Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Yes, horse evolution is one of the best sequences in the fossil record.
    Only in the minds of evolutionists.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Unfortunately, ape sequences aren't, partly because forests don't preserve fossil remains very well.
    Normal sequences of events don't preserve fossil remains very well. On the other hand, a global flood would create lots of fossils.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    There are some examples, like the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies, where the fossil sequence goes back a long way, and includes impressions of soft-bodied animals extremely well preserved, but even that goes back 'only' 508 million years, not 4 billion years.
    Once again, this is only in the imaginative mind of evolutionists.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Indeed, and the evolution is happening to the group, especially to the generations through which the group goes.
    Populations are just groups of individuals.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Once you have your individual genome, you aren't going to have allele frequencies changing (a definition of evolution) because frequency refers to how many times you find the allele out of the total population.


    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    I have read that the definition of a 'kind' in creationism is the original organism from which that branch developed. So the solution is simple, and consistent with that view of creationism: there was one kind.
    There were multiple kinds, not one kind.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Stuu: But once [bird's] ancestors were theropod dinosaurs.

    This article describes some links between dinosaurs and modern birds:

    A comparison by Asara's team of the amino-acid sequence from the T. rex collagen to a database of existing sequences from modern species showed it shared a remarkable similarity to that of chickens.

    Chickens have the genes to make teeth. They have been turned off in chicken embryo development. They've made chicken embryos grow teeth by turning off the suppression. Where do you think they got those genes from?

    BTW, your pic, Milford Sound, is one of my favourite parts of New Zealand, although the sandflies are so big down there they have their own landing strip.

    Stuart
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Originally posted by Squeaky
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Originally posted by God's Truth
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
      It appears that, meantime, you have been standing there with your fingers in your ears chanting 'I can't hear you'. So we may as well chant.
      Of course you'll keep chanting the nonsense you've been chanting all along, just as you've been conditioned to do.

      Originally posted by Stuu View Post
      But if you wish to demonstrate that evolution happens to individuals, or else that it doesn't happen at all, feel free to show that by application of unambiguous evidence
      Here are some nonsense phrases:
      • "evolution happens to individuals"
      • "evolution does not happen to individuals"
      • "evolution happens to populations"
      • "evolution does not happen to populations"
      • "evolution happens"
      • "evolution doesn't happen at all"
      • "evolution is real"
      • "evolution is not real"


      Because those are nonsense phrases, no truth is expressed by one, or more, of those phrases, and no falsehood is expressed by one, or more, of those phrases. Your insurmountable difficulty all boils down to the fact that, as a Darwin cheerleader, you mean absolutely nothing by your words, "evolution" and "evolve".

      When you say "evolution happens", or "evolution does not happen to individuals", or "evolution happens to populations", or "evolution is a fact", you're not affirming any proposition--not even a false one; rather, you're making meaningless noise, devoid of cognitive content.

      If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance happens to individuals, feel free to try to do so.
      If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance does not happen to individuals, feel free to try to do so.
      If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance happens to populations, feel free to try to do so.
      If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance does not happen to populations, feel free to try to do so.

      BTW, when you say your phrase, "unambiguous evidence", do you mean to imply that something you would be willing to call "evidence" could be ambiguous? Or, instead, would you say that your phrase, "unambiguous evidence", is redundant, and that you're saying no more by it than you'd be saying by merely saying "evidence"?
      All my ancestors are human.
      PS: All your ancestors are human.
      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        Why fight against a classification system that was created by a creationist and has been the basic framework for the classification of life for nearly 300 years?
        You're the one fighting against Linnaeus' classification system--which is a tree of porphyry--by your glaringly ridiculous, elementary error of mistaking it for a diagram of ancestry/descent.
        All my ancestors are human.
        PS: All your ancestors are human.
        PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
          horse evolution
          Originally posted by Stuu View Post
          the evolution is happening to the group
          In other words, you're saying, "horse evolution is not happening to a horse", and "horse evolution is not happening to horses".

          Since you say "the evolution is happening to the group", rather than, "the evolution is happening to the horse", or, "the evolution is happening to the horses", then why do you say "horse evolution" instead of "group evolution"?

          Oh, and when you say, for instance, "eye evolution", to what is "the evolution happening"? To an eye? To eyes? To a group? A group of what? A group of eyes?

          Your Professor said evolution happens to features:

          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          the evolution of this feature occurred
          Do you disagree with your Professor?
          Last edited by 7djengo7; November 8th, 2019, 04:42 PM.
          All my ancestors are human.
          PS: All your ancestors are human.
          PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            But once [bird's] ancestors were theropod dinosaurs.
            When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs?
            All my ancestors are human.
            PS: All your ancestors are human.
            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

            Comment


            • ***Accidental post instead of edit of previous post. Man, I gotta stop doing that. Sorry.***
              All my ancestors are human.
              PS: All your ancestors are human.
              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                ***Accidental post instead of edit of previous post. Man, I gotta stop doing that. Sorry.***
                The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:
                JudgeRightly (Today)
                Thank goodness JudgeRightly is willing to point out to us where to find the real quality.

                Stuart

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs?
                  I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to describe them as birds.

                  Just for the record, of course, I note your paraphrasing '[bird's]' and hasten to add that it would not have appeared that way had I wished to indicate the plural possessive. But, since some here apparently wonder whether evolution can happen to individuals, perhaps your usage is intentional. Or, maybe you mean to indicate a Sesame Street character, in which case you might have considered capitalising.

                  Stuart

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    Thank goodness JudgeRightly is willing to point out to us where to find the real quality.

                    Stuart
                    Don't be dumb, Stuart.

                    I clicked thanks on what he said before he edited his post to what it is now.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                      You're the one fighting against Linnaeus' classification system--which is a tree of porphyry--by your glaringly ridiculous, elementary error of mistaking it for a diagram of ancestry/descent.
                      It's a nested hierarchy. Biological organisms naturally fall into that pattern, and that pattern is the same pattern of inheritance. It's not an accident.
                      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                        Don't be dumb, Stuart.

                        I clicked thanks on what he said before he edited his post to what it is now.
                        Yes, fair enough.

                        Would you agree with birds being considered as dinosaurs?

                        Stuart

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                          If "kinds" are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families, that raises an interesting issue given other creationist arguments.

                          Let's say there is a "cat kind", which means Noah took aboard the Ark two (or seven, depending on which of the two stories you read) representatives of the "cat kind", from which all of today's species of cats are descended. But remember, creationists also argue that mutation cannot increase the amount of "genetic information" in a genome, and that genomes have been degrading over time since The Fall.

                          So exactly how is a single breeding pair of cats able to give rise to the diversity of cats we see around us today....everything from tigers to house cats...without adding a single bit of "genetic information", and given the claim that the genomes have only been "degrading"?
                          It's based on a fundamental ignorance of genetics. Creationists apparently think that the original cat kind (for example) had all the genes found in all cats today. It's almost as though they still think heredity is in the blood as some kind of humoral stuff that is unlimited in scope.

                          Since any pair of animals could only have a total of four alleles for each gene locus, there's no way that any two (or 14) representatives of the "cat kind" could have had all those genes.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            It's based on a fundamental ignorance of genetics. Creationists apparently think that the original cat kind (for example) had all the genes found in all cats today. It's almost as though they still think heredity is in the blood as some kind of humoral stuff that is unlimited in scope.

                            Since any pair of animals could only have a total of four alleles for each gene locus, there's no way that any two (or 14) representatives of the "cat kind" could have had all those genes.
                            As you learned, changes in the environment played havoc on the original design.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              It's a nested hierarchy.
                              Try to explain exactly what (if anything) you mean by calling Linnaeus' system of classification, in which things are classified by their similarities and differences, a "nested hierarchy". What (if anything) do you mean by saying that it is "nested"? And what (if anything) do you mean by saying that it is a "hierarchy"? What does a general-to-specific system of classification have to do with hierarchy? (I'm not claiming that it does not have anything to do with hierarchy--I'm trying to find out what (if anything) you mean by saying that it does.)

                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              Biological organisms
                              Is it necessary to say "biological organisms" rather than, simply, "organisms"? If it is, then why?

                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              naturally fall into that pattern,
                              What (if anything) are you calling a "pattern", here?

                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              and that pattern is the same pattern of inheritance.
                              How do you imagine that inheritance fits into a kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species system of classification? Inasmuch as such a system has nothing to do with ancestry/descendancy, I, for one, fail to see how it is supposed to have anything, whatsoever, to do with inheritance of anything by a descendant from an ancestor..

                              You would not seriously wish to say that, (say, for instance) a genus is a descendant of (say, for instance) the phylum of which it is a subset, and that an order is an ancestor of one of its subordinate species, would you? You would not wish to say that a family has inherited something from the kingdom of which that family is a subset, would you?

                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              It's not an accident.
                              What's not an accident?
                              Last edited by 7djengo7; November 9th, 2019, 02:20 PM.
                              All my ancestors are human.
                              PS: All your ancestors are human.
                              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to describe them as birds.
                                In other words, you (as usual) have found it necessary to stonewall against the question I asked you:


                                When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs? Yes or No?



                                Why can't you answer this question, Stuu?

                                What's the matter, Stuu? You don't say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs? You don't want to admit that you would be willing to say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs? Why is that?

                                As we can see, The Barbarian has "thanked" you for stonewalling against the question I asked you.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to describe them as birds.
                                By "describe them as birds", do you mean "say that they are birds"? If not, then what (if anything) do you mean?
                                If they are birds, then so what? What would be the big deal with saying they are birds?
                                If they are not birds, then why would you say that they are birds?
                                All my ancestors are human.
                                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X