Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 614 of 830 (873737)
03-19-2020 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 611 by Faith
03-18-2020 7:44 PM


Re: Taxonomic classification
quote:
True, I don't think it's as hard as they make it out to be, except in a few very difficult cases
Oh, but it is if you care about the truth. Objectively speaking where do. You draw the line between birds and dinosaurs ?
quote:
To split birds into separate species is really indefensible because they are so easily identified as birds, there's not much difficulty there.
Who could possibly notice the differences between a hummingbird and an ostrich ?
quote:
Yeah I guess it does look easier to me than they claim.
That’s because you’re not even trying to do it right.
quote:
As for trilobites, THEY are the ones who named the weirdest looking ones "trilobite" and since I can see why I just collapse them into one Species.
Yes, you can’t admit that your ignorance lead you into a foolish error.
quote:
Yes I'm a very astonishing person, I agree.
You’re certainly dedicated to your pride. But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re just ignorant and opinionated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Faith, posted 03-18-2020 7:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 622 of 830 (873798)
03-19-2020 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by Faith
03-19-2020 3:34 PM


Re: Taxonomic classification
quote:
I wouldn't have a problem with the basic method. except I discovered on the Linnaean chart a couple of categories I thought were wrong, separating out the thrush as if it were some special species of bird from all the other birds or something like that being one such instance that didn't seem to make any sense.
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:
And of course as a Creationist I don't put the creatures in Families above the Species, or I would make the Family the equivalent of the Species, but worse than that Linnaeus puts creatures in Families that are entirely different Kinds in my thinking from the Species he arranges beneath the Family.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 3:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 4:01 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 626 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 4:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 624 of 830 (873800)
03-19-2020 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 623 by Faith
03-19-2020 4:01 PM


Re: Taxonomic classification
quote:
Making the thrush into a separate family separates it from other birds that seem to have all the same morphological characteristics.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 4:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 628 of 830 (873806)
03-19-2020 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 626 by Faith
03-19-2020 4:20 PM


Re: Taxonomic classification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 5:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 632 of 830 (873813)
03-19-2020 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by Faith
03-19-2020 5:19 PM


Re: Taxonomic classification
quote:
Arrogant narcissism seems to be defined these days as disagreeing with the establishment, in my case the ToE and the Old Arrogant narcissism seems to be defined these days as disagreeing with the establishment, in my case the ToE and the Old Earth...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 5:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 639 of 830 (873834)
03-20-2020 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 638 by caffeine
03-20-2020 6:02 AM


Re: Taxonomic classification
quote:
Why are the features that unite birds the key ones in Faith-taxonomy, and not those that unite thrushes or vertebrates?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by caffeine, posted 03-20-2020 6:02 AM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 640 by jar, posted 03-20-2020 9:22 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 649 of 830 (873896)
03-21-2020 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by Faith
03-20-2020 6:42 PM


Re: The Bird Kind is the point
quote:
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.
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:
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...
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Faith, posted 03-20-2020 6:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 666 of 830 (874930)
04-12-2020 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by Faith
04-11-2020 7:12 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
Yes, a lot of taxonomic classification gets into characteristics I consider quite secondary. I think structure is the basic definition of a Species or Kind
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:
Creationists are always being asked what a Kind is since biblically we understand all creatures to belong to a Kind that is separate from all other Kinds.
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:
For a long time I assumed it was impossible to determine a Kind by observation, but I argued that evolution uses up genetic variation and eventually runs out and where it runs out is the boundary of the Kind.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by Faith, posted 04-11-2020 7:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 1:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 668 of 830 (874935)
04-12-2020 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 667 by Faith
04-12-2020 1:33 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
Defining the Kind by morphology seems very useful to me.
I’m sure it’s convenient to you, but it is not the same as defining it by genetics.
quote:
The Bible gives no guidelines...
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:
... but the creatures themselves aren't hard to classify. Just as the dog body is different from the cat body and the horse body is different from the deer body, the human body is different from the ape body
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 do know what I mean by structure
I don’t believe that. There certainly isn’t any coherent thinking behind it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 1:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 670 of 830 (874938)
04-12-2020 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 669 by Faith
04-12-2020 2:04 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
Yes the raven and the dove are different kinds (lower case) and there are lots of other similar examples.
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's fine, they are strikingly different from each other, but MORPHOLOGICALLY ravens and doves are birds and birds simply has to be the original Kind.
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:
The genetic picture should also show that.
You assume so. But of course genetics does not show any distinct kinds.
quote:
All the Bible says is that God created original Kinds.
The Bible does not have any concept of original Kinds versus ordinary kinds. The distinction is not made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 672 of 830 (874943)
04-12-2020 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 671 by Faith
04-12-2020 2:46 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
way back a few years ago there was a thread about genetics on which I specifically asked the geneticist constributors if they could identify say a dog from DNA alone and as I recall they said they could.
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:
yes the "kinds" taken on the Ark may have included what I would call subkinds, not sure.
According to you they definitely do.
quote:
There's nothing wrong from the biblical point of view with sorting the Kinds by their morphology.
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:
Each after its own Kind" refers to the original Kinds.
So you assume. But it could as easily refer to the observation of species breeding true.
quote:
We know evolution didn't happen
You know that it did. That’s the whole point of inventing the distinction between original Kinds and ordinary kinds.
quote:
The word is simply English for "species."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 2:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 3:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 674 of 830 (874945)
04-12-2020 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by Faith
04-12-2020 3:13 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
The morphological groupings are really quite exact, specific, not just "subjective."
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 3:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 4:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 676 of 830 (874947)
04-12-2020 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by Faith
04-12-2020 4:08 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
The idea is to identify as many recognizable points of similarity between the structures as defining the Kind into which they fit.
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:
Uniqueness like the owl's makes it a subkind or subspecies since it would no doubt share all the points that identify birds.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 4:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 4:59 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 678 of 830 (874949)
04-12-2020 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by Faith
04-12-2020 4:59 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
You say you haven't seen it but you should have because I got pretty far with some of it.
Then why have you never talked about it?
quote:
I don't remember anything about differences, just identifying a group by points shared by all its members.
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:
Birds for one. dogs for another. Trilobites. Such groupings have no higher groupings since they are the Kinds,
Unfortunately for you they do. And that is in Linnaeus, let alone modern taxonomy. It’s been a point frequently mentioned here, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 4:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 681 of 830 (874952)
04-12-2020 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 680 by Faith
04-12-2020 5:23 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
No, they saw a lot of it differently.
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:
I group wolves, coyotes, foxes and forget the other one all in one Kind with dogs. All cats are one Kind, I think they split them. I group donkeys and mules with horses.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 5:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 5:48 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024