Is taxonomy intrinsic or a human invention

  • Thread starter Thread starter mr200backstrok
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human Invention
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether taxonomy is an intrinsic property of life or a construct created by humans. It explores the implications of categorization in biology, particularly in relation to asexual species and the evolution of taxonomic methods, including the impact of DNA sequencing.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that taxonomy is primarily a human invention, particularly in the context of asexual species.
  • Others argue that taxonomy can reflect actual properties of living organisms, especially with advancements in DNA sequencing that allow for phylogenetic categorization.
  • A participant notes that the attempt to categorize all life into distinct groups may stem from human tendencies to create mental templates, suggesting that categorization is an innate human ability.
  • There is acknowledgment that definitions of species are imperfect and may never be fully resolved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of taxonomy, with some seeing it as a human construct and others as a reflection of biological reality. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the intrinsic versus invented nature of taxonomy.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ongoing debate about the definition of species and the implications of categorization methods, which may not fully capture the complexity of life.

mr200backstrok
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
is taxonomy an intrinsic property of life, or a human way to look at it?

I think, especially with asexual species, that it is really a human invention, not an actual property of life. However, certain things fit well. what do you think?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Originally, taxonomy was created cladistically. Meaning the "relationships"
were derived from abitrary human observations.

With DNA sequencing it is now possible to have phylogenetic (actual family tree) categorization of species. For example, the Lotus (water lily) plant family was moved away from a place in the tree that had it next to roses.
It's closest living relative turns out to be the plane trees (sycamore). This line of descent thing is an actual property of living things.

The fuzz you are referring to is the fact that our definition of species is not and likely will never be perfect.
 
so the idea of trying to force all of life into distinct categories is ... human?

I understand all the phylogenetic tree stuff...
 
Sure. Have you ever seen a face in the clouds? One of our human survival abilities is to use mental templates to identify things. Some templates, like face identification appear to be hard-wired. We can't not do it, in other words. It's a good survival thing to see a tiger face staring at you so you can run away, instead of becoming tiger chow.

Categorization is something humans have an innate desire/ability to do.
And we can create them when in reality there is no category. Only a perceived one.
 
alright, that's what i thought. thanks!
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
10K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
15K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K