Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 17/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 4 of 8 (844060)
11-24-2018 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by caffeine
11-19-2018 4:27 PM


It's actually remarkable how close the old boys got just by looking at the outside of beasts and drawing them.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by caffeine, posted 11-19-2018 4:27 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by caffeine, posted 11-26-2018 5:30 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 7 of 8 (844161)
11-26-2018 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by caffeine
11-26-2018 5:30 AM


caffeine writes:
Well they didn’t really get anywhere by looking at the outside, of course.... Traditional classifications based on just looking at the outside of beasts tend to be either blindingly obvious (you don’t need special training to figure out that lions and tigers are both cats); or wrong (such as putting pangolins with xenarthrans because they vaguely resemble armadillos).
Don't chuck it away that quickly; for example the keys that entomologists still use to distinguish between seemingly identiical species of hairy flying things were all built on detailed drawings but sure, just counting legs and wings narrows things down farly quickly.
Of course the more we are able to see, the more complicated things become but it's still quite important to point out that the discovery of DNA and molecular genetics fully supports the original theory which was built primarily on observation and lists of parts.
It's obvious that it should be that way but it didn't actually have to be. In the human world we build houses out of radically different materials and use different methods than cars; given the task, we probably would not make a an ant using the same building blocks as a whale a tree or a mushroom. The discovery of DNA could easily have disproved the ToE, but it didn't.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by caffeine, posted 11-26-2018 5:30 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by caffeine, posted 11-26-2018 1:29 PM Tangle 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