Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Taxonomic jargon - how close is too close?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Taxonomic jargon - how close is too close?

    How far are YECs/anti-evolutionists willing to take the Linnaean classification for humans?

    Perhaps we could discuss the history behind Linneaus' taxonomy, and where the traditional boundary is between humans and other animals.

    AFAIK, no educated person would deny that he/she is an animal and a chordate and a mammal.

    I've heard some squawk about "Primate", even though Carolus L. chose that name for the order containing humans because it was the first or the "prime" -- elevating the human order above other animals.

    And every last YEC/Anti-Evo bristles at "Ape".

    But, why? Why should "ape" bother them when "mammal" does not? Is it because "ape" can be derogatory?

    This thread is related to the one on the micro/macro-evolution boundary, but here we are looking at the current biosphere, and how humans fit in.

    K54

  • #2
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    How far are YECs/anti-evolutionists willing to take the Linnaean classification for humans?

    Perhaps we could discuss the history behind Linneaus' taxonomy, and where the traditional boundary is between humans and other animals.

    AFAIK, no educated person would deny that he/she is an animal and a chordate and a mammal.

    I've heard some squawk about "Primate", even though Carolus L. chose that name for the order containing humans because it was the first or the "prime" -- elevating the human order above other animals.

    And every last YEC/Anti-Evo bristles at "Ape".

    But, why? Why should "ape" bother them when "mammal" does not? Is it because "ape" can be derogatory?

    This thread is related to the one on the micro/macro-evolution boundary, but here we are looking at the current biosphere, and how humans fit in.

    K54
    Interesting points. This has long been part of an interesting issue for those, including Judaism and Islam, clinging to the ancient world view of the Pentateuch. Part of it is the distinct separation of humanity from animals in Genesis. Despite contemporary movements in 'reform' since the 1800's to reconcile science and scripture the conservative movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam remain combative with the well established knowledge of science. Theological implications of Genesis and the Pentateuch for all three religions anchor them in the archaic past of ancient literature.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-28-2014, 07:23 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Interesting points. This has long been part of an interesting issue for those, including Judaism and Islam, clinging to the ancient world view of the Pentateuch. Part of it is the distinct separation of humanity from animals in Genesis. Despite contemporary movements in 'reform' since the 1800's to reconcile science and scripture the conservative movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam remain combative with the well established knowledge of science. Theological implications of Genesis and the Pentateuch for all three religions anchor them in the archaic past of ancient literature.
      But still even back before the Renaissance, people knew they were physically animals at least. Eating, drinking, pooping, reproducing, having a skeleton, making milk...

      And when apes were discovered, they certainly had to note the similarities. Non-western peoples did for sure. "Chimpanzee" means "mock man" in Bantu. "Bonobo" means "ancestor". "Orangutan" means "forest man".

      C'mom anti-evos --- let's discuss!!

      K54
      Last edited by klaus54; 08-28-2014, 02:02 PM. Reason: typing

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't see the problem here. OK, theology and biology disagree. You pick one or the other, and you do so because you find either theology or biology more compelling for personal reasons. The biology type will consider the theologist to be deliberately bone ignorant, and the theology type will consider the biology person beyond eternal salvation. Ships in the night.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          How far are YECs/anti-evolutionists willing to take the Linnaean classification for humans?
          Carl or Carolus Linnaeus, the Father of Taxonomy and who came up with binomial nomenclature -- the way organisms are organized -- was highly regarded by Henry Morris, the father of the modern creationist movement, as well as by many other YECs who consider him to be one of the World's Greatest Creation Scientists.

          Morris gushed that Linnaeus was "a man of great piety and respect for the Scriptures. One of his main goals in systematizing the tremendous varieties of living creatures was to attempt to delineate the original Genesis ‘kinds’."

          Anyhow... back in 1747 he told the famous explorer and geographer, Johann Georg Gmelin, that he didn't know whether he should "call man ape or vice versa."

          So it was a hero of the creationists who first classed humans as being an ape.

          1747. That was over six decades before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact it was nearly 20 years before Robert Darwin (Charles' father) was born so this concept cannot be blamed on evolution.

          A half dozen years after his remark to Gmelin, Linnaeus remarked that “scientists search in vain for any distinguishing mark by which the Apes can be separated from the humans.”

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by phank View Post
            I don't see the problem here. OK, theology and biology disagree. You pick one or the other, and you do so because you find either theology or biology more compelling for personal reasons. The biology type will consider the theologist to be deliberately bone ignorant, and the theology type will consider the biology person beyond eternal salvation. Ships in the night.
            I don't see the problem either, but apparently many post-Morris anti-evos do.

            K54

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Carl or Carolus Linnaeus, the Father of Taxonomy and who came up with binomial nomenclature -- the way organisms are organized -- was highly regarded by Henry Morris, the father of the modern creationist movement, as well as by many other YECs who consider him to be one of the World's Greatest Creation Scientists.

              Morris gushed that Linnaeus was "a man of great piety and respect for the Scriptures. One of his main goals in systematizing the tremendous varieties of living creatures was to attempt to delineate the original Genesis ‘kinds’."

              Anyhow... back in 1747 he told the famous explorer and geographer, Johann Georg Gmelin, that he didn't know whether he should "call man ape or vice versa."

              So it was a hero of the creationists who first classed humans as being an ape.

              1747. That was over six decades before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact it was nearly 20 years before Robert Darwin (Charles' father) was born so this concept cannot be blamed on evolution.

              A half dozen years after his remark to Gmelin, Linnaeus remarked that “scientists search in vain for any distinguishing mark by which the Apes can be separated from the humans.”
              Good summary!

              It's curious when an ideological group turns a notion wards-back for support.

              Conversely, YECs turned "Big Bang" into an obscenity forgetting that it was coined by an atheist mocking a concept that smacked too much of a Beginning.

              K54

              Comment


              • #8
                I figured this thread would draw more fire from the anti-evolutionists.

                I posed a VERY SIMPLE question.

                Where do humans fit into the anti-evolutionists' taxonomy?

                K54

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  But still even back before the Renaissance, people knew they were physically animals at least. Eating, drinking, pooping, reproducing, having a skeleton, making milk...

                  And when apes were discovered, they certainly had to note the similarities. Non-western peoples did for sure. "Chimpanzee" means "mock man" in Bantu. "Bonobo" means "ancestor". "Orangutan" means "forest man".

                  C'mom anti-evos --- let's discuss!!

                  K54
                  It remained dominant view before, during and after the Renaissance that the fundamental belief based on Genesis is that humans were created uniquely 'in God's Image.' All animals as well as everything else was basically created to serve humanity. I do not buy the argument that humans saw themselves as animals. The say attributes of animals in humans, humans in animals. Not that the meaning of 'Mock man,' does not lead to the conclusion that humans were also animals.

                  In some cultures like the Native American, and African the lines between animals and humans were not as sharp as in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs grounded in the Pentateuch.

                  I have talked to a number of fundamentalists concerning this issue, and they were uncompromising concerning the uniqueness of human Creation as opposed to animal Creation, despite the taxonomic resemblance of humans to animals. This resemblance is attributed to all being Created by God as their view of the basic groups of animals as seen through the eyes of the fundamentalists. The view of some was fideistic in nature, or everything is created as we see it today including the appearance of age.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-28-2014, 10:21 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    It remained dominant view before, during and after the Renaissance that the fundamental belief based on Genesis is that humans were created uniquely 'in God's Image.' All animals as well as everything else was basically created to serve humanity. I do not buy the argument that humans saw themselves as animals. The say attributes of animals in humans, humans in animals. Not that the meaning of 'Mock man,' does not lead to the conclusion that humans were also animals.

                    In some cultures like the Native American, and African the lines between animals and humans were not as sharp as in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs grounded in the Pentateuch.

                    I have talked to a number of fundamentalists concerning this issue, and they were uncompromising concerning the uniqueness of human Creation as opposed to animal Creation, despite the taxonomic resemblance of humans to animals. This resemblance is attributed to all being Created by God as their view of the basic groups of animals as seen through the eyes of the fundamentalists. The view of some was fideistic in nature, or everything is created as we see it today including the appearance of age.
                    Certainly people from the beginnings of civilization realized they had shared "base" characteristics with other animals. It's hard for me to believe that the OT Hebrews or the Christian Church viewed people differently physically -- whether made de novo from the adamah or not.

                    Anyone who believes humans are physically made in the image of God has a screw loose IMNSHO.

                    But my question was aimed towards present-day creationists who believe that humans were made de novo -- separately from other animals. Those who believe that humans were made physically, as well as spiritually in the image of God.

                    How do those people deal with taxonomy?

                    Is it offensive to classify humans as mammals? As primates? As Haplorrhines? As Hominoidea?

                    You Biblical Scientific Creationists (BSCs) need to do this!!!

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      It remained dominant view before, during and after the Renaissance that the fundamental belief based on Genesis is that humans were created uniquely 'in God's Image.' All animals as well as everything else was basically created to serve humanity. I do not buy the argument that humans saw themselves as animals. The say attributes of animals in humans, humans in animals. Not that the meaning of 'Mock man,' does not lead to the conclusion that humans were also animals.
                      With this I would have to agree. In the language of certain cannibal tribes of New Guinea, "human" translates as "long pig" (something to do with the flavour, I believe).

                      In some cultures like the Native American, and African the lines between animals and humans were not as sharp as in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs grounded in the Pentateuch.

                      I have talked to a number of fundamentalists concerning this issue, and they were uncompromising concerning the uniqueness of human Creation as opposed to animal Creation, despite the taxonomic resemblance of humans to animals. This resemblance is attributed to all being Created by God as their view of the basic groups of animals as seen through the eyes of the fundamentalists. The view of some was fideistic in nature, or everything is created as we see it today including the appearance of age.
                      Yep (qualified) - the Bible definitely ascribes an off line creation to Adam and Eve.
                      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why would an "offline" creation of humans result in a physical body that fits in so well with an evolutionary taxonomy?

                        Intentional deception vs. common ancestry -- which is "worse" for the anti-evolutionist?

                        Please --- what is the human taxonomy to an anti-evolutionist?

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why would an "offline" creation of humans result in a physical body that fits in so well with an evolutionary taxonomy?
                          Maybe design specifications? As an atheist once asked me - did Adam and Eve have navels? (wasn't there, don't know).

                          Intentional deception vs. common ancestry
                          Or neither? Ever wonder who Cain feared would kill him when he was given the boot from Eden? That too is a question asked by atheists. Perhaps the design was deliberately tailored so that Adam and Eve could be seamlessly integrated into the system that developed outside Eden.
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Maybe design specifications? As an atheist once asked me - did Adam and Eve have navels? (wasn't there, don't know).

                            Or neither? Ever wonder who Cain feared would kill him when he was given the boot from Eden? That too is a question asked by atheists. Perhaps the design was deliberately tailored so that Adam and Eve could be seamlessly integrated into the system that developed outside Eden.
                            I wasn't aware that Cain was booted out of Eden.

                            "Common design" is a fudged explanation no better epistemologically than "God done diddly-did it that way cuz he felt like it."

                            Why would the common designer leave a wrench or two in His work -- you know vestigial structures, that extra stuff in the DNA, and all that jazz?

                            Anyway, I don't want to let the topic veer into a design discussion. So, please deal with the SIMPLE question of where humans fit into taxonomy?

                            K54

                            P.S. I'm sorry but the red highlighted point makes no sense.
                            Last edited by klaus54; 08-29-2014, 12:19 PM. Reason: p.s.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Humans (ordinary humans, that is) fit into taxonomy, as far as I can tell, in the way that the Theory of Evolution describes.
                              Genesis describes what happened in Eden.
                              There are in consequence two possibilities:
                              Eden was on Earth and has ceased to exist - in which case the Biblical account of the Garden and development of the universe is incorrect.
                              Eden was not on Earth and continues to exist - its alternative name being Paradise - in which case the section you highlighted in red is a real possibility.
                              As to which is correct, I tend to the second option ... though I don't claim to have been able to make a determination ... not a theory, just a hypothesis.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 10:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              8 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post lee_merrill  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              56 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              25 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X