Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

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

  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    I answered you. You're apparently incapable of understanding the answer Birds ARE dinosaurs. So dinosaurs evolved into a different kind of dinosaur, i.e. birds. Get it?
    Here's the question you have not answered:

    When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?
    1. The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
    2. The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

    Which (if either) of those two things do you mean? 1 or 2?
    If you mean neither of them, then you mean nothing, because, thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you despise) dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs, together, necessarily exhaust all your options for things to mean. You'll not have answered the question I asked you until you have specified which (if either) of these two things you mean.

    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    "One celled organisms" aren't a clade.
    Here, once again, you're trying to escape your prior problem by trying to invite more nonsense you can't answer for.

    You say that a bird has a dinosaur for an ancestor (which is false, and idiotic), and you say that, thus, a bird IS a dinosaur. So, you're ridiculously inconsistent with your own stupidity, there, when you turn around and refuse to say, also, that since a bird has a one-celled organism for an ancestor, a bird IS a one-celled organism. You cannot hide your inconsistency by trying to murk things up with more jargon.

    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    That's a characteristic that's shared by a lot of different groups, that is something that consists of one cell. What unites the one celled things that birds descended from is that they are eukaryotic cells. And yes they never stopped being eukaryotic cells.
    Here, again, you're stonewalling against the question I am asking. Consider these two propositions:
    1. Birds are dinosaurs BECAUSE dinosaurs are their ancestors.
    2. Birds are one-celled organisms BECAUSE one-celled organisms are their ancestors.
    Why your hypocritical self-inconsistency in loudly proclaiming, on the one hand, that 1 is true while, on the other hand, refusing to proclaim, just the same, that 2 is true?

    I never asked you about any uniting of one-celled organisms, did I? No. I didn't. And, I never used the phrase "eukaryotic cells", did I? No. I didn't. You're trying to con me, as usual. You're trying to direct attention away from the fact of your inconsistency.

    Read what I actually wrote:


    Since you say that birds are descended from one-celled organisms, why do you refuse to at least be consistent with your own stupidity (highlighted above) by your refusal to say, also, "Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being one-celled organisms"?



    Here's what I did not write:


    Since you say that birds are descended from eukaryotic cells, why do you refuse to at least be consistent with your own stupidity (highlighted above) by your refusal to say, also, "Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being eukaryotic cells"?



    Clearly, I said "one-celled organisms", not "eukaryotic cells". Why can you not deal with what I actually said? You'd rather I had said "eukaryotic cells", but I very deliberately said "one-celled organisms".

    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    You are simply failing to understand the answer and then asserting that it's a non-answer.
    As usual, you are simply puffing out nonsense, and then asserting, falsely, that your nonsense is an answer, in your continued stonewalling against the questions I ask you.

    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    Sorry but you need to learn some actual biology and taxonomy to have a rational conversation.
    Ha. You're sorry because you're such a sorry excuse for a teacher of actual biology and taxonomy. You're the sort of "teacher" who loves pontificating your pompous nonsense, and when, in plain, ordinary, everyday English, some prospective student comes along and asks you elementary questions about your own purported expertise--inconvenient questions of which you have no hope of answering--you simply repeat your previously pontificated nonsense, mixed with more jargon, hoping (in futility) to simply fart the pesky questions out of your way.

    So, again, here is the question I asked you, against which you have, thus far, stonewalled:


    Since you say that birds are descended from one-celled organisms, why do you refuse to at least be consistent with your own stupidity by your refusal to say, also, "Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being one-celled organisms"?




    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

      Here's the question you have not answered:
      I already answered you!

      Birds are dinosaurs therefore they are dinosaurs that evolved from other dinosaurs.

      Are birds *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from? Obviously not. This isn't a direct equivalency. Biology doesn't work like that.

      Evolution is descent WITH MODIFICATION.

      Note the modification part.

      You say that a bird has a dinosaur for an ancestor (which is false, and idiotic),
      Huh? Why? Because you say so? You haven't posted anything resembling evidence, ever. You simply want to play moronic semantic games that have no meaning.

      and you say that, thus, a bird IS a dinosaur. So, you're ridiculously inconsistent with your own stupidity, there, when you turn around and refuse to say, also, that since a bird has a one-celled organism for an ancestor, a bird IS a one-celled organism. You cannot hide your inconsistency by trying to murk things up with more jargon.
      This isn't "jargon".
      A eukaryotic cell is a cell that has a nucleus and membrane bound organelles like mitochondria and golgi complexes. The cells of birds (and all other multicellular eukaryotes) STILL have those features. The fact that the organism is now composed of more than one cell is irrelevant to the fact that the cellular structure is the same.

      The descendants of an ancestral group will not have all identical features, otherwise it isn't evolution now is it? So you don't get to turn around and make your second assertion because it is nonsensical.

      As usual, you are simply puffing out nonsense, and then asserting, falsely, that your nonsense is an answer, in your continued stonewalling against the questions I ask you.
      That's the pot calling the kettle black.


      Ha. You're sorry because you're such a sorry excuse for a teacher of actual biology and taxonomy. You're the sort of "teacher" who loves pontificating your pompous nonsense, and when, in plain, ordinary, everyday English, some prospective student comes along and asks you elementary questions about your own purported expertise--inconvenient questions of which you have no hope of answering--you simply repeat your previously pontificated nonsense, mixed with more jargon, hoping (in futility) to simply fart the pesky questions out of your way.
      No I have a "student" here that refuses to take yes for an answer and then asserts his own question only must have the answer he's predetermined.

      With an attitude like that you'd be certain to fail any class you tried this kind of behavior in.
      “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 7djengo7 View Post
        When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?
        1. The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
        2. The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs
        Which (if either) of those two things do you mean? 1 or 2?
        If you mean neither of them, then you mean nothing, because, thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you despise) dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs, together, necessarily exhaust all your options for things to mean. You'll not have answered the question I asked you until you have specified which (if either) of these two things you mean.
        As usual, the Holy Wikipedia contains the gospel. The first words of the body of the article on birds are:

        Birds, also known as Aves or avian dinosaurs...


        So you are attempting the logical fallacy of equivocation but failing because 'birds' and 'avian dinosaurs' are synonyms.

        Stuart

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          I already answered you!
          False.

          Again, here's the question you have not answered:

          When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?
          1. The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
          2. The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

          Which (if either) of those two things do you mean? 1 or 2?
          If you mean neither of them, then you mean nothing, because, thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you despise) dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs, together, necessarily exhaust all your options for things to mean. You'll not have answered the question I asked you until you have specified which (if either) of these two things you mean.

          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          Birds are dinosaurs therefore they are dinosaurs that evolved from other dinosaurs.
          By your word, "birds", here, are you referring to dinosaurs, or are you referring to non-dinosaurs? Which?

          Which one (if either) of these two things do you mean, here?
          1. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs therefore they are dinosaurs that evolved from other dinosaurs
          2. Non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs therefore they are dinosaurs that evolved from other dinosaurs
          Which (if either) do you mean? 1 or 2?

          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          Are birds *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from?
          No bird is identical to any dinosaur. Every bird is identical to a bird.

          When you say, "Are birds *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from?", to what are you referring by your word, "birds"? To dinosaurs, or to non-dinosaurs? Which one (if either) of these two things do you mean, here?
          1. Are dinosaurs *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from?
          2. Are non-dinosaurs *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from?

          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          Are birds *identical* to the dinosaurs they descended from?
          By your word, "dinosaurs", here, are you referring to birds? Are you saying, "Are birds *identical* to the birds they descended from?"

          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          Obviously not.
          What is obviously not? Obviously birds are not identical to the birds from which they descended? Is that what you're saying?





          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
            As usual, the Holy Wikipedia contains the gospel. The first words of the body of the article on birds are:

            Birds, also known as Aves or avian dinosaurs...


            So you are attempting the logical fallacy of equivocation but failing because 'birds' and 'avian dinosaurs' are synonyms.

            Stuart
            What (if anything) do you mean? Are you saying that it is right to call birds, "avian dinosaurs", and (in rare agreement with rational people) saying that it is wrong to call birds "dinosaurs"?

            By your phrase, "avian dinosaurs", are you referring to dinosaurs, or are you referring to non-dinosaurs? Which?
            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
              What (if anything) do you mean? Are you saying that it is right to call birds, "avian dinosaurs", and (in rare agreement with rational people) saying that it is wrong to call birds "dinosaurs"?

              By your phrase, "avian dinosaurs", are you referring to dinosaurs, or are you referring to non-dinosaurs? Which?
              I am referring to the three angels dancing on your pinhead.

              Stuart

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                By your word, "birds", here, are you referring to dinosaurs, or are you referring to non-dinosaurs? Which?
                Birds are a category WITHIN the category of Dinosaurs. Just as squares are a category within the category of rectangles. Every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square.

                It's like arguing that a Toyota Corolla AND a Camry cannot both be Toyotas. Are they identical? Of course not but they both are part of the category Toyota.

                Your problem isn't evolution it's the very concept of a category containing other categories.

                No bird is identical to any dinosaur. Every bird is identical to a bird.
                Uhh what? You've really gone off of the deep end here. No, bird species is identical to any other bird species. And really no individual bird is identical to any other, save a clone and even then it still isn't totally identical.

                Bird is a CATEGORY with a specific definition, just as Dinosaur, amniote and vertebrate are also categories. The definitions of those categories become progressively more inclusive so that they include more groups of organisms. That is a nested hierarchy.

                At this point you're either incapable of understanding that concept or you're intentionally trying to make it sound nonsensical with your own illogical argument.
                “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 Alate_One View Post
                  At this point you're either incapable of understanding that concept or you're intentionally trying to make it sound nonsensical with your own illogical argument.
                  It's why I tossed him in the troll bin some time ago.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    Birds are a category WITHIN the category of Dinosaurs.
                    Did Charles Linnaeus tell you that? Of course he didn't. And well he didn't, since it's false. Though, you'll still abuse his name to try to promote the stupidities you're trying to sell as a Darwin cheerleader. The truth is, birds are a category WITHOUT the category of dinosaurs; birds are a category WITHIN the category of non-dinosaurs. In fact, birds are inside the category of non-dinosaurs along with fish, porcupines, and Ford Mustangs, and every Cuisinart product: just as neither a fish, a porcupine, a Ford Mustang, nor a Cuisinart is a non-dinosaur, so also every bird is a non-dinosaur.

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    squares are a category within the category of rectangles.
                    True. So what?

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    Every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square.
                    True. So what?

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    It's like arguing that a Toyota Corolla AND a Camry cannot both be Toyotas. Are they identical? Of course not but they both are part of the category Toyota.
                    Uh-oh, another one of your orphaned pronouns, here: "It". What's "like arguing that a Toyota Corolla AND a Camry cannot both be Toyotas"?

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    Your problem isn't evolution it's the very concept of a category containing other categories.
                    Me? I've no problem with categories containing categories. You, on the other hand, have got a problem with the category, "everything". See, this category, "everything", is exhausted by its two, immediate subcategories: "dinosaurs" and "non-dinosaurs". Whatever there is is either a dinosaur or a non-dinosaur. What you, in your fairy tale magic mentality, bitterly disdain, is the fact that there's no going outside these two categories, "dinosaur" and "non-dinosaur": it angers you--the fact that whatever is not a dinosaur is a non-dinosaur, and that whatever is not a non-dinosaur is a dinosaur. You wish that, somehow, you could have it so that something could be not a dinosaur, yet also, at the same time, not a non-dinosaur. You'll not be getting your wish, though.

                    Why be disgruntled at me, though? I'm just the messenger of the truth.

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    Uhh what? You've really gone off of the deep end here.
                    By saying, "No bird is identical to any dinosaur", and, "Every bird is identical to a bird", I've gone off the deep end? How so?

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    No, bird species is identical to any other bird species.
                    I take it the comma was a typo.

                    Where'd I say such a thing as, "A bird species is identical to another bird species"? That's right: nowhere.

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    And really no individual bird is identical to any other,
                    Where'd I say such a thing as, "An individual bird is identical to another individual bird"? That's right: nowhere.

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    save a clone and even then it still isn't totally identical.
                    Why pretend as though you are presenting an exception to what you just stated, and then turn around and contradict yourself by saying that it isn't an exception to what you had just stated?

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    Bird is a CATEGORY with a specific definition,
                    So, tell us what is your "specific definition" of your category, "Bird". Tell us what is the sine qua non of being a bird; tell us what is the sine qua non of being a non-bird.

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    just as Dinosaur, amniote and vertebrate are also categories.
                    Tell us what is your "specific definition" of your category, "Dinosaur". Tell us what is the sine qua non of being a dinosaur; tell us what is the sine qua non of being a non-dinosaur.

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    The definitions of those categories become progressively more inclusive so that they include more groups of organisms. That is a nested hierarchy.
                    In other words, you will call more than just dinosaurs, "dinosaurs": you will also call non-dinosaurs, such as birds, "dinosaurs".

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    At this point you're either incapable of understanding that concept or you're intentionally trying to make it sound nonsensical with your own illogical argument.
                    Lay out for us, premise by premise, exactly what it is you are calling "your own illogical argument".

                    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

                      Did Charles Linnaeus tell you that? Of course he didn't. And well he didn't, since it's false.
                      No, he didn't because they hardly had any dinosaur fossils at the time. Linnaeus did tell us that all mammals share certain characteristics together, including humans.

                      Though, you'll still abuse his name to try to promote the stupidities you're trying to sell as a Darwin cheerleader. The truth is, birds are a category WITHOUT the category of dinosaurs; birds are a category WITHIN the category of non-dinosaurs.
                      Wrong. Dinosaurs are pillar erect (legs straight under the body) in their skeletal structure. Reptilian in origin, diapsids with extra holes in the skull.

                      More specifically birds are theropod dinosaurs with three forward facing toes, bipedal posture, a wishbone and a three fingered hand.
                      https://www.birdnote.org/show/wishbones-and-dinosaurs

                      We also see plenty of fossils of theropod dinosaurs with pennaceous feathers.

                      So, if Birds are, in your opinion, "non-dinosaurs" then is this also a "non-dinosaur"?

                      “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 Alate_One View Post
                        So, if Birds are, in your opinion, "non-dinosaurs" then is this also a "non-dinosaur"?

                        If by your pronoun, "this", you are referring to the rock in your picture, my answer would be that that rock is also a non-dinosaur. I, myself, would not say that any rock is a dinosaur.

                        Why do you put quotes around the word, 'non-dinosaur'? Do you consider the word, 'non-dinosaur', to be somehow illegitimate? Is every thing that exists a dinosaur? Obviously only an abject fool would answer this question by saying, "Yes, every thing that exists is a dinosaur." Now, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but I'll break it to you that--though you may imagine otherwise--not every thing that exists is a dinosaur. And so, the word, 'non-dinosaur', is a perfectly legitimate name of every thing that isn't a dinosaur. By saying, "That thing is a non-dinosaur", I am saying, "That thing is a thing that is not a dinosaur". That's pretty simple, no? Is your washing machine a dinosaur? Of course not; hence, your washing machine is a non-dinosaur. No need for quotes where you (for whatever motivation) might be tempted to put quotes. It's strange that you have this reservation against saying, "Is this also a non-dinosaur?"--which reservation somehow urges you to say, instead, "Is this also a "non-dinosaur"?"

                        Which do you consider the rock (in the picture you showed me) to be?
                        • a dinosaur
                        • a non-dinosaur
                        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
                          If by your pronoun, "this", you are referring to the rock in your picture, my answer would be that that rock is also a non-dinosaur.
                          Have a look at Struthiomimus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struthiomimus

                          Would you say that it is a bird, or a dinosaur?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by User Name View Post

                            Have a look at Struthiomimus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struthiomimus

                            Would you say that it is a bird, or a dinosaur?
                            Neither.

                            What the picture seems to show is something resembling a set of bone-like things. A set of bone-like things is neither a bird, nor a dinosaur. A painting is neither a bird, nor a dinosaur. A drawing is neither a bird, nor a dinosaur. Do you disagree?
                            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
                              If by your pronoun, "this", you are referring to the rock in your picture, my answer would be that that rock is also a non-dinosaur. I, myself, would not say that any rock is a dinosaur.
                              You could, I don't know, NOT be intentionally dense? If I say this and produce an image, it's pretty obvious what I'm referring to. It's not a rock, it's a fossil with sufficient preservation of the feathers to allow scientists to ascertain the creature's original coloration. So that means it's the partially preserved remains of a once living organism. And those remains should belong to some category or another.

                              Was that organism a dinosaur or not? In your opinion.

                              I certainly have a position on the matter, but you're now the one that's refusing to answer. You said birds are non-dinosaurs.

                              Is the creature I posted a picture of earlier, a dinosaur or non-dinosaur? It's the same question you keep insisting on others answering and now you won't answer it yourself.
                              Last edited by Alate_One; November 25th, 2019, 04:58 PM.
                              “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 Alate_One View Post
                                You could, I don't know, NOT be intentionally dense?
                                That's asking too much of 7djengo7. Now you're expecting miracles!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X