Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
Aye. Google 'autapomorphy'.All species have extra characters not seen in any other animals. That's why they are called "specific characters".
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.
This ability of thinking is called logic. Only human has it.
Beyond the beginning of human, just like what you said, anything is possible, and the time does not have to have the same nature.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't understand a word of that.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.
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.
A good exercise report.
But, it is only an exercise. It won't be useful in the real world.
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.
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).I feel like you don't actually understand how taxonomy works.
Dark_Lite;53300794[COLOR="Blue" said:]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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?