| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
28-12-2005, 11:02 PM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
Is Evolution science?
"Jason" wrote in message
... In article , "mel turner" wrote: "Jason" wrote in message [snip of previous bits] Elf, You must not know much about creation science or ID. I am an advocate of creation science and receive a newsletter from ICR each month. We believe that micro-evolution is a fact. That's the reason that we have 45 deer species. No. 1] The origin of new species from ancestral species is macroevolution, not microevolution. That's by the definitions used by the scientists who coined the terms. Creationists consistently misuse them. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/pa...evolution.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 2] If the origin of the entire deer family from a single common ancestral species is merely permissable "microevolution" to you, then presumably so should be the common origin of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. We 'apes' are certainly at least as closely related as moose and whitetail, caribou and muntjacs [we're probably a lot closer than most deer genera]. It wouldn't be surprising to me if humans and chimpanzees are about as close genetically as are whitetailed deer and mule deer [two closely related deer species]. If a new species of mosquitoes evolves from other mosquitoes--that's micro-evolution. No, that's _macroevolution_, by definition. Microevolution is evolutionary change within a single species. New species formation and the evolution of groups of related species [such as the mosquito family, the deer family, or the human and ape family are macroevolution. Scientists coined these terms, they're not for creationists to redefine. Actually, they don't ever define the distinction clearly enough for anyone else to use it. Can you tell us how we can tell the limits of groups that can have evolved naturally from a common ancestral species? How can you tell that it's the entire deer family in this case, and not just a genus like Cervus or Odocoileus, or a single species like the moose, or a whole group of related families like the order Artiodactyla? What are the objective criteria for recognizing these limits? Creationists rarely even pretend to have any answers. I know that it's possible for tree experts to graft a branch one fruit tree (apple tree) onto the branch of another fruit tree (peach). No, they're too far apart and that graft will fail. But yes, you can graft other more closely related plants such as peaches and plums and apricots and almonds and cherries. Or different citrus fruits on a single citrus tree. But how is this relevant? I seem to recall that one tree expert had a tree that produced several different types of fruit. It's commonplace, and examples are sold in nurseries as novelties. That's not evolution since it did not occur naturally. It's not evolution because it's not a genetic change. Genetic change in a population of organisms over generations is evolution whether it's in the wild or in human-controlled situations. It's a form of intelligent design. Yes, it's an activity done purposefully by humans. But it's irrelevant to evolution versus creationism. There's no evidence for any "intelligent design" other than by humans, certainly not any involving the origin of organisms and their features. cheers Mel, Great post. You explain your opinions really well. Thanks, I do try to be clear. I also enjoy these discussions. I had to deal with this issue a couple of weeks ago and someone referred me to a site that explained terms such as genus, species and family. I graduated from college over 20 years ago so had forgotten those terms. I majored in psychology. Sure. The actual named ranks are of course subjective and artificial, but the key thing is that there is an apparently natural nested hierarchy everywhere we look in biology. Groups within groups within groups; species within genera within families within orders, etc. It doesn't matter so much whether we call the deer group a "family" and name it "Cervidae", but it is clear that this group exists and that it contains the species that it does. It is also clear for very similar reasons that it belongs to a very well-marked higher group [one that we've called an "order" and named "Artiodactyla"] that also contains similarly well-marked groups that are clearly related to but separate from Cervidae [like the family Bovidae or the family Giraffidae]. It's also clear that this higher group "Artiodactyla" is itself a member of a much larger group of placental mammals, along with primates and bats and rodents and hedgehogs, etc. And so forth. It makes perfect sense to "evolutionists" that things always show this nested hierarchy of groups within groups within groups within groups, since it is the natural consequence of a treelike branching genealogy and history of common ancestry. Creationists don't really have an explanation for the existence of this pattern [well, other than "God must've wanted things to be that way"], but the pattern was recognized long before its evolutionary explanation was formulated. Of course, you don't have to accept the evolutionary basis for the patterns to be able to use them in making classifications-- I've known a very few scientists who were creationists for purely religious reasons, but who still did phylogenetic analyses of the apparent evolutionary relationships among the organisms they studied. The methods of analysis worked for them as well as they do for 'evolutionists'. And of course pre-Darwinian scientists still classified things in much the same groups, even if they didn't yethave the explanation for them. Recall that Linnaeus himself classified the apes together with humans. In creation science, we use the term "kind" since that it the term used in the Bible. The term that appears to me to be the closest to "kind" is "family" (eg deer "Cervidae" family). In the newsgroup talk.origins [which is where this discussion really should be moved], I used to argue with a creationist who claimed just that, but then there were others who would sometimes make the "kind" be equivalent to much smaller groups [genera or single species] or much higher groups [classes, phyla, even kingdoms apparently]. These latter creationists might say things like "but it's still a bacterium!", or "it's still an insect!". [or "So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling!" as I vaguely recall someone saying recently] So, the question remains -- how do we decide that the elusive "kind" is in fact closest to the "family", at least among hooved mammals? Why isn't it closer to the species or the genus, or the phylum or kingdom or "all life on earth"? What are the criteria for recognizing these "kinds" and their limits and boundaries? Are there reliable ways to tell if two organisms are in different "kinds" or in the same "kind", just by studying them, criteria that anybody can use and get consistent results whether they accept creationism or not? Conclusion: I don't believe that animals can evolve except within their own family. In other words, deer will remain in the Cervidae family--even if they evolve into a new species--that's micro-evolution. But since in modern cladistic classifications Cervidae is defined as the set of all the descendants of a particular common ancestor, that will always be true by definition. The same thing is true for groups higher and lower in the system. All descendants of vertebrates will belong to Vertebrata. All descendants of animals will belong to Metazoa. This doesn't limit the amount of evolutionary change possible for future descendants of Cervidae-- any future molelike or batlike or whalelike deer descendants would still belong to the group "Cervidae" by definition [not that any such changes seem likely]. Another point here is to remind you that humans and apes are also classified together in the same family Hominidae, so presumably that's one case where nearly all creationists will want to make an exception about "kind" limits. Again, new species formation is "macroevolution" by definition. Speciation is arguably the only essential macroevolutionary phenomenon. Macroevolution in even the grandest sense is reducible to the cumulative results of microevolution [= changes within one species], plus the cumulative results of speciations, plus the cumulative effects of extinction of many of the resulting branch lineages. If you want an excellent summary of creation science, visit: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/fossearl.html Thanks, but I think that if you learn more about evolution vs. "creation science" you may eventually come to feel that you've been systematically lied to and cheated. The talk.origins site etc. is also highly recommended. http://www.talkorigins.org/ http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolutio...beginners.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/o...ks-gensci.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/o...html#evolution http://evolution.berkeley.edu cheers |
|
#2
29-12-2005, 01:03 AM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
In article , "mel turner"
wrote: "Jason" wrote in message ... In article , "mel turner" wrote: "Jason" wrote in message [snip of previous bits] Elf, You must not know much about creation science or ID. I am an advocate of creation science and receive a newsletter from ICR each month. We believe that micro-evolution is a fact. That's the reason that we have 45 deer species. No. 1] The origin of new species from ancestral species is macroevolution, not microevolution. That's by the definitions used by the scientists who coined the terms. Creationists consistently misuse them. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/pa...evolution.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 2] If the origin of the entire deer family from a single common ancestral species is merely permissable "microevolution" to you, then presumably so should be the common origin of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. We 'apes' are certainly at least as closely related as moose and whitetail, caribou and muntjacs [we're probably a lot closer than most deer genera]. It wouldn't be surprising to me if humans and chimpanzees are about as close genetically as are whitetailed deer and mule deer [two closely related deer species]. If a new species of mosquitoes evolves from other mosquitoes--that's micro-evolution. No, that's _macroevolution_, by definition. Microevolution is evolutionary change within a single species. New species formation and the evolution of groups of related species [such as the mosquito family, the deer family, or the human and ape family are macroevolution. Scientists coined these terms, they're not for creationists to redefine. Actually, they don't ever define the distinction clearly enough for anyone else to use it. Can you tell us how we can tell the limits of groups that can have evolved naturally from a common ancestral species? How can you tell that it's the entire deer family in this case, and not just a genus like Cervus or Odocoileus, or a single species like the moose, or a whole group of related families like the order Artiodactyla? What are the objective criteria for recognizing these limits? Creationists rarely even pretend to have any answers. I know that it's possible for tree experts to graft a branch one fruit tree (apple tree) onto the branch of another fruit tree (peach). No, they're too far apart and that graft will fail. But yes, you can graft other more closely related plants such as peaches and plums and apricots and almonds and cherries. Or different citrus fruits on a single citrus tree. But how is this relevant? I seem to recall that one tree expert had a tree that produced several different types of fruit. It's commonplace, and examples are sold in nurseries as novelties. That's not evolution since it did not occur naturally. It's not evolution because it's not a genetic change. Genetic change in a population of organisms over generations is evolution whether it's in the wild or in human-controlled situations. It's a form of intelligent design. Yes, it's an activity done purposefully by humans. But it's irrelevant to evolution versus creationism. There's no evidence for any "intelligent design" other than by humans, certainly not any involving the origin of organisms and their features. cheers Mel, Great post. You explain your opinions really well. Thanks, I do try to be clear. I also enjoy these discussions. I had to deal with this issue a couple of weeks ago and someone referred me to a site that explained terms such as genus, species and family. I graduated from college over 20 years ago so had forgotten those terms. I majored in psychology. Sure. The actual named ranks are of course subjective and artificial, but the key thing is that there is an apparently natural nested hierarchy everywhere we look in biology. Groups within groups within groups; species within genera within families within orders, etc. It doesn't matter so much whether we call the deer group a "family" and name it "Cervidae", but it is clear that this group exists and that it contains the species that it does. It is also clear for very similar reasons that it belongs to a very well-marked higher group [one that we've called an "order" and named "Artiodactyla"] that also contains similarly well-marked groups that are clearly related to but separate from Cervidae [like the family Bovidae or the family Giraffidae]. It's also clear that this higher group "Artiodactyla" is itself a member of a much larger group of placental mammals, along with primates and bats and rodents and hedgehogs, etc. And so forth. It makes perfect sense to "evolutionists" that things always show this nested hierarchy of groups within groups within groups within groups, since it is the natural consequence of a treelike branching genealogy and history of common ancestry. Creationists don't really have an explanation for the existence of this pattern [well, other than "God must've wanted things to be that way"], but the pattern was recognized long before its evolutionary explanation was formulated. Of course, you don't have to accept the evolutionary basis for the patterns to be able to use them in making classifications-- I've known a very few scientists who were creationists for purely religious reasons, but who still did phylogenetic analyses of the apparent evolutionary relationships among the organisms they studied. The methods of analysis worked for them as well as they do for 'evolutionists'. And of course pre-Darwinian scientists still classified things in much the same groups, even if they didn't yethave the explanation for them. Recall that Linnaeus himself classified the apes together with humans. In creation science, we use the term "kind" since that it the term used in the Bible. The term that appears to me to be the closest to "kind" is "family" (eg deer "Cervidae" family). In the newsgroup talk.origins [which is where this discussion really should be moved], I used to argue with a creationist who claimed just that, but then there were others who would sometimes make the "kind" be equivalent to much smaller groups [genera or single species] or much higher groups [classes, phyla, even kingdoms apparently]. These latter creationists might say things like "but it's still a bacterium!", or "it's still an insect!". [or "So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling!" as I vaguely recall someone saying recently] So, the question remains -- how do we decide that the elusive "kind" is in fact closest to the "family", at least among hooved mammals? Why isn't it closer to the species or the genus, or the phylum or kingdom or "all life on earth"? What are the criteria for recognizing these "kinds" and their limits and boundaries? Are there reliable ways to tell if two organisms are in different "kinds" or in the same "kind", just by studying them, criteria that anybody can use and get consistent results whether they accept creationism or not? Conclusion: I don't believe that animals can evolve except within their own family. In other words, deer will remain in the Cervidae family--even if they evolve into a new species--that's micro-evolution. But since in modern cladistic classifications Cervidae is defined as the set of all the descendants of a particular common ancestor, that will always be true by definition. The same thing is true for groups higher and lower in the system. All descendants of vertebrates will belong to Vertebrata. All descendants of animals will belong to Metazoa. This doesn't limit the amount of evolutionary change possible for future descendants of Cervidae-- any future molelike or batlike or whalelike deer descendants would still belong to the group "Cervidae" by definition [not that any such changes seem likely]. Another point here is to remind you that humans and apes are also classified together in the same family Hominidae, so presumably that's one case where nearly all creationists will want to make an exception about "kind" limits. Again, new species formation is "macroevolution" by definition. Speciation is arguably the only essential macroevolutionary phenomenon. Macroevolution in even the grandest sense is reducible to the cumulative results of microevolution [= changes within one species], plus the cumulative results of speciations, plus the cumulative effects of extinction of many of the resulting branch lineages. If you want an excellent summary of creation science, visit: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/fossearl.html Thanks, but I think that if you learn more about evolution vs. "creation science" you may eventually come to feel that you've been systematically lied to and cheated. The talk.origins site etc. is also highly recommended. http://www.talkorigins.org/ http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolutio...beginners.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/o...ks-gensci.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/o...html#evolution http://evolution.berkeley.edu cheers mel, Thanks for your post. I agree that the classification that you mentioned is the best way to classify animals and plants. I recall having to learn some of the basic terms for major animal groups (eg canine, bovine, eg) while in a college biology class. I agree with most all of the classifications that have been made. I could not have done a better job. It's not perfect and one of the other posters told me that various changes (related to how plants and animals are classified) are made almost every year. The only area of disagreement is the way that humans are classified. It's my opinion that humans and apes should be in separate families due to the differences between humans and apes. I realize that evolutionists don't agree with me related to this issue. I realize that humans and apes will continue to remain in the same family since evolutionists control the classification process--Having apes and humans in the same family is in harmony with evolution theory. Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
|
#3
31-12-2005, 11:30 PM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
"Jason" wrote in message
... In article , "mel turner" wrote: [snip of much previous] Thanks for your post. I agree that the classification that you mentioned is the best way to classify animals and plants. I recall having to learn some of the basic terms for major animal groups (eg canine, bovine, eg) while in a college biology class. I agree with most all of the classifications that have been made. I could not have done a better job. It's not perfect and one of the other posters told me that various changes (related to how plants and animals are classified) are made almost every year. The only area of disagreement is the way that humans are classified. It's my opinion that humans and apes should be in separate families due to the differences between humans and apes. But the point is that modern classifications aren't being based on just the perceived amount of difference between organisms, but on the relative recency of common ancestry as inferred from the detailed patterns of shared features. For creationists, that can be read as "_apparent_ recency of common ancestry". The methods of study and analysis will work for them too, even if they don't accept the evolutionary explanation for their results. The nested patterns are evidently real, regardless of their explanation. Yes, humans have become strikingly different in various ways from all their living relatives, but these differences don't change our pattern of ["apparent"] relationships. Humans and chimps and bonobos seem to form a group of closest living relatives exclusive of gorillas, and humans, chimps/bonobos, and gorillas are all closer to one another in turn than we all are to orangutans. We and all the other great apes are nevertheless closer to one another than we all are to gibbons. If one were to recognize an "ape family" for all hominoid primates other than humans, or just for the other "great apes", some members of that family [e.g., chimpanzees] will be closer kin [genealogically, and/or genetically] to something outside that "family" [i.e., us] than they are to any of the other members of their "family". It kind of violates the whole idea of trying to classify closest relatives together in the same groups. I realize that evolutionists don't agree with me related to this issue. Actually, your disagreement is pretty irrelevant to evolution vs. creationism. "Creationist" or pre-evolutionary biologists such as Linnaeus also classified humans and apes together, and before the current trend toward strictly genealogical classification ["cladistics"], there were in fact plenty of evolutionary biologists would also have agreed with you that humans had become "different enough" from their ape relatives that they should be classified in a separate family. The old distinction between "Pongidae" and Hominidae was a matter of "grade inflation" as it were, to emphasize our sense of our specialness among the other "apes". [Now, if it was a chimpanzee or an orangutan that was doing the classifying they might see _their_ species as the only truly special one...] I realize that humans and apes will continue to remain in the same family since evolutionists control the classification process--Having apes and humans in the same family is in harmony with evolution theory. No, it's in harmony with the scientific evidence, and with principles of phylogenetic classification. Again, "creationist" biologists have also put humans and apes together, and "evolutionist" ones have often artificially separated them in the past. Further, even if you do want to put humans in a separate family [presumably along with the various fossil "ape men"?], you'd probably still put us together with apes in higher groups like Hominoidea, Anthropoidea, Primates, Eutheria, Mammalia, Tetrapoda, Vertebrata, Chordata, etc.. There seems little point to fussing about the Family rank, if you accept all these other groups. cheers |
|
#4
01-01-2006, 01:03 AM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
In article , "mel turner"
wrote: "Jason" wrote in message ... In article , "mel turner" wrote: [snip of much previous] Thanks for your post. I agree that the classification that you mentioned is the best way to classify animals and plants. I recall having to learn some of the basic terms for major animal groups (eg canine, bovine, eg) while in a college biology class. I agree with most all of the classifications that have been made. I could not have done a better job. It's not perfect and one of the other posters told me that various changes (related to how plants and animals are classified) are made almost every year. The only area of disagreement is the way that humans are classified. It's my opinion that humans and apes should be in separate families due to the differences between humans and apes. But the point is that modern classifications aren't being based on just the perceived amount of difference between organisms, but on the relative recency of common ancestry as inferred from the detailed patterns of shared features. For creationists, that can be read as "_apparent_ recency of common ancestry". The methods of study and analysis will work for them too, even if they don't accept the evolutionary explanation for their results. The nested patterns are evidently real, regardless of their explanation. Yes, humans have become strikingly different in various ways from all their living relatives, but these differences don't change our pattern of ["apparent"] relationships. Humans and chimps and bonobos seem to form a group of closest living relatives exclusive of gorillas, and humans, chimps/bonobos, and gorillas are all closer to one another in turn than we all are to orangutans. We and all the other great apes are nevertheless closer to one another than we all are to gibbons. If one were to recognize an "ape family" for all hominoid primates other than humans, or just for the other "great apes", some members of that family [e.g., chimpanzees] will be closer kin [genealogically, and/or genetically] to something outside that "family" [i.e., us] than they are to any of the other members of their "family". It kind of violates the whole idea of trying to classify closest relatives together in the same groups. I realize that evolutionists don't agree with me related to this issue. Actually, your disagreement is pretty irrelevant to evolution vs. creationism. "Creationist" or pre-evolutionary biologists such as Linnaeus also classified humans and apes together, and before the current trend toward strictly genealogical classification ["cladistics"], there were in fact plenty of evolutionary biologists would also have agreed with you that humans had become "different enough" from their ape relatives that they should be classified in a separate family. The old distinction between "Pongidae" and Hominidae was a matter of "grade inflation" as it were, to emphasize our sense of our specialness among the other "apes". [Now, if it was a chimpanzee or an orangutan that was doing the classifying they might see _their_ species as the only truly special one...] I realize that humans and apes will continue to remain in the same family since evolutionists control the classification process--Having apes and humans in the same family is in harmony with evolution theory. No, it's in harmony with the scientific evidence, and with principles of phylogenetic classification. Again, "creationist" biologists have also put humans and apes together, and "evolutionist" ones have often artificially separated them in the past. Further, even if you do want to put humans in a separate family [presumably along with the various fossil "ape men"?], you'd probably still put us together with apes in higher groups like Hominoidea, Anthropoidea, Primates, Eutheria, Mammalia, Tetrapoda, Vertebrata, Chordata, etc.. There seems little point to fussing about the Family rank, if you accept all these other groups. cheers Mel, Thanks for your interesting post. Have a happy new year, Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
|
#5
01-01-2006, 04:30 AM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
|
|
#7
01-01-2006, 03:06 PM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:38:49 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote in : In , David Jensen wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:03:07 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism (Jason) wrote in : In article , "mel turner" wrote: "Jason" wrote in message ... In article , "mel turner" wrote: [snip of much previous] Thanks for your post. I agree that the classification that you mentioned is the best way to classify animals and plants. I recall having to learn some of the basic terms for major animal groups (eg canine, bovine, eg) while in a college biology class. I agree with most all of the classifications that have been made. I could not have done a better job. It's not perfect and one of the other posters told me that various changes (related to how plants and animals are classified) are made almost every year. The only area of disagreement is the way that humans are classified. It's my opinion that humans and apes should be in separate families due to the differences between humans and apes. But the point is that modern classifications aren't being based on just the perceived amount of difference between organisms, but on the relative recency of common ancestry as inferred from the detailed patterns of shared features. For creationists, that can be read as "_apparent_ recency of common ancestry". The methods of study and analysis will work for them too, even if they don't accept the evolutionary explanation for their results. The nested patterns are evidently real, regardless of their explanation. Yes, humans have become strikingly different in various ways from all their living relatives, but these differences don't change our pattern of ["apparent"] relationships. Humans and chimps and bonobos seem to form a group of closest living relatives exclusive of gorillas, and humans, chimps/bonobos, and gorillas are all closer to one another in turn than we all are to orangutans. We and all the other great apes are nevertheless closer to one another than we all are to gibbons. If one were to recognize an "ape family" for all hominoid primates other than humans, or just for the other "great apes", some members of that family [e.g., chimpanzees] will be closer kin [genealogically, and/or genetically] to something outside that "family" [i.e., us] than they are to any of the other members of their "family". It kind of violates the whole idea of trying to classify closest relatives together in the same groups. I realize that evolutionists don't agree with me related to this issue. Actually, your disagreement is pretty irrelevant to evolution vs. creationism. "Creationist" or pre-evolutionary biologists such as Linnaeus also classified humans and apes together, and before the current trend toward strictly genealogical classification ["cladistics"], there were in fact plenty of evolutionary biologists would also have agreed with you that humans had become "different enough" from their ape relatives that they should be classified in a separate family. The old distinction between "Pongidae" and Hominidae was a matter of "grade inflation" as it were, to emphasize our sense of our specialness among the other "apes". [Now, if it was a chimpanzee or an orangutan that was doing the classifying they might see _their_ species as the only truly special one...] I realize that humans and apes will continue to remain in the same family since evolutionists control the classification process--Having apes and humans in the same family is in harmony with evolution theory. No, it's in harmony with the scientific evidence, and with principles of phylogenetic classification. Again, "creationist" biologists have also put humans and apes together, and "evolutionist" ones have often artificially separated them in the past. Further, even if you do want to put humans in a separate family [presumably along with the various fossil "ape men"?], you'd probably still put us together with apes in higher groups like Hominoidea, Anthropoidea, Primates, Eutheria, Mammalia, Tetrapoda, Vertebrata, Chordata, etc.. There seems little point to fussing about the Family rank, if you accept all these other groups. cheers Mel, Thanks for your interesting post. Ah, that's Jason's patented brushoff. Jason will repeat his false claim as if Mel's post had never happened, yet he wonders why he is called a liar. I'm not so sure it's lying so much as he's so far in over his head, he's not even sure what's going on... I do understand that, but I have noticed that Jason has a pattern of being unable to remember correctly any post that he called 'interesting'. It is possible that it does not mean what he thinks it means. |
|
#8
01-01-2006, 03:24 PM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
Jason has finally gone back on his meds and calmed down!!!
"David Jensen" wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:38:49 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote in : In , David Jensen wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:03:07 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism (Jason) wrote in : In article , "mel turner" wrote: "Jason" wrote in message ... In article , "mel turner" wrote: [snip of much previous] Thanks for your post. I agree that the classification that you mentioned is the best way to classify animals and plants. I recall having to learn some of the basic terms for major animal groups (eg canine, bovine, eg) while in a college biology class. I agree with most all of the classifications that have been made. I could not have done a better job. It's not perfect and one of the other posters told me that various changes (related to how plants and animals are classified) are made almost every year. The only area of disagreement is the way that humans are classified. It's my opinion that humans and apes should be in separate families due to the differences between humans and apes. But the point is that modern classifications aren't being based on just the perceived amount of difference between organisms, but on the relative recency of common ancestry as inferred from the detailed patterns of shared features. For creationists, that can be read as "_apparent_ recency of common ancestry". The methods of study and analysis will work for them too, even if they don't accept the evolutionary explanation for their results. The nested patterns are evidently real, regardless of their explanation. Yes, humans have become strikingly different in various ways from all their living relatives, but these differences don't change our pattern of ["apparent"] relationships. Humans and chimps and bonobos seem to form a group of closest living relatives exclusive of gorillas, and humans, chimps/bonobos, and gorillas are all closer to one another in turn than we all are to orangutans. We and all the other great apes are nevertheless closer to one another than we all are to gibbons. If one were to recognize an "ape family" for all hominoid primates other than humans, or just for the other "great apes", some members of that family [e.g., chimpanzees] will be closer kin [genealogically, and/or genetically] to something outside that "family" [i.e., us] than they are to any of the other members of their "family". It kind of violates the whole idea of trying to classify closest relatives together in the same groups. I realize that evolutionists don't agree with me related to this issue. Actually, your disagreement is pretty irrelevant to evolution vs. creationism. "Creationist" or pre-evolutionary biologists such as Linnaeus also classified humans and apes together, and before the current trend toward strictly genealogical classification ["cladistics"], there were in fact plenty of evolutionary biologists would also have agreed with you that humans had become "different enough" from their ape relatives that they should be classified in a separate family. The old distinction between "Pongidae" and Hominidae was a matter of "grade inflation" as it were, to emphasize our sense of our specialness among the other "apes". [Now, if it was a chimpanzee or an orangutan that was doing the classifying they might see _their_ species as the only truly special one...] I realize that humans and apes will continue to remain in the same family since evolutionists control the classification process--Having apes and humans in the same family is in harmony with evolution theory. No, it's in harmony with the scientific evidence, and with principles of phylogenetic classification. Again, "creationist" biologists have also put humans and apes together, and "evolutionist" ones have often artificially separated them in the past. Further, even if you do want to put humans in a separate family [presumably along with the various fossil "ape men"?], you'd probably still put us together with apes in higher groups like Hominoidea, Anthropoidea, Primates, Eutheria, Mammalia, Tetrapoda, Vertebrata, Chordata, etc.. There seems little point to fussing about the Family rank, if you accept all these other groups. cheers Mel, Thanks for your interesting post. Ah, that's Jason's patented brushoff. Jason will repeat his false claim as if Mel's post had never happened, yet he wonders why he is called a liar. I'm not so sure it's lying so much as he's so far in over his head, he's not even sure what's going on... I do understand that, but I have noticed that Jason has a pattern of being unable to remember correctly any post that he called 'interesting'. It is possible that it does not mean what he thinks it means. |
|
#9
01-01-2006, 06:30 PM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
In article , David Jensen
wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:03:07 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism (Jason) wrote in : In article , "mel turner" wrote: "Jason" wrote in message ... In article , "mel turner" wrote: [snip of much previous] Thanks for your post. I agree that the classification that you mentioned is the best way to classify animals and plants. I recall having to learn some of the basic terms for major animal groups (eg canine, bovine, eg) while in a college biology class. I agree with most all of the classifications that have been made. I could not have done a better job. It's not perfect and one of the other posters told me that various changes (related to how plants and animals are classified) are made almost every year. The only area of disagreement is the way that humans are classified. It's my opinion that humans and apes should be in separate families due to the differences between humans and apes. But the point is that modern classifications aren't being based on just the perceived amount of difference between organisms, but on the relative recency of common ancestry as inferred from the detailed patterns of shared features. For creationists, that can be read as "_apparent_ recency of common ancestry". The methods of study and analysis will work for them too, even if they don't accept the evolutionary explanation for their results. The nested patterns are evidently real, regardless of their explanation. Yes, humans have become strikingly different in various ways from all their living relatives, but these differences don't change our pattern of ["apparent"] relationships. Humans and chimps andA herd of animals antelopes are placed on a island that does not have any deer and are allowed to remain there for 10 million years. If those antelopes evolved into a unique type of animal that could not produce offspring with normal antelopes or other deer that would be an example of macro-evolution. seem to form a group of closest living relatives exclusive of gorillas, and humans, chimps/bonobos, and gorillas are all closer to one another in turn than we all are to orangutans. We and all the other great apes are nevertheless closer to one another than we all are to gibbons. If one were to recognize an "ape family" for all hominoid primates other than humans, or just for the other "great apes", some members of that family [e.g., chimpanzees] will be closer kin [genealogically, and/or genetically] to something outside that "family" [i.e., us] than they are to any of the other members of their "family". It kind of violates the whole idea of trying to classify closest relatives together in the same groups. I realize that evolutionists don't agree with me related to this issue. Actually, your disagreement is pretty irrelevant to evolution vs. creationism. "Creationist" or pre-evolutionary biologists such as Linnaeus also classified humans and apes together, and before the current trend toward strictly genealogical classification ["cladistics"], there were in fact plenty of evolutionary biologists would also have agreed with you that humans had become "different enough" from their ape relatives that they should be classified in a separate family. The old distinction between "Pongidae" and Hominidae was a matter of "grade inflation" as it were, to emphasize our sense of our specialness among the other "apes". [Now, if it was a chimpanzee or an orangutan that was doing the classifying they might see _their_ species as the only truly special one...] I realize that humans and apes will continue to remain in the same family since evolutionists control the classification process--Having apes and humans in the same family is in harmony with evolution theory. No, it's in harmony with the scientific evidence, and with principles of phylogenetic classification. Again, "creationist" biologists have also put humans and apes together, and "evolutionist" ones have often artificially separated them in the past. Further, even if you do want to put humans in a separate family [presumably along with the various fossil "ape men"?], you'd probably still put us together with apes in higher groups like Hominoidea, Anthropoidea, Primates, Eutheria, Mammalia, Tetrapoda, Vertebrata, Chordata, etc.. There seems little point to fussing about the Family rank, if you accept all these other groups. cheers Mel, Thanks for your interesting post. Ah, that's Jason's patented brushoff. Jason will repeat his false claim as if Mel's post had never happened, yet he wonders why he is called a liar. Have a happy new year, Jason It was an interesting post. I found out some information about chimps and bonobos that I had not seen before. Have a happy new year, Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
|
#10
02-01-2006, 02:21 AM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote in message ... I'm not so sure it's lying so much as he's so far in over his head, he's not even sure what's going on... That's my vote - he's got no clue what he's writing. He probably googles the terms and tries to read something about them and then post as if he actually understands it. |
|
#11
02-01-2006, 02:23 AM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
"Jason" wrote in message ... It was an interesting post. I found out some information about chimps and bonobos that I had not seen before. To have such a strong opinion as you have about evolution being wrong - there should be *very little* about chimps that you haven't seen. |
|
#12
05-01-2006, 07:38 PM
posted to alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,bionet.plants
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Evolution science?
"Cereus-validus-..........." wrote in message t... Jason has finally gone back on his meds and calmed down!!! I'd rather deal with being as hyper as a mouse on meth than take meds that made me as dumb as Jason. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Gardening - Natural Science NOT rocket science.. | Edible Gardening | |||
| evolution of the deciduous habit as a response to sticky snow | Plant Science | |||
| The evolution of cacti | Plant Science | |||
| The evolution of plants: some help please. | Plant Science | |||
| The evolution of plants: some help please. | Plant Science | |||
Linear Mode
