Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,417 Year: 6,674/9,624 Month: 14/238 Week: 14/22 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 27 of 154 (818475)
08-29-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
08-29-2017 5:53 AM


Be objective, trust the word of no one and question everything.
"Trust the word of no one..." except for your word of course. You have certainly come across as far less than objective and simply questioning evolution. You have come across as a pretender, we've seen it many times before (as has been explained). If you want to be taken seriously, ask serious questions, which so far you haven't. Be more specific. You want evidence of transitional species in the fossil record... ask about that. Serious questions, questions that really deserve answering are specific, not vague "everything is wrong and untrustworthy" type questions. How could "everything" be addressed in one post when its not even clear what you object to? You object because a few people made videos that question the ToE? People make videos about EVERYTHING - all kinds of wacky ideas... that doesn't make them worthy of scrutiny.
To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post that begins with Newton
RAZD didn't even post in this thread.
you then end it all be insulting me, claiming I'm some sort of undercover creationist.
You do have the earmarks of an undercover creationist. Do you think throwing a couple of F-bombs around eliminates that suspicion?
People I know in biology tell me that any hypothesis formed by a student must comply to the theory of evolution regardless of the strength in the data, facts or evidence before them.
Total BS. I am a biologist and can tell you this is just not true. In science, the evidence leads where it leads. A hypothesis must be testable, it must be measurable, it must be reasonable. If your hypothesis for how a particular cell process came to be was "It was intelligently designed!" well of course that will be rejected as a valid hypothesis... it is not testable, measurable or reasonable. If the reasoning behind why that would not be a valid hypothesis is not clear, that could make a good discussion. Propose the discussion topic.
If you were ill and went to the doctor and he said "I think the germ theory of disease is just a religion and I don't believe it, so I am going to treat you for bad humors." You would get out of there, wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you allow a doctor to treat you with his "alternative theory of disease"?
Cellular biology is apparently waiting to advance but are held back by this Neo Darwanistic regime along with other fields of science too.
Source please? Was it Jonathan Wells? lol
I feel I must question everything and trust no one.
No problem, but throwing around accusations is not the same as questioning.
When there are so many people opposing ToE with good arguments that aren't countered very well you have to ask yourself.
1. There are not "so many people" opposing the ToE, just a small minority, usually religious zealots.
2. The arguments have been countered, you are just apparently not aware of that. That's what you could get from a place like this. Take the chip off your shoulder and loosen up the combative attitude and ask specific and focused questions.
Anyway Im off on a snow trip now and will most likely not re visit this site so best of luck to all (even the haters)
You have come across as the hater, as far as I am concerned... and you haven't even tried to engage in a discussion. I don't really care if you don't come back, that's up to you. But it's kinda crappy to blame everyone else for your short comings in the ability to have a productive scientific discussion.
Good luck to you as well.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM Porkncheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2017 2:16 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 37 of 154 (818503)
08-29-2017 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
08-29-2017 3:29 PM


I'll take a few minutes to say a few parting words classifying your comments as true, false, misleading and/or ignorant and/or confused,
Let's take inventory then.
false: 15
ignorant: 5
confused: 3
misleading: 4
true: 4
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
The only thing missing was an obsession with logical fallacies.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-29-2017 3:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 139 of 154 (819114)
09-06-2017 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by RAZD
09-05-2017 10:05 PM


Re: dendrogram corrections
RAZD, great job on the tree. I am impressed by your coding ability!
I just wanted to clarify something... I think you understand it, but how you phrased it made me feel it necessary to clarify.
With this nomenclature we have a Hom... designation for each of the major common ancestors in the bush path to human, and I believe that was the intent when these labels were (fairly recently) developed.
Hominoidea - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the baboons (Cercopithecidae)
Hominoidae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the gibbons (Hylobatidae)
Hominidae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the orangutans (Ponginae)
Homininae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the gorillas (Gorillinae)
Hominini - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the chimpanzees (Panni)
Now I may be wrong, but that arrangement makes sense to me. They are, after all, just labels arbitrarily assigned for clarity of discussion.
Those names indicate taxonomic rank, not ancestral identification.
names ending in "-oidae" are superfamily (or epifamily)
names ending in "-idae" are family
ending in "-inae" are subfamily
ending in "-ini" are tribe
So essentially they are the names of the clades and everything after the name are a part of that clade and "Homin" is the base word.
Taxonomic rank endings
The terms ‘hominid’ and ‘hominin’ are frequently used in human evolution.
New definitions
The most commonly used recent definitions are:
Hominid — the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).
Hominin — the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).
I believe that Hominid is not an official taxonomic rank, but represents a clade that includes those groups listed.
Hominin, however, is an official taxonomic rank
While this would imply all three share a single common ancestor

├─Adapiformes X
├─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
and that would be misleading.
No, not misleading. This would indicate an unresolved polytomy which simply means that it is uncertain which branching order would be the best hypothesis. It's possible that all three share a single common ancestor, but it is more likely that we just don't have enough information to resolve the relationships.
What's "misleading" or confusing is that the branch tips you show in this example include different ranks. Adapiformes is an infraorder, Darwinius is a genus, and Haporhini is a suborder, so these should not resolve in a trichotomy. But I suspect you only used the names as examples maybe?
-------
The thing I find confusing about how your cladogram is depicted, is that taxonomic ranks look like they are at terminals rather than on branches. I see you tried to duplicate the dendrogram in your source, but there is some odd things happening and I don't think it is very clear. It a difficult tree to interpret.
For example, I think Adapiformes should be a rank under Strepsirrhini with Darwinius under Adapiformes and Haporhini should be under Primates. Getting the taxonomic names to look more like they are on the branches and not the terminals would go a long way to being better able to see the relationships and solve some of the problems like this.
But again, good job on the tree, I just think it is really hard to see the relationships.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : clarity

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2017 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2017 8:02 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 146 of 154 (819313)
09-09-2017 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
09-07-2017 8:02 AM


Re: dendrogram corrections
Where I get confused is
Hominoidea and
Hominoidae
Is there another taxonomic rank here? above superfamily?
Sorry, I made a typo there.
-oidea is the correct spelling for superfamily
-oidae is used for epifamily (although I 'm not sure how often this is used. It seems as if in cladistics, they want a name for just about every clade, so that often requires additional ranks than what we are traditionally used to. )
Are you saying the top should be
Archonta

└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ ├─Lemuriformes
│ │ ├─Indrioidea MH
│ │ └─Lemuroidea
│ └─Adapiformes X
│ └─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
First, I want to say that I am not any kind of authority on Primate evolution. Where my "expertise" lies is in phylogenetics and in reading/developing trees (I put expertise in quotes because I don't really consider myself an expert, I am still learning... maybe a better word would be "skill" but even that might be exaggeration )
I like to use the Tree of Life Project (ToL) as a pretty good source for the latest taxonomic classifications. They may not include the most recent updates or the more controversial rearrangements, but they are pretty close. Taxonomy is very contentious (and the human tree even more so) and taxonomists argue and argue about their particular view until a general consensus is reached and then most researchers will adopt the consensus view, but it can take a while til the literature reflects the newest changes. With the advent of molecular methodology and now with deep sequencing techniques, the taxonomic world has gone crazy and there are many competing views on particular groups.
But yes, I see that as an accurate depiction of that section. Here's why... This depiction shows Strepsirhini and Haplorhini as sister taxa, not descendants of one another. The lemurs and Adapiformes are descendants or branches within the Strepsirhini, not associated with Haplorhini. I am not sure about the arrangement you have under Strepsirhini, but it is close enough for this project, since it is not really the focus.
This is in accordance with ToL - Primates. Haplorhini is not listed on the ToL page, but it is the group that includes Tarsiers, apes and new world monkeys. The branch leading to Platyhini and Catarrhini is the Simians or Simiiformes. On your chart it is listed as Anthropoidea.
These names are controversial as to which has precedence. The root Simi is the oldest but the rank name Anthropoidea is older than the name Simiiformes (by 2 years). However, Simiiformes uses the proper rank suffix "-formes" while "-oidea" is supposed to be used for superfamily. So... I personally would favor Simiiformes as the proper name for the rank.
You can see the kind of controversies that taxonomists argue about - name precedence and conformation to naming conventions is always a hot issue.
I have more comments further down the tree, but I will have to come back to it later. Maybe we could move this discussion to a new thread? Idk, there doesn't seem to be much going on here right now, but I wouldn't want to clog up Porkin's thread with knowledge , but that's up to you. I think this could be a really great tree (actually it already is, it just needs some clarifications).
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2017 8:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2017 1:03 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 149 by caffeine, posted 09-11-2017 12:49 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 151 of 154 (819471)
09-11-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by caffeine
09-11-2017 12:49 PM


Re: dendrogram corrections
I don't think ToL is a good source for the latest classifications.
Actually, now that I spent some time there on this project I would have to agree they are not an up to date source for hominid classification.
I retract my support for ToL.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by caffeine, posted 09-11-2017 12:49 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024