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.
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.
While of course I have no idea what classification you're referencing, for what little it's worth, Linnaeus didn't use families for animals at all. The concept of Family as a rank between Order and Genus only really became popular later in the 19th century
Thrushes weren't given any special status by Linnaeus. He recognised several species (how many depends on which edition) in the same Genus, Turdus. Turdus, in turn, was placed in the order Passarae of the class Aves.
You say that we should class thrushes as birds because they share the characteristics of birds. That is of course true, and both Linnaeus and modern biologists would agree with you there. But thrushes also share specific characteristics with one another that allow us to categorise them as thrushes and, further, share specific characters with most birds that allow us to categorise them as Passeriformes, as distinct from birds like penguins, or flamingos, or ducks, that don't.
Birds, in turn, share characteristics with other vertebrates that allow them to be distinguished from invertebrates.
None of the above requires arcane knowledge. It was clear to curious naturalists in the early 18th century and the broad outline of relationships described above has mostly held up as accurate right through the development of 21st century molecular biology and the deep statistical analyses of modern computers.
Why are the features that unite birds the key ones in Faith-taxonomy, and not those that unite thrushes or vertebrates?
... 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.
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?
There are more morphological differences between bird families that there are between human and chimp, which you insist are entirely different taxons.
From my Bird Book, Field Guide to Birds of North America, National Geographic Society:
This guide includes all the species known to breed in North America ... Also included are ... seen in North America when they spend the winter or pass through on regular migration routes.
The sequence of this guide follows only generally that of the American Ornithologists' Union (A.O.U.) 1983 Check -list, which places species in the sequence of their presumed natural relationships. ...
The A.O.U. Check-list is the standard for species classification, scientific names and common name.
Ornithologists organize the species into family groups that share certain structural characteristics. Some families have more than a hundred members; others have only one. Family resemblance is often helpful in identifying birds in the field. Members of the family Picidae (page 264), for example are quickly recognized as woodpeckers, narrowing the identification problem down from 800 possibilities to 21.
There are many morphological and structural differences between bird species that ornithologists identify.
Beaks for instance have many more differences than those between human and chimp ...
... then feet, legs and necks, wings, feathers, etc
To claim they are all one species is bull headed ignorance.
Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible
Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors. The theropods most closely related to avians generally weighed between 100 and 500 pounds — giants compared to most modern birds — and they had large snouts, big teeth, and not much between the ears. A velociraptor, for example, had a skull like a coyote’s and a brain roughly the size of a pigeon’s.
For decades, paleontologists’ only fossil link between birds and dinosaurs was archaeopteryx, a hybrid creature with feathered wings but with the teeth and long bony tail of a dinosaur. These animals appeared to have acquired their birdlike features — feathers, wings and flight — in just 10 million years, a mere flash in evolutionary time. “Archaeopteryx seemed to emerge fully fledged with the characteristics of modern birds,” said Michael Benton, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in England.
But it has become increasingly clear that the story of how dinosaurs begat birds is much more subtle. Discoveries have shown that bird-specific features like feathers began to emerge long before the evolution of birds, indicating that birds simply adapted a number of pre-existing features to a new use. And recent research suggests that a few simple change—among them the adoption of a more babylike skull shape into adulthood—likely played essential roles in the final push to bird-hood. Not only are birds much smaller than their dinosaur ancestors, they closely resemble dinosaur embryos. Adaptations such as these may have paved the way for modern birds’ distinguishing features, namely their ability to fly and their remarkably agile beaks. The work demonstrates how huge evolutionary changes can result from a series of small evolutionary steps.
In the 1990s, an influx of new dinosaur fossils from China revealed a feathery surprise. Though many of these fossils lacked wings, they had a panoply of plumage, from fuzzy bristles to fully articulated quills. The discovery of these new intermediary species, which filled in the spotty fossil record, triggered a change in how paleontologists conceived of the dinosaur-to-bird transition. Feathers, once thought unique to birds, must have evolved in dinosaurs long before birds developed.
Sophisticated new analyses of these fossils, which track structural changes and map how the specimens are related to each other, support the idea that avian features evolved over long stretches of time. In research published in Current Biology last fall, Stephen Brusatte, a paleontologist at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and collaborators examined fossils from coelurosaurs, the subgroup of theropods that produced archaeopteryx and modern birds. They tracked changes in a number of skeletal properties over time and found that there was no great jump that distinguished birds from other coelurosaurs.
“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”
Yet once those avian features were in place, birds took off. Brusatte’s study of coelurosaurs found that once archaeopteryx and other ancient birds emerged, they began evolving much more rapidly than other dinosaurs. The hopeful monster theory had it almost exactly backwards: A burst of evolution didn’t produce birds. Rather, birds produced a burst of evolution. “It seems like birds had happened upon a very successful new body plan and new type of ecology—flying at small size—and this led to an evolutionary explosion,” Brusatte said.
Though most people might name feathers or wings as a key characteristic distinguishing birds from dinosaurs, the group’s small stature is also extremely important. New research suggests that bird ancestors shrank fast, indicating that the diminutive size was an important and advantageous trait, quite possibly an essential component in bird evolution.
Like other bird features, diminishing body size likely began long before the birds themselves evolved. A study published in Science last year found that the miniaturization process began much earlier than scientists had expected. Some coelurosaurs started shrinking as far back as 200 million years ago—50 million years before archaeopteryx emerged. At that time, most other dinosaur lineages were growing larger. “Miniaturization is unusual, especially among dinosaurs,” Benton said.
There is no one common ancestor to birds known at this time, and it may well be that several branches of feathered dinosaurs developed flight independently ,but, they are still dinosaurs, still therapods, as those feathered dinosaurs are apparently descendant from theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era.
The scientific question of within which larger group of animals birds evolved, has traditionally been called the origin of birds. The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era. There could also be a mosaic of interbreeding, much as we see in Homo lineages.
A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds and extinct non-avian dinosaurs share many unique skeletal traits. Moreover, fossils of more than thirty species of non-avian dinosaur have been collected with preserved feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Paleontologist Lawrence Witmer concluded in 2009 that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage. Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors.
Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and were very successful in evolutionary terms at improving survival.