Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,838 Year: 3,095/9,624 Month: 940/1,588 Week: 123/223 Day: 2/19 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Clades and Kinds
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 76 of 143 (531313)
10-16-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Coyote
10-16-2009 11:11 PM


Re: Noah's Clades
I just want it to be know: I'm a 6.5 on the faitheist/atheist scale we had a while back. I'd be kind of embarrassed if someone thought I believed in Thor, pixies, SpongeBob or Noah's unlikely story. It all seems really funny to me.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2009 11:11 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2009 11:55 PM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 78 by Meldinoor, posted 10-17-2009 12:59 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 77 of 143 (531314)
10-16-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by lyx2no
10-16-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Noah's Clades
I just want it to be know: I'm a 6.5 on the faitheist/atheist scale we had a while back. I'd be kind of embarrassed if someone thought I believed in Thor, pixies, SpongeBob or Noah's unlikely story. It all seems really funny to me.
Your post was a convenient launching point for my post.
I certainly did not mean to imply any particular position was attributed to you, or that you were the subject of my post.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 10-16-2009 11:50 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 78 of 143 (531321)
10-17-2009 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by lyx2no
10-16-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Noah's Clades
I felt the same way when Larni thought I was arguing for the flud in the OP
See message 3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 10-16-2009 11:50 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 79 of 143 (531372)
10-17-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
10-16-2009 8:55 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi RAZD,
You feeling chipper these days?
RAZD writes:
What cows could evolve into would be something analogous to a bird, they could become small (like your midget horse?) and then grow a membrane like a flying squirrel, and then take the step to be similar to a bat.
Meldinoor in Message 28 ask me for my definition of macro evolution.
I gave my answer in Message 48.
Meldinoor restates my definition and makes the statement it could never happen in Message 65
Let's give it one more try:
Could you give me your definition of macro-evolution please?
ICANT writes:
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen.
Now according to the OP these cows could not be the little flying cows you present.
They would have to be very large. They would have larger brains than a normal cow. They would have telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy. So they would have to evolve far beyond what you proposed.
Here is the entire part of the message in the OP I was addressing.
Meldinoor writes:
So, hypothetically, if the descendants of cattle should one day grow wings, large brains with telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy, despite looking completely different, they would be of the same "kind" and will have gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
Now, would anyone like to tell me why I'm wrong? Or perhaps someone would like to propose an alternative definition of "kind"?
Meldinoor stated they would be the same kind as they had gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
He then asks anyone to tell him why he is wrong.
He admits he is wrong in Message 65 when he says:
"Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen."
So the only thing left to do is give a definition of Bible "kind".
I tried to do so by stating I believed every kind was on the ark. Nobody seems to understand what I was saying.
I will try to be specific and see if I can explain.
I believe there was at least a pair of Horses, ass's, and zebras on the ark.
Horses and ass's have been domesticated since they came off the ark.
Nobody has ever been able to truly domesticate the zebra.
So there was a Horse kind, a ass kind and a zebra kind on the ark.
There was not just a pair of something from which all three divided from.
All the other creatures would have been the same.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2009 8:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 10-17-2009 12:41 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 81 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 82 by Meldinoor, posted 10-17-2009 5:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2009 12:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2009 7:48 AM ICANT has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 80 of 143 (531376)
10-17-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
10-17-2009 12:30 PM


Re: Nested clades
So the only thing left to do is give a definition of Bible "kind".
And it's still left. Give a man an example and he can eat for a day. Teach a man the definition and he can feed his family. Or something like that.
So give a definition already.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2009 12:30 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 81 of 143 (531384)
10-17-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
10-17-2009 12:30 PM


Re: Nested clades
I believe there was at least a pair of Horses, ass's, and zebras on the ark.
Horses and ass's have been domesticated since they came off the ark.
Nobody has ever been able to truly domesticate the zebra.
So there was a Horse kind, a ass kind and a zebra kind on the ark.
There was not just a pair of something from which all three divided from.
All the other creatures would have been the same.
Good for you. It's nonsense, of course, but unlike the Baramin notion of kind it's completely tortured and invented nonsense.
But it leaves the question: how do you get those millions of creatures onto the Ark?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2009 12:30 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 82 of 143 (531423)
10-17-2009 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
10-17-2009 12:30 PM


Re: Nested clades
ICANT writes:
He admits he is wrong in Message 65
No, but you wish I did.
I asked you for a definition of "macro-evolution". What you give me is a silly example of cows turning into birds. I ask for a general definition, you give vague replies.
It IS impossible for cows to turn into birds. It is VIRTUALLY impossible for them to turn into an animal that looks just like a bird. That's what I meant when I said:
Meldinoor writes:
Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen
Now, just to show you why your definitions of macro-evolution do not actually occur, I'm going to restate them:
Macroevolution 101 by ICANT
1. Macro-Evolution: An animal becomes a completely different animal. (Message 48)
Animals never become a completely different animal. Evolutionists agree. We are not totally different from bacteria. If that is macroevolution, it doesn't happen.
2. Macro-Evolution: Cows turn into birds
Well, it certainly hasn't happened yet, so I guess Macro-Evolution has yet to occur!
3. Macro-Evolution: Lead turning into Gold
More plausible than cows turning into birds, but has nothing to do with evolution.
Care to give your definition another go? Or would you rather go on dodging the question with irrelevant examples and quote-mines from my posts?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2009 12:30 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2699 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 83 of 143 (531525)
10-18-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
10-17-2009 12:30 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Meldinoor in Message 28 ask me for my definition of macro evolution.
I gave my answer in Message 48.
ICANT, the problem is that, when you're asked to give a definition, you give an example. Look:
ICANT writes:
A ten pound lead bar becoming a 13 1/3 pound bar of pure gold.
Message 48
ICANT writes:
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
Message 48
A definition is supposed to be useful in classifying a number of different examples. Therefore, a definition has to be non-specific.
An analogy would be if you asked me to define "sport," and I said, "basketball." Using that definition, I would conclude that football, baseball, hurling and dodgeball are not sports.
In the future, when asked to provide a definition, provide a definition, not an example.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2009 12:30 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 10-19-2009 12:46 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2699 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 84 of 143 (531530)
10-18-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by slevesque
10-16-2009 1:24 PM


Re: Bird Odds
Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes:
Of course, but we are doing a theoretical mind game here. Because, in theory, it could be possible tht the descendants of a cow would be just like birds. And when I say just like birds, I mean externally and internally, and the only differences that would be present would be on the same scale as birds have between one another.
Would it still have to be called a cow?
Cladistics is not about what we call things: it's only about the ancestry of things.
If your daughter gave birth to a four-armed baby, would you insist on calling the baby something other than "human"?
If your descendants 1 million years from now had no eyes and an extra toe on each foot, would you insist on calling them something other than "human"?
The only criterion for a clade is ancestry. It has absolutely nothing to do with appearances (except insomuch as relatedness is reflected in appearances, as it inevitably is to some degree). As such, the only information that is necessarily tied directly to cladistics is ancestry and relatedness.
But, because ancestry is inevitably tied to appearance and biology in some ways, it can be used, as Mr Jack said, to predict and diagnose behavioral, ecological, anatomical and physiological features. So, if a bird-like organism evolved from a cow, then ToE predicts that there would be clues to this ancestry in the flying cow's physiology, ecology, behavior and/or genetics.
For example: bats can be likened to birds. Because they both fly, they are similar to one another in many ways. But, because bats evolved from mammals, we learn more about their biology by comparing them to cows or squirrels then we do from comparing them to birds.
That's what Dobzhansky's quote means: our understanding of biology relies heavily on---and indeed, derives primarily from---the implications of the Theory of Evolution.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 1:24 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 85 of 143 (531612)
10-19-2009 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
10-15-2009 11:09 PM


This is kinda odd, it seems as though clade focuses only on lineage and not really biology.
Well, yes and no. Clade is defined by lineage. But it turns out to be a powerful concept about the rest of biology. That's why it's such a good idea.
Your comment is as though you said: "This is kinda odd, it seems as though the periodic table focuses only on proton number and not really chemical properties".
Now, in a sense this is a true thing to say about the periodic table. But it rather misses the point. Because it so happens that we live in a universe where proton number is the key to chemistry. Sure, we can imagine a universe where this was not the case, and then ordering elements according to their proton number would be lame and silly. But as it happens we do not live in that universe. We live in one where the proton number is the crucial piece of information about an atom.
In the same way, we can imagine a universe in which birds were descended from cows as well as from archosaurs. And if that was the case, then the concept of a clade might not be much use to biologists. But it so happens that we live in a universe where the concept is useful. It so happens that arranging species in clades does indeed provide us with insights into the biology of the species. And this is why it's a good idea.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 11:09 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 10-19-2009 10:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 86 of 143 (531678)
10-19-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2009 5:00 AM


Not independent
It seems that cladistics isn't useful in support of evolution since it assumes evolution? Comments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 5:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 2:51 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 99 by Meldinoor, posted 10-20-2009 3:00 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 87 of 143 (531711)
10-19-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Blue Jay
10-18-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
ICANT writes:
A ten pound lead bar becoming a 13 1/3 pound bar of pure gold.
Message 48
ICANT writes:
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
Message 48
A definition is supposed to be useful in classifying a number of different examples. Therefore, a definition has to be non-specific.
Those are two examples of transmutation which macro evolution is.
I stated in Message 14:
Hopefully this will give insight to those here as to my beliefs and the reason I argue like I do. Like the argument about the bacteria, it makes no difference how much they change as long as they are bacteria macro evolution has not happened.
I think the proper word is transmutation.
Transmutation is when one thing ceases to be that thing and becomes a different thing.
In the message you are responding to immediately after my two examples I stated:
You would have one critter (a cow) become a totally different critter (a bird).
So let me see if I can clear it up for you,
Macro evolution is when one kind of critter becomes another kind of a critter.
An example would be a dog kind evolving into a horse kind.
Kind is all the different creatures God created.
Example horse kind, zebra kind, ass kind.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2009 12:16 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 10-19-2009 1:47 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 10-19-2009 2:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2009 8:53 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 96 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 12:06 AM ICANT has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 88 of 143 (531719)
10-19-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
10-19-2009 12:46 PM


Re: Nested clades
So let me see if I can clear it up for you,
Macro evolution is when one kind of critter becomes another kind of a critter.
That's no help.
You are being asked for an operational definition. Given two organisms, any two organisms, how do you determine whetehr they are separated by macroevolution or not? IOW, how do you assign two arbitrarily chosen organisms to the category "one kind of critter" or assign one to the category "one kind of critter" and the other to the category "another kind of critter", without asking you to do the assigning?
Of course, you don't have a prayer of actually doing this, but that's what's being asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 10-19-2009 12:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 10-19-2009 7:39 PM JonF has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 89 of 143 (531727)
10-19-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
10-19-2009 12:46 PM


Re: Nested clades
Example horse kind, zebra kind, ass kind.
Further examples: there are multiple "kinds" of vultures, hawks, herons, and ravens:
And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Makes for a pretty full Ark, and not so comfortable for those unclean mice and rabbits......

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 10-19-2009 12:46 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 143 (531732)
10-19-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NosyNed
10-19-2009 10:57 AM


Re: Not independent
It seems that cladistics isn't useful in support of evolution since it assumes evolution? Comments?
That's one of those wrong-end-of-the-stick questions.
It depends on whether you mean "cladistics" as a set of methods or as a body of results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 10-19-2009 10:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024