Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 646 of 830 (873873)
03-20-2020 6:42 PM


The Bird Kind is the point
Without the chart to look at I don't know what anyone is talking about and don't remember my own impressions when I saw it. I vaguely remember I had a question about how the birds were categorized, which indluded something about the way the thrushes were separated from other birds, but other questions as well. Since my interest is in figuring out how to define the Kind of Biblical Creationism, at the moment the Bird Kind, I'm certainly not going to be connecting birds with reptiles.
Cheers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by Meddle, posted 03-20-2020 11:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 649 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2020 2:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 647 of 830 (873893)
03-20-2020 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by Faith
03-20-2020 6:42 PM


Re: The Bird Kind is the point
This is Linnaeus 1735 classification of animals. Aves is the second column which is then divided into seven orders, with the seventh being the Passeriformes that is further subdivided into ten genera, the second being Turdus (the thrushes). Hope it helps you see what others are referring to.
Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.
Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Faith, posted 03-20-2020 6:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by Faith, posted 03-21-2020 12:09 AM Meddle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 648 of 830 (873894)
03-21-2020 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 647 by Meddle
03-20-2020 11:46 PM


Re: The Bird Kind is the point
Thank you very much. Wish it helped. My eyes are getting so bad I can't read that thing at all. Just a blur. There is a procedure that might help but I'm not going to any doctors for a while if I can help it. Maybe it was a different version of the chart I saw anyway. Thanks again but I've got to give up on this for now..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by Meddle, posted 03-20-2020 11:46 PM Meddle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 649 of 830 (873896)
03-21-2020 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by Faith
03-20-2020 6:42 PM


Re: The Bird Kind is the point
quote:
Without the chart to look at I don't know what anyone is talking about and don't remember my own impressions when I saw it.
You’re the one who raised the issue. If you can’t remember enough to talk about it that was rather a waste of time,
quote:
I vaguely remember I had a question about how the birds were categorized, which indluded something about the way the thrushes were separated from other birds...
The thrushes are a genus within the birds - and within the order Passeres. Like all other taxonomic divisions they have a set of traits in common that are not fully shared with birds outside the genus (and another set of traits that place them in Passeres).
quote:
Since my interest is in figuring out how to define the Kind of Biblical Creationism, at the moment the Bird Kind, I'm certainly not going to be connecting birds with reptiles.
And there is your anti-scientific attitude again. Since you are only interested in claiming to be right you decide to ignore the problems. That only gets you to the level of bad apologetics. You’ll never produce a worthwhile argument that way, just a deception to fool the ignorant and the gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Faith, posted 03-20-2020 6:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 650 of 830 (873917)
03-21-2020 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


The best evidence for evolution in my opinion, is probably homological features, in that it would be explanative sense that a common ancestor would then explain why all of the bones in say the hand (pentadactyl pattern) would all then be shared.
As a creationist I don't believe this is actually evidence of evolution, it would only count as indirect evidence, and can be explained by ID, easily anyway.
The best evidence for evolution considering what it claims happened, would be direct evidence on the same scale of the claim itself.
I wrote more about this in chapter three of my, "book" for want of a better word; The chapter is here if you scroll down.
Bot Verification
(I also do not see the issue of evolution in simple terms, and later on give Darwin credit for the SOMEWHAT explanative power of evolution.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 10:21 AM wardog25 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 651 of 830 (873919)
03-21-2020 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 645 by caffeine
03-20-2020 5:55 PM


Re: To the Taxonomic classification of BIRDS, add DINOSAURS
That's part of my comment on the evolution of birds.
I'd like to know why you think it is meaningless.

Getting back to the thread topic, the fact that birds fall into nested taxonomic hierarchies is strong evidence for evolution, both through analysis of morphology of fossils and through genetics/DNA analysis.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : topic

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by caffeine, posted 03-20-2020 5:55 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 652 by caffeine, posted 03-21-2020 6:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 652 of 830 (873949)
03-21-2020 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 651 by RAZD
03-21-2020 10:42 AM


Re: To the Taxonomic classification of BIRDS, add DINOSAURS
That's part of my comment on the evolution of birds.
Apologies then. I would have worded it a bit more delicately if I'd realised they were your words.
I the context where you put them, I don't see how they convey any information. We don't have anything like the fine-grained knowledge of early bird evolution that we do of early Homo, on account of the timescales involved. Interbreeding between long-separated populations may well have been involved in the origin of birds. It likely was, since this kind of thing seems ubiquitous. But it's not something special to the origin of birds; nor does any evidence exist to suggest it's particularly relevant in this case compared to, say, the origin of snakes or the origin of iguanas.
Placed where it was, it read like a nonsequitur more likely to confuse and distract the reader then to provide them with any useful knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2020 10:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 653 of 830 (874823)
04-10-2020 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Faith
03-16-2020 10:57 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
If a population diverges into two different species that is something that creationists say doesn't happen, isn't it? If you're now saying a population diverging into two species is "microevolution" then what do you really mean by "micro" and "macro" evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Faith, posted 03-16-2020 10:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 654 by Faith, posted 04-10-2020 9:03 PM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 654 of 830 (874827)
04-10-2020 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Sarah Bellum
04-10-2020 8:38 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
They are variations or subspecies, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 8:38 PM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 655 of 830 (874828)
04-10-2020 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
01-11-2020 9:21 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Do you consider that two populations that cannot interbreed (like the horse and the donkey producing sterile offspring, for example) could still be the same species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 9:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by Faith, posted 04-10-2020 9:06 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 656 of 830 (874829)
04-10-2020 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 655 by Sarah Bellum
04-10-2020 9:04 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 9:04 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 9:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 657 of 830 (874830)
04-10-2020 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by Faith
04-10-2020 9:06 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Why? It's not the only thing used to distinguish species (organisms that reproduce asexually obviously cannot use it as a criterion) but don't you think it shows a very significant difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Faith, posted 04-10-2020 9:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 04-10-2020 11:18 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 658 of 830 (874833)
04-10-2020 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
01-11-2020 9:15 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
We see many organisms that are far apart. You could never breed with an oak tree, for example. And we see many organisms that are close together, such as dogs, wolves and coyotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 01-11-2020 9:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by Faith, posted 04-10-2020 11:20 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 659 of 830 (874840)
04-10-2020 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 657 by Sarah Bellum
04-10-2020 9:12 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I think there is probably a DNA definition that would define a Species but I realized recently that I go by morphology in defining it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 9:12 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 663 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-11-2020 9:23 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 660 of 830 (874841)
04-10-2020 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by Sarah Bellum
04-10-2020 9:22 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Dogs wolves and coyotes can be identified as the same species by morphology. I think that is how Species need to be defined until there is a clear genetic definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2020 9:22 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2020 9:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 662 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-11-2020 9:20 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024