Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[7djengo7]

Evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations of individuals. I seem to remember we have covered this already.

Unfortunately for you, by "we have covered this already", all you mean is that you, and others, have already, repeatedly, chanted nonsense phrases more or less like the nonsense you are, here, chanting: "Evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations of individuals".

 

[6days]

Have you got anything newer than 1997?

Stuu, dating back to the 1940's Geneticists have understood that the evidence is inconsistent with their beliefs and have been proposing hypothetical mechanisms. You can easily Google newer articles, and realize secular geneticist are still proposing hypothetical and unrealistic solutions. For example this article in 2019 starts with "Epistasis may have important consequences for a number of issues in quantitative genetics and evolutionary biology."https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-019-0263-6
If you think synergistic epistasis is a realistic solution... Then I will show you an article from secular geneticists who say it is unrealistic. Genetics helps confirm that common ancestry is an unscientific belief.

...without acknowledging that there are increasing numbers of both beneficial and deleterious mutations in an exponentially increasing population.

That was the talking point of Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists from 30 or 40 years ago. And unfortunately, some evolutionists still believe that today. I am not aware of any modern geneticists, who think mutations with a beneficial outcome can overcome genetic load. And that is why secular geneticists now propose hypothetical and unrealistic solutions such as synergistic epistasis, antagonistic epistasis, quasi truncation relaxed selection Etc.

And what are (Crow's) inconsistent evolutionary beliefs?

We have already discussed that Stuu. What I said was "The paradox being that the evidence is inconsistent with his evolutionary beliefs". Crow lays out the evidence of increasing genetic load. He knows that is inconsistent with his belief in millions of years, so attempts to dismiss the evidence with hypothetical and unrealistic quasi truncation.

what is your explanation for their(viral parasite) existence?

What is my explanation of disease... deleterious mutations...murder... physical death... extinctions... harmful bacteria ...ETC? We live in a world where a perfect creation has been corrupted.

The appendix is a perfect example of a vestigial feature, by the proper definition of that term.

The appendix is a perfect example of science proving evolutionary belief to be false... And a perfect example of a non-falsifiable belief system. And the appendix is a perfect example, of evolutionist continuing to promote beliefs that have been proven false by science.
Evolutionists claimed it was useless and evolution did it. Science proved that was false and that the appendix is functional, so evolutionists claimed evolution did it. IOW...it doesn't matter if something is functional or non-functional.... It doesn't matter if it is good design or bad design.. all that seems to matter is claiming that evolution did it.

But Stuu... Again your claim is one that has been proved false by science long ago. Science has shown that the appendix seems important enough that evolution has now claimed that it must have evolved independently more than 30 times (since it didn't fit any neat pattern on their 'tree').

My favourite remains the plantaris muscle. Have you got one? 9% of people don't.

My favourite muscle is my biceps.

The octopus thinks you are deluded.

The eagle knows Dawkins is deluded, whose faulty 'science' you seem to embrace. Dawkins argument about poorly wired vertebrate eyes was proven false at least 20 years ago.

What do you think they are, then? (If not useless evolutionary relics)

That is another failed Dawkins argument... He doesn't promote science he promotes a failed religion.In 1998 Richard Dawkins said,
"Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing.... Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA."

However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes.(falsely named based on evolutionary beliefs). So-called pseudogenes seem to exert regulatory effects on their protein coding DNA. In the science journal RNA, a article says:"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"
The article closes with warning similar to what creationists have been saying for years not to assume that pseudogenes are "nonfunctional relics"because that has caused them to be "overlooked in the quest to understand the biology of health and disease":
RNA, Vol. 17:‪792-798‬ (2011).
Stuu... It is a pleasure showing you how science help support the biblical model... And showing you how science exposes false evolutionary beliefs. If you would like more information on how so-called pseudogenes are functional, we could look at articles from 'Trends in Genetics' and 'Molecular Biology and Evolution'.

...but millions of people live perfectly healthy lives without one.(appendix) Some people are even born without one.

We could live without eyelashes and many other parts... But it's sure nice to have them when we need them. Some people are born without a hand...without eyes... Without proper functioning immune system. Your argument about the appendix is useless.

 

[Stuu]

Evolutionists like to show "horse evolution".

Yes, horse evolution is one of the best sequences in the fossil record. Unfortunately, ape sequences aren't, partly because forests don't preserve fossil remains very well.

Evolutionists do.

There are some examples, like the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies, where the fossil sequence goes back a long way, and includes impressions of soft-bodied animals extremely well preserved, but even that goes back 'only' 508 million years, not 4 billion years.

Populations are just groups of individuals.

Indeed, and the evolution is happening to the group, especially to the generations through which the group goes. Once you have your individual genome, you aren't going to have allele frequencies changing (a definition of evolution) because frequency refers to how many times you find the allele out of the total population.

The "tree of life" branches from many kinds and NOT a single universal common ancestor.

I have read that the definition of a 'kind' in creationism is the original organism from which that branch developed. So the solution is simple, and consistent with that view of creationism: there was one kind.
Stuu: But once [bird's] ancestors were theropod dinosaurs.

Sheer speculation.

This article describes some links between dinosaurs and modern birds:

A comparison by Asara's team of the amino-acid sequence from the T. rex collagen to a database of existing sequences from modern species showed it shared a remarkable similarity to that of chickens.

Chickens have the genes to make teeth. They have been turned off in chicken embryo development. They've made chicken embryos grow teeth by turning off the suppression. Where do you think they got those genes from?

BTW, your pic, Milford Sound, is one of my favourite parts of New Zealand, although the sandflies are so big down there they have their own landing strip.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Unfortunately for you, by "we have covered this already", all you mean is that you, and others, have already, repeatedly, chanted nonsense phrases more or less like the nonsense you are, here, chanting: "Evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations of individuals".

It appears that, meantime, you have been standing there with your fingers in your ears chanting 'I can't hear you'. So we may as well chant.

But if you wish to demonstrate that evolution happens to individuals, or else that it doesn't happen at all, feel free to show that by application of unambiguous evidence.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu, dating back to the 1940's Geneticists have understood that the evidence is inconsistent with their beliefs and have been proposing hypothetical mechanisms.

Dating back to 1856, von Helmholtz 'understood' that the age of the earth was 22 million years old. That was more than 50 years before the mechanism of radioactivity was discovered that makes those early calculations redundant.

You can easily Google newer articles

I know I can. Can you?

Genetics helps confirm that common ancestry is an unscientific belief.

'Proven fact', actually, in the language of a creationist.

I am not aware of any modern geneticists, who think mutations with a beneficial outcome can overcome genetic load.

Aren't the beneficial mutations a component of this genetic load? Isn't this just a part of the story of varying rates of evolution that go hand-in-hand with varying population sizes?

He knows that is inconsistent with his belief in millions of years, so attempts to dismiss the evidence with hypothetical and unrealistic quasi truncation.

I think he doesn't 'know' that at all. I think this is creationist quote-mining with some dodgy use of wildly out-of-date citations.

Stuu: what is your explanation for their(viral parasite) existence?

What is my explanation of disease... deleterious mutations...murder... physical death... extinctions... harmful bacteria ...ETC? We live in a world where a perfect creation has been corrupted.

Attempted smokescreen noted. You have no answers. Can you suggest someone who can tell me what the specific created purpose is of the 'flu virus?

But Stuu... Again your claim is one that has been proved false by science long ago. Science has shown that the appendix seems important enough that evolution has now claimed that it must have evolved independently more than 30 times (since it didn't fit any neat pattern on their 'tree').

Another trip around the creationist canards.

Stuu: My favourite remains the plantaris muscle. Have you got one? 9% of people don't.

My favourite muscle is my biceps.

No answer again...

The eagle knows Dawkins is deluded, whose faulty 'science' you seem to embrace. Dawkins argument about poorly wired vertebrate eyes was proven false at least 20 years ago.

And what was that argument that was 'proven false', exactly?

In 1998 Richard Dawkins said,
"Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing.... Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA." However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes.(falsely named based on evolutionary beliefs). So-called pseudogenes seem to exert regulatory effects on their protein coding DNA. In the science journal RNA, a article says:"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some

...some...

pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some

...some...

exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"
The article closes with warning similar to what creationists have been saying for years not to assume that pseudogenes are "nonfunctional relics"because that has caused them to be "overlooked in the quest to understand the biology of health and disease":
RNA, Vol. 17:‪792-798‬ (2011).

And is there also a warning to creationists that 'some' is not a synonym of 'all'?

Anyway, good to see you so enthusiastic about how mutation with natural selection works. It is a pretty basic fact of biology that there are four genes required to produce the proteins that make Vitamin C, and that in humans one of them, the gene for gulonolactone oxidase, is broken, which means we have to get our VitC through diet, not much of a problem for a primate species. So, that broken gene, the one that other species have working copies of, is a pseudogene. Now, a person with your other enthusiasm must be fascinated by the concept that there are undoubtedly other genes that have lost function due to mutation. They are also pseudogenes. Whether or not mutation and natural selection have found a way to convert a pseudogene into a regulatory stretch of DNA isn't directly relevant to the question of whether pseudogenes exist.

Stuu... It is a pleasure showing you how science help support the biblical model... And showing you how science exposes false evolutionary beliefs. If you would like more information on how so-called pseudogenes are functional, we could look at articles from 'Trends in Genetics' and 'Molecular Biology and Evolution'.

So do you think evolution happens, or not?

We could live without eyelashes and many other parts... But it's sure nice to have them when we need them. Some people are born without a hand...without eyes... Without proper functioning immune system. Your argument about the appendix is useless.

Hilarious. An appendix is 'sure nice to have'!

I note you deleted my rather well-made point about the appendix being a time-bomb planted in the abdomen in a way that has a decent chance of killing its owner. What god game is that?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, horse evolution is one of the best sequences in the fossil record.

Only in the minds of evolutionists.

Unfortunately, ape sequences aren't, partly because forests don't preserve fossil remains very well.

Normal sequences of events don't preserve fossil remains very well. On the other hand, a global flood would create lots of fossils.

There are some examples, like the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies, where the fossil sequence goes back a long way, and includes impressions of soft-bodied animals extremely well preserved, but even that goes back 'only' 508 million years, not 4 billion years.

Once again, this is only in the imaginative mind of evolutionists.

Indeed, and the evolution is happening to the group, especially to the generations through which the group goes.

:dizzy: Populations are just groups of individuals.

Once you have your individual genome, you aren't going to have allele frequencies changing (a definition of evolution) because frequency refers to how many times you find the allele out of the total population.

:juggle:

I have read that the definition of a 'kind' in creationism is the original organism from which that branch developed. So the solution is simple, and consistent with that view of creationism: there was one kind.

There were multiple kinds, not one kind.

Stuu: But once [bird's] ancestors were theropod dinosaurs.

This article describes some links between dinosaurs and modern birds:

A comparison by Asara's team of the amino-acid sequence from the T. rex collagen to a database of existing sequences from modern species showed it shared a remarkable similarity to that of chickens.

Chickens have the genes to make teeth. They have been turned off in chicken embryo development. They've made chicken embryos grow teeth by turning off the suppression. Where do you think they got those genes from?

BTW, your pic, Milford Sound, is one of my favourite parts of New Zealand, although the sandflies are so big down there they have their own landing strip.

Stuart

:straight:

 

[7djengo7]

It appears that, meantime, you have been standing there with your fingers in your ears chanting 'I can't hear you'. So we may as well chant.

Of course you'll keep chanting the nonsense you've been chanting all along, just as you've been conditioned to do.

But if you wish to demonstrate that evolution happens to individuals, or else that it doesn't happen at all, feel free to show that by application of unambiguous evidence

Here are some nonsense phrases:

• "evolution happens to individuals"
• "evolution does not happen to individuals"
• "evolution happens to populations"
• "evolution does not happen to populations"
• "evolution happens"
• "evolution doesn't happen at all"
• "evolution is real"
• "evolution is not real"

Because those are nonsense phrases, no truth is expressed by one, or more, of those phrases, and no falsehood is expressed by one, or more, of those phrases. Your insurmountable difficulty all boils down to the fact that, as a Darwin cheerleader, you mean absolutely nothing by your words, "evolution" and "evolve".

When you say "evolution happens", or "evolution does not happen to individuals", or "evolution happens to populations", or "evolution is a fact", you're not affirming any proposition--not even a false one; rather, you're making meaningless noise, devoid of cognitive content.

If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance happens to individuals, feel free to try to do so.
If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance does not happen to individuals, feel free to try to do so.
If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance happens to populations, feel free to try to do so.
If you wish to demonstrate that gribbulance does not happen to populations, feel free to try to do so.

BTW, when you say your phrase, "unambiguous evidence", do you mean to imply that something you would be willing to call "evidence" could be ambiguous? Or, instead, would you say that your phrase, "unambiguous evidence", is redundant, and that you're saying no more by it than you'd be saying by merely saying "evidence"?

 

[7djengo7]

Why fight against a classification system that was created by a creationist and has been the basic framework for the classification of life for nearly 300 years?

You're the one fighting against Linnaeus' classification system--which is a tree of porphyry--by your glaringly ridiculous, elementary error of mistaking it for a diagram of ancestry/descent.

 

[7djengo7]

horse evolution

the evolution is happening to the group

In other words, you're saying, "horse evolution is not happening to a horse", and "horse evolution is not happening to horses".

Since you say "the evolution is happening to the group", rather than, "the evolution is happening to the horse", or, "the evolution is happening to the horses", then why do you say "horse evolution" instead of "group evolution"?

Oh, and when you say, for instance, "eye evolution", to what is "the evolution happening"? To an eye? To eyes? To a group? A group of what? A group of eyes?

Your Professor said evolution happens to features:

the evolution of this feature occurred

Do you disagree with your Professor?

 

[7djengo7]

But once [bird's] ancestors were theropod dinosaurs.

When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs?

 

[7djengo7]

***Accidental post instead of edit of previous post. Man, I gotta stop doing that. Sorry.***

 

[Stuu]

***Accidental post instead of edit of previous post. Man, I gotta stop doing that. Sorry.***

The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:
JudgeRightly (Today)

Thank goodness JudgeRightly is willing to point out to us where to find the real quality.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs?

I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to describe them as birds.

Just for the record, of course, I note your paraphrasing '[bird's]' and hasten to add that it would not have appeared that way had I wished to indicate the plural possessive. But, since some here apparently wonder whether evolution can happen to individuals, perhaps your usage is intentional. Or, maybe you mean to indicate a Sesame Street character, in which case you might have considered capitalising.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

Thank goodness JudgeRightly is willing to point out to us where to find the real quality.

Stuart

Don't be dumb, Stuart.

I clicked thanks on what he said before he edited his post to what it is now.

 

[Alate_One]

You're the one fighting against Linnaeus' classification system--which is a tree of porphyry--by your glaringly ridiculous, elementary error of mistaking it for a diagram of ancestry/descent.

It's a nested hierarchy. Biological organisms naturally fall into that pattern, and that pattern is the same pattern of inheritance. It's not an accident.

 

[Stuu]

Don't be dumb, Stuart.

I clicked thanks on what he said before he edited his post to what it is now.

Yes, fair enough.

Would you agree with birds being considered as dinosaurs?

Stuart

 

[The Barbarian]

If "kinds" are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families, that raises an interesting issue given other creationist arguments.

Let's say there is a "cat kind", which means Noah took aboard the Ark two (or seven, depending on which of the two stories you read) representatives of the "cat kind", from which all of today's species of cats are descended. But remember, creationists also argue that mutation cannot increase the amount of "genetic information" in a genome, and that genomes have been degrading over time since The Fall.

So exactly how is a single breeding pair of cats able to give rise to the diversity of cats we see around us today....everything from tigers to house cats...without adding a single bit of "genetic information", and given the claim that the genomes have only been "degrading"?

It's based on a fundamental ignorance of genetics. Creationists apparently think that the original cat kind (for example) had all the genes found in all cats today. It's almost as though they still think heredity is in the blood as some kind of humoral stuff that is unlimited in scope.

Since any pair of animals could only have a total of four alleles for each gene locus, there's no way that any two (or 14) representatives of the "cat kind" could have had all those genes.

 

[Stripe]

It's based on a fundamental ignorance of genetics. Creationists apparently think that the original cat kind (for example) had all the genes found in all cats today. It's almost as though they still think heredity is in the blood as some kind of humoral stuff that is unlimited in scope.

Since any pair of animals could only have a total of four alleles for each gene locus, there's no way that any two (or 14) representatives of the "cat kind" could have had all those genes.

As you learned, changes in the environment played havoc on the original design.

 

[7djengo7]

It's a nested hierarchy.

Try to explain exactly what (if anything) you mean by calling Linnaeus' system of classification, in which things are classified by their similarities and differences, a "nested hierarchy". What (if anything) do you mean by saying that it is "nested"? And what (if anything) do you mean by saying that it is a "hierarchy"? What does a general-to-specific system of classification have to do with hierarchy? (I'm not claiming that it does not have anything to do with hierarchy--I'm trying to find out what (if anything) you mean by saying that it does.)

Biological organisms

Is it necessary to say "biological organisms" rather than, simply, "organisms"? If it is, then why?

naturally fall into that pattern,

What (if anything) are you calling a "pattern", here?

and that pattern is the same pattern of inheritance.

How do you imagine that inheritance fits into a kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species system of classification? Inasmuch as such a system has nothing to do with ancestry/descendancy, I, for one, fail to see how it is supposed to have anything, whatsoever, to do with inheritance of anything by a descendant from an ancestor..

You would not seriously wish to say that, (say, for instance) a genus is a descendant of (say, for instance) the phylum of which it is a subset, and that an order is an ancestor of one of its subordinate species, would you? You would not wish to say that a family has inherited something from the kingdom of which that family is a subset, would you?

It's not an accident.

What's not an accident?

 

[7djengo7]

I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to describe them as birds.

In other words, you (as usual) have found it necessary to stonewall against the question I asked you:

When you say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, by the word, "birds", are you referring to dinosaurs? Yes or No?

Why can't you answer this question, Stuu?

What's the matter, Stuu? You don't say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs? You don't want to admit that you would be willing to say that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs? Why is that?

As we can see, The Barbarian has "thanked" you for stonewalling against the question I asked you.

I think that if you and I could observe an anchiornis or a microraptor in flight we would be able to agree to describe them as birds.

By "describe them as birds", do you mean "say that they are birds"? If not, then what (if anything) do you mean?
If they are birds, then so what? What would be the big deal with saying they are birds?
If they are not birds, then why would you say that they are birds?