Quote# 83128

[On taxonomic classification]

Well I just feel like being the Taxonimist's adversary here: As I said above. So many critters have eyes, but we don't lump them on that basis. Many critters have ears and we don't lump them on that basis either. I could go on, but I'm sure you already got the point. Why should mammals be a whole different category than non mammals. One thing that comes to mind is the dolphin. It is a mammal, but it is a fish. This brings up the question: Why is the dolphin put in the same category as people? I think this reflects evolutionary thinking. But I could be wrong.

Paul Solberg, CARM 89 Comments [8/10/2011 11:02:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 116
Submitted By: Karana

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 | bottom


He won't read this but, A dolphin is a mammal because of many reason, DNA similarities with other mammals, Live births, LUNGS!!!! etc. and because of those reasons it is not a fish.

and non mammals, lizards for example, are just different enough to not call them mammals, like how they lay eggs, and the females don't produce milk, different heart structure, cold blooded etc.

8/10/2011 11:09:12 AM


The word "mammal" comes from the mammary glands, which provide milk to offspring. You only find these in a certain class of animals.

Dolphins have these, as humans, apes, lions etc. Ergo: Dolphins are mammals.

And there are a lot more characteristics of mammals you see in dolphins: Live birth, a neocortex, a four-chambered heart, warm blooded, ... all of these are missing in fish.

"Paul Solberg", I think your statement reflects androcentric thinking ("the world turns around ME!"), typical for fundies, who talk about "god", but in reality they mean themselves and their very own opinion.

8/10/2011 11:14:30 AM


Well, it does reflect evolutionary thinking, in a way. So, this idiot's argument is a good reductio ad absurdum of creationist thinking, and I'm pleased with that.

8/10/2011 11:16:01 AM

Big Jilm

You're absolutely fucking wrong. Gee, I don't know -maybe you could have paid attention in 3rd-grade Science class? Mammals are warm-blooded vertebraes for starters (dolphins); fish are cold-blooded vertebraes. That's just one major difference.

Now go back to school fucktard!

8/10/2011 11:24:25 AM

N. De Plume

Yes, lots of animals have eyes and ears. Which is exactly why eyes and ears are not, in of themselves used for classification. It would be meaningless to do so, because then pretty much every friggin’ animal would be in the same group

8/10/2011 11:28:22 AM


If you actually had an education, you would know why taxonomy doesn't necessarily seem to make physical sense at a glance to an uneducated layman with a point to prove. But, you don't, and you post on CARM.

Please go write one hundred lines of "I will pay attention in remedial adult schooling biology classes".

8/10/2011 11:28:41 AM

A mammal is any animal with a back bone.

8/10/2011 11:40:01 AM

I Read About The Afterlife

The dolphin is not a fish. It does not have gills.

8/10/2011 11:47:56 AM


#1320742 "A mammal is any animal with a back bone."

That's wrong. That's the definition of vertebrae. A mammal is any animal with mammary glands, which is a subcategory of vertebrae, but not all vertebrae are mammals. Amphibians for example also have a back bone (spinal column), but don't have mammary glands.

8/10/2011 11:56:10 AM


Why should mammals be a whole different category than non mammals.(?)
Well because mammals are the only animals on Earth that have fur, are warm blooded, give birth to live young, and feed their young milk.

The dolphin is a mammal because it meets all the criteria for being a mammal and none for being a fish, it does not have gills, it does not have scales, and it is no cold blooded. Finally yes, taxonomy does reflect evolutionary thinking, because taxonomy is a biological science and all biological sciences depend on evolution.

8/10/2011 12:03:53 PM


Believe it or not, this comment isn't, by itself, fundie (in my opinion, anyway). I can see someone simply questioning why a dolphin is considered a mammal and not a fish - simple ignorance shouldn't make a quote fundie. The rest of Paul's post, however, does seem to drive it over the edge, even then, only barely.

8/10/2011 12:05:21 PM


"But I could be wrong."

Not a sentence.

I suspect large quantities of some volatile chemical inhaled as a child, possibly airplane glue. WTF is the illogic here?

Everything that lives in water is a fish, ergo dolphins and hippos and otters and clams are fish?

8/10/2011 12:06:11 PM


@N. De Plume

Well, they are. The group Animalia. The only kingdom, to my knowledge, that has eyes and ears on its members (though not all of them).

8/10/2011 12:33:38 PM

Pule Thamex

There's only three categories you need worry about:-

1). There's God things. (things and creatures made by God; of low importance).

2). There's God people. (humans; made by God; have the possibility to achieve low to medium importance).

3). There's God's special elite people. (possibly of human ancestry; made by God; to be found mostly in USA; very ignorant, but very, very important).

8/10/2011 12:39:02 PM


It's quite funny to see easily remediable ignorance in this day and age.

8/10/2011 12:49:43 PM

N. De Plume

Well, they are. The group Animalia. The only kingdom, to my knowledge, that has eyes and ears on its members (though not all of them).

While the Kingdom Animalia is useful as a group for separating its members from things like plants, protists, monera, and fungi, it is still too large a group when you want to talk, specifically about animals that nurse their young. Animals with eyes is likewise too broad for that application. Hence the further subdivision.

8/10/2011 12:56:26 PM

Old Viking

Speak for yourself. I happen to lump creatures by eye characteristics.

8/10/2011 1:00:41 PM

J. James


You "COULD" be wrong!?

You ARE wrong!!


God fucking damn. That one hit below the belt, as a marine biologist.

8/10/2011 1:03:24 PM


Way to criticize taxonomy while at the same time not understanding it to the point where you call a dolphin a fish.

8/10/2011 1:23:01 PM


Like humans, dolphins are warm-blooded, they have fur (a tiny bit around the blowhole), they have "impedance-matching" (3-bone) middle ears and feed their young on milk. There's not as much difference between a dolphin and a human as you might think, especially in the early fetal stages.

8/10/2011 1:23:09 PM


chaosof99: Minor correction: Creatures with a spine are vertebrates. Vertebrae are the bones that make up the spine.

8/10/2011 1:39:47 PM

J. James


Technically, if you wanted to go even further, Chordates include vertebrates and things like Lancelets and Tunicates, which have notochords(a primitive hollow spinelike tube) and pharyngeal slits, but are otherwise like invertibrates.

8/10/2011 1:44:50 PM

Brendan Rizzo

There is a difference between morphological classifications and taxonomic classifications. Things such as the presence of eyes or ears are trivial compared to the true similarities among organisms. Compare the forelimbs of all vertebrates, and you will see that they are very similar. Also, classification isn't done on a purely morphological basis anymore. Genetic similarities are what are used to corroborate a particular taxonomical relationship. Dolphins cannot be fish. They lack gills, and they have mammary glands and much more highly-developed brains than any fish. These are the important things, not the fact that they live in water.

8/10/2011 1:49:31 PM


Guys, guys, guys... the dewey decimal system is wrong and also difficult. So I made my own classification: on this shelf we have Books I've Read and on all the other ones we have Books I Haven't Read. IT'S SO SIMPLE!

8/10/2011 2:05:23 PM

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Further proof that in most cases homeschooling is a bad idea.

8/10/2011 2:11:03 PM

1 2 3 4 | top: comments page