Flilix said:
Bats can fly. 'Flying' is not the charasteristic that defines birds, so your example doesn't even make sense. The dinstiction between animal classes is made by multiple charasteristics. These are selected in the most logical way possible, but they're still artificial. For instance: 'not being able to fly' is not a charasterictic of mammals, since bats can fly. But if bats didn't exist, scientists would consider 'not being able to fly' to be a charasteristic of the mammal class, since there wouldn't be any flying mammals. However, all the other mammals would still be the same. Living creatures aren't inherently divided into strict groups. Scientists made these groups up, and adapted the definitions to their 'sources' ( = all creatures in existence). |
"'Flying' is not the charasteristic that defines birds"
really? so lets say i gather 100 people and ask them to name a flying animal... what do you suppose the answer would be for 99% of them
now flying is not the main characteristic of birds sure, there are others such as being covered in feathers as opposed to fur, for example
"The dinstiction between animal classes is made by multiple charasteristics. These are selected in the most logical way possible, but they're still artificial."
so humans caused birds to grow wings? and fish to grow scales? are you fucking trolling?
" 'not being able to fly' is not a charasterictic of mammals"
yes but giving birth to live young is...
" However, all the other mammals would still be the same."
yeah... does this make a lion a cannibal when it eats a gazelle?
"Living creatures aren't inherently divided into strict groups."
so why don't tuna, elephants, lions and flamingos all swim in schools?
"Scientists made these groups up"
scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology







