Indeed. Essentially the basis for all taxonomy. Of course, more related organisms are going to be more similar, so evolutionary theory IS the basis of cladistic analysis irrespective of which one was invented / discovered first.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Indeed. Essentially the basis for all taxonomy. Of course, more related organisms are going to be more similar, so evolutionary theory IS the basis of cladistic analysis irrespective of which one was invented / discovered first.
Hmm, cladistics is entwined with genetics and evolution but taxonomy predates and is independant of both
Originally posted by aardvarkhome Hmm, cladistics is entwined with genetics and evolution but taxonomy predates and is independant of both
Taxonomy makes more and more use of cladistic analysis all the time. There are many taxonomic classifications out there that utilise cladistic analysis, some based entirely on morphological features, some on DNA sequences. If evolutionary theory is wrong, they wouldn't work. Neither would taxonomy, because there would be no imputus for a creator (god or whatever) to follow any pattern when He/She/It can do anything it likes.
Originally posted by belgianfreak again, I diasgree. Classifying species like this was done by observation alone with no agenda, yet it would seem that you would dismiss it because it's ideas were later incorporated into ToE.
Your fisrt statement was that such clasifications had to be dismissed because they were "created on the basis of evolutionary science". They may not contradict ...[text shortened]... ating difference. What would this be I don't know.. Higher thought processes? A soul?
BF
I think we're talking at odds, allow me to try and clarify.
I did not mean to infer that taxonomy was already part of the TOE, merely that it is now part of the grander term of evolutionary science (not reducible to just the TOE). Taxonomic classification laid the basis for a lot of work on evolution and the kingdom Animalia is a notion intrinsic to the structure of the evoutionary tree.
As regards the definition of an animal, I'm with you. My initial point was intended to highlight that it is not possible to discuss the notion of humans as animals without going against their classification as Animalia, not to dismiss the definition. To be honest, reading it back, I'm not sure how you got that impression.
Originally posted by Starrman To be honest, reading it back, I'm not sure how you got that impression.
He's probably relating your comments back to one of your original comments in the thread: "So we are left with the anti-evolution arguments, all of which are dependant on a belief in the creation of man by god."
which infers the belief that you can't discuss whether humans are animals without using anti/pro evolution arguments.
Originally posted by Starrman I think we're talking at odds, allow me to try and clarify.
I did not mean to infer that taxonomy was already part of the TOE, merely that it is now part of the grander term of evolutionary science (not reducible to just the TOE). Taxonomic classification laid the basis for a lot of work on evolution and the kingdom Animalia is a notion intrinsic to t ...[text shortened]... iss the definition. To be honest, reading it back, I'm not sure how you got that impression.
oh believe me, I can get impressions from anywhere whether there is cause or not 🙂 Let's leave this to one side and see if anyone proposes why humans are not animals, physiology aside.
To sidestep the semantics argument, this is what an animal is:
"A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."
D
If thats the measure of animals then yes, we are animals.
However, humans differ from animals in that humans have a soul (the capacity of abstract reasoning, articulate speech etc.). It therefore follows that humans must take care of their souls as well as their bodies and the standard way of doing this is by following a religion. As for evolution, If you prefer to believe that you are descended from a flatworm then that is simply your folly.
Originally posted by princeoforange If thats the measure of animals then yes, we are animals.
However, humans differ from animals in that humans have a soul (the capacity of abstract reasoning, articulate speech etc.). It therefore follows that humans must take care of their souls as well as their bodies and the standard way of doing this is by following a religion. As for evolution, If you prefer to believe that you are descended from a flatworm then that is simply your folly.
Is that what a soul is?
Capacity for abstract reasoning.
Because there are many experiments that show cases of a number of different animals demonstrating abstract reasoning.
Not quite sure wy having something that someone else doesn't implies that we should take care of it. I might have a big lump on my leg that you don't - should I take good care of this lump?
Possibly not.
Another example of some suspect reasoning.
Originally posted by amannion Is that what a soul is?
Capacity for abstract reasoning.
Because there are many experiments that show cases of a number of different animals demonstrating abstract reasoning.
Not quite sure wy having something that someone else doesn't implies that we should take care of it. I might have a big lump on my leg that you don't - should I take good care of this lump?
Possibly not.
Another example of some suspect reasoning.
Oh, this is interesting, enlighten me on any animal which employs abstract reasoning please.
And as for comparing abstract reasoning or articulate speech to a lump on the leg, something you want rid of, it looks like a pathetic clutch at straws.
Originally posted by princeoforange Oh, this is interesting, enlighten me on any animal which employs abstract reasoning please.
And as for comparing abstract reasoning or articulate speech to a lump on the leg, something you want rid of, it looks like a pathetic clutch at straws.
Originally posted by princeoforange Oh, this is interesting, enlighten me on any animal which employs abstract reasoning please.
And as for comparing abstract reasoning or articulate speech to a lump on the leg, something you want rid of, it looks like a pathetic clutch at straws.
Experiments on Chimpanzees, Bobobos, Gorillas, and believe it or not Octopi all show clear evidence of abstract reasoning - which in simple terms is the ability to consider and act on things not actually in plain sight.
I'm sure there are many more.
If you want me to chase up some references, I'm happy to do that.
But I'm guessing it's not going to matter how much evidence I stack up for you ...
Originally posted by amannion Experiments on Chimpanzees, Bobobos, Gorillas, and believe it or not Octopi all show clear evidence of abstract reasoning - which in simple terms is the ability to consider and act on things not actually in plain sight.
I'm sure there are many more.
If you want me to chase up some references, I'm happy to do that.
But I'm guessing it's not going to matter how much evidence I stack up for you ...
In order to try and answer the original question, we need to define exactly what it is to be "human". One poster stated that as opposed to animals, humans have a "soul", and are therefore capable of abstract reasoning and articulate speech.
I find this definition to be unsatisfactory. Firstly, there are many humans who are incapable of abstract reasoning or articulate speech (no George Bush jokes please). Does that make them less human? Or soul-less? As mentioned previously, some animals show signs of abstract reasoning, and can certainly communicate.
Another definition of a "human" is that I have previously heard, is that we are the only "animals" who are self-aware. Yet there is evidence to show that other animals are also self-aware... especially the higher apes.
If we are to try and answer the original question, surely we need to have a specific definition of what makes us human, so that each particular point can be argued. Help me out here folks, because I'm having trouble finding a definition of what makes us human (leaving aside our genetic make-up), as opposed to animals.
We may end up going down the route of "Do apes deserve human rights" here, but I think that is tied in with the spirit of the original post, but looking at it from a different angle.
23 Feb '06 23:58
Humans are not animals
Back to Top