Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[7djengo7]

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

Sorry about that, JR.

 

[7djengo7]

Jesus says that at the beginning of creation male and female were there.
But God says that neither male nor female were there at the beginning of creation. Is this a contradiction? No. Jesus meant at the beginning of the creation of humans.

I like how The Barbarian refuses to cite which (if any) passage(s) of Scripture he is pretending to discuss.

What the heck is "neither male nor female were there at the beginning of creation" supposed to mean? What (if anything) does The Barbarian mean by his words (and not the Bible's words), "were there"?

According to Matthew 9:14 KJV, Jesus said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female." And, according to Mark 10:6 KJV, Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

The lying, Scripture-despising con-artist, The Barbarian, refuses to actually quote Scripture in his attacks upon it. Hmmm. Why is that? Why can't he quote, or at least cite, what passage of Scripture he is talking about when he says that "God says that neither male nor female were there at the beginning of creation"?

Notice that Jesus does not say, "But from the beginning of the [six-day period of] creation God made them male and female." Rather, He says, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." By the noun, κτίσεως (rendered "creation"), Jesus is not referring to the period of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, etc. Rather, He is referring to that which God, during that period of time, created: aka, "the creature". By the phrase, ἀρχῆς κτίσεως (rendered "the beginning of the creation"), Jesus is not referring to God's commencement of His creative work. Rather, He is referring to the earliest days of the existence of what God, in His creative work, has created--that is, to the earliest days of the existence of the creature, the heavens and the earth, etc. Day 6 in that (so far) less-than-10,000-year period of time of the existence of God's creature is, indeed, one of the earliest days of that creature. Week 1 is, indeed, the beginning of the existence of that which God created. Some time billions upon billions of years after Week 1 can only be called "the beginning" by the raving minds of Darwinists and other assorted circus clowns.

 

[Right Divider]

I like how The Barbarian refuses to cite which (if any) passage(s) of Scripture he is pretending to discuss.

The answer is simple... he's not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sorry about that, JR.

No worries :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian enjoys making things up and pretending that he should be understood. Then he claims to be popular when his nonsense is exposed. :chuckle:

 

[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?

I think I have said that.

By "describe [anchiornis or a microraptor] as birds", do you mean "say that they are birds"?

Yes, obviously.

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?

Had you guessed, perhaps, that in my opinion you would not have disputed that these two species are dinosaurs?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I think I have said that.

Of course you have.

I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to [say that they are birds].

I wouldn't say that something that is not a bird is a bird, Stuu. Why would you say that something that is not a bird is a bird? Why would observing a non-bird in flight make you able to say that that non-bird is a bird, Stuu?

Once again, Stuu, you have stonewalled 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?

Again, why can't you answer this question, Stuu?

Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you, in your commitment to your irrationality, despise), these are your only options, Stuu: If, by the word "birds", you are referring to something, then EITHER you are referring, by it, to dinosaurs, OR you are referring, by it, to non-dinosaurs.

So, when you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?

• The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
• The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

Have fun continuing to stonewall against the question, Stuu.

 

[Alate_One]

Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you, in your commitment to your irrationality, despise), these are your only options, Stuu: If, by the word "birds", you are referring to something, then EITHER you are referring, by it, to dinosaurs, OR you are referring, by it, to non-dinosaurs.

So, when you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?

• The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
• The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

Have fun continuing to stonewall against the question, Stuu.

Your problem is you don't understand how taxonomy works, especially cladistics.

The ancestors of birds were a specific subset of dinosaurs, likely from within the group maniraptora.

Dinosaurs are defined as having specific characteristics of the skull as well as legs held directly beneath the body. Clades are defined as ancestral groups and ALL of the descendants of that group. Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being dinosaurs. They may look very different but they are still dinosaurs. But they are not identical to their ancestors - non-avian theropods, like T-Rex.

 

[Stuu]

I wouldn't say that something that is not a bird is a bird, Stuu. Why would you say that something that is not a bird is a bird? Why would observing a non-bird in flight make you able to say that that non-bird is a bird, Stuu?

Once again, Stuu, you have stonewalled 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?

Again, why can't you answer this question, Stuu?

What Alate_One said.

Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you, in your commitment to your irrationality, despise), these are your only options, Stuu: If, by the word "birds", you are referring to something, then EITHER you are referring, by it, to dinosaurs, OR you are referring, by it, to non-dinosaurs.

So, when you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?

• The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
• The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

Have fun continuing to stonewall against the question, Stuu.

I would add to Alate's proper answer by telling you that the sound of one hand clapping is non-existent, and that if a tree falls in the woods and there is no-one there to hear it then it does make a sound regardless.

Stuart

 

[The Barbarian]

"Bird" is merely a man-made term for certain animals. The Hebrews classified bats as birds, even though we don't. The troll is, as you suggest, playing word games. Properly speaking, a bird is a dinosaur in the same sense that 7djengo7 is a fish. Or one of the senses in which he's a fish.

 

[7djengo7]

Your problem is you don't understand how taxonomy works, especially cladistics.

The ancestors of birds were a specific subset of dinosaurs, likely from within the group maniraptora.

Dinosaurs are defined as having specific characteristics of the skull as well as legs held directly beneath the body. Clades are defined as ancestral groups and ALL of the descendants of that group. Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being dinosaurs. They may look very different but they are still dinosaurs. But they are not identical to their ancestors - non-avian theropods, like T-Rex.

One of your problems is that you can't answer the most elementary questions:

When you (Alate_One, Stuu, The Barbarian, Disney's NatGeo, and all other Darwin cheerleaders) say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs? Yes or No?

Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you, in your commitment to your irrationality, despise), these are your only options, Alate_One: If, by the word "birds", you are referring to something, then EITHER you are referring, by it, to dinosaurs, OR you are referring, by it, to non-dinosaurs.

When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?

• The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
• The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

Why can't you answer this question, Professor?

 

[7djengo7]

What Alate_One said.

Oh, sad. Because Alate_One has also stonewalled against my question, thus far, just like you have done.

When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?

• The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
• The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

Enjoy your continuance in your stonewalling, Stuu and Alate_One!!

 

[7djengo7]

"Bird" is merely a man-made term for certain animals. The Hebrews classified bats as birds, even though we don't. The troll is, as you suggest, playing word games. Properly speaking, a bird is a dinosaur in the same sense that 7djengo7 is a fish. Or one of the senses in which he's a fish.

When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, which one (if either) of these two things do you mean?

• The ancestors of dinosaurs were dinosaurs
• The ancestors of non-dinosaurs were dinosaurs

Which one is it, The Barbarian?? It's one or the other. If you mean neither, you mean nothing. C'mon, Professor, time to deliver the goods. Why can't you answer this elementary question?

 

[7djengo7]

Birds, technically speaking, never stopped being dinosaurs. They may look very different but they are still dinosaurs. But they are not identical to their ancestors - non-avian theropods, like T-Rex.

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"?

For the sake of your own self-consistency, you may as well say, "Birds may be many-celled organisms, but they are still one-celled organisms."

 

[Alate_One]

Why can't you answer this question, Professor?

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?

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"?

For the sake of your own self-consistency, you may as well say, "Birds may be many-celled organisms, but they are still one-celled organisms."

"One celled organisms" aren't a clade. 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.

You are simply failing to understand the answer and then asserting that it's a non-answer. Sorry but you need to learn some actual biology and taxonomy to have a rational conversation.

 

[7djengo7]

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.

"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.

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".

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.

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"?

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[Stuu]

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

 

[7djengo7]

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.

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?

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?

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?"

Obviously not.

What is obviously not? Obviously birds are not identical to the birds from which they descended? Is that what you're saying?

 

[7djengo7]

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?