o_O.Q said:
"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? These characteristics are inherently true, the structures that scientists made (based on these characteristics) are 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 Why is it nonsensical?
"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? Look at this image: The four corners obviously have a different colour, right? But can you draw a line where one colour starts and another begins?
"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? Dinosaurs have characteristics of both birds and reptiles. Sure, they went extinct, but that doesn't make any difference.
"These animals exist, obviously." so this is correct? ""scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology""? No. The animals exist. The structures don't.
"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? Because if you understand how evolution works, you should also be able to understand that all creatures are related to eachother, and that there can't be any strict divisions between them. |
