Forums

Raleirosen said :
Cthris said :
Fair enough, you got me In my defence, geneology is the most problematic and errorful science I have ever encountered. Genealogy is not a science; taxonomy is what governs the the classification of organisms, and it is extremely well-defined. Your criticisms of it are worthless... but of course, we've gone over that topic before. Lol because labeling all the breeds of dogs as the same species but excluding coyotes and wolves makes tons of sense, is well defined and not arbitrary at all [/quote]

Raleirosen said :

Rifleavenger said :
If I had more time I'd like to hear an elaboration on this, though I doubt you'd get me to stop using phylogenetics. Paleontology has few enough methods to work with as is. Don't bother, Rifle. His criticisms of biology are purely philosophical and have no bearing on the science. His conflation of genealogy and taxonomy should've been a clue. The fact that the philosophy doesn't have bearing on the science is the problem. Philosophy goes hand and hand with real sciences like physics Also while I admit I did mistake them, it's not like the study of families would be possible without classifying them as families.

Raleirosen said :

Cthris said :
If anyone else would like to try to prove that modern society is objectively more advanced using a absolute metric I am down If not, then I guess we are stuck with having to accept that societal advancement is simply subjective and Zamorak's philosophy has no objective basis. Do you even believe in objectivity or absolute metrics?
It is objectively true that objectivity is objective
But beyond that little cheek I keep my judgement suspended.

22-Mar-2017 20:00:03 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 20:03:26 by Cthris

Cthris said :
Giras said :
I don't know whether to be happy that Jexel's thread is derailed to shit or pissed that it wasn't me who did it.
It might not be clear to you at the moment, but this is actually working towards Jexel's point more than you know. If we end up with the conclusion that advancement is an illusion then that completely undermines Zamorak's position.
Then that will also make Saradomin's point moot as if there's no society that's objectively better, then Saradomin's utopia is as empty as living on Yubisk.

I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently

.

22-Mar-2017 20:16:38

Cthris said :
Lol because labeling all the breeds of dogs as the same species but excluding coyotes and wolves makes tons of sense, is well defined and not arbitrary at all Funnily enough, my preferred taxon of study is (fossil) canids. Coyotes, wolves, and domestic dogs are all genus Canis , and share a common ancestor. Wolves are a sister taxon to dogs, and the two share a common ancestor with each other not shared by coyotes ( Canis latrans ). Domestic dogs are more closely related to one another than any are to wolves (excluding wolf-dogs) despite the morphological variance. Domestic dogs have not been divided into separate species because morphologically distinct phenotypes regularly interbreed (because domestic animal breeding is controlled by humans). Though C. lupus and C. familiaris can produce viable offspring, under normal conditions their populations do not interbreed and so they are not the same species.

Overall, taxonomy aims for a very well defined goal these days: a series of classification bins that form monophyletic clades (common ancestor and all descendants). Remaining Paraphyletic clades (common ancestor and some descendants, but not others) are mostly those that have been grandfathered in, like Aves and Reptilia. Many of those are being slowly moved into intermediate taxon steps to make taxonomy more consistent in purpose. The only huge disjoint in taxonomy (and species concept) is where the biologic species concept (the default used for extant, observable species) breaks down in the fossil record (where we have to return to some morphological species concept by necessity).

Taxonomy contributes greatly to my work, in its modern form it traces the outline of how lineages split, die out, and evolve. A map of life, albeit one that has a lot of gaps in it.

I also bristle at the idea that only physics (and chemistry?) can count as 'real science.'

22-Mar-2017 20:40:43 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 20:58:31 by Rifleavenger

Giras said :
Cthris said :
Giras said :
I don't know whether to be happy that Jexel's thread is derailed to shit or pissed that it wasn't me who did it.
It might not be clear to you at the moment, but this is actually working towards Jexel's point more than you know. If we end up with the conclusion that advancement is an illusion then that completely undermines Zamorak's position.
Then that will also make Saradomin's point moot as if there's no society that's objectively better, then Saradomin's utopia is as empty as living on Yubisk. Which would suit Cthris just fine; he never argued that Saradomin's position was any better.

22-Mar-2017 20:41:54

Rifleavenger said :
Giras said :
Cthris said :
Giras said :
I don't know whether to be happy that Jexel's thread is derailed to shit or pissed that it wasn't me who did it.
It might not be clear to you at the moment, but this is actually working towards Jexel's point more than you know. If we end up with the conclusion that advancement is an illusion then that completely undermines Zamorak's position.
Then that will also make Saradomin's point moot as if there's no society that's objectively better, then Saradomin's utopia is as empty as living on Yubisk. Which would suit Cthris just fine; he never argued that Saradomin's position was any better.
Pretty sure that JEXEL would sooner shoot himself in the balls than admit Saradomin's opinion is anything less than perfect. Jexel's point was the subject, not Cthris'.

I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently

.

22-Mar-2017 21:17:55

22-Mar-2017 21:25:52

22-Mar-2017 21:26:47