Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
We apologize for that, it was a bad call.Just as soon as you say sorry for the William Wallace fiasco.
EDIT: and over 700 years ago. We forgave Germany and Japan in decades!
We apologize for that, it was a bad call.Just as soon as you say sorry for the William Wallace fiasco.
I can say, " there is a mammal over there," and point to a cat. It is real in that sense surely?
We apologize for that, it was a bad call.
Er...What about the species cat, or the higher taxon mammal? Are they real?
That is exactly what it is, as animals have certain characteristics and similarities so we categorise them according to those morphologies. We can study them and expect results based on that.artificial taxonomical construction.
That is exactly what it is, as animals have certain characteristics and similarities so we categorise them according to those morphologies. We can study them and expect results based on that.
How should we be classified? To students of Biology?And even this much can be disputed. Not all scientists think humans should even be classified as apes, let alone that we really are apes
How should we be classified? To students of Biology?
The Ranking of Taxa
Once species have been grouped into taxa the next step in the process of biological classification is the construction of a hierarchy of these taxa, the so-called Linnaean hierarchy. The hierarchy is constructed by assigning a definite rank such as family or order to each taxon, subordinating the lower categories to the higher ones. It is a basic weakness of cladistics that it lacks a sensitive method of of ranking and simply gives a new rank after each branching point. The evolutionary taxonomist, following Darwin, ranks taxa by the degree of divergence from the common ancestor, often assigning a different rank to sister groups. Rank determination is one of the most difficult and subjective decision processes in classification. One aspect of evolution that causes difficulties is mosaic evolution. Rates of divergence of different characters are often drastically different. Conventionally taxa, such as those of vertebrates, are described and delimited on the basis of external morphology and of the skeleton, particularly the locomotory system. When other sets of morphological characters are used (for example, sense organs, reproductive system, central nervous system, or chromosomes), the evidence they provide is sometimes conflicting. The situation can become worse, if molecular characters are also used. The anthropoid genus Pan (chimpanzee), for instance, is very similar to Homo in molecular characters, but man differs so much from the anthropoid apes in traditional characters (central nervous system and its capacities) and occupation of a highly distinct adaptive zone that Julian Huxley even proposed to raise him to the rank of a separate kingdom -- Psychozoa.
Ranking
Rank in the Linnaean hierarchy is indicated by the category in which a given taxon is placed. Rank determination is one of the most difficult and arbitrary decision processes in classification. For the cladist, rank is automatically given by the nearest branching point of the phylogenetic tree, since sister taxa must have the same rank. The evolutionary taxonomist, by contrast, must decide what number and weight of autapomorphous characters justify a difference in rank between two sister groups; such a decision becomes particularly difficult when the evidence from different kinds of characters is conflicting. A molecular taxonomist, for instance, might place Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo in the same family, owing to the similarity of their macromolecules, while Julian Huxley proposed to raise man to the rank of a separate kingdom (Psychozoa), owing to the unique characteristics of man with respect to his central nervous system and its capacities. There are no firm rules as to how to resolve such conflicts, except to say that one should look for overall balance in the system, and adopt a scale of ranking that will permit the most useful generalizations.
"For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions"
- Albert Einstein
What the hell does that mean Albert? For all his smarts he does not half put a lot of noise into his thoughts.
HE knows what he means, no one else does.
How should we be classified? To students of Biology?
The main difference between cladists and evolutionary taxonomists, thus, is in the treatment of autapomorph characters. Instead of automatically giving sister groups the same rank, the evolutionary taxonomist ranks them by considering the relative weight of their autapomorphies (figure 14.1). For instance, one of the striking autapomorphies of man (in comparison to his sister group, the chimpanzee) is the possession of Broca's center in the brain, a character that is closely correlated with man's speaking ability. This single character is for most taxonomists of greater weight than various synapomorphous similarities or even identities in man and the apes in certain macromolecules such as hemoglobins cytochrome c. The particular importance in autapomorphies is that they reflect the occupation of new niches and new adaptive zones that may have greater biological significance than synapomorphies in some of the standard macromolecules.
If you wish to leave this forum, you're obviously free to leave any time you like. If you feel that you won't be able to resist the temptation to come back later, then (a) you can try to resist the temptation, while leaving your account active, or (b) you can ask me to permanently ban your account. Please let me know if you intend to leave and you want to select option (b). I will need a clear statement from you that you are requesting a permanent ban, if that's what you want.
....
See above. If you are requesting a permanent ban, I need you to clearly state that this is what you want.
As you wish.Yes, pull the plug.
I don't believe I accused axocanth at any time of being "anti-science". I certainly referred to his "anti-scientific method" crusade, by which I mean his insistence that "there is no scientific method". I invite anybody who is interested to review the threads that axocanth started, to judge for yourself whether or not axocanth is against the notion that there is a scientific method.Now, once again James, especially, tries very hard to project this "anti-science" label upon myself -- something I reject -- in order to add credibility to his own character slurs against me.
It certainly sounds like somebody has a problem with humility here. Any of us can be wrong in our views. Not all of us are open to acknowledging such a possibility, however.The "belligerence" (see James' recent posts again), then, if there can be any to speak of at all, lies in the expression of views which certain other members have simply failed to do their homework on.
For the record, in his time here, axocanth received exactly zero official warnings for any kind of "naughtiness".James continues to condescend, as if he's dealing with some naughty, truculent, fib-telling schoolchild who, in his boundless magnanimity, will allow to stay if I just clean up my act, if I just play nice.