Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8963 total)
73 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Pressie (4 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,986 Year: 2,734/23,288 Month: 925/1,809 Week: 44/313 Day: 44/33 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5436
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 496 of 573 (870862)
01-25-2020 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
01-25-2020 2:44 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
You pretty well cured me of “thinking through what you’re saying” when you declared hummingbirds, ostriches, penguins, and condors all to be one species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 2:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 3:13 PM Coragyps has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 497 of 573 (870863)
01-25-2020 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Coragyps
01-25-2020 3:08 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
Gosh, beaks, wings, bird legs, feathers and you can't see them as one species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2020 3:08 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 3:18 PM Faith has responded
 Message 506 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2020 6:09 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15923
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 498 of 573 (870865)
01-25-2020 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
01-25-2020 3:13 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
quote:
Gosh, beaks, wings, bird legs, feathers and you can't see them as one species?

No. Because there are taxonomic groups linked by shared characteristics larger than species. So why a species rather than a genus, a family or an order ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 3:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:09 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:52 PM PaulK has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 499 of 573 (870867)
01-25-2020 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
01-25-2020 9:21 AM


Re: Get a clue
Specific creatures, especially if we kinow them in their fossil form and otherwise are unfamiliar with them, don't say anything at all about what I'm trying to do. ...

Because you ignore anything you can't explain. I said:

Indeed I do expect you to misclassify them, but not because they are unusual or exceptional examples, but because your "classification" system is ad hoc and unusable by anyone else.

And I should add that you are incapable of classifying them in any way that makes sense, while the biological/ecological/evolutionary system is perfectly capable of classifying not just these but all known forms of life, from the present day, the fossil record and the genetic record in a cohesive repeatable way ... because it is science instead of fantasy.

... I'm not trying to spell out a system so specific that others could use it, ...

Obviously, because you are incapable and unwilling of doing that, because it would leave you open to invalidation, unlike this variable, willow-the-wisp, ever changing ad hoc, moving target pile of assertions you try to pass off as a system ... one that is remarkable only for its lack of system.

... I'm trying to give a general idea of what I'm arguing in this discussion and nothing more. ...

Which is made up fantasy du jour and just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

... I believe I've made a pretty good case for how evolution beyond the Kind or Species is not possible, ...

Nope.

Not a dent, not a scratch, not a blemish.

Because evidence has contradicted you every step of the way. We have evolution beyond species, we showed it to you ... and you proceeded to redefine species instead of admit it.

Because there is no definition of "Kind" that stands up to the evidence.

Because you continue to ignore or downplay the role of mutations, in spite of the evidence demonstrating their effect, both in short term and in long term.

There is no known limitation that stops evolution from continuing to adapt species to stochastic and cyclic changes in ecologies and the ever changing interactions of all species in an ecosystem.

... and the taxonomic question is completely secondary, irrelevant to that discussion.

Denialism is not a system of rationally dealing with the evidence. It just protects fantasy from reality.

"Convergent evolution" is just one of those concepts needed by the erroneous ToE, it has no independent factual status on its own.

So if a species cannot evolve beyond what you call the "species genome" then how do you get similar organisms on the opposite sides of the earth -- one a placental mammal flying squirrel and the other a marsupial mammal sugar glider, occupying similar habitats with similar behaviors.

It seems to me that this invalidates your claim that "evolution beyond the Kind or Species is not possible" ... because there they are in living color and stereoscopic sound.

OR you have to consider ALL mammals to be one (faith)-species. Which contradicts your listing of dogs and cats and horses.

So I would think the taxonomic question to be very relevant.

Remember, the better explanation is the one that covers all the evidence, not just bits and pieces that are convenient.

Yes I'm sure much of what I'm arguing opposes many scientific concepts. I'm a creationist, what else would you expect? ...

Honesty, and maybe a little soul searching, and outright disappointment that creationism cannot explain the evidence or be supported by evidence, a little wonder whether or not you've been sold a bill of goods, that you've been lied to, that you're in an axe fight without an axe.

Evolutoin is a huge ungainly scientific edifice constructed out of mutually supporting purely conceptual mental exerceses. A house of cards, an elaborate fantasy.

Again, bald assertion is not evidence. Evolution is a huge multifaceted scientific edifice constructed out of mutually supporting lines of evidence. The consilience of the fossil record and the genetic record is amazing coincidence ... if it were concocted out of whole cloth. The fact of one system validating the other (and vice versa) is strong evidence of reality, something you don't even have a whisper of.

The spatial/temporal matrix showing the paths of evolution taken is another strong line of evidence for Evolution, as it show the steps of evolution along specific paths in time and space, a very strong restriction ... unless evolution is true.

... A house of cards, an elaborate fantasy.

A perfect description of creationism. A fantasy promoted by a delusional cult without regard for reality.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 9:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 500 of 573 (870870)
01-25-2020 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by PaulK
01-25-2020 3:18 PM


Bird Kind/species
Oh and besides beaks, wings, bird legs and feathers there's the basic body shape, plus the fact that if it has long legs it also has a long neck and vice versa. They also have pretty distinctly bird eyes. All of them share these characteristics. A bird is a bird is a bird and nothing else.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 3:18 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 4:15 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15923
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 501 of 573 (870871)
01-25-2020 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Faith
01-25-2020 4:09 PM


Re: Bird species
quote:
Oh and besides beaks, wings, bird legs and feathers there's the basic body shape, the fact that if you have long legs you also have a long neck and vice versa. They also have pretty distinctly bird eyes. All of them share these characteristics.

As an aside there are plenty of birds with long necks and short legs. Most waterfowl for instance. Some birds of prey have surprisingly long legs without especially long necks.

But none of that addresses the question of why birds should be taken to be a species rather than a genus, a family or an order.

And the “A bird is a bird is a bird and nothing else” applies equally well no matter what taxonomic level the birds are taken to be.

So all in all you offer no answer at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:53 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 502 of 573 (870879)
01-25-2020 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by PaulK
01-25-2020 3:18 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
Those other taxonomic groups do not share all their charaacteristics as birds do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 3:18 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 5:03 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 503 of 573 (870880)
01-25-2020 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by PaulK
01-25-2020 4:15 PM


Re: Bird species
I took a look at ducks, geese, swans and hawks and don't really see any great discrepancy between length of necks and legs in any of them as you suggest.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 4:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 5:01 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15923
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 504 of 573 (870883)
01-25-2020 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by Faith
01-25-2020 4:53 PM


Re: Bird species
quote:
I took a look at ducks, geese, swans and hawks and don't really see any great discrepancy between length of necks and legs in any of them as you suggest.

Odd that. Swans have long necks and short legs. Ducks keep their necks tucked in when swimming but you can see the length when they fly and even geese don’t have really long legs.

As for birds of prey, it’s only some (or at least I only know of some) and you need to see the legs extended. Take a look at the length of this owl’s legs. owl (Facebook)

But anyway this is tangential. What justifies labelling birds as a species rather than a larger taxonomic group? That is the question. I’m still waiting for an answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 11:40 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15923
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 505 of 573 (870884)
01-25-2020 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Faith
01-25-2020 4:52 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
quote:
Those other taxonomic groups do not share all their charaacteristics as birds do.

This is errant nonsense. Taxonomic groups are DEFINED by shared traits. ALL of them. That is the hierarchy as originally defined by Linnaeus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 12:21 AM PaulK has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5436
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 506 of 573 (870888)
01-25-2020 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
01-25-2020 3:13 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
OK, maybe. I had never really thought about the huge similarities among the beaks of hawks, ducks, and hummingbirds until now. Or their claws, except for the ducks.
You’re blowing exceedingly thin smoke, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 3:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 11:47 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 507 of 573 (870889)
01-25-2020 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by PaulK
01-25-2020 5:01 PM


Re: Bird species
To address your last question first: There's too much in the higher taxonomic groups that doesn't fit the characteristics of birds while 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.

Swans don't really have short legs, and actually their necks aren't even as long as… I at least ... expected anyway. they seem longer than they are because of the way they are folded back. I'll try to find pictures to post.

Birds of prey look like they have shorter necks than they do because of the way their wings fold up near their heads when at rest. They may still be shorter than their legs but I'll have to look again.

Probably the best way to assess this is to find skeletons of each bird. the skeleton of penguins was a real eye opener to me because it's a true bird body that is revealed that way, that is not evident under their feather padding.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 5:01 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2020 2:09 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 508 of 573 (870890)
01-25-2020 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Coragyps
01-25-2020 6:09 PM


Bird Kind/Species
Not sure what the exceedingly thin smoke means exactly but hey I'm a creationist, I have to identify the Kinds, and actually it's not hard at all when you really look at the creatures, though I'm sure there are cases that are difficult to fit into a Kind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2020 6:09 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 509 of 573 (870891)
01-26-2020 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by PaulK
01-25-2020 5:03 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
So I looked up the Linnaean taxonomy for birds and they are in the Class Aves. That's the Bird Kind as I see it. What I call Species, but the taxonomic system only uses that term for very specific species of birds, such as Robin. I still want to call them all a Species but I guess I'll have to use Kind and probably clarify that from time to time as the equivalent of the Class Aves.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2020 5:03 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:40 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 512 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2020 2:11 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 514 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2020 11:20 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 510 of 573 (870893)
01-26-2020 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Faith
01-26-2020 12:21 AM


The Dog Kind and Cat Kind
I looked up this taxonomic group and would call the Dog Kind the Canidae. Aves are a Class but Canidae are a Family.

The Cat Kind would be the Felidae Family.

But I have to give some thought to the Caniformia and the Feliformia which are Suborders of the Order Carnivora that have doglike or catlike characteristics but are classed separately.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 12:21 AM Faith 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 © 2020