Real Science Radio 2013: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit

[Stripe]

Nope. Relatedness isn't determined by vague similarity. If it were, people might have considered sea horses more related to horses or perhaps snakes.

What you need to do is respond to what was actually said. Evolutionists have and continue to determine relatedness according to similarities in form.

That they do not do so according to your "vague similarities" is not a contradiction of what Jabin said.

Closely related? No, not very. How can we tell? But, But, they're similar in appearance! We can examine their skeletons and see major differences hidden in the similar shapes.

:doh:

Similarities are similarities whether they be external or skeletal.

Examining only the bones can tell us one is a mammal while the other is more closely related to lizards.

Only if you are sold out to the evolutionary mindset.

In the field of Systematics (classification), relatedness is character based and characters must be selected carefully. And there are entire textbooks devoted to the basics of doing this.

Just as there was lots of writing about phrenology.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The primary persuasive argument of Evolutionists is that if two species look similar then they are closely related by evolution.

Um, of course it isn't. I'm no biologist but I know that much even as a layman on the subject, and to have Stripe give you a plaudit for that 'observation' says a lot...or a little depending...

:doh:

 

[Alate_One]

What you need to do is respond to what was actually said. Evolutionists have and continue to determine relatedness according to similarities in form.

It's a similarity in form now isn't it?

Similarities are similarities whether they be external or skeletal.

No actually they aren't.

This is not the same as this.

When you determine a character to use in a phylogenetic analysis, you'll often be interested not only in the shape, but how and from what it develops. That helps you distinguish between external resemblance and a truly shared characteristic.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, actually it doesn't since the argument is based on a misunderstanding of what the meaning of a common name is, which is basically nothing vs. what the animal in question is ACTUALLY related to. The elephant shrew thing is just as stupid. Just cause it looks like a shrew, doesn't mean it is one.

And the elephant isn't it's closest living relative, it's related to elephants, hyraxes, Sirenians (manatees and dugongs) and aardvarks. Clade Afrotheria for those of you following along.

Playing up only the elephant angle is sensationalism because of the coincidental name.

Elephant Shrews

:doh:No, you unmitigated moron! The entire point of the elephant shrew issue was that Darwin was wrong when he grouped them with shrews on his "tree of life." And he was. Science not only backs that up, it openly threw out that model years ago.

 

[Alate_One]

:doh:No, you unmitigated moron! The entire point of the elephant shrew issue was that Darwin was wrong when he grouped them with shrews on his "tree of life." And he was. Science not only backs that up, it openly threw out that model years ago.

Oh noes Darwin was wrong about something . . . stop the presses! Call CNN. Gee, you mean scientists 150 years ago didn't have the best data set to make determinations of relatedness when convergent evolution was at issue? Say it ain't so! You guys don't seem to get that Darwin isn't a prophet where a false prophecy gets him stoned. in science we understand ideas are subject to change when more information is available. And that's okay. We're more than happy to toss Darwin's ideas, when there's evidence to show that he was wrong.

What's more impressive about Darwin and his predecessors is that they got a surprising amount right, considering how little they actually knew.

I think it's pretty clear who the unmitigated morons are here.

 

[Stripe]

It's a similarity in form now isn't it?

What? :AMR:

What you need to do is respond to what Jabin actually said instead of reinventing what he said and responding to that. :thumb:

Go back, try again. :thumb:

No actually they aren't.

Yes, actually, they are.

Telling us that internal similarities are more important is just you reinventing what has been said. Again.

Time to start responding to what has actually been said rather than inventing things to argue against. :thumb:

 

[Alate_One]

Time to start responding to what has actually been said rather than inventing things to argue against. :thumb:

K guess you're retreating into your tried and true walls against rational discussion. My work here is done.

 

[Stripe]

K guess you're retreating into your tried and true walls against rational discussion. My work here is done.

Bye. :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

:doh:No, you unmitigated moron! The entire point of the elephant shrew issue was that Darwin was wrong when he grouped them with shrews on his "tree of life." And he was. Science not only backs that up, it openly threw out that model years ago.

I do not think that is the case.

The show said that this was a shrew and it is more closely related to elephants (according to evolutionary dogma) than it is to other shrews.

 

[Lighthouse]

I do not think that is the case.

The show said that this was a shrew and it is more closely related to elephants (according to evolutionary dogma) than it is to other shrews.

It is still true that Darwin put it with other shrews and science now says he was wrong. And the information in the OP states that.

 

[Stripe]

It is still true that Darwin put it with other shrews and science now says he was wrong. And the information in the OP states that.

Scientists are allowed to be wrong. What they are not supposed to do is use their assumptions as facts or evidence.

 

[Lighthouse]

Scientists are allowed to be wrong. What they are not supposed to do is use their assumptions as facts or evidence.

Darwin was stating the assumption as a fact, though, by placing the elephant shrew where he did on his evolutionary tree of life.

 

[Jukia]

You seem to have a strange fixation with what Jesus Christ thinks of people. :think:

Interesting, since you seem not to care.

 

[gcthomas]

It is still true that Darwin put it with other shrews and science now says he was wrong. And the information in the OP states that.

Did Darwin know about elephant shrews? He certainly didn't classify them in the Origin of the Species.

It was classified in Insectivora by Wagner in 1855, in its own sub-order by Haekel 10 years later, then into its own order in 1910 by Gregory.

So it seems that you are all misquoting classifications that are a century out of date! (Insectivora was never a clade anyway, as it was a polyphyletic classification of convenience, now long abandoned.)

 

[Stripe]

Interesting, since you seem not to care.

Ah, but the fact is that I am sold out to Jesus Christ. He is Lord and savior and soon to return as King.

My advice: You should learn what it means to be in His service because you clearly have no clue.

 

[Lighthouse]

Did Darwin know about elephant shrews? He certainly didn't classify them in the Origin of the Species.

It was classified in Insectivora by Wagner in 1855, in its own sub-order by Haekel 10 years later, then into its own order in 1910 by Gregory.

So it seems that you are all misquoting classifications that are a century out of date! (Insectivora was never a clade anyway, as it was a polyphyletic classification of convenience, now long abandoned.)

Did Darwin place said shrews on his evolutionary tree of life?

 

[gcthomas]

Did Darwin place said shrews on his evolutionary tree of life?

I don't believe so: at least I have never seen anything to suggest he did.
The tree was not his, as he didn't invent the idea of evolution (Ed Hitchcock's illustrations predated Darwins by two decades, for example). He only worked out the mechanism of change. And I don't believe he had much to do with African species at all.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't believe so: at least I have never seen anything to suggest he did.
The tree was not his, as he didn't invent the idea of evolution (Ed Hitchcock's illustrations predated Darwins by two decades, for example). He only worked out the mechanism of change. And I don't believe he had much to do with African species at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(science)#Darwin.27s_tree_of_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_Shrew#Classification

 

[gcthomas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(science)#Darwin.27s_tree_of_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_Shrew#Classification

So no evidence against what I wrote then? Figures. I didn't say Darwin didn't use a tree if life. I said that he didn't invent it or the idea of evolution, and he didn't classify the elephant shrew.

Your links have nothing to add.

 

[Lighthouse]

So no evidence against what I wrote then? Figures. I didn't say Darwin didn't use a tree if life. I said that he didn't invent it or the idea of evolution, and he didn't classify the elephant shrew.

Your links have nothing to add.

Darwin's is the most recognized, because Darwin is the most recognize proponent of evolution. According to his tree of life the elephant shrew was on the same branch as other shrews.

So, Darwin put them in the wrong place.

That is all the text in the OP stated in regard to it.

So you, again, failed to criticize an error in favor of bloviation.