Flilix said:
o_O.Q said:
"It is, since that's an abnormality, it's not heritable (I think? If it is heritable, and if a whole dynasty of eight-limbed people arises, then scientists will probably adjust their definition of a 'human'.)
wtf... right here you accept "human" as a valid classification, how can you and still claim that there is no differentiation between different animals?
1) Every single individual is unique, so of course there is differentiation between different animals.
2) I didn't even say whether or not I accept it as a valid classification. I said that scientits use definitions for biological subdivisions such as 'human'. I also said that these definitions are adjustable, which implies that they're not absolute or inherently true.
3) Of course I understand the need to bring structure in the animal kingdom. And scientists try to do this as systematically and as logically as possible. That doesn't make their structures inherently true, though.
"Scientists could just as well have considered that the platypus is a bird since it lays eggs"
no, scientists never use one criteria to group animals
we know a bird is a bird because it has wings AND a beak AND feathers AND lays eggs etc etc etc
I never said that they use only one criteria. But I just mentioned this one because it was the most relevant. Platypus have a beak and lay eggs, but don't have feathers.
"But you can never draw a clear line to divide the animal kingdom into groups."
you acknowledge that we can and do when we notice that elephants do not swim in fish schools
I said a clear line. It makes sense that we wouldn't consider elephants to be fish, since they lack a lot of the requirements to be considered a fish. (Note: of course, all these requirements are chosen by scientists. They attempted to do this in the most logical way possible, but that doesn't mean these requirements are absolutely true and inherently the only correct ones.)
Are dinosaurs birds or reptiles?
"Almost all biological notions, going from 'life' to 'bird' to 'great tit', are created and defined by people/scientists."
"scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology"
so... birds didn't exist until scientists named them?
These animals exist, obviously. However, the concept of 'bird', and the subdivision of this group, is man-made.
Question: do you believe in evolution?
|
|
"And scientists try to do this as systematically and as logically as possible. That doesn't make their structures inherently true, though."
birds fly, bats fly, humans walk and fish swim, is that all inherently true or not
bats have fur and give birth to live young whereas birds have feathers and beaks and lay eggs, is that inherently true or not?
"I never said that they use only one criteria. But I just mentioned this one because it was the most relevant. Platypus have a beak and lay eggs, but don't have feathers."
good and that's why your assertion that a platypus could be a bird is nonsensical in the context we are using
"I said a clear line. It makes sense that we wouldn't consider elephants to be fish, since they lack a lot of the requirements to be considered a fish."
you just drew a clear line with elephants, why?
"Are dinosaurs birds or reptiles?"
dinosaurs supposedly evolved into birds... are you really using that to draw a comparison between birds and reptiles now?
can you identify a reptile that flies? or a bird that is cold blooded?
"These animals exist, obviously."
so this is correct? ""scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology""?
"Question: do you believe in evolution?"
i accept that scientists claim its a process which occurs over long periods of time in organisms and this is relevant how?
