| Author |
Message
|
| Kenny Klassen |
 Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: class system |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 65
Location: Quesnel BC
|
| can you help me find info on what the current class system is and exaplain cladism to me I was just wondering and I read Dawkins books on evolution resently |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: class system |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Location: London
|
| Kenny Klassen wrote: |
| can you help me find info on what the current class system is and exaplain cladism to me I was just wondering and I read Dawkins books on evolution resently |
Welcome to the forum, Kenny.
I have no idea what the current class system is, and in a cladistic sense it actually becomes irrelevant.
Regarding cladistics itself, two books that help provide good introductions to it are Colin Tudge's The Variety of Life and Henry Gee's Deep Time (the latter a bit more polemic, providing a history of how cladistics swept through biology over the last three or four decades).
I presume wiki will have some info on it as well.
If you've tried these sources and still have questions, I'm sure the biologists here will be more than happy to help. (I too might be able to chip in usefully from time to time.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 349
|
I believe classification schemes are somewhat controversial. Five kingdoms is generally recognised as wrong, but still widely used because it is a decent first approximation.
Seven and eight kingdoms have been suggested (breaking protista into animal-like, plant-like, and a few other groups) and are sometimes considered the proper way to think about things until we understand things better, but are still recognised as an approximation.
Cavalier-Smith has the most developed system to my knowledge, but it is so bulky as to be generally hard to grasp in introductory courses (and beyond!) He recommends 22 or so kingdoms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Location: Montreal
|
| free radical wrote: |
I believe classification schemes are somewhat controversial. Five kingdoms is generally recognised as wrong, but still widely used because it is a decent first approximation.
Seven and eight kingdoms have been suggested (breaking protista into animal-like, plant-like, and a few other groups) and are sometimes considered the proper way to think about things until we understand things better, but are still recognised as an approximation.
Cavalier-Smith has the most developed system to my knowledge, but it is so bulky as to be generally hard to grasp in introductory courses (and beyond!) He recommends 22 or so kingdoms. |
The best system is the phylogenetic system proposed by Woese: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| spuriousmonkey |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 556
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy wrote: |
| free radical wrote: |
I believe classification schemes are somewhat controversial. Five kingdoms is generally recognised as wrong, but still widely used because it is a decent first approximation.
Seven and eight kingdoms have been suggested (breaking protista into animal-like, plant-like, and a few other groups) and are sometimes considered the proper way to think about things until we understand things better, but are still recognised as an approximation.
Cavalier-Smith has the most developed system to my knowledge, but it is so bulky as to be generally hard to grasp in introductory courses (and beyond!) He recommends 22 or so kingdoms. |
The best system is the phylogenetic system proposed by Woese: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. |
That leaves out viruses.
_________________
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Location: Montreal
|
| spuriousmonkey wrote: |
That leaves out viruses. |
Bring it to the virus and bacteria thread if you want to continue this argument lol  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kenny Klassen |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 65
Location: Quesnel BC
|
thank you
_________________
In the study of life in todays socity there are sevral truth we must face the folowing are the ones I have manged to come to terms with:
1. You will probably end up doing something related to Cancer, Aids, or some other dieases that incovinces the genral public
2. In order to make money you either will be doing the afore mentioned research because that is where all the free grant money is, working for a company, or having to teach people some of whom really should not be there
3. You cannot take up reserach biologist as a hobby inless you have another substancial form of income |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kenny Klassen |
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 65
Location: Quesnel BC
|
I personally don't count anything that meet the requriments of a living thing only in reproduction and DNA I belive the Caviler-Smith system is the best and is really not that hard to follow and I am only a high school senior
_________________
In the study of life in todays socity there are sevral truth we must face the folowing are the ones I have manged to come to terms with:
1. You will probably end up doing something related to Cancer, Aids, or some other dieases that incovinces the genral public
2. In order to make money you either will be doing the afore mentioned research because that is where all the free grant money is, working for a company, or having to teach people some of whom really should not be there
3. You cannot take up reserach biologist as a hobby inless you have another substancial form of income |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| spuriousmonkey |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 556
|
I got a tip for you then:
throw out that whole belief thing.
It is actually possible to base your biological thinking on logic and application of logic.
_________________
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kenny Klassen |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 65
Location: Quesnel BC
|
I don`t really belive it I just think its the best basis I have found I have no absolute beliefs there usally consdiered wrong 10 years later but since there is no absolute system and no standard then I wil go with the one which I feel is proably best
_________________
In the study of life in todays socity there are sevral truth we must face the folowing are the ones I have manged to come to terms with:
1. You will probably end up doing something related to Cancer, Aids, or some other dieases that incovinces the genral public
2. In order to make money you either will be doing the afore mentioned research because that is where all the free grant money is, working for a company, or having to teach people some of whom really should not be there
3. You cannot take up reserach biologist as a hobby inless you have another substancial form of income |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| spuriousmonkey |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 556
|
Let's apply some logic will we.
We have a myriad of organisms occupying the biosphere of our little planet. It's called life.
We want to classify it.
How do we classify it?
A. Create a classification system based on only a part of this life because of historical and cultural reasons.
B. Try to classify all life in a meaningful manner.
I go for B.
I can't see how you can go for A and maintain you are not applying belief instead of logic.
_________________
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Location: Montreal
|
| spuriousmonkey wrote: |
Let's apply some logic will we.
We have a myriad of organisms occupying the biosphere of our little planet. It's called life.
We want to classify it.
How do we classify it?
A. Create a classification system based on only a part of this life because of historical and cultural reasons.
B. Try to classify all life in a meaningful manner.
I go for B.
I can't see how you can go for A and maintain you are not applying belief instead of logic. |
You are operating under the principle that viruses are undeniably life. Which they are not. Being a product of life does not make something alive. Individual proteins couldn't exist without organisms, but they are not alive. A strand of DNA can't exist without organisms, but it is not alive. Being dependent on life for it's replication does not automatically make a virus alive.
Edit: Since classifications must be based on a quality all members of that class have. Please provide what you would base viruses being life on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| spuriousmonkey |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 556
|
Of course viruses are part of life!
What else are they supposed to be classed under?
Rocks?
Planetary systems?
Carparts?
Gaseous molecules?
_________________
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Location: Montreal
|
| spuriousmonkey wrote: |
Of course viruses are part of life!
What else are they supposed to be classed under?
Rocks?
Planetary systems?
Carparts?
Gaseous molecules? |
Why not abiotic self-replicators? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kenny Klassen |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 65
Location: Quesnel BC
|
Actually virus aren't even truly capable of self-replication and I personally think of them as organic compounds that just happen to excist outside of being living things like methane alchol etc....
_________________
In the study of life in todays socity there are sevral truth we must face the folowing are the ones I have manged to come to terms with:
1. You will probably end up doing something related to Cancer, Aids, or some other dieases that incovinces the genral public
2. In order to make money you either will be doing the afore mentioned research because that is where all the free grant money is, working for a company, or having to teach people some of whom really should not be there
3. You cannot take up reserach biologist as a hobby inless you have another substancial form of income |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
