/sci/ - Science & Math

>We evolved from monkeys

sage

>Biology is a hard science

>At first there was nothing , then that nothing blew up , and that's how the universe was created.

>>4605020
Scientists don't say that. They say we evolved from a common ancestor.

They DO however, say that sponges are animals. Which is downright embarrassing.

>Evolution creates new species out of old ones

lufahs are vegetables

psychology is a real science

>>4605027
are they not part of the animal kingdom?

>Biology is a hard science

>Biology is a science

>physics
>job

>engineering
>creativity

>>4605037
They are.

But they shouldn't be. There's no reason for them to be there.

>Biology isnt a pseudoscience

>Biology isn't liberal arts

>2+3=5

>Physics
>A hard science

>Physics
>Even a science

>No nervous system
>No digestive system
>No circulatory system

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Sponges aren't animals.

>>4605060
what's a science then?

>biology
>not stamp collecting

>>4605066
they sentient?

>science is important to anyone

>>4605027
Can we have fun without you please?

>biology
>not softer than psychology

>>4605069
Biology and chemistry are the only hard sciences

>whales are mammals

>>4605081
lel

>>4605072
Nope. At least not more sentient than any other protists.

I mean, shit. You can take a sponge, grind it into dust, and it will still grow back from that dust.

When has an "animal" ever been able to do something like that?

>>4605076
No.

But feel free to go and make your own thread.
I'm actually trying to discuss science in this one.

>the earth orbits the sun

>>4605086
>and it will still grow back from that dust.
dude what

>>4605086
Sponges mang.
And animals are living things that move around, among other characteristics, and sponge do move around, as larvae.
Fucking taxonomy.

>Statistically significant at p=.05

>>4605086
I mean, a duck billed platypus has a beak AND lays eggs BUT it's a mammal.

When has a "mammal" ever been able to do something like that?

BROTIP: if there was nothing unique about any species there would be no species at all.

>>4605092
>implying the solar system doesn't revolve around the earth

>>4605086
not protists

animalia

>>4605060
>>4605081

Oh God no. He's back.
I fucking hate blackman.

>>4605104
pls gooby

>>4605104
typical nigger

>>4605102
Lol Gooby pls

>>4605095
Protists move.

According to your logic, we should label all of them as animals, too.

I mean, yeah. Sponges "move". But if your only form of movement is reporduction, then I see no reason to believe that you're any different than a tree or fungus. Hell, even clams have moving body parts. Sponges are just... no.

this thread is now a nigger thread

>>4605104

So, how'd your pipedream of becoming an MD coming along?

>biology
>not just memorizing things

>>4605098
I would agree with your logic if it weren't for the fact that all mammals have mammary glands.

Removing Platypus's from the mammalian species is unacceptable. But if you're going to call something an animal, for god's sake, at LEAST make sure it has a nervous system. Muscle movement is a defining feature of Animalia.

>premed
>science
pick one

Non-overlapping magisteria

>>4605115

That's not my logic, it's the logic of the guys who built the trees.
The fucking trees. THE TREEEES.

Anyway, some other characteristics are:
-multicellularity
-2 types of epithelia
Which rule out Protists...

>>4605101
Nope.

Sponges are nothing more than multicellular protists. There is nothing unique or defining about them, and including them in Animalia just obscures the line between Animal and Protist far more than it needs to.

Defining animals by "creatures with nervous systems" is far more efficient and leads to less confusion.

>Viruses aren't alive

>>4605113
>>4605117
>>4605121
>>4605129
>>4605138
>>4605147
>>4605156

So this is what /sci/ has become. Infinite niggers and trolling.

why do you guys think sponges are considered to be part of the animal kingdom, presumably decided by field experts with collectively more phd's than you could shake a stick at.


why?

>>4605128
Well in the fall I'm going, so is it really a pipe dream?
Brb $2 million a year

A One-Way ANOVA and a Two-Way ANOVA were talking shop one day. The One-Way said, "I sure do envy the interaction you have with your variables."

The Two-Way frowned and replied, "Yah, but the minute it diminishes to any significant extent they really become independent and go their own separate ways."

>>4605153
There are still multicellular protists, though.

And I have a hard time classifying anything in a sponge as being "specialized tissue" when, again, you can tear the thing a part and it will recreate itself without any problems.

There goes your second distinction.

>>4605155
>who is right, some guy on 4chan, or current taxonomy?

>>4605163
and you forget the people wondering "what /sci/ has become".
Or do you include them in niggers?

>biology

>>4605166

Holy shit, you're becoming a doctor for the money.
I sure as hell hope the interviewers see your true intentions and throw you out.

>>4605173
Do I really need to answer that question?

Or do you still have faith in that joke of a science we call "Biology"?

>>4605178
Everyone's actions are motivated by money

>>4605161
>Viruses aren't alive
Oh, this shit cracks me up every time.

>>4605173
I would trust the word of an aspiring mathmatician or physicist over a prof of biology anyday.

>>4605184
3/10

>>4605199
>>4605184
>samefaggotry

>>4605192

Hm. You're probably just an elaborate troll.

>>4605172

It can recreate itself?
So?
Lizard regenerate some of their tissues as well, aren't lizards part of Animalia?

Another characteristic: ciliated larvae.
Also, the modern taxonomy is mostly founded on genetic associations...

>>4605201
Hey man, suit yourself.

I can't help it if my thoughts and ideas make far more sense than anything "biologists" can come up with.

>>4605212
That's "regrowth", you tard.

The lizard still contains vital organs that would result in its death if they were punctured. Sponges do not have this problem.

Try again.

>>4605201
>>4605211
>samefaggotry

>>4605209
Surprisingly, no. Though I do tend to samefag, a lot.

Nice try, though.

>>4605222
So "organs" are needed to be part of Animalia?

I do not understand what you're getting at.
Being part of Animalia isn't that special, the common ancestor isn't even that complicated...

>>4605060
>>4605081

Mathematics is the only real science. Everything else is for people who are too dumb to do real science. hurr durr

>>4605209
Nope. I actually was samefagging in the thread a couple of times but not there.

>black is not a color

>>4605242
nope

>>4605238
OMG
Is there more of this? This is great!

>>4605238
>Maths more pure than Physics

>>4605236
>So "organs" are needed to be part of Animalia?
Getting close.

I'm talking more along the lines of "neurons", which are ultimately used to make up organs.

>>4605256
>I'm talking more along the lines of "neurons", which are ultimately used to make up organs.
WUT

>>4605238
Switch math and psycics and this is golden.

>>4605248
it's an xkdc comic.

>Plants are alive

We all know plants are actually non-living, self-replicatng food.

>>4605262
Do I really need to repeat myself?

Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced. I don't think I can be more straightforward than that.

>US went to the moon
>2012
>Half the population is fat and retarded
>uhuh

>>4605238
How the hell is math more pure than physics?

>>4605276
I thought you were saying at all organs are composed of neurons.

At any rate, the real issue is how you think they should be classified instead. Any discrete classification scheme will have edge cases that don't really fit.

>>4605276
>Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced
>Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced
>Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced
>Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced
>Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced
>Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced
>Neurons are necessary for organs to be produced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(anatomy)#Plants

>>4605290
It is relies on fewer assumptions, and is fundamental to the other disciplines.

Of course, this also means that it is more removed from solving practical problems.

>>4605256
You mean neural cells, maybe?

That's not how taxonomy works, now.
It used to be like that, some guys arbitrarily putting stuff together because they like it, and putting names on groups, and sometimes it worked, other times it was silly.
And even worse, putting everything in a teleological order... Grading living things as they went, some being more holy or superior to others.

Now you just put together things that share the same characters, and form monophyletic groups, or phyla.
You use molecular characters, through genetic studies, to do that, and a little bit of guesswork.
Those groups are only hypotheses.

>>4605290
how's junior high treating you?

>>4605290
What level of statistical significance do they operate at?

>>4605290

the laws of physics fail to explain things when you get to sub-molecular levels, whereas the laws of math always apply to everything

>>4605292
I agree in on sense, disagree in another.

Right now, we rely on genetics to classify species within the animal kingdom. But we really need to start doing is using "CNS" formation instead.

If we begin viewing organs as "Neural formations", we can potentillay create a taxonomic tree of animal life that shows when various types of neural structures formed within animal history. This would also provide us with massive insights on psychological processes within humans and other animals as well.

Brains and organs... honestly, they're not as different as we think. Brains are just pure clumps of neurons, while organs are just groups of neurons separated by bodily tissues.

In other words, we need to stop viewing "Brains" as being "organs". We need to start looking at "organs" as being "brains".

I know I'm doing a poor job of explaining this. But really, "neural networks" are much more of a defining feature in animals than our genetics. If we're going to be paying attention to animal behaviors, then we need to start classifying and identifying the various types of neural networks.

As long as sponges are included in the family of "Animalia", this isn't going to be possible for us.

>spontaneous emergence

>>4605298
So here we are having a discussion about organs in animals...
And you bring up plants?

Do I need to explain what's wrong with your reasoning?

>>4605016

>ITT, stupid shit stupid people think scientists say, but don't.

Fixed that for ya, OP.

>>4605358
Is that viewpoint comprehensive enough? I don't see how it applies to plants. Don't they just communicate through chemical signalling in the vascular fluid?

>>4605369
He's proposing a basic paradigm for classification. It needs to apply well to more than just animals, or else how could it tell you what is or isn't an animal?

Unless I guess we're just saying that only animals have "neural" cells at all (however you define that, as long as you define it).

>>4605372
Last I checked, Porifera was a sub-kingdom of Animalia.

>>4605377
(cont)
>Don't they just communicate through chemical signalling in the vascular fluid?
And by that, I mean internal signalling.

so much Linnaean thought, so few cladists.
stay 1990's /sci/

>>4605358
I think you are bothered by the word "Animalia".
Start using "Metazoa" then.
Monophyletic groups do not have that much of a meaning...

People say "fishes" while it doesn't have a taxonomic meaning.
Why do I always read weird theories on here?

>>4605386
Yeah, genetic classification is the way to go.

I am confus.

as a multicellular organism..sponges are animals.

whats the problem here?

>physicsfags with your faster than light neutrinos
>laughinggirls.jpg

>>4605381

>Using utterly obsolete systems of classification
>2012
>ISHYGDDT

>>4605377
>I don't see how it applies to plants.
Simple: It wouldn't.

If you make a distinction between animals and everything else by saying "Animals have neurons", then clearly, you're not going to be defining everything else by their neural structures.

You just use a different system for classifying plants, preferably one that shows what they all have in common and then makes distinctions from there.

Animals are sponges. It's not like scientists are gonna create a whole new kingdom of Animalia Bullshitia because some /sci/fags think they're lame.
From Wikipedia:
Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and mostly multicellular,[4] which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic,[5] generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae.[6] They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls.[7] All animals are motile,[8] if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage,[9] which is a characteristic exclusive to animals.
(You know it's true from all the numbers in boxes.)
P.S. If you think sponges are bullshit animals, then look at Placozoa. (means "plate animals")

>>4605377
>Unless I guess we're just saying that only animals have "neural" cells at all (however you define that, as long as you define it).
Plants may or may not have neural cells of a different type. But I'm still looking into that matter. The important issue is that the communication between an animal's organs are different than the communication between a plant's organs.

If we treat "Neuron" as an all-encompassing term, then maybe we can find a common ancestor that shows why trees and mammals have different methods of communication.

Either way, the important point is that we can't just use multicellularity as the defining feature for animals, especially when that's not distinct by any means.

>>4605397
Because "multicellularity" is, by no means, a special or original function of animals.

Cell differentiation is as old (if not older) than multicellularity itself. There have been multiple instances of unicellular organisims changing transitioning from one form to another. And both plants and fungus are multicelluar, but neither of them are animals.

Unless Sponges are actually bringing anything new to the table, there's no reason to use them as the starting point for where Animals "begin" and where Protists "end".

>>4605386
Yeah. Let's move on.

How do I build a plant-fungus-animal hybrid?

>>4605426
>mostly multicellular
>Mostly
>most protists
>most
Okay, do you wanna know why we don't take biology seriously here?
It's cause of bullshit like that.

It's a poor system of classification, and it's unacceptable. Using the presence of Neurons as a defining feature of Animal life solves all of these problems.

>>4605467
the definition of 'neuron' is no less equivocal than that of 'animal.'

>>4605467
I think cladists are ahead of all of this. They're not based on phenotype at all. Just trace the tree of life through genetics, describe characteristics of known species, and call it a day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

"rare earth hypothesis"

>>4605480
yeah, I think he's strawmanning the fuck out of taxonomy.

>>4605027
It's in Kingdom Animalia. It's an Animal.

>>4605487
except we don't capitalize "animal."

>>4605473
If it has neurons, then it's an animal.
If it doesn't have neurons, then it's not an animal.

Show me some plant neurons or fungal neurons, then maybe I won't make fun of you.

>>4605487
>definitions are tautologically true, therefore current definitions are better than alternatives

>>4605498
>hurr, there will be no grey area species that has some "protoneuron"
All binary classifications will fail in the face of biology's actual diversity.

>>4605500
I'm not using a tautological argument, assface. If you want to go be a scientist and find a better classification, DO IT. Until then, shut your whore mouth, sit on your hands, and learn. Sitting behind a computer typing up what you think scientists should do gets no one anywhere.

>>4605498
plants don't have neurons because we have defined it that way.

they have analogous organs and functions, but we don't call them neurons.
because they're in plants.
and plants don't have neurons.
because we say they don't.

>>4605095

>taxonomy

phylogeny is where its at bro.

animalia is only monphyletic if sponges are included

remove sponges per /sci/'s request, animalia is paraphyletic

>ergo sponges are animals

/sci/ high school children on wikipedia now

>>4605467
Current taxonomy is hierarchical and therefore single definitions for clades don't work as the further down you go traits that define the higher clades may be lost.

The problem is non-biologists throw around terms like "animal" as if they know what they actually mean.

>>4605508
That's because even if plants DID have neurons, there would be distinct and easily recognizable differences between plant neurons and animal neurons.

You yet to raise an actual issue with my idea.

>>4605507
>I'm not using a tautological argument
You literally said "Sponges are animals because we have defined them to be part of kingdom Animalia".

If your argument were valid, no classification could ever be wrong.

>>4605525
> there would be distinct and easily recognizable differences between plant neurons and animal neurons.
Not that guy, but see
>>4605504

ITT: people who have no idea how phylogeny or clades work.

Please, leave the hard science to the biologists.

>bitches don't know bout my phlogiston.

>mfw sci talks shit about biology all the time but hardly any of them actually understand it.

>>4605525
the issue is that 'neurons' are a spectrum of cells, with an arbitrary definition given by morphologists.

this is the same problem you have with Animalia- it is a spectrum of morphologies with an arbitrary boundary again decided by morphologists.

ultimately whatever morphology you base the clade on, it exists in some form outside of the clade, and you're arbitrarily drawing a line... which future taxonomists will ignore.

your classification is a matter of aesthetics, and you offer no compelling reason why your aesthetics are better than Linnaeus'.

>>4605509
Damn am I silly.
I kept thinking they could be interchanged...
It would be so simple if two different words would precisely mean two different things, like in science (most of the time).
But biology does get a little silly with all those names sometimes...

>>4605564

Well taxonomy is an umbrella term that just refers to an arrangement of animal species within a system. Modern biologists work almost entirely in cladistic systems, in which common ancestry determines grouping rather than morphology.

>>4605504
Burden of proof.

Show me that this grey area for neurons exists.

>>4605578
Yeah, that's more or less what I understood.
So I wasn't exactly wrong.
Phylogeny is a very specific term.
The concepts are easy to grasp, but the way they got built make the whole field complicated, with history laden words...
Epistemology, now, that's something hard...

You know, classifications have been overturned. Like Pachyderms. That's not a real thing. But guess who it wasn't overturned by? A fat cheeto eating neckbeard on /sci/. I was overturned BY BIOLOGISTS

>>4605609

it is not overturned, r-tard

google the phylocode

traditional taxonomy (phylum, order, et al.) is going away, but not naming things

>>4605546
>you offer no compelling reason why your aesthetics are better than Linnaeus'.
So wait, the fact that animals are capable of movement as a result of their neural activity isn't a compelling argument for why Animals are seperate from the rest of life on earth?

Man, do I feel silly. You sure showed me.

>>4605620

Pachyderm as a term isn't used anymore since it's polyphyletic. It just isn't useful under the current system.

>>4605625

>defining clades based on physical characteristics and morphology

You have no understanding of biological classification whatsoever. Educate yourself, it's embarrassing.

>>4605609
If a black man can become president, then I see no reason that a fat neckbeard from /sci/ can't do a better job than a biologist.

>>4605627

para and polyphyletic terms are still in use and used all the time

reptilla? osteichthyes?

>>4605620
NOT ALL CLASSIFICATIONS YOU FUCKING GIGANTIC MORON. ONLY THE SPECIFIC ONE I MENTIONED HOLY SHIT LEARN TO READ AND COMPREHEND.

Sci is a bunch of pseudointellectual retards with a lot if ignorance, spouting stupid bullshit they don't understand.

SPONGES. ARE. ANIMALS. THEY REPRODUCE SEXUALLY. THEY MOVE. THEY FEED PREDATORY-LIKE. THEY BREATHE. FUCK. YOU. FUCK. YOU.

>>4605638

but pachyderm isn't used anymore, like at all.

SPONGES ARE DESCENDED FROM ANIMALS AND ARE THEREFORE ANIMALS.


END OF FUCKING STORY.

>>4605642

>uses qualitative descriptors to denote ancestry

>doesn't use molecular phylogenies

typical sci neckbeard

>>4605635
Cladistics is insufficient for the classification of species on earth, especially when cell differentiation is older than multicellularity itself.

I have more than enough understanding of biological classification, and I know bullshit when I see it. Your entire field is a joke and will soon be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.

You have been warned.

>>4605679

>and will soon be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.
Business as usual.
You think this is scary?
Biologists don't give a shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

>>4605648
>SPONGES ARE DESCENDED FROM ANIMALS AND ARE THEREFORE ANIMALS.
Prove it.

>>4605679

>modern phylogenetics

>cladistics is synonymous with parsimony

>cladistics has been replaced with maximum likelihood analysis and bayesian analysis

>says he knows the field

>still thinks cladistics is the paradigm

lol

>>4605642
>THEY REPRODUCE SEXUALLY
So do plants.
>THEY MOVE
No they don't. "Reproduction" is not a form of movement.
>THEY FEED PREDATORY-LIKE
Predation is not exclusive to animals.
>THEY BREATHE
So do plants.

Keep tryin', though.

>>4605687

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Evolutionary_history

>>4605692
>Greentext all over the fucking place
>Expects me to decipher all that shit
Nah, man.

>>4605697
>Sponges are animals, therefore sponges evolved from animals!
Please, keep reminding us why biology is a joke.

>>4605708

>doesn't understand how classification/naming works

Define energy to me in a way that isn't circular.

>>4605713
Your idea that sponges evolved from animals stems strictly from the idea that sponges are animals to begin with.

I'm questioning the fact that sponges are animals to begin with. Why would their evolutionary history do anything to convince me that they were animals at one point in time when I'm not even convinced that they're animals now?

>>4605728

Because arbitrary definitions. Sponges are genetically very similar to other animals, they have immune systems, ion channels that act like rudimentary neurons, coordinated movement, predation, etc.

All living animals are descended from some ancient spongelike creature and we decided to draw the line of what is an "animal" right there.

>>4605740

Also if we don't consider sponges to be animals, then "animal" becomes a paraphyletic group rather than a clade. Phylogenies look much nicer when you group things into complete clades.

>>4605740
Okay. In that case, they're protists.

Problem solved. Not the first time there's been a multicellular protist. I don't see what the problem is.

>>4605746

Not. so. fast.

On the molecular level, we are more similar to fungi than we are to protists. What you are proposing splits the protist phylogeny in two.

>>4605759
The reason we don't have any similarities to protists is because we deliberately avoid putting anything animal-like in the protist group.

Just fucking include sponges with the protists and call it a day.

>mfw all the biofags getting their ass handed to them by physicsts in this thread.

>>4605791
Get a PHD, write a paper on the subject, and come back to give us the results.

>>4605820
Is this how you win all of your online arguments?

I hope not. You must just LOATHE when people treat biology like the little bitch it is.

>>4605811
Sad but true.
Why is it that physicists can do biology better than biofaggots?

>>4605845

bro,

just because you look up the odd problems in the back of your physics book does not make you a physicist.

signed,

published grad student

>>4605830
I'm not winning anything.
You were just whining about things not being in the right place, like an autist.
I'm telling you to try and fix those things yourself, if you're so smart.

Anyone who tried to reply to you was unable to make you understand that the current classification is valid.
If you're still not convinced, then go ahead and change it.

Raging on some anonymous imageboard isn't going to help.

Why is it that we're fine with including multicellular organisms that are plant-like or fungus-like in the protists category? But we constantly avoid putting anything multicellular and animal-like in the protists?

We're always defining animals as being "mostly multicellular", but we don't see anything wrong with that? If you have to use the phrase "mostly", then it's not actually a defining characteristic.

>>4605881
Never said I was one... Just said that physicists can do biology better than biologists.

physicists are butthurt neckbeards

the more complex a system, the harder it is to study

biological systems are the most complex systems ever encountered

therefore biology is the hardest science

>>4605904
>this is what biologists actually beleive

>>4605895

>If you have to use the phrase "mostly", then it's not actually a defining characteristic.

Or is it?
If you say "All cats have 4 legs.".
And you see a cat with 3 legs. Is it a cat?

It's pretty much the same thing with classification. Living things fluctuate. Some species that are closely related might have differences that could make them exception in their groups, but they still have "most" of their characteristics related to others...

>>4605909

i never said i was a biologist. i am actually working on my PhD in physical chem at UC-berk

another aspies sci-fag making assumptions

>>4605885
So I should spend thousands of dollars just so I can tell people they're not doing their job right?

And the only way I can get this degree is by not questioning what they say in the first place?

Oh yeah. That sounds like it's right up my alley.

>>4605912
Find me a species that does not have a nervous system, make sure it's not a sponge, and then come back to me.

If you're not clear on whether it's a plant or not, put it in the protist section. If you're not clear whether it's a fungus or not, put it in the protist section.

If you're not clear whether it's an animal or not, call it an animal anyway and then redefine Animalia so that it can include sponges.

Makes perfect sense.

>>4605922

>So I should spend thousands of dollars just so I can tell people they're not doing their job right?

Uh? I didn't say you should buy your PhD.
You do know you can work for a PhD, right?
It takes some hard work and some intelligence of course, but you could probably buy one in Mexico or China as well, if you're lazy...

But I'm pretty sure that if you want to criticize somebody on their job, you should be able to do their job.
That's what a PhD is.

>>4605904
>therefore biology is the hardest science
No, therefore, Psychology is the hardest science.

statistical phylogenetics applied to population biology

same maths, different scale

you retards have no fucking clue

download the pdf, i dare you

https://molevol.mbl.edu/wiki/index.php/Peter_Beerli

>>4605939

If I take a human embryo before it develops a nervous system, then it's a Protist.

>>4605940
>Stop asking questions!
>Stop criticizing people!
>Yeah, well if you think you're so good, then do it yourself!
Physicists are more mature than this.

Just sayin'.

>>4605966
Human embryo does not develop a nervous system till roughly 3~ weeks after fertilization.

So yeah. Honestly, I find your claim to be pretty agreeable. It's definitely not a human, at least.

>>4605970
If you ask questions, get replied to, and because you do not understand the logic keep insisting on arguing, then prove that you are right, instead of hopelessly arguing against work that is already done.

Science is only that.
If you think something is wrong, do it yourself, check the results, and come up with a better theory if you can make one.

>>4605974
Of course it's not a human.
But it already has human DNA.
Mammal DNA.
Vertebrae DNA.
Animal DNA.

That's what we've been saying all along.
Relationship between species is now made over molecular characteristics.
DNA, proteins.

>>4605982
Using nothing but genetics to define life would be like a physicist using nothing but QM to define the universe.

Can he do it? Sure. But he's going to make a system that's overcomplicated and hard to follow.

So in a genetic sense, are Sponges animals? Yeah. But does that really even mean anything, or help define what animals actually are? Not in the least.

>>4606030
What?
Settle down.
You've been saying that the system is too stupid, because there are exceptions and what not, and when you finally understand that it's based on objective and measurable molecular similarities, you start saying it's too complicated?

You'll never get that PhD.
Whatever.
Have fun fighting those windmills.

physicists misunderstand biology and think they're beating biologists at it.

>cartoonphysicistsoversimplifyanything.jpg

>>4605746

> I don't see what the problem is.

You just took one of the most interesting and well studied divisions of life and cut its fucking head off. "Animal" now becomes a paraphyletic group, even though convention and convenience push us towards grouping things cladistically. Sponges are the most primitive animals, and all animals are descended from sponges. It's the perfect cut off point.

>>4606045
>and when you finally understand that it's based on objective and measurable molecular similarities
I've understood that the whole time.

My objection is that after a certain point, small changes in genetics produce drastically different results. And when you get to that point, you need to begin relying on different systems of classification. Otherwise, you completely lose sight of what you're looking at.

When there is a ~96% similarity between apes and humans, do you really think that the results you're receiving are reliable and accurate? Do you really think you're understanding what causes the separation between us?

The fact of the matter is: You don't.

>>4606088
>It's the perfect cut off point.
Cnidarian's better.

NON BIOLOGISTS IN THIS THREAD LISTEN UP.


LIFE IS PRIMARILY CLASSIFIED DUE TO COMMON DESCENT, NOT BASED ON CHARACTERISTICS. WE CAN GENERALIZE WHAT CERTAIN GROUPS ARE LIKE BY LOOKING AT THEIR TRAITS, BUT THE ACTUAL GROUPING IS COMPLETELY BASED ON DNA SIMILARITIES AND LINEAGES.

ALL LIVING ANIMALS ARE DESCENDED FROM SPONGES. IT MAKES SENSE TO CONSIDER SPONGES ANIMALS, SINCE IT MAKES THE CLADE COMPLETE. OTHERWISE IT'S LIKE A PYRAMID WITH ITS HEAD CUT OFF.

>>4606104

except then ctenophores aren't animals either.

>>4606109
What about Cnidaria?

>>4606097

>When there is a ~96% similarity between apes and humans, do you really think that the results you're receiving are reliable and accurate?

Hum, yes?
Why not?
There's something like a 80% similarity with other monkeys, then 60 with other mammals, etc.

Are you afraid of counting all those differences?
4% of millions of bases still make a good number of bases...

And DNA isn't all about the coding sequence either.

>>4606030
>So in a genetic sense, are Sponges animals? Yeah. But does that really even mean anything, or help define what animals actually are? Not in the least.

>mfw someone advocating physics is arguing against reductionism

Genetics are a huge part of biology. When classifying life, molecular biology allows us to consistently group things in a logical manner.

>>4606097

mfw he doesn't know about the GTR model, or the HKY model, or the F81 model or the JC model, or the K2P model or the ......

faggot

>>4606136
I think that aspie is blocking on the word "animal".
I'm out.

>>4606119

what about jellyfish?

>Nothing is faster then light

This thread is proof that high schools do a completely shit job of explaining evolution.

>>4606158
This thread is also proof that physicists are better at explaining biology than biologists.

>>4606164

the fact that you read this thread and you actually think this proves to me that you don't know shit about biology.

>>4606164
physics is the practice of ignoring complexity in favor of simple models.

which is to say- a system of ignorance.

>>4606181

did you even read the thread?

And once again /sci/ proves that in any sceintific debate physiscs will kick the ass of any other disapline.

All the bio tears in this thread. Somone should archive it so anytime a biologist is talking shit to a physicist we can show them this thread and put the biologist back in their place.

I really wish the mods here would force anon and have IDs.

Then we could see all the samefaggotry going on.

Honestly, this one thread is two or three high school or undergrad children pretending that they know science.

Please, mods, for the love of fuck, use IDs and purge /sci/ of these fucktards.

>>4606204
Or moot could just make a /bio/ board for the biofags to circle jerk in.

>>4606208
this is still it.

Interesting, so many posts discussing shitty zoology and calling it biology. Its about the same as me talking about architecture and calling it applied physics. Physics loses. Zoology loses. Stop categorizing everything and get a real job.

>>4606208
Agreed.
If the biologists are going to whine everytime they are proven wrong they need to either go to >>>/an/ or get their own board to circle jerk in. If you cant handle the heat stay out of the physics lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
>"Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes."

>>4606231
Quick everyone write to moot asking for a /bio/ board!

>>4606267
or you could just get off our bio board

>>4606267
Will this be like /v/ and /vg/?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer_in_evolution
>The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) effectively scrambles the information on which biologists rely to reconstruct the phylogeny of organisms.
>Furthermore, HGT poses challenges for the ambitious reconstruction of the earliest events in evolution. Because the early branches of the tree of life spanned long time intervals and involved large numbers of organisms, many low-probability HGT events are certain to have occurred.

Sponges are multicellular eukaryotic heterotrophs. The last time I checked, that made them an animal.

>>4606276
No because only the /bio/ board will be shit.

>>4606286
Oh, okay.

>This thread summed up in one wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

>>4606290
very sad but very true...

>>4606285
That's because the definition of "Animal" is stupid.

>the universe is expanding

>>4606290
haha! Im going to show this to some of the biofags I know!

>>4606250

no one uses a single gene to construct a phylogeny. it is an known fact that as the number of genes increases, the gene genealogy constructed approaches the species tree.

the process you talk about is also contained to the eubacteria, not the eukaryotes.

but let's start the circle: use wikipedia articles as a source as esteemed as primary literature.

physics had its day in the 1900s

biology and genetics are the science of now

hence the massive trolling attempts, the incessant pandering to reductionism (to stay relevant), and the lashing out at philosophers (physics was a big fan of logical positivism, and was completely destroyed by a profession with no math in it)

good luck keeping up.

>>4606342
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

this is you right now.

>>4606360
ironically that article points to the failure of physics to be relevant outside its scope.

you are too dim to understand.
it's ok.

Wow. This thread has the most posts on /sci/ right now.

Comp Sci guy here.
It is a small thing but it always bugs me when they say
>go to blah.com BACKSLASH blah

It is supposed to be forward slash.

The reason some peeps don't include sponges in animals is the simple fact that they don't have any distinguishable tissue differentiation, which jellyfish and higher animals do. However, since they are distinguishable from fungi and plants by cell characteristics and because they form multicellular organisms, they are counted as animals (Metazoa) but not as real animals (Eumetazoa).

>>4605450
MAGIC

And by that I mean splice in some different genes from different things, you may need to change the sequence to reflect differences in promotor and genetic code.

Then you could have a plant-animal-fungus hybrid. You could even have some bacterial genes in it.

>>4605498
But what is a neuron?

>>4606631
/sci/ has some of the best troll threads on 4chan.

Watching various scientific fields troll each other is the most entertaining form of education I have ever experienced.

>>4607000
But aren't sponges animal-like in the same way that seaweed/kelp is plant-like?

>Physics is a hard science

>we landed on the moon
>the earth is over 6000 years old
>God probably doesn't exist

>consciousness is *not* pixie magic

>evolution is a fact
>theories are facts
>we should give all our money to scientists
>religion is evil
>liberals are smart

>>4605315
THIS!

>>4607471

>evolution is a fact

In contradiction to your post:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899

Stay classy.

>intuition and personal experience may actually not be the most reliable means of gaining useful knowledge

>>4607493

>.org

Do you even research?

>>4607500

Seriously?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134807001402

Perhaps even this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22517858

Oh wait, I guess they arent good enough for you either right? Funny that.

this entire thread is just biofags getting butthurt that physicists can do biology better than them.