|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Without the chart to look at I don't know what anyone is talking about and don't remember my own impressions when I saw it. I vaguely remember I had a question about how the birds were categorized, which indluded something about the way the thrushes were separated from other birds, but other questions as well. Since my interest is in figuring out how to define the Kind of Biblical Creationism, at the moment the Bird Kind, I'm certainly not going to be connecting birds with reptiles.
Cheers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1298 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
This is Linnaeus 1735 classification of animals. Aves is the second column which is then divided into seven orders, with the seventh being the Passeriformes that is further subdivided into ten genera, the second being Turdus (the thrushes). Hope it helps you see what others are referring to. Edited by Meddle, : No reason given. Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you very much. Wish it helped. My eyes are getting so bad I can't read that thing at all. Just a blur. There is a procedure that might help but I'm not going to any doctors for a while if I can help it. Maybe it was a different version of the chart I saw anyway. Thanks again but I've got to give up on this for now..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The best evidence for evolution in my opinion, is probably homological features, in that it would be explanative sense that a common ancestor would then explain why all of the bones in say the hand (pentadactyl pattern) would all then be shared.
As a creationist I don't believe this is actually evidence of evolution, it would only count as indirect evidence, and can be explained by ID, easily anyway. The best evidence for evolution considering what it claims happened, would be direct evidence on the same scale of the claim itself. I wrote more about this in chapter three of my, "book" for want of a better word; The chapter is here if you scroll down. Bot Verification (I also do not see the issue of evolution in simple terms, and later on give Darwin credit for the SOMEWHAT explanative power of evolution.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That's part of my comment on the evolution of birds.
I'd like to know why you think it is meaningless. Getting back to the thread topic, the fact that birds fall into nested taxonomic hierarchies is strong evidence for evolution, both through analysis of morphology of fossils and through genetics/DNA analysis. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : topicby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1052 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
That's part of my comment on the evolution of birds. Apologies then. I would have worded it a bit more delicately if I'd realised they were your words. I the context where you put them, I don't see how they convey any information. We don't have anything like the fine-grained knowledge of early bird evolution that we do of early Homo, on account of the timescales involved. Interbreeding between long-separated populations may well have been involved in the origin of birds. It likely was, since this kind of thing seems ubiquitous. But it's not something special to the origin of birds; nor does any evidence exist to suggest it's particularly relevant in this case compared to, say, the origin of snakes or the origin of iguanas. Placed where it was, it read like a nonsequitur more likely to confuse and distract the reader then to provide them with any useful knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
If a population diverges into two different species that is something that creationists say doesn't happen, isn't it? If you're now saying a population diverging into two species is "microevolution" then what do you really mean by "micro" and "macro" evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They are variations or subspecies, that's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Do you consider that two populations that cannot interbreed (like the horse and the donkey producing sterile offspring, for example) could still be the same species?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Why? It's not the only thing used to distinguish species (organisms that reproduce asexually obviously cannot use it as a criterion) but don't you think it shows a very significant difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
We see many organisms that are far apart. You could never breed with an oak tree, for example. And we see many organisms that are close together, such as dogs, wolves and coyotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think there is probably a DNA definition that would define a Species but I realized recently that I go by morphology in defining it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Dogs wolves and coyotes can be identified as the same species by morphology. I think that is how Species need to be defined until there is a clear genetic definition.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024