EvC Forum: Clades and Kinds

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Clades and Kinds

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

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 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

(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

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 95 of 143 (531792)
10-20-2009 12:00 AM

Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
10-19-2009 7:39 PM

Re: Nested clades

Unneeded post erased.

Edited by Bluejay, : This post wouldn't have contributed to the discussion if I had left it.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 92 by ICANT, posted 10-19-2009 7:39 PM		ICANT has not replied

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 96 of 143 (531794)
10-20-2009 12:06 AM

Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
10-19-2009 12:46 PM

Re: Nested clades

Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

Those are two examples of transmutation which macro evolution is...

...Transmutation is when one thing ceases to be that thing and becomes a different thing.

I want you to acknowledge one thing:

Your opponents do not think transmutation, as you've defined it here, is part of the Theory of Evolution.

Do you recognize that this is your opponents' position?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

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 97 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 1:51 AM		Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 103 of 143 (531868)
10-20-2009 9:47 AM

Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
10-20-2009 1:51 AM

Re: Nested clades

Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

But yes I realize that no evolutionist here believes that one critter had to become another critter.

Good. Such is the point of this thread.

Having recognized this, do you now agree that a lead bar turning into a gold bar is not an appropriate analogy for biological evolution?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 97 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 1:51 AM		ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 107 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 1:06 PM		Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 126 of 143 (531995)
10-20-2009 7:30 PM

Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
10-20-2009 1:06 PM

Re: Nested clades

Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

Bluejay writes:

ICANT writes:

I realize that no evolutionist here believes that one critter had to become another critter.

Having recognized this, do you now agree that a lead bar turning into a gold bar is not an appropriate analogy for biological evolution?

It is a perfect example of one thing becoming a different thing.

...which, as you just acknowledged, has nothing to do with the concept of evolution that is being promoted in biology.

So, can you acknowledge that this is a perfect example of something completely irrelevant to biological evolution?

-----

ICANT writes:

It is a perfect example of one thing becoming a different thing. The problem is there is no scientific way to accomplish such a feat. It was tried many times.

Just as there is no way to show macroevolution ever occurred.

So, when you said that you realize evolutionists do not think organisms transform into other types of organisms... you were lying?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 107 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 1:06 PM		ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 127 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 8:11 PM		Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 128 of 143 (532018)
10-20-2009 9:20 PM

Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
10-20-2009 8:11 PM

Re: Nested clades

Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

Everybody says all the little micro evolution that takes place is sufficient to produce all the life forms on earth.

Problem is the fossil record does not agree.

Okay, so you're not arguing that we need transmutation of kinds for our theory to work: you're arguing that the physical evidence doesn't support our argument. I would argue that you are wrong, but, like Modulous said, that's not what's being debated here.

What's being debated here is whether or not the Theory of Evolution stipulates that lineages of organisms evolve to a point where they can no longer be considered the same kind of organism as what their ancestors used to be. As Meldinoor has explained, "kinds" in evolutionary biology are defined in terms of their lineage, and such lineage-based definitions have been shown to be biologically meaningful (i.e. it has been shown that aspects of biology, physiology and ecology can be predicted based on ancestry; just like your likelihood of having diabetes can be predicted based on your genealogy).

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 127 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 8:11 PM		ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 131 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 9:54 PM		Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2719 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 139 of 143 (532116)
10-21-2009 11:01 AM

Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
10-20-2009 9:54 PM

Re: Nested clades

Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

So tell me why I am borderline diabetic when none of my ancestors has ever had any diabetes?

I did say "likelihood," ICANT. But, no matter... this is off-topic.

-----

ICANT writes:

Macroevolution would be required for Darwin's theory to work even if God created the first single cell life form on earth and then let it evolve.

Let's talk about the principles of the argument for a second.

The Theory of Evolution, as currently constituted, does not include your definition of "macroevolution": it only includes variation in amounts and types of "microevolution."

Nevermind whether or not this fits with the physical evidence for the time being.

If we are proposing a theory that one type of organism can diversify into a number of forms without changing its type, then do you not agree that you should not say that our theory states that organisms change their type?

Remember: we're just talking about the theory right now, not the evidence.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 131 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 9:54 PM		ICANT has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	dwise1, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 2/0