Following a number of articles and mainly comments, I thought it would be appropriate to clarify the method and concepts used in the sorting of flora and fauna
The highest classification that includes the plants, minerals and animals is (on a kingdom) or empire (Domain) which is divided into a number of kingdoms (Kingdom): plants, animals, fungi, bacteria; When in each kingdom systems (Phylum): echinoderms, insects, vertebrates; which is divided into series (Class): mammals, birds, fish, reptiles.
In each series number of superfamilies (Order): monkeys, apes, primates; which are divided into families _ Family): apes, cats, dogs; The families are divided into types (Genus): wolves, foxes, man, gorilla; And in each type for species (Species): Spines, blackbacks, crags, Ethiopian wolf, meaning a species is the lowest classification.
But where there are slight differences between members of the same species, due to environmental differences, geographical distance, etc., a secondary division can be made, a species will be divided into subspecies. So much for the accepted division. In agricultural crops and domestic animals, animal subspecies are treated as a race and plant subspecies as a variety.
To clarify the PM: even to a non-expert it is clear that animals and plants belong to separate systems, mammals, birds, fish, or reptiles belong to different series, apes, marsupials, or dogs belong to different families; Wolves, foxes and jackals... all the same type and each a different species.
We - humans - branch out from the animal system, the vertebrate sub-system (group), the primate superfamily, the ape family, the human species, the Spines species.
Until the development of the science of genetics, it was acceptable to separate the species (similar species of the same type) by the simple test: if the offspring of two individuals is fertile, then both individuals belong to the same species.
Thus we all know that wolves and dogs are members of the same species - a dog, so are the domestic cat and the wild cat, on the other hand we all know equally that the horse and the donkey are members of two different species, since their offspring will be... a mule.
The intervention of genetics in sorting brought innovations: two species of worms turned out to be one species. and complications: when the main complication is our location. The geneticist can quantify the differences between species, show in what percentage the dog is different from the cat and in what percentage the dog is similar to the wolf. Thus the similarity between different groups was tested and it became clear that the similarity between all the Pharisees in the Galapagos is less than the similarity between man and chimpanzee. The similarity between a number of subspecies (breeds) of dogs and wolves is less than the similarity between humans and chimpanzees.
The similarity between different human populations (races) is similar and close to the similarity between man and chimpanzee. Perhaps this is the reason why to this day species are still identified according to the "old" method, since it is possible that if species were identified only based on their genetic makeup, they would be placed in a larger and different framework than usual.
Although the scientists are considered "liberal", showing how man and chimpanzee belong to the same species is a dangerous thing? According to what is known, no attempt was made to mate a human and a chimpanzee, an attempt whose result could knock the person off his perch, an attempt that would show that the person is simply "another monkey".
26 תגובות
point:
I am not joining the discussion because I think we have already been in it and you have received all the answers.
Rah, from the fact that you didn't respond, I understand that you are still in the middle of the experiment trying to explain to a blind person what the color purple looks like using AM wavelengths, or to create an image for a deaf person of what the sound of a piano sounds like using sonic wavelengths and the physics of strings.
Rach. Do another experiment, try to explain to an urban (or color urban) person what the color purple looks like, and use your definitions of wavelengths. Let's see where you end up.
Rach. Are you saying that today the wavelengths of all colors are taught in kindergarten?
And how come you didn't tell me the exact wavelength of purple color. You know what color I mean. And it is well defined for you. So without looking at Google, tell me the wavelengths defined by you for the entire color spectrum.
It seems to me that a point refers to the very fact that there is something that experiences all the stimuli that a person receives, and this is the difference between a person (and I think animals too, and in this I disagree with a point) and a table, a computer and a robot. If I hit a table it will break and there is no fundamental difference between that and a robot that will respond to pressing a button that has nothing in it that is aware of its actions. On the other hand, in humans and animals, even though (probably) all emotions are the results of biological processes, there is someone/something who experiences them.
All of the above is according to the accepted scientific concept which has not yet been able to explain (at least as far as I know) in a complete way how as a result of chemical reactions animals and humans are created that seem to act quite autonomously.
Indeed I am not sure if you or I or anyone in the world has a soul. I still haven't received a definition from you of what the soul is. "Everyone knows" is not a definition and in my world of concepts there is no such thing as undefined or whose definition is "the one that everyone knows". The color purple has a very precise definition, it is a certain wavelength that is picked up by receptors in the eye and processed by the brain (in an as yet unknown form). And the evidence, turn on the Photoshop software, she also knows what the color purple is and she probably doesn't have a soul.
Are you also saying that no one defined us what purple is? Of course we learned it. After all, every child in kindergarten today is bombarded with colors and shapes. And just as we learned that this thing you sit on is called a chair, so we also learned that the color we see on the anemone is purple (or red, depending on the type). A computer can also be taught to "see" purple so it is not proof of any soul.
In my opinion, you are simply entering a minefield here that the great philosophers have not been able to deal with regarding the existence or existence of the soul and as of today there is no evidence for the existence of a soul. It is true that there is no proof of its non-existence either, but in my opinion the burden of proof is on those who claim that it exists and not the other way around.
And the pattern of the chair is beautiful and illustrates all the problems in how humans perceive the world.
When you say "chair" you refer to the perception of the chair that you have in the experience and indeed that perception is a mental perception and in this sense the chair you perceive has a soul.
Rah, maybe you don't have a soul and that's why you don't understand what I mean and you're looking for definitions. There is no definition, there is a vote and only the sane will understand why I am voting (of course each to his own).
When I say to a spiritual person (who can see colors and who understands Hebrew) "purple color" he knows exactly what I mean, even though neither I nor anyone has ever defined to him what the color purple is.
And one more thing, you claim that (I'm quoting) "When I say soul, I mean consciousness, that subjective experience that is known to everyone who has consciousness and nothing else."
What is meant here? What is the definition?
Does the fact that I call Rexy the dog he comes and when I call Bonnie then Rexy doesn't come because he realizes that he is not meant (self-awareness) actually shows that he has a soul? So if so, it is possible to easily produce a robot that will only come when we say "robot come" meaning that it is aware of who it is and what it needs to do. Have we created a soul in a robot here?
Merry Christmas and Shabbat Shalom
Forgive me a point, but this is not a definition of "the same thing that a person says about me"
If I say "it" about a chair, does it mean it has a soul?
When I say this about a chair, I don't mean the fibers of the wood it is made of, nor the screws or the backrest, I refer to it as the whole "chair" so where is the soul here?
Rah, maybe read what I wrote again, and especially read (3) before (4). Because that's how I defined a soul (by pointing to it). I wrote that when a person says I, he certainly does not mean the structure of his body and certainly not the basic parts of which his body is built. So the soul is the same thing that a person means/points to when he says "I".
really collected? Misunderstanding what you read? Please show me a taxonomic tree where minerals are associated with empire.
As stated in my response where I tried to be a little more polite than the others (and probably by mistake) before you write a scholarly article you should delve a little deeper into the material and at least look at the updated taxonomic tree on the site I referred to (NCBI) which was built based on 16S and conserved proteins.
The classification between bacteria and eukaryotes precedes the classification between animals and plants and they are not separate kingdoms.
You can't claim you came to clarify and instead spout a bunch of bullshit.
Point: "4) Therefore, one must be careful and distinguish between the human body and the human soul. The human soul did not develop from the monkey's soul (we do not know at all if a monkey has a soul), but somehow from the structure of the brain (apparently) that was shaped as a result of the environment."
Your entire point is based on unproven assumptions. How do you know a person has a soul? What exactly is the definition of the soul? If a soul is self-awareness then monkeys have a soul. If a soul is the totality of character traits then even mice and simpler animals have a soul. If a soul is the understanding of the environment and acting according to this understanding, then bacteria also have a soul.
It is common for me to stop grinding water. Just to be clear, it never occurred to me to make the foolish claim that the soul/consciousness/thought/thinker/etc. exists.
How can you even think such a ridiculous thought.
: )
point:
I have no strength for this argument.
It seems to me like grinding water that has already been finely milled in the past and it is clear to me that I will not convince you.
Michael, how can you even claim that I am making a claim and the opposite. Where did I claim that the soul exists?
You think that I claim "that even consciousness is an illusion", while I claim that consciousness is the only illusion, we do not know of other types of illusions. (Simply, everything we know we are aware of and is therefore immediately an illusion).
I already told you that you are the one who believes in all kinds of mystical entities: to say about the soul that it exists requires belief in the source of that entity (souls, demons, angels, etc.). Things I completely deny. And my whole war is against those ignorant opinions.
In the debate between a point and Habiva - I am with Habiva as it is easy to see, for example, here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/
The truth is that a point seems to me to be sufficient in the superposition between the claim that nothing exists except the elementary particles and that even consciousness is an illusion and the belief in the existence of all kinds of mystical entities such as soul and God.
This is indeed a super-position: a position from which one can start arguing with anyone.
lovable It is true that the normal use of the concept of soul contains within it the concept that the soul is a kind of object. But from the rest of my words it will be clear to you that this is not what I mean. When I say soul, I mean consciousness, that subjective experience that is familiar to everyone who has consciousness and nothing else.
And regarding the continuation of your words, you are a little confused in the use of the word "to know". We understand that the mind is not a biological thing. We do not know if the soul originates in the brain and certainly not how it happens. Common sense says that somehow it happens, and that ends all our knowledge of the connection between the mind and the mind.
For age
Lack of faith does not cover up ignorance,
To: Rah, and also to: Anonymous (leave to sit),
I have already commented before that "end of response" should be in the reading comprehension
and in understanding the material,
An empire includes our whole world, what to do and besides animals and plants there are also minerals in our world that belong (unclassified) to the empire,
You should learn and know the difference in Hebrew between classified and associated,
The list comes to regulate the nomenclature and explain the sorting in an attempt to avoid wrong terms, therefore among the many species, genera, kingdoms and more that are mentioned,
There are many that are not mentioned such as lacking and having a nucleus and others,
are not mentioned in order not to create confusion (which was probably created by Rah),
There is no attempt to classify "high" or "low" since the "scale" only shows
The "heights of the classifier's heart" and nothing else!
Johnny
In an attempt similar to yours... you are welcome to explain taxonomy
(which in Hebrew means classification or sorting)
To write about Linnaeus and try to describe trees...
And finally to: George,
A well-known story about a boy who came back from evolution studies and told his father that "man is descended from the ape", the father (without getting confused) said to his son: "Maybe your descent is from the ape...not mine"!
Period, what a collection of nonsense and children's fables!
What exactly is "spiritual"?
I have a feeling that when you say "soul" you actually mean "soul", that beloved legend of ignorant people who lack basic knowledge of biology and psychology, who tend to believe without any ability to think critically all kinds of false beliefs about supernatural forces and beings.
Maybe it's not "fun" to know, but your "soul", your personality, emotions, hopes, etc. - it's all biology and originates in the brain. And "brain" refers to the physical, chemical and electrical aspect of the brain, and not to some "energy" or "spirit" or other invented and baseless concepts. Fact - if you damage the brain - physically (blow), chemically (drugs) or electrically (epileptic attack, stroke) - your "mind" can change. Temporarily or permanently, a little or a lot, but can change.
"The human soul did not evolve from the monkey soul" voila. You invent a term, invent a meaning for it, invent that it really exists without being able to check it, invent that a monkey actually does not have this thing, and then you also come to evolutionary conclusions. A Nobel Prize is on its way to you.
1) According to what I know, they did try to mate a human with a monkey (Russian scientists tried it on Africans) but the matter was stopped quite quickly and the results were negative.
2) The highest division is [exists, does not exist]. The 'non-existent' is subjectively divided into [inanimate, living, soulful]. And so on.
3) When you say "we" do you mean our soul or our body? When an ordinary person says I, he does not mean his body at all (the person does not even know a priori the structure of his body, so of course he will not be able to refer to it).
4) Therefore, one must be careful and distinguish between the human body and the human soul. The human soul did not develop from the monkey soul (we do not know at all if a monkey has a soul), but somehow from the structure of the brain (apparently) that was shaped as a result of the environment.
Don't want to be nasty, but does anyone go through these machine translated articles before they are published?
A bit of professionalism
And in such an article about taxonomy, it is appropriate to show a tree to mention Linnaeus... something.
minerals?
Did you lose your mind?
Dr. Asaf Rosenthal
I wonder how it is that a doctorate is attached to your name
Dr. or simply "another monkey"
And according to what is known, an attempt was made to pair a human and a chimpanzee
I really can't believe they haven't tried it yet
My mistake in the link in the previous message.
This is the link to the taxonomic database of the NCBI:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Root
The link in the previous message is to another interesting site that deals with the tree of life.
Alas, an article full of errors and mistakes.
In fact, the entire first paragraph is incorrect:
"The highest classification that includes the plants, minerals and animals is (on a kingdom) or empire (Domain) which is divided into a number of kingdoms (Kingdom): plants, animals, fungi, bacteria; When in each kingdom systems (Phylum): echinoderms, insects, vertebrates; which is divided into series (Class): mammals, birds, fish, reptiles."
Since when are minerals classified?
Are plants and animals separate in the highest classification?????
And then again they appear with the bacteria at a lower classification level?
No, and the higher classification is Eukarya (with a nucleus), Prokarya (lacking a nucleus, bacteria) and Archaea (bacteria that have been recognized in recent decades as a separate kingdom).
Eukarya is divided into plants, animals, fungi and other groups and not as indicated in the article.
See for example the official website of NCBI:
which belongs to the American NIH.
http://tolweb.org/tree/