|
Author
|
Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 646 of 1311 (813602)
06-29-2017 7:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 644 by CRR
06-29-2017 4:23 AM
|
|
Re: Kinds
Today the members of a kind will be a clade rooted on the original created kind, but the original kinds are not rooted in a further common ancestor. Please show me where in the phylogeny of organisms that happened.
Message 632RAZD: As I said before we have names for all breeding populations, and that is so we can discuss them without confusing one with the other.
Actually I have elsewhere shown how we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are part of the one kind; and this is based on the fact that different species and genera of cats can and do interbreed. Perhaps we are actually on firmer biological ground talking about kinds rather than species. Fat chance. What you are identifying as a "kind" is the Felidae clade:
quote:
The biological family Felidae is a lineage of carnivorans that includes the cats. A member of this family is also called a felid.[3][4][5][6] Felidae's closest relatives are thought to be the Asiatic linsangs.[10] Together with the Viverridae, hyenas, mongooses, and Madagascar carnivores, they form the suborder Feliformia.[11]
... or would that be the Feliformia clade ... And supposedly you make a similar claim for the Canidae clade:
quote:
The biological family Canidae /ˈknᵻdiː/ [3] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈknᵻd/, /ˈkeɪnᵻd/).[4] The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like Leptocyon genus whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174—5
... or would that be the Caniformia clade? ... or would that be the Carnivora clade? And what do you do about Amphicyonidae ("bear-dogs") and Hemicyoninae ("dog-bears")? Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 644 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 4:23 AM | | CRR has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 647 of 1311 (813612)
06-29-2017 9:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 637 by CRR
06-28-2017 5:18 PM
|
|
Re: define "species"
What is it with creationists and all/some/none? The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases. Logic fail.
I think that is a logic fail. Just what are you trying to say there?
Er, I tried to say what I said, in simple unambiguous English. You wrote:
Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species. Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place.
- Tangle's "Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.'" is mocking your "we know them when we see them" referring to kinds.
- Several people have pointed out that in some cases new species are difficult to identify, but in most cases identifying a new species is easy.
- Therefore we can tie speciation to macroevolution because in almost all cases we can identify when speciation has taken place.
- You took "some cases" to mean "all cases" in typical creationist fashion and said we can't tie speciation to macroevolution (obviously meaning in all cases, otherwise you would have inserted a caveat).
- I pointed out that taking "some cases" to mean "all cases" is a logic failure.
- Duh.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 637 by CRR, posted 06-28-2017 5:18 PM | | CRR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 650 by CRR, posted 06-30-2017 3:59 AM | | JonF has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 648 of 1311 (813613)
06-29-2017 9:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 644 by CRR
06-29-2017 4:23 AM
|
|
Re: Kinds
What is a kind and how do we find them? You left out the critical part specifying "how do we find them". What science needs is an operational definition. Simply put, given two arbitrarily chosen species A and B, what procedure do we follow to tell if they are the same kind or different? Referring to information that is both practically and theoretically unavailable may not be part of the definition. E.g. some "original" genetic makeup.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 644 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 4:23 AM | | CRR has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 649 of 1311 (813629)
06-29-2017 11:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 644 by CRR
06-29-2017 4:23 AM
|
|
Re: Kinds
CRR writes: The biological discipline of systematics was developed to discover natural groupings of organisms, such as species. Systematics demonstrates that all life shares a universal common ancestor. Since you reject this finding, you can't claim that you are using systematics. You still haven't given a single test for determining if two species share a common ancestor. You don't have a test for determining if an allele for a shared gene came from the original kind. Everything you have said is just an assertion without any test for detecting it. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 644 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 4:23 AM | | CRR has not replied |
|
CRR
Member (Idle past 2260 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: 10-19-2016
|
|
|
Message 650 of 1311 (813711)
06-30-2017 3:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 647 by JonF
06-29-2017 9:06 AM
|
|
Re: define "species"
Er, I tried to say what I said, in simple unambiguous English.
Yeah, sorry JonF. I must have been tired when I read your previous post.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 647 by JonF, posted 06-29-2017 9:06 AM | | JonF has not replied |
|
CRR
Member (Idle past 2260 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: 10-19-2016
|
|
|
Message 651 of 1311 (813712)
06-30-2017 4:03 AM
|
|
|
Kinds, how to find them?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 652 by Tangle, posted 06-30-2017 5:32 AM | | CRR has not replied | | | Message 653 by Taq, posted 06-30-2017 11:51 AM | | CRR has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9503 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.6
|
|
|
Message 652 of 1311 (813716)
06-30-2017 5:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 651 by CRR
06-30-2017 4:03 AM
|
|
Re: Kinds, how to find them?
Surely you can tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant kind and why?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 651 by CRR, posted 06-30-2017 4:03 AM | | CRR has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 653 of 1311 (813740)
06-30-2017 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 651 by CRR
06-30-2017 4:03 AM
|
|
Re: Kinds, how to find them?
CRR writes: A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses Can you discuss this webpage?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 651 by CRR, posted 06-30-2017 4:03 AM | | CRR has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 654 by Tangle, posted 06-30-2017 12:17 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9503 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.6
|
|
|
Message 654 of 1311 (813757)
06-30-2017 12:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 653 by Taq
06-30-2017 11:51 AM
|
|
Re: Kinds, how to find them?
Taq writes: Can you discuss this webpage? It starts and finishes here: "Because the Bible is the only source for infallible information, studying biblical passages greatly aids the identification and interpretation of baramins"
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 653 by Taq, posted 06-30-2017 11:51 AM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Dredge
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: 09-06-2016
|
|
|
Message 655 of 1311 (814063)
07-04-2017 1:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 611 by CRR
06-27-2017 3:50 AM
|
|
Re: A Blast from the Past
CRR writes: Humans have been selectively breeding animals for thousands of years and they have discovered that they always produce offspring within the same kind. Despite the huge variation in domestic dogs they are all the same species. To cite this as evidence for evolution is to expose the edge of evolution.
To extrapolate from variation in beaks in the same species of Galapagos finches to claiming mice turn into elephants or bears turn into whales is to expose the edge of sanity. It's takes a special talent to believe such voodoo science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 611 by CRR, posted 06-27-2017 3:50 AM | | CRR has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 657 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2017 2:52 AM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dredge
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: 09-06-2016
|
|
|
Message 656 of 1311 (814064)
07-04-2017 1:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 627 by Tangle
06-28-2017 6:28 AM
|
|
Re: define "species"
Tangle writes: Are you going to fart around attempting to define your way out of every issue you have to confront because of your religious beliefs or are you going to actually deal with real stuff in the real world? Is this obsession with definitions all you've got?
In any field of true science, definitions are rightly considered important. But evolutionary biology is different - in this world of fake science, ambiguity comes in handy. For example, Darwinists can call natural selection "evolution" and still keep a straight face; Tangle will stubbornly believe the cult line that there are practical uses for "evolution" despite the fact that no practical uses for the theory of common descent exist.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 627 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2017 6:28 AM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 658 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2017 2:56 AM | | Dredge has replied | | | Message 659 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 3:33 AM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9503 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.6
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 657 of 1311 (814066)
07-04-2017 2:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 655 by Dredge
07-04-2017 1:32 AM
|
|
Re: A Blast from the Past
Dredge writes: To extrapolate from variation in beaks in the same species of Galapagos finches to claiming mice turn into elephants or bears turn into whales is to expose the edge of sanity. I'm sure you've been told that this is NOT evolution many times before. To keep repeating an error having been corrected on it is lying. When you do it you expose yourself as both ignorant and dishonest.
It's takes a special talent to believe such voodoo science.
Yes it does, the sort of voodoo that believes in talking snakes, resurrections, water into wine, demons, cherubim, souls and the everlasting pains of hell.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 655 by Dredge, posted 07-04-2017 1:32 AM | | Dredge has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 661 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 3:53 AM | | Tangle has replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9503 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.6
|
|
|
Message 658 of 1311 (814067)
07-04-2017 2:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 656 by Dredge
07-04-2017 1:54 AM
|
|
Re: define "species"
Dredge writes: For example, Darwinists can call natural selection "evolution" and still keep a straight face; No biologists calls natural selection evolution. None. Stop lying and try to learn what you're objecting to.
Tangle will stubbornly believe the cult line that there are practical uses for "evolution" despite the fact that no practical uses for the theory of common descent exist. Are you drunk?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 656 by Dredge, posted 07-04-2017 1:54 AM | | Dredge has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 678 by Dredge, posted 07-06-2017 4:56 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
CRR
Member (Idle past 2260 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: 10-19-2016
|
|
|
Message 659 of 1311 (814068)
07-04-2017 3:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 656 by Dredge
07-04-2017 1:54 AM
|
|
Re: definitions
In any field of true science, definitions are rightly considered important. But evolutionary biology is different ...
Well so far we have found that the terms evolution, theory of evolution, species, kinds, microevolution, and macroevolution, can all be clearly defined; just not in a way that everyone agrees with. Definitions seem to be remarkably idiosyncratic. This is why evo-biologists can get excited by Trinidad Guppies and Galapagos Finches and say the trivial changes observed are evolution in action.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 656 by Dredge, posted 07-04-2017 1:54 AM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9503 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.6
|
|
|
Message 660 of 1311 (814069)
07-04-2017 3:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 659 by CRR
07-04-2017 3:33 AM
|
|
Re: definitions
CRR writes: Well so far we have found that the terms evolution, theory of evolution, species, kinds, microevolution, and macroevolution, can all be clearly defined; just not in a way that everyone agrees with. Well not in a way that people that think the earth is 6,000 years old agree with anyway - how could that possibly happen? And as for 'kinds', you can't even tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant 'kind' or not and how the decision would be made. Why is that?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 659 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 3:33 AM | | CRR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 664 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 8:25 AM | | Tangle has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2