Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 307 of 331 (654426)
03-01-2012 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Chuck77
03-01-2012 1:35 AM


Chuck writes:
It doesn't seem like the easiest thing to do.
it's not, that's why tens of thousands of taxonomists over hundreds of years have dedicated their lives to it; often just to focus one group of animals.
It's also, terribly, terribly tedious unless you're turned on by counting the number segments in worms or have a mind like a librarian with a compulsive, obsessive disorder. (You can learn from this that taxonomy wasn't my favourite subject.)
I think the point to note here Chuck, is that all this work has already been done and re-classifying all known animals and plants isn't something that an individual can ever hope to do no matter how driven.
It's great to see you taking a real interest in the natural world though.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Chuck77, posted 03-01-2012 1:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 310 of 331 (655958)
03-15-2012 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Chuck77
03-15-2012 3:39 AM


Chuck77 writes:
A little yes, but I don't know how a nested hierarchy is falsifiable
It's not really falsifiable in the way we talk about the way a theory or hypothesis is falsifiable Nested hierarchies aren't theories - they're observations of how the natural world is organised.
If nested hierarchies didn't exist though, or if we found a animal like a horse but with - to be ludicrous - wheels where feet should be, or wings, or an exoskeleton, it would totally disprove common descent which IS a prediction of the ToE.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Chuck77, posted 03-15-2012 3:39 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Chuck77, posted 03-15-2012 4:43 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 313 of 331 (655965)
03-15-2012 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Chuck77
03-15-2012 4:43 AM


Chuck77 writes:
Ok, so this seems like what you are saying. If a horse had wheels as legs, this hierarchy would be falsified - so to speak.
Nested hierarchies wouldn't be falsified, they just wouldn't exist :-)
Nested hierarchies are simply the demonstration that one thing evolved from another - like in a family tree. Finding a horse with wheels or wings or that layer eggs, would be like finding a three legged martian as your great grandfather - it doesn't fit in the tree; doesn't belong.
If all of life couldn't be categorised into families with similar features BUT WITH NO FEATURES FOUND IN NON-RELATED GROUPS (the nested hierarchy) then common descent could not possibly be true.
What's the big deal? Why is this at odds with special creation? What would special creation predict, wheels?
The big deal is that nested hierarchies prove common descent.
And, incidentally, they show that a designer is not necessary to produce the variety of life that we find on our planet.
It also shows that if a designer was involved, then he made his design look like it happened via a process of evolution - not by design as a human designer would do it. (A human designer might well put wings on a horse or wheels on a pig - he'd take the best designs he had for say, an eye, and use that in every animal needing an eye - he wouldn't use sub-optimised parts if he had a better model; which is what we find in nature.)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Chuck77, posted 03-15-2012 4:43 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Chuck77, posted 03-15-2012 5:23 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 316 of 331 (655972)
03-15-2012 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Chuck77
03-15-2012 5:23 AM


Evolution happens by a series of small changes over time. The first wing would not have been a fully functional aerodynamic artefact - it would have been a slight modification of something that already existed. So why didn't the designer just make a fully formed wing? A human designer would if he could.
Of course if you believe that the world is 6,000 years old and God created everything as we see it today, then that answer doesn't work for you. (But you then have to explain geology and the fossil record etc)
But with special creation you then have to explain why the nested hierarchies exist - ie why do it that way?
Why design several eyes when some are better than others? Why several wings? Why not put gills in whales? And so on. A human designer would pick the best design for the job and use that in all his basic models.
We wouldn't be able to show nested hierarchies because the whale which gives birth to live young and suckles them and has a warm blooded circulatory system would have gills like a fish.
But a fish (usually) lays eggs, has scales and is cold blooded. They wouldn't fit in the same tree. None of it would make sense.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Chuck77, posted 03-15-2012 5:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 318 of 331 (655982)
03-15-2012 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Chuck77
03-15-2012 6:50 AM


cool :-)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Chuck77, posted 03-15-2012 6:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 327 of 331 (656172)
03-16-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Chuck77
03-16-2012 4:14 PM


I'm either giving the wrong impression here or you're just up to your regular insults by actually suggesting I read "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. How bout I grab "the god delusion" while we're at it? NO THANKS.
Why not? Know your enemy and all that. Before Dawkins became known as an atheist, he was a pretty excellent biologist. I still think The Selfish Gene is one of the best books on biology I've ever read.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Chuck77, posted 03-16-2012 4:14 PM Chuck77 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