the cracks of what we know, but it's not going to point in the direction of YECism. There is simply far too much evidence in basically every field of science that goes the complete opposite direction.

OK, let me give you one of the unanswered question:

Is it possible to have one year of time before the current status of time, correspondents to 1000 years of time of the current status?

Translation 1: Is it possible for time to elapse 1000 times faster (or slower) at somewhere else or at sometime before or under some special conditions?

Translation 2: Time could run asynchronously.

I believe that there is such a possibility (I did not invent it. I heard it from some talks of theoretical physics).

If so, the 6000 years earth history would be completely possible. Billions of years of time in the current time system could elapse in just a couple of years 6000 years ago according to the unknown nature of time.