|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I remember learning some in school about taxonomy
Mar 17, 2016, 10:18 AM
|
|
I remember life being classified by, in order, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
So a human would be:
Animalia (kingdom)
Chordata (phylum)
Mammalia (class)
Primate (order)
Hominidae (family)
#### (genus)
Sapiens (species)
Something got me interested in that, so I dug around. I saw that now, biologists pretty much use a different system, phylogenetic, that is based on evolutionary progression instead of classification of current species. It's a lot more complicated now. It's like every little change between species, it adds another branch. Here's the classification of humans, best I can tell, and I don't think it's even set in stone.
Animalia
Eumatazoa
Bilateria
Nephrozoa
Deuterostomia
Chordata
Craniata
Vertebrata
Gnathostomata
Tetrapoda
Reptiliomorpha
Amniota
Synapsida
Eupelycosauria
Sphenacodontia
Therapsida
Neotherapsida
Theriodontia
Eutheriodontia
Cynodontia
Mammaliamorpha
Mammaliaformes
Mammalia
Holotheria
Trechnotheria
Cladotheria
Zatheria
Tribosphenida
Theria
Eutheria
Placentalia
Exafroplacentalia
Boreoeutharia
Euarchontoglires
Euarchonta
Primatomorpha
Primates
Haplorhini
Simiformes
Catarrhini
Hominoidea
Hominidae
Homininae
Hominini
Hominina
####
#### sapiens
I don't know why I'm posting this. I know we have people in here who, like me, are interested in evolutionary biology.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17365
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Lucky for me I'm not in high school Biology any more.
Mar 17, 2016, 10:20 AM
|
|
Then again, I had to learn NINE planets...they only have to learn eight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I don't know if they teach this in HS science or not.
Mar 17, 2016, 10:44 AM
|
|
I mean, the traditional taxonomy is not totally gone, just not what is used by most scientists now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46799]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30710
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Re: I remember learning some in school about taxonomy
Mar 17, 2016, 10:21 AM
|
|
> ####
Scientists are homo-phobic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Regardless, you're still a ####.***
Mar 17, 2016, 10:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Yeah, they haven't bothered to change that.***
Mar 17, 2016, 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [54758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 52802
Joined: 10/1/03
|
well, you're born with it, soooooo***
Mar 17, 2016, 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I remember learning some in school about taxonomy
Mar 17, 2016, 10:30 AM
|
|
When you say you have an interest in evolutionary biology, what is your stance on it?
I was under the impression that you thought the current scientific theory of evolution was incorrect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Just because I find something interesting
Mar 17, 2016, 10:33 AM
|
|
doesn't mean I necessarily think every aspect of it is true.
I find Lord of the Rings interesting, but I don't think it's true. (That's an extreme example of pure fiction, of course.)
I've spent a lot of time over the last few days reading up on this phylogenetic classification. It's fascinating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Just because I find something interesting
Mar 17, 2016, 10:44 AM
|
|
Gotcha; was just curious.
If you really are interested, check out these two interesting tidbits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN74qV7SsjY
In the video above, why would a designer make such a bad "engineering" mistake? A nerve that could literally be just a few centimeters long takes a HUGE detour into the chest cavity and back up again just to connect?
It's easily explained by the evolutionary process when you consider that fish DO have this direct connection of just a few centimeters because they don't have necks. As we evolved to have longer and longer necks, the nerve simply moved along with it. If it was design, this leftover "design" would have no reason to be in there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw0MLJJJbqc
Here is the evidence for evolution laid out in pretty simple terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I'm interested in evolutionary biology...
Mar 17, 2016, 10:50 AM
|
|
I'm not so interested in anything that is trying to "sell" it, or persuade someone. I just like reading about it and thinking about it, at face value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I'm interested in evolutionary biology...
Mar 17, 2016, 11:25 AM
|
|
I mean, I would say that video is explaining the process more than trying to "sell" it. It's really no different that watching a video on how planets orbit the earth or any other physics video. It's just explaining the evidence we see.
I don't think you'd have the same reaction for me showing you a video on a certain math proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Well, the title said "Evidence for Evolution (Bad Design)"
Mar 17, 2016, 11:33 AM
|
|
LOL
I'd rather just read Wikipedia. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Well, the title said "Evidence for Evolution (Bad Design)"
Mar 17, 2016, 11:38 AM
|
|
Ok sure, but it's makes a very good and compelling point backed up with evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
Something I find interesting about Creationism
Mar 17, 2016, 12:40 PM
[ in reply to Just because I find something interesting ] |
|
Its almost entirely contained in American Evangelical Faith.
Almost no other denomination/Sect of Christianity outside of American Evangelicals adhere to Creationism....not even the Vatican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Other denominations are not as tightly adherent
Mar 17, 2016, 12:44 PM
|
|
to the Bible, on a lot of things, not just creation. That's not meant as a slam or anything...just a fact. Bible literalism is not an attribute of all denominations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
I don't disagree***
Mar 17, 2016, 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Here's an example of how small these branches are:
Mar 17, 2016, 10:41 AM
|
|
You've got #### sapiens, which is the only species in the #### genus.
The #### genus is the only extant (not extinct) member of the Hominina "subtribe". Hominina is part of the Hominini "tribe". This tribe contains one other extant (not extinct) genus: Pan (the chimpanzees). This means that chimps are the most "closely related" to humans.
The Hominini tribe is part of the Homininae "subfamily". This subfamily contains one other tribe: Gorillini (the gorillas, of course). So after chimps, it's gorillas.
The Hominini tribe is part of the Hominidae "family". This family contains one other subfamily: Poginae, which are the orangutans.
On and on, every branch differentiating species by a small amount.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Made an error in that last branch, as you see.
Mar 17, 2016, 10:43 AM
|
|
Meant to say the Homininae subfamily is part of the Hominidae family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19919]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7798
Joined: 10/12/08
|
cladograms and phylogenetic trees can get pretty complicated
Mar 17, 2016, 10:55 AM
[ in reply to Here's an example of how small these branches are: ] |
|
Excellent post and example. Thanks for sharing.
In taxonomy, there are at least two kinds of people:
groupers and splitters.
Groupers like to place organisms in general groups. This is less complicated and still valid today.
Splitters like to get specific. To them, you cannot have too many steps to classify an organism. That is how you go from KPCOFGS to subkingdoms, superphyla, subphyla, superclasses...and so on.
The more we learn about genetics, the easier it is to get specific. The splitters benefit. And the beauty with science, in this case biology, when new information is found that doesn't fit the previous understanding, it (science) changes. Imagine what will be understood in 10 - 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19919]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7798
Joined: 10/12/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Still just thinking out loud...I think I posted in this
Mar 17, 2016, 11:43 AM
|
|
in part because there is a stereotype of people who believe in the Bible that they're completely ignorant on science. I have a large circle of Bible-believing friends, so I do hear it a lot: "They think a fish jumped out the water and grew legs! Then the monkey's tail fell off and became a human!" It bugs me to hear that, because it's a misrepresentation of the "other side's" position. We certainly hate it when people do that to us.
There are a lot of people who believe the Bible, but who still have curious scientific minds, and minds that understand science. Maybe not the most vocal subset, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Still just thinking out loud...I think I posted in this
Mar 17, 2016, 11:53 AM
|
|
To be clear, I certainly don't think you are unintelligent or scientifically ignorant, but I honestly can't see how could say that you understand science and yet reject the most well founded theory science has that is also the foundation of the biological field.
Especially in light of all the evidence we see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw0MLJJJbqc
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Do you not understand the words that are in the Bible?
Mar 17, 2016, 12:12 PM
|
|
I believe you do, because you are intelligent. It's not just a bunch of nonsense, right? You understand the syntax, what the words are trying to say. But you reject it.
This is no different. I understand completely what you and other people say about these theories. It makes perfect sense. But in cases where they conflict with the Bible (and there's not as many of those cases as you probably think), I choose the Bible. Very simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Do you not understand the words that are in the Bible?
Mar 17, 2016, 12:43 PM
|
|
> This is no different. I understand completely what you and other people say about these theories. It makes perfect sense. But in cases where they conflict with the Bible (and there's not as many of those cases as you probably think), I choose the Bible. Very simple.
This is very different. In your own words, you've already chosen the "answer" and try to fit the evidence to your belief system.
When I look at the Bible or evolution, I have to consider the claims they make and how well they support them. If for example, the bible says that a snake talked to Adam and Eve, I have to simply take the Bible's word for it. I have never seen a talking snake, I don't know anyone who has and I've never been provided with any supporting evidence for this claim (and I suspect you haven't either). It is reasonable for me to reject the idea that there ever were talking snakes based on the lack of supporting evidence. Agree?
Evolution on the other hand, might say that a snake evolved from a lizard. How supported is this idea? Well, we can see that some snakes still have vestigial legs. We can sequence the DNA of snakes and lizards and find exactly where they diverged from a common ancestor. We find transitional forms from lizards into snakes. It's direct irrefutable proof of the claim of evolution.
The difference between your position and mine is that I look at the evidence and try to let it tell me what happend. I don't try to "fit" the evidence to a preconceived religious or evolutionary belief system. If you handed me supporting evidence for the bible, as we have with evolution, I would update my position.
If we found a rabbit in the precambrian layers, I would be forced to conclude that our understanding of evolution is wrong or at the very least extremely flawed. But we don't find that and thus I have no reason to reject the well supported claim.
Let's not act like our positions are on equal footing with respect to the supporting evidence. That is simply not true. It literally requires faith (i.e. belief in the absence of evidence) to believe your claim whereas I can point you to verifiable empirical evidence of my claim.
It would be trivial to challenge my points by providing evidence that either nullifies my claims or supports yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Hehe...our conversations in a nutshell...
Mar 17, 2016, 12:46 PM
|
|
I attempt to make a very simple post, with a couple of sentences. Your response is an essay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Hehe...our conversations in a nutshell...
Mar 17, 2016, 12:47 PM
|
|
Well I think I'm making some pretty solid points. Not all ideas are or should be treated equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
You are making excellent points
Mar 17, 2016, 12:52 PM
|
|
You are just thinking about it on a much deeper level than I care to. God said it, that settles it for me. I try to KISS (keep it simple, stupid). (I'm the stupid one, not you )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You are making excellent points
Mar 17, 2016, 1:01 PM
|
|
Welp, at least you're honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I do want you to know that
Mar 17, 2016, 12:21 PM
[ in reply to Re: Still just thinking out loud...I think I posted in this ] |
|
I'm not "refusing" to watch these videos because I don't want to hear something that conflicts with my beliefs. Believe me, I've heard it all before, many times. I know what the evidence is. I would find the video tiresome, not offensive. I'd rather just do my own studies, instead of listening to someone trying to convince me of something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33600
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Interesting. When did the new taxonomy become standard?***
Mar 17, 2016, 1:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
