|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Fish-bird.
Rat-bird. I'll just let myself out now.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Neither of your examples is a bird. Do I get an A?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Neither of your examples is a bird. Do I get an A? Ok, now tell me how you know they're not birdsJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They don't have the morphology of birds, didn't I say that's the criterion? They don't have the shape, the head, the beak, the feathers, the kind of wings etc etc etc. I already discussed birds somewhere.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: They don't have the morphology of birds, didn't I say that's the criterion? They don't have the shape, the head, the beak, the feathers, the kind of wings etc etc etc. I already discussed birds somewhere. Right so you're developing a taxonomy based on morphology which is how the Victorians did it and it's pretty much still intact - DNA proving much of it correct, but quite a lot not and resolving some arcane arguments between taxonomists that had run for generations. So what's your problem with them carrying on to the species level - identifying groups based on morphological differences? That's all it is, noticing that Ostriches are different to Penguins but that they have a key similarity that make them birds - feathers. No other animal group has feathers.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. 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. Something like that. The point is that I don't object to the basic idea but I do object to some of the specifics I found on his chart.
It would be a big project but some time I could try to go through the whole Linnean chart to compare it with how I understand the Kinds. TGhere would certainly be some creatures I'm not familiar with so I could only go so far with it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Making the thrush into a separate family separates it from other birds that seem to have all the same morphological characteristics. If not, what is the difference?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I wouldn't have a problem with the basic method. I can hear the world of biology breathe a collective sigh of relief.
except I discovered on the Linnaean chart a couple of categories I thought were wrong, Well fuck me, did you alert the Royal Society?
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. Something like that. The point is that I don't object to the basic idea but I do object to some of the specifics I found on his chart. All irrelevant.
It would be a big project but some time I could try to go through the whole Linnean chart to compare it with how I understand the Kinds. Yeh right. 'Big project' doesn't begin describe it. Currently we reckon there are about 8.7m species and thousands of scientists have been working on it for 200 years. But hey, you could make a start on beetles there's only third of a million of them.
There would certainly be some creatures I'm not familiar with Ha ha Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've been looking for the chart I used before and I can't find it. It was very clear and easy to read and now I can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm only interested in the Aves at the moment, what's your problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thanks but I need to find the chart I used before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I'm only interested in the Aves at the moment, what's your problem? I guess my problem is trying to cope with your extreme ignorance combined with your extreme delusion. It's remarkably similar to Trump in its narcissism. I just can't work out how you got so sure of yourself without actually having the first clue. I really wish you actually attempt some real study, you might develop a bit of humility and actually learn something. But we both know that you won't. Will you? You never do.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024