Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I'm going to side with Storrs on this one. Because things appear similar doesn't mean they are related by an ancestor.

As I've mentioned before, most of the muscle of modern systematics is devoted towards distinguishing similarity due to relatedness from similarity due to other reasons (in other words, we are fully aware that "because things appear similar doesn't mean they are related by an ancestor." I suspect Storrs Olsen is aware of this as well (although if I'm not mistaken he may have missed the cladistic express); if so, his argument must have been a little different from how you've interpreted it.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I guess I should say:

"it's time for me to say sorry, but I'm just not interested in continuing a discussion about evo at this time."

No one's twisting your arm!

Originally posted by Nineveh

"... just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next ..."

That's what it sound like you said, yes. If that's not what you meant, please explain.

You know? The more I read that paragraph, the less I understand what it says.

Yeah, there was a small editing glitch on my part (that's why I tried to greatly reduce the accidental "are" in my repost). Here, try this:

"Dinosaur� and “bird� are just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next does not demonstrate that the organisms to which we subjectively apply those words did not do so (i.e., grade between one form and the other)!

Think of the names of two colors, "blue" and "green." Imprecise, to be sure, but these words definitely have meaning. Start with blue. Add yellow in incrementally tiny bits, and you can generate a pallette of distinct colors that grade continuously between "blue" and "green," right? And, when you look at those intermediate colors, you certainly could say "in the end, we still have blues and greens." But does that demonstrate that you didn't get to "green" by modifying the "blue"? Of course not! It merely demonstrates that the words "blue" and "green" are a clumsy, but convenient, dichotomous approximation to a complex situation.

See? In just the same way, "in the end, we still have dinos and birds" does not demonstrate that dinos and birds are distinct, unbridgeable entities, it merely demonstrates that the words "dino" and "bird" are a clumsy, but convenient, dichotomous approximation to a complex situation.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: Can you give me the # of your last reply to me, its been a [bad word, bad word, another bad word, uh oh--a swear word] week. And tomorrow looks no better.

Thanks.

When you have time, I think it's on page 53. For now, it seems your attention needs to lie elsewhere. Hope all goes well with you.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

As I've mentioned before, most of the muscle of modern systematics is devoted towards distinguishing similarity due to relatedness from similarity due to other reasons (in other words, we are fully aware that "because things appear similar doesn't mean they are related by an ancestor." I suspect Storrs Olsen is aware of this as well (although if I'm not mistaken he may have missed the cladistic express); if so, his argument must have been a little different from how you've interpreted it.

He arrived at his conclusions for his reasons. I believe they were stated in his blast to National Geographic.

No one's twisting your arm!

Nope

So , when you get tired of me badgering you about your beliefs, just let me know

Yeah, there was a small editing glitch on my part (that's why I tried to greatly reduce the accidental "are" in my repost). Here, try this:

"Dinosaur� and “bird� are just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next does not demonstrate that the organisms to which we subjectively apply those words did not do so (i.e., grade between one form and the other)!

Makes more sense now, thank you

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Dinos and birds, though; now there's an issue with evidence, logic, rational hypotheses!

A: [evidence of dino-bird connection: lots of derived features shared between dinos and birds, lots of intermediates between dinos and birds, even fossils of dinos caught in the act of behaving like birds]
N: In the end, we still have dinos and birds.

Could you please explain what you a mean a little more clearer about the section that I changed to "bold" type. I am having a problem trying to picture what you described.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Let's me make this example very clear. Take what we use today to recognize whales; take modern whales and primitive whales, show them to someone who was unaware of the timeline, and they would almost certainly classify them as something else.

Okay, so why do we classify the primitive ones as whales? Better to work backwards. More recent fossil cetaceans (say, from 5mya) are easy; even though they are different from any modern species, they still have all of the modern diagnostic features of the group. Go back further in time (say, 10mya), and you will find creatures that are less similar to modern species, but more similar to those 5mya forms. The 10mya's have many, but not all, of the modern diagnostic features.

Let's stop here for the moment. Does it make sense to you why we would classify the 5mya species as a cetacean? How about the 1Omya species?

Has the diagnostic thing ever failed that you know of?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Could you please explain what you a mean a little more clearer about the section that I changed to "bold" type. I am having a problem trying to picture what you described.

A fossil dinosaur nest was found, complete with eggs and "mom" sitting on the nest in incubating pose. I saw this at the AMNH shortly after it arrived from Mongolia, but I've lost track of whether it has been written up yet (oh, looks like he wrote it up in Nature, 1995; how time flies!)

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Has the diagnostic thing ever failed that you know of?

Which thing is this? And what do you mean by fail? Inaccurate diagnoses are certainly common enough. Mistakes are made, then hopefully corrected. Whales used to be considered fishes.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Which thing is this? And what do you mean by fail? Inaccurate diagnoses are certainly common enough. Mistakes are made, then hopefully corrected. Whales used to be considered fishes.

quote:
Originally posted by aharvey

Let's me make this example very clear. Take what we use today to recognize whales; take modern whales and primitive whales, show them to someone who was unaware of the timeline, and they would almost certainly classify them as something else.

Okay, so why do we classify the primitive ones as whales? Better to work backwards. More recent fossil cetaceans (say, from 5mya) are easy; even though they are different from any modern species, they still have all of the modern diagnostic features of the group. Go back further in time (say, 10mya), and you will find creatures that are less similar to modern species, but more similar to those 5mya forms. The 10mya's have many, but not all, of the modern diagnostic features.

Let's stop here for the moment. Does it make sense to you why we would classify the 5mya species as a cetacean? How about the 1Omya species?





I would have to say that I was asking about the diagnostic features that are sometimes used to help identify species.
As far as failing, maybe unsuccessful would be a better word or insufficient.