Login

Join for Free!
112358 members


on phylogeny / what are we ?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

on phylogeny / what are we ?

Postby Crucible » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:07 am

An interesting video by YouTuber AronRa suggests that we are still classified as "everything that we ever were classified, as." Y'know, meaning that we are vertebrate, mammal, animal and so on.

Now this leads me to consider how it ends; that what any of our our ancestors was classified as, we are. Which level of classification are we talking about, though...the ancestor as to it's species ? Not to my understanding of the argument; the ancestor is ID'd as "primate", perhaps, or as vertebrate, or animal.

So what I'm getting at, is that some "scientific" explanations end up saying the same words to say almost the same thing ( sounds very similar but isn't ), about "kinds", as Creationists do.

The use of the concept of "kind", rather than whatever species the ancestor was - seems close to what the Creationists are criticized over ( not being specific at all in using the word "kind )".

Not concerned about the logic or accuracy of the concept "we were something before we were this",I'm just looking at the similarity in final conclusion; "we haven't changed in kind".

How do you see this ?
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: on phylogeny / what are we ?

Postby mishrashubham » Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:06 pm

I am not really sure what it is that you are trying to convey. Are you worried about the incorrect usage of terminology?

Crucible wrote:
So what I'm getting at, is that some "scientific" explanations end up saying the same words to say almost the same thing ( sounds very similar but isn't ), about "kinds", as Creationists do.


Any examples that we can have a look at?
mishrashubham
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:23 pm

Re: on phylogeny / what are we ?

Postby Crucible » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:02 pm

Thank you for your response, mishrashubham .



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg0G3LQRz8I

I recognize that there is a problem with terms such as "fish", or "monkey". That aside ( because in life we very often do refer to "fish" and "monkey". http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazo ... gii_1.html ), his point is that we are indeed . Great Ape, Ape, and ...Monkey.

Taking this all the way back, we are indeed , FISH. And so on. ( Neil Shubin comes to mind ).

Anyhow, there is criticism that Creationists will not specify what they mean by "kind".
I wonder if the same criticism cannot be applied to thought that we still are the same "kind". Monkey, Fish and on. That the word "kind" is necessary for AronRa's progression...our "kind" never ever changes. We never stop being it.

Thoughts ?
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am


Re: on phylogeny / what are we ?

Postby Crucible » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:39 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

...Creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds"...


So, I'm not concerned with exploring every shade of explanations offered by Creationists, just the terminology and the concept.

What I wonder, is if perhaps AronRa has unintentionally exposed a seeming convergence of terms and concepts.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Postby Darby » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:53 pm

All groupings are essentially artificial, whether the ancient "kinds," largely based on analogous features, to the more modern groupings. The only real point is that humans are compulsive categorizers, and the world only sort of cooperates.
Darby
Viper
Viper
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby merv » Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:55 am

Are you the kind of person who pays attention to lines in the sand? Do you like to split atoms? Do you want to travel in time? As you think we are, "indeed, FISH", I am wondering what would you like to be? preferably in this life time. And before you say "PIG" or "CAMEL" or whatever it is that is on your mind, perhaps I should explain that I need the information as I don't want to confuse you any more than you already appear to me to be.
I hope my English makes sense to you.
merv
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:05 pm

Re:

Postby Crucible » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:45 pm

merv wrote:Are you the kind of person who pays attention to lines in the sand? Do you like to split atoms? Do you want to travel in time? As you think we are, "indeed, FISH", I am wondering what would you like to be? preferably in this life time. And before you say "PIG" or "CAMEL" or whatever it is that is on your mind, perhaps I should explain that I need the information as I don't want to confuse you any more than you already appear to me to be.
I hope my English makes sense to you.
Your English is garbled badly, and the thoughts are obviously nonsensical.
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re:

Postby aptitude » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:30 am

Darby wrote:All groupings are essentially artificial, whether the ancient "kinds," largely based on analogous features, to the more modern groupings. The only real point is that humans are compulsive categorizers, and the world only sort of cooperates.


Agreed.
aptitude
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:58 am

Re: Re:

Postby Crucible » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:47 am

aptitude wrote:
Darby wrote:All groupings are essentially artificial, whether the ancient "kinds," largely based on analogous features, to the more modern groupings. The only real point is that humans are compulsive categorizers, and the world only sort of cooperates.


Agreed.
So do you guys think that nothing can be said about ancestors, for that reason ? And if so, then it's not correct to be telling us the things the scientists tell us ( e.g. about Tiktaalik and "possible missing links" etc.) ? "Transitional forms" ... all bunk ?
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re: on phylogeny / what are we ?

Postby Crucible » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:16 pm

If "they" do tell us about ancestors and transitional forms, then what about our ancestor ?
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Postby aptitude » Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:36 am

What I meant was that it's difficult to tell where one species starts and another ends because every population is constantly evolving. So what's a species and what's not is very difficult to judge, and for that reason, artificial.

Also so many evolutionary relationships are incomplete at this point and new evidence is constantly being uncovered. So yes, it may be that many such groupings may be based on character states for analogous rather than homologous structures.
aptitude
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:58 am

Re: on phylogeny / what are we ?

Postby Crucible » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:55 pm

Understood that there are many definitions of "species", and that there is arbitrariness involved - can anything be said WRT the what kind of animal our ancestor ( the most recent primate ancestor of all apes ), was ?
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron