Really? Name one. I don't think you were telling the truth with that comment.
To be fair, I know of at least two species that don't fit into the nested hierarchy:
Both of these species carry an exact copy of a jellyfish GFP gene that clearly violates the nested hierarchy. The irony, of course, is that these species were intelligently designed by humans. Yet more evidence that we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy if species were intelligently designed.
Both of these species carry an exact copy of a jellyfish GFP gene that clearly violates the nested hierarchy. The irony, of course, is that these species were intelligently designed by humans.
Please don't do that
The split second between the first sentence and the second sentence allowed for a complete collapse of all scientific reliability in my mind. Just enough time for thousands of years of toiling research and painstaking verification and re-testing just obliterated and left my mind in a vacuous shell of deceit.
Now I understand the word Clade a lot better than before (I have virtually no training in Biology, except for the short course I took in Genetics).
Once you go cladistics, there is no turning back.
After learning cladistics the first thing you will start noticing is how many paraphyletic groups are still used by the lay public and biologists.
For example, "apes" is a paraphyletic group unless you include humans in the group. A cladist will describe them as hominids which includes the great apes and humans. You will stop using terms like "fish" and start using terms like jawed vertebrate. Monophyly or no phyly.
Genesis defines (loosely) kind as a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants ("according to their kinds") so it would seem that we are talking about the same thing, with today's species descending from a common ancestor (population\breeding pair\etc) via (micro)evolution:
To my mind genesis is definitely speaking of clades as we define them in biology. The question then becomes how far back do we go?
Now you might think that "primate" turns out to be too big for what you were thinking, but where do you stop and why?
To my mind genesis is definitely speaking of clades as we define them in biology.
To my mind, someone took a few words from Genesis about animals giving birth to their own kind, a statement that we all agree is factual, and then ran with it off into silly land to interpret it to mean that animals cannot evolve. Quite frankly the entire argument is unnecessary.
Genesis is just saying that after God created the first animals, they were capable of producing more of the same without intervention. Period.
If the earth is only 6000 years old, then animals did not have time to evolve regardless of whether they had the potential to do so. So why take this particular sentence so out of context to try to demonstrate something that is not required to support your belief? It's ridiculous; no more and no less so than everything else in Creation Science.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
To my mind, someone took a few words from Genesis about animals giving birth to their own kind, a statement that we all agree is factual, and then ran with it off into silly land to interpret it to mean that animals cannot evolve.
Curiously, I think there is a little more to it. People of the times were animal herders of domestic breeds and were familiar with breeding creating variations, but sheep only bred new forms of sheep, cows only bred new forms of cows, dogs only bred new formes of dogs, etc etc etc.
Hence the comments like "dogs will always be dogs."
Creationists now accept microevolution, so the gripe has moved to macroevolution. ie never breed "out of their kind"(whatever that means to them) or develop new kinds.
It rather amuses me that what is described for descent from original kinds so perfectly matches the description of clades descent from ancestor populations. I would have thought that creationists would have jumped all over cladistics as vindication for their arguments ... except for that dangerous territory of finding where the original kinds fit without having any predecessors ...
If the earth is only 6000 years old, then animals did not have time to evolve regardless of whether they had the potential to do so. ...
Dredge, I believe, is an old earth creationist, so time not so important for his argument.
... It's ridiculous; no more and no less so than everything else in Creation Science.
Yes, but the old argument for defining "kinds" as some taxon category is also rather ridiculous imho -- when we can use clades, show how they match their description for "kinds" and then move on to what is the earliest common ancestor for each branch, and demonstrate that there is always an ancestor population in the fossil record and in the genetic record.
Though cladistics the argument against original created kinds is stronger, imho, than previous arguments based on taxons.
abe -- Primate Cladogram now lists ~300 living and extinct species, with some yet to list, and is by no means complete for extinct species. I think Dredge may be surprised at how big this clade is.
and the creationist refrain: but the offspring will always be dogs.
Along with their false claim that evolution requires dogs giving birth to cats or vice versa, when such an event would actually disprove evolution.
A pet project is to collect quotations which constitute really stupid things that creationists say. Such as "but THEY'RE STILL MOTHS!!!!!", "so then, WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?", "but IT'S ONLY A THEORY!!!!!!!"
Monoglot is a new English word I learned (I'm multilingual and it really must be hard to only be able to understand and speak one language).
Also being multilingual, I cannot imagine a mind so impoverished by knowing only one language. Like I cannot imagine how a person who doesn't understand anything about basic science would think.
However, most monoglots don't even know one language. I used to be active on a programming forum where we would answer questions from both native and non-native English speakers. Even when their grasp of English was minimal, the non-native members were able to write complete sentences and use the right words -- their word order could be a bit odd (English word order is rather complicated) and occasionally they'd choose the wrong word from their dictionary (eg, a Portuguese programmer asked how to use "lights" in multi-processing; he had meant "semaphores", but his dictionary told him that "semáforo" meant "traffic light" AKA "light"). On the other hand, the writing of native speakers was usually unintelligible as they couldn't put a sentence together and always used wrong spellings -- eg, we wasted a lot of time trying figure out what statistical method a "Barber poll" was when it turned out he meant "barber pole".
One of my German textbooks quoted Lessing as saying, "Man kennt die eigene Sprache nicht, bis man eine fremde lernt." ("You don't know your own language until you have learned a foreign one.") That is so true. I learned so much more about English in two years of high school German than I ever could have in all 12 years of English. To a monoglot, grammar would be a meaningless waste of time learning something that people don't even use and which isn't what people say anyway (eg, the current common error of saying "with you and I"). But to one who has studied another language, grammar is the structure of a language and the key to understanding how it works and how to use it.
And if you have a sense of humor, then having other languages at your disposal gives you that much more to play with. And that's not counting the jokes that span multiple languages.