Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 9:28 PM
31 online now:
dwise1, edge, JonF (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a racist doctrine
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


(2)
Message 90 of 404 (805463)
04-18-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
04-17-2017 4:26 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
I'm not sure it's true that all apes are monkeys, but I'm finding this more confusing than I thought it would be. I read the introductions to the Wikipedia articles on monkeys, apes and Old World monkeys, and it seems that New World monkeys are in one group, while apes and Old World monkeys are in another group, the Catarrhini. Apes are in the superfamiily Hominoidea, while Old World monkeys are in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea. I don't think Old World monkeys contains apes.

Apes are not monkeys. If you're speaking English.

That's because neither 'ape' nor 'monkey' are formally defined phylogenetic terms. They're common, everyday words which refer to groups of organisms we've lumped together for one reason or another

Hominoidea, Cattarhini, Platyrhinni and Simiiformes are formally defined phylogenetic terms. The realisation that apes are more closely related to babboons than to howler monkeys means that Hominoidea must be considered part of Cattarhini. It makes not a jot of difference to the meanings of ape or monkey.

All this confusion would be avoided if we weren't speaking English, since most European languages don't have two seperate words. In Dutch, a monkey is an aap, as is in an ape (of course, it's still paraphyletic used in the traditional sense, since humans are not aapen).

In Czech, there are different words for black rats and brown rats (krysa and potkan, respectively). Most rats are called krysa. But it makes no sense to therefore say that a potkan is a krysa since potkani are nested within the krysa clade.

Some normal terms are pretty much meaningless phylogenetically. 'Toad' refers to a wide range of anurans spread across the tree, and what's called a toad by some may be a frog to others. And of course, this distinction does not exist everywhere - there isn't a seperate word for frog and toad in every language.

This is why they invented the formal neo-Latin terminology in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 04-17-2017 4:26 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 333 of 404 (809505)
05-18-2017 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by RAZD
05-17-2017 8:06 PM


Re: "First they say primates came from bats, then tree shrews"
The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.

The first interesting thing on this thread! Do you have any more context for our graphic? I found the website, but there is little explanation for how they present it, and I am very curious which Ethiopian fossils they are classifying as H. antecessor. I've only ever seen this applied to Spanish fossils.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 8:06 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 6:13 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 336 of 404 (809611)
05-19-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Admin
05-19-2017 10:01 AM


Re: Creationism wins, racism loses
In case it helps make sense of some of what Davidjay says, he doesn't understand the difference between a tree showing descent, like the one you just showed:

And a tree showing classification relationships, like this one that caused him to conclude that primates are descended from bats:

I do not understand the distinction you're making - those trees are both showing descent. And the one which you claim led to DavidJay's confusion about bats doesn't include any bats. His confusion about bats had nothing to do with that graphic. It was spurred by Chiroptera's mentioned of the (outdated) theory that bats are closely related to primates:

quote:
However, Archonta is a clade that includes bats (ahem!) assuming that bats are that closely related to primates.

My reading is that he sees the evolutionary model as proposing some sort of Grand Chain of Being. The branching he bangs on about seems to involve some kind of superior organism sprouting out of the inferior organisms below. The inferior organisms remain, but now there are superior branches of organims above them. From these, in turn, bud off new, superior branches, until we have a hierarchy of organisms with (presumably) humans at the top.

Hence the continual demand to know what animals we branched off from. He's looking for the living species from which the superior human branch budded off.

That's the most sense I can make of it, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Admin, posted 05-19-2017 10:01 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Diomedes, posted 05-19-2017 1:56 PM caffeine has responded
 Message 339 by Admin, posted 05-19-2017 5:34 PM caffeine has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 338 of 404 (809622)
05-19-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Diomedes
05-19-2017 1:56 PM


Re: Creationism wins, racism loses
Honestly, I think he understands the concepts just fine. He is just playing stupid to get a rise out of everyone. His posts don't read like he is engaged in dialog. They are just troll babble. Nothing more.

I guess I have more faith in people's honesty, but less in their reading comprehension skills.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Diomedes, posted 05-19-2017 1:56 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 351 of 404 (810115)
05-23-2017 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Admin
05-19-2017 5:34 PM


Re: Creationism wins, racism loses
To my reading it is representing it as a diagram of classification.

Sure, it's a diagram of classification; but phylogenetic classification. The diagram is a phylogram, a family tree, whatever you want to call it. The proposed classification in the tree ('Sundatheria') is a proposed clade. I'm not sure if you're misinterpreting the picture or if I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

With regards to DavidJay, we can agree on 'challenging to interpret'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Admin, posted 05-19-2017 5:34 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Admin, posted 05-24-2017 8:57 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019