Reclassification of Homo sapiens.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Enmos, Apr 16, 2009.

  1. LifeinTechnicolor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    56
    Yes >_>
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    Why are we arguing about a classification system that is largely artificial and arbitrary anyway?

    And why is it that every thread you're involved with, Enmos, reads like an instant messenger conversation.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It was, and still largely is, but it is worked on. Genetic classification is the way it should be done, and is done nowadays. There is still a lot of work to do though.

    Have you seen the responses I got ? :bugeye:
    Besides, if you don't like it you can stay out.
    I take it you have nothing interesting to say anyway.. ?
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    Genetic classification is the way it should be done? Why? Taxonomy exists because of the human nature with classification. It is irrelevant where we as a species decide we want to group different organisms on our charts.
    Sure I have. I can read. But it's not just this particular thread, Enmos.

    Although my interest in this discussion is modest at best, but it's a complete pain in that ass for anyone to have to sift through 80+ posts to find the 3 or 4 that actually say something useful.
     
  8. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So.. reality is relative then ?

    Perhaps it a difference of perception then. I was trying to make SAM see my point. That's useful to me..
    The alternative would be to just ignore anyone that doesn't immediately get the point.
     
  9. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    Of course it is.

    But that's not what you were trying to say, I don't think. Does a bonobo stop being a bonobo if we call it something else?
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    latter i must post all the similarities between humans and bonbons, the similarities in sexual behavor are VERY telling
     
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What ? No, it's not. Perception is relative, reality is not.
    If reality was relative, why are we wasting our time pursuing knowledge and truth through science ? Seems to me it would be a lost cause then..

    No, of course not. But something is making it a Bonobo. And science is finding out what that something is. I believe we have come a long way with genetics.

    Don't you want to know the truth, don't you want knowledge ?
    You can classify a banana as a species of rabbit, that won't change the banana..
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2009
  12. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    This is getting a little too philosophical for Biology. But we are pursuing knowledge of the universe as we perceive it. Perception is everything.

    Agreed. My formal education is in molecular genetics, so this is something I would never dispute.

    Classification of organisms in an arbitrary manner is not the pursuit of knowledge. It's application of knowledge. Genetics research is very important, and it is giving us a much better understanding of how organisms operate, and how they are what they are. I just don't see the point in bickering over a naming convention.
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    ok similarities of bonobo's and humans:

    More human than ape

    again much more human than ape (even chimp)


    all very human, even the negitive sides (just look at israil palistine if you dont belive me)

    group hunting is also very human though other pack animals do paticipate as well

    ok they sadly arnt rare in human sociaty but they ARE generally treated as something worse than male male violence or female female

    do i even need to comment here?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    im a little puzzled by this one, i dont know if they mean they are the only species to do all three or if they are the only species to do ANY of the three. I belive dolphines have been known to give head jobs (even male male ones) and i THINK they mate face to face but i do doubt they kiss. Anyway, similar sexual behavor to humans rather than other chimps

    there is a whole heep on male male and female female sex but i dont want to quote it for fear of starting a gay debate

    ok MOST humans DO form permanent or semi permanent bonds however we also do engage in sex outside. The issue of taboo's is also very human

    food and sex, need i say more?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    humans who are sterile still engage in sexual activity

    how much closer can you get than actually understanding?

    whats bush's vocabulary?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

    so sam, how much closer could you actually get?
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I agree, this is not the thread

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There are rules by which organisms are assigned to taxa. The organisms within a particular taxon are grouped because of a particular level of genetic affinity to each other, which in turn signifies their evolutionary relationship.
    What is arbitrary is to ignore these rules (and with it the genetic relations between various species) just because you don't like how reality turns out.

    I see you didn't comment on my banana analogy..
     
  15. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    But we decided what the rules were, didn't we? So it's still an arbitrary system.

    Because it's saying exactly the same thing as my bonobo comment about calling them something different. It's just a name and a category that we've given it, and it does nothing to change what the organism actually is. We are just naming and organizing things in a way that makes most sense to us at the current time.
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not really. Taxas are groups of organisms that are closely related.
    The lower the taxon the more closely related the organisms in it are.
    It's not even like having a huge pile of cubes of varying sizes, and then grouping them according to their size, that would be arbitrary.
    Species are closely related (and thus grouped together) because they had a relatively recent common ancestor. To ignore their descendance is to ignore evolution.

    So you wouldn't have a problem with it if they classified banana's as Lepus musa ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    My example was to show you how stupid it is to ignore genetic relationships between species when you're classifying them.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
     
  18. Naturelles Future Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    214
    I wonder what would happen if scientists propose to put us in the Pan genus. Those religious people might start getting onto about how humans are "superior" Just like the ridiculous debate on evolution.

    Or maybe since we've drifted so far from nature, we shouldn't classify ourselves!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm joking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You might have been joking but there is truth in what you said. The majority of religious people will of course be against reclassifying Homo sapiens to Pan sapiens.
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    but you think humans are superior. all humans think humans are superior except some admit it and some dont. or you were joking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Naturelles Future Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    214
    No, I'm serious about reclassifying, but I was joking about not classifying ourselves at all since we've drifted so far from nature.
     
  22. Naturelles Future Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    214
    No way do i think humans are superior, there is nothing in the universe which is "superior" except the laws of physics which governs everything. We are just an insignificant group of creatures on this small speck of rock (our planet) in this huge Universe.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    that may or may not be true but still does not mean we arent superior to a cockroach.
     

Share This Page