|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Oh, but it is if you care about the truth. Objectively speaking where do. You draw the line between birds and dinosaurs ?
quote: Who could possibly notice the differences between a hummingbird and an ostrich ?
quote: That’s because you’re not even trying to do it right.
quote: Yes, you can’t admit that your ignorance lead you into a foolish error.
quote: You’re certainly dedicated to your pride. But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re just ignorant and opinionated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Thrushes are a taxonomic family, with a worldwide distribution. The American Robin is a thrush. Bluebirds are thrushes. The Turdus genus alone has 84 recognised species!
quote: That’s funny when Linnaeus is claimed as one of the great Creationist scientists. But if you equate species with family the thrushes are one of your species. Which is just pointless redefinition to confuse the issue, but I guess you haven’t anything better. Linnaeus wasn’t right about everything - he thought that sloths belonged with the primates, but I wouldn’t bet on him being wrong just because he disagreed with your opinions. As we can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which are those? Examples please. I can say that the turdus thrushes I am familiar with (5 species) are all very similar in build and shape - and plumage tends to be similar, too. I can tell they are related - the American Robin is another - this picture of a juvenile just shouts thrush at me (looks quite a bit like a redwing). They are easily distinguished from, most of the other garden birds. With a poor view (and without noting gait) I suppose a male blackbird could be mistaken for the similar-sized starling (especially amongst a bunch of starlings) but that’s about it. Differences in size, shape, gait, call and song all add up. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The listing in Wikipedia seems legible enough.
But if you can’t tell the difference between an American Robin and Northern Cardinal- to choose members of adjacent genera (within an order) - you have a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, it’s the idea that Your opinionated ignorance is better than actual knowledge. Taxonomy is based on a good deal of detailed investigation while your ideas are largely based on what you want to be true. And just to double down, you actually think that it is indefensible to prefer the standard concepts over your incoherent assumptions. Without even a hint of any justification. At the very least you think you should be considered a leading authority - when you don’t even qualify as an informed layman. THAT is narcissistic arrogance with a vengeance.. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: This is the question I asked in Message 498.
... there are taxonomic groups linked by shared characteristics larger than species. So why a species rather than a genus, a family or an order ? Faith managed no real answer, other than a display of massive ignorance in Message 507 ...the bird group share just about everything in common. The only real differences among them do seem to be the claw feet versus the paddle feet. Why anyone should try to talk about the taxonomy of birds without even considering the many other distinctions within the birds is beyond me. And that is a fine example of arrogant narcissism. It’s not the conflict with the establishment - as I said it’s the idea that opinionated ignorance beats actual knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You’re the one who raised the issue. If you can’t remember enough to talk about it that was rather a waste of time,
quote: The thrushes are a genus within the birds - and within the order Passeres. Like all other taxonomic divisions they have a set of traits in common that are not fully shared with birds outside the genus (and another set of traits that place them in Passeres).
quote: And there is your anti-scientific attitude again. Since you are only interested in claiming to be right you decide to ignore the problems. That only gets you to the level of bad apologetics. You’ll never produce a worthwhile argument that way, just a deception to fool the ignorant and the gullible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which would be entirely consistent with defining tetrapods as a kind. But it is not consistent with considering humans as a separate kind as we have seen - repeatedly.
quote: No, the question is what a kind is biologically. Which seems to be what you are attempting to answer since you ignore and contradict the Bible except with regard to humans. Even your obvious excuses in that case) deal with biology - or rather your idea of biology since you denied that chimps had fingernails or hair.
quote: But your boundaries have nothing to do with any such observations. Your criteria are morphological, not genetic. I should also point out that reading Linnaeus is hardly sufficient to tell you how modern biologists do taxonomy, Linnaeus is cited for the history, not current practice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I’m sure it’s convenient to you, but it is not the same as defining it by genetics.
quote: Because your idea of kinds is not in the Bible. Indeed the raven and the dove are clearly different kinds in the Bible, but not to you.
quote: And as the heron body is distinct from the hawk body. (Hamlet claimed the ability to tell a hawk from a handsaw - a heron - was a sign of sanity). Clearly your idea of structure is incredibly subjective and inconsistently applies to a level that makes it useless for anything resembling science.
quote: I don’t believe that. There certainly isn’t any coherent thinking behind it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If the Kinds are those taken on Noah’s Ark - which was the original point of it, then they are separate Kinds too.
quote: That is a distinction that is not found in the Bible. Nor is there any Biblical support for such an idea. It is not even consistent with your own ideas as applied to the mammals.
quote: You assume so. But of course genetics does not show any distinct kinds.
quote: The Bible does not have any concept of original Kinds versus ordinary kinds. The distinction is not made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which doesn’t help you at all. Your assertion is that there is a hard boundary which just happens to coincide with where you happen to draw the lines. The fact that we can make distinctions within that boundary - dogs aren’t the only species you assign to the dog kind - only shows that there are genetic distinctions at the species level.
quote: According to you they definitely do.
quote: I never said that there was. There is, however, certainly something wrong with saying that the Bible makes a distinction between the original Kinds and later kinds or even implies that they are different. There are also big problems with saying that highly subjective morphological groupings present any sort of genetic boundary. But that is a different issue.
quote: So you assume. But it could as easily refer to the observation of species breeding true.
quote: You know that it did. That’s the whole point of inventing the distinction between original Kinds and ordinary kinds.
quote: No. It may well refer to modern species (or rather something close enough, without the fine distinctions made by taxonomy). But the word is vaguer than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Obviously they are incredibly subjective, to the point where morphology is more an excuse than a criterion. There is nothing even resembling an objective standard. Why do the unique features of owls not qualify then as a kind ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You say that but we don’t see any sign of it. All we see is you classifying differences as important or unimportant depending on the conclusion you want to reach.
quote: As I have said before that applies to any taxonomic grouping. The issue is what makes a taxonomic grouping a kind rather than a sub-kind or super-kind. And on that you are silent. Yet it is a fundamental point, and one that is absolutely essential to your project.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then why have you never talked about it?
quote: Which applies to all taxonomic groupings. Species, genera, families, orders, phyla, even kingdoms. All of them are identified ab points shared by all their members. How often do I have to point out this basic fact, which goes back at least as far as Linnaeus ?
quote: Unfortunately for you they do. And that is in Linnaeus, let alone modern taxonomy. It’s been a point frequently mentioned here, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If all you were doing is grouping creatures by points shared by their members that wouldn’t be true. They’d be doing it a lot more rigorously and taking more features into account but they’d be doing the same thing.
quote: Which means only that they identify sub-groups by shared features. They aren’t looking for Kinds. As I pointed out they also identify higher level groups by shared features. Which brings us back to the question of what makes one of these groups a Kind but not its sub-groups or the supergroups containing it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024