this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
1032 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7249 readers
4031 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Taxonomy isn't biology, though. It's a man-made classification system. And at the species level it's much closer to binary definitions than spectrums. So maybe not the best analogy to make.
As is gender:
So I’d say it fits perfectly
But taxonomy aims (even though it sometimes fails) to classify organisms into rigid categories, which is exactly the thing you want to avoid with gender, right?
Just like how we understand that species at a real level are actually a spectrum, we do the same thing with our (self-identified) genders. We feel a certain way about ourselves and find the closest available definition to provide to others. It may not be a 100% exact match to you and you will likely have nuance, but so do species.
It actually is helpful, too because it lets others know how you’d like to be treated in a word.
I like this, chihuahuas and wolves are the same species, but are very different morphologically.
Rigid: inflexible, unmoving
Ridged: has ridges (like Ruffles)
ha, thanks!
No problemo
Until you start to use evolution. What a species is, begins to blur as soon as you try to establish evolutionary lines. When is a whale not a whale but just a water enthusiast mammal? somewhere between 50 and 35 million years ago. Exactly when, it's anyone's guess. Taxonomy is indeed part of biology, though.
It doesn't because "species" is definied as an animal that can have fertile offspring with other members of it's species. Looking at evolution doesn't change that definition, it just shows that it's not a very good definition on an evolutionary timescale. Our concept of species in taxonomy only makes sense within small timeframes.
First we have to establish what you mean by "whale" and translate that to the proper order/clade. Then you look at what was the first described fossile in the group is. And that's your answer. And yes, that answer will change with new fossil discoveries or reclassifications based on other information happen. But as long as you keep up to date with them, the current way we use taxonomy gives quite binary definitions of the majority of lifeforms.
It sure is. But it's just an arbitrary classification system within the greater field. It is like an "index", so you can look up what information belongs to the thing you're looking at. But it doesn't actually hold much information about biology of the thing itself.
Species actually don't have a rigid definition that works across all organisms. The most common definition is the one you gave but sometimes it simply doesn't work, for example any organism the doesn't use sexual reproduction doesn't fit this definition. Clarification of extinct populations would also be an issue. Even considering organisms this is usually used with, there are exceptions. For example; domesticated cattle and American bison, coyotes and wolves, and most cat breeds with various wild species.
What do you mean "biology of the thing itself"? Are you talking about morphology which is a different part of biology. And taxonomic trees are often made based on morphological features so there is a connection.
Taxonomically speaking, the first whale was the last common ancestor of all (modern) whales, whether this was a land dweller or already aquatic isn't important from a taxonomic point of view
Except you're still at odds with what a "species" even is because you'll have a bunch of fossils that exist over several million years as one "species" that definitely looks different at the beginning than it did at the end because evolution is such a gradual process that there never really is a clean break between species.
You are aware that whale isn't a single species, are you? I'm not commenting on how blurry the species definition is, I'm aware of that. I'm commenting on the question about the first whale
It doesn't really matter, whether it's the category whale, fish, or specifically the Orcinus orca. Everything in nature is a spectrum, almost nothing in nature is binary. Gender, species, taxonomy, ink on paper? gradients, computer bits? yeah, they exist on a wide array of voltages, electrons? they are probabilistic. Even light itself, you can think of it as photons on and off. But sometimes light will act as a wave, because physics doesn't give a damn about human sensibilities and categories. The closer you look at anything in the physical world, the less binary it gets.
Well, the comment above me was like:
And I pointed out that that's not how taxonomy works. It's all about the last common ancestor and it's obviously not possible to pinpoint this to a single individual. All I said was, from a taxonomic point of view, being a whale isn't about being aquatic but about sharing a common ancestor with all whales.
I know, I wrote the comment. My point is that even that same definition is flawed and doesn't work on an evolutionary scale. Because most of human categories exist out of convenience and not strict material objectivity. I chose whales, not at random, but very intentionally. At one point we have something we call a whale, that turned into a hippo. We don't call hippos whales, but it came from a whale, and our modern whales look nothing like that whale, and it doesn't matter, because it's ok to use whatever works for the purposes at hand in the moment. We just need to accept that binary thinking and hard classifications are made up human constructs and nature doesn't care.
So biology isn't man made but god inspired?
I'm not quite sure how you got there, but you can check my reply to dustyData in this thread. I think that should clear up your question.
You seem to see taxonomy as separate of biology and by devaluing taxonomy as man made, you heavily imply that biology isn't