Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 7:16 AM
28 online now:
caffeine, vimesey (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,575 Year: 9,611/19,786 Month: 2,033/2,119 Week: 69/724 Day: 1/68 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Evolution doesn't make sense.
Taq
Member
Posts: 7914
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 76 of 80 (652565)
02-14-2012 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by caffeine
02-13-2012 9:26 AM


They'll always be Heterocera, the moth clade, but if they evolve into a form that doesn't look like a moth they're not really moths any more.

Hence the problem with colloquial naming traditions. We arbitrarily decide what is an isn't a moth based on our feeling at the time.

Is a chihuahua a wolf? Most would say no. Did chiahuahuas evolve from a wolf-like ancestor? Most likely. We will say that chihuahuas and wolves are still dogs, but when did those wolves stop being wolves and become chihuahuas? That dividing line would also be an arbitrary one.

The system that science has settled on is cladistics, and in that system you never evolve out of your clade. This differs from the colloquial method where species are arbitrarily assigned to different groups based on shifting notions of what is or isn't indicative of a group.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by caffeine, posted 02-13-2012 9:26 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by caffeine, posted 02-15-2012 3:23 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7914
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 77 of 80 (652567)
02-14-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
02-13-2012 10:02 AM


Re: annudder question
For example, if a invertebrate evolved a backbone would it be classified as a vertebrate?

If a mammal evolved wings would it be classified as a bird?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 02-13-2012 10:02 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 02-14-2012 4:17 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30994
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 78 of 80 (652569)
02-14-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Taq
02-14-2012 4:02 PM


Re: annudder question
Well, lots of non birds have wings and there are even birds that have things that can only generally be called "wings" (penguins, emus) so developing wings would not suggest at least to me "bird". However the term vertebrate does imply something that has a backbone.

There is no classification I know of that is "things that fly" comparable to the classification vertebrate and invertebrate.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 02-14-2012 4:02 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1675
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 79 of 80 (652614)
02-15-2012 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
02-14-2012 3:59 PM


Hence the problem with colloquial naming traditions. We arbitrarily decide what is an isn't a moth based on our feeling at the time.

Is a chihuahua a wolf? Most would say no. Did chiahuahuas evolve from a wolf-like ancestor? Most likely. We will say that chihuahuas and wolves are still dogs, but when did those wolves stop being wolves and become chihuahuas? That dividing line would also be an arbitrary one.

The system that science has settled on is cladistics, and in that system you never evolve out of your clade. This differs from the colloquial method where species are arbitrarily assigned to different groups based on shifting notions of what is or isn't indicative of a group.

Yes, that's one of the reasons we have terms like Heterocera when it comes to scientific nomenclature, instead of simply making do with 'moth', so that we can have a learly defined phylogenetic concept independent of people's arbitrary impressions of what a thing should be classified as.

But I don't think using this sort of argument helps when someone is protesting that a sloth is never seen to turn into a turtle. Saying that 'the descendants of sloths will always be sloths' isn't true - it's equivocating between a common name which we wouldn't apply to something that looks substantially different to a sloth, and the phylogenetic concept 'Folivora'.

amp1022's problem seems to be that he thinks the transition from fish to ostrich is supposed to happen in an afternoon and only involve one animal. Trying to explain phylogenetic nomenclature is more like to confuse than to help, at this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 02-14-2012 3:59 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Brianna Winebarger
Junior Member (Idle past 2574 days)
Posts: 2
From: Hays, NC, USA
Joined: 03-07-2012


Message 80 of 80 (655092)
03-07-2012 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lorenzo7
01-15-2002 10:38 PM


Whatever!!!
What is the big deal about Evolution!!! All it saids is that speices evolve over time! Is that putting God down, no it is not!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lorenzo7, posted 01-15-2002 10:38 PM Lorenzo7 has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019