We may also have better error-correcting mechanisms than those simple invertebrates do, though I’m not enough of a biochemist to know myself. (By the way: “invertebrate” is a terrible category—akin to being a non-unicorn—and gets especially bad when the concern is intelligence; it ranges from the near-mindless oyster to the brilliantly clever octopus.)
Biologists typically talk of chordates, arthropods, molluscs, annelids, nematodes, rotifers, etc. individually; I still suspect there is some anthropocentric bias in our taxonomy (are we really different enough from chimps to justify a separate genus?), but far less than there is in the general population.
Amusing example: At the Creation Museum, they have a chart of their taxonomy (as opposed to the standard biological taxonomy). It lists “man” as a separate category distinct from everything else, but then it ties together with a common ancestry groups as diverse as “dinosaurs”, “insects”, and (my personal favorite) “fungi”. So the entire domain of fungi, from yeast to mushrooms, is allowed to have a common ancestor; but God forbid anyone suggest that humans and chimps are related.
(are we really different enough from chimps to justify a separate genus?)
I think there’s a good argument that we
are. (But
I do not actually advocate a terminological change and am happy to let the
biologists cut reality along whatever joints are convenient for them.)
Edit: By “terminological change” I mean the one suggested in the linked quote.
Don’t try to refer to non-chordates as a single class, would be my suggestion. Mark chordates (and tetrapods particularly) linguistically as the unusual case instead.
What measure of complexity of the brain’s organization wouldn’t show a big increase between invertebrates and humans?
with a little judicious editing, becomes:
What measure of brain complexity wouldn’t show a big increase in tetrapods, and humans in particular?
We may also have better error-correcting mechanisms than those simple invertebrates do, though I’m not enough of a biochemist to know myself. (By the way: “invertebrate” is a terrible category—akin to being a non-unicorn—and gets especially bad when the concern is intelligence; it ranges from the near-mindless oyster to the brilliantly clever octopus.)
Good point. Can you (or anyone else) suggest anything better?
Biologists typically talk of chordates, arthropods, molluscs, annelids, nematodes, rotifers, etc. individually; I still suspect there is some anthropocentric bias in our taxonomy (are we really different enough from chimps to justify a separate genus?), but far less than there is in the general population.
Amusing example: At the Creation Museum, they have a chart of their taxonomy (as opposed to the standard biological taxonomy). It lists “man” as a separate category distinct from everything else, but then it ties together with a common ancestry groups as diverse as “dinosaurs”, “insects”, and (my personal favorite) “fungi”. So the entire domain of fungi, from yeast to mushrooms, is allowed to have a common ancestor; but God forbid anyone suggest that humans and chimps are related.
I think there’s a good argument that we are. (But I do not actually advocate a terminological change and am happy to let the biologists cut reality along whatever joints are convenient for them.)
Edit: By “terminological change” I mean the one suggested in the linked quote.
Don’t try to refer to non-chordates as a single class, would be my suggestion. Mark chordates (and tetrapods particularly) linguistically as the unusual case instead.
with a little judicious editing, becomes: