Nested Hierarchy Hypothesis

[crjmurray]

Reptilian features with bipedal/mammalian structures. Does this fit into the nested hierarchy? If not, why not?

 

[Gracchus]

Reptilian features with bipedal/mammalian structures. Does this fit into the nested hierarchy? If not, why not?

I know! I know! Because it isn't real!

 

[crjmurray]

I know! I know! Because it isn't real!

That's what they want you to think.

 

[Smidlee]

It interesting you brought this up since they are having trouble trying to get reptiles to fall into a nested hierarchy. (man's box)

http://theconversation.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-reptiles-any-more-and-heres-why-31355

It all has to do with our (humans, that is) penchant for categorisation. We just love putting things into boxes, and those boxes into bigger boxes.

But sometimes living things break out our of boxes we try to force them in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It interesting you brought this up since they are having trouble trying to get reptiles to fall into a nested hierarchy. (man's box)

http://theconversation.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-reptiles-any-more-and-heres-why-31355

But sometimes living things break out our of boxes we try to force them in.

Too bad that you did not understand that article. It explains how we now know that the term "reptiles" is a poorly formed term. If snakes, turtles, and crocodiles are all "reptiles" then by cladistics so are birds. Snakes, turtles and crocodiles but not birds are a paraphyletic group. They do not form a clade. Just as Old world monkeys and new world monkeys but not humans or other apes are a paraphyletic group too. Wiki has a nice article on clades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

This is not a "problem" of science, this is a correction by science.

 

[crjmurray]

Too bad that you did not understand that article. It explains how we now know that the term "reptiles" is a poorly formed term. If snakes, turtles, and crocodiles are all "reptiles" then by cladistics so are birds. Snakes, turtles and crocodiles but not birds are a paraphyletic group. They do not form a clade. Just as Old world monkeys and new world monkeys but not humans or other apes are a paraphyletic group too. Wiki has a nice article on clades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

This is not a "problem" of science, this is a correction by science.

Would it be possible to classify the organisms in the OP? Also, check out my thread on birds with mammalian breasts. That never got the attention it deserved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reptilian features with bipedal/mammalian structures. Does this fit into the nested hierarchy? If not, why not?

Would it be possible to classify the organisms in the OP? Also, check out my thread on birds with mammalian breasts. That never got the attention it deserved.

The Sleezaks? No. Sllezaks would be a major problem for the theory of evolution. If their structure is truly mammalian they would be go counter to what is predicted by evolution. There is no reason why one could not have such a creature with creationism, there are problems of such for evolution. A Pegasus would also be a huge problem for evolution. They have features of an organism from another clade and no explanation of how the got there.

 

[crjmurray]

The Sleezaks? No. Sllezaks would be a major problem for the theory of evolution. If their structure is truly mammalian they would be go counter to what is predicted by evolution. There is no reason why one could not have such a creature with creationism, there are problems of such for evolution. A Pegasus would also be a huge problem for evolution. They have features of an organism from another clade and no explanation of how the got there.

Can you explain why this organism would be a problem for evolution? In more detail, I mean.

 

[Smidlee]

Too bad that you did not understand that article. It explains how we now know that the term "reptiles" is a poorly formed term. If snakes, turtles, and crocodiles are all "reptiles" then by cladistics so are birds. Snakes, turtles and crocodiles but not birds are a paraphyletic group. They do not form a clade. Just as Old world monkeys and new world monkeys but not humans or other apes are a paraphyletic group too. Wiki has a nice article on clades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

This is not a "problem" of science, this is a correction by science.

What from that article that you think I don't understand? The problem is evolutionist tries to force living creatures into their imaginary tree which goes away simply by remove the tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What from that article that you think I don't understand? The problem is evolutionist tries to force living creatures into their imaginary tree which goes away simply by remove the tree.

Read the article on Clades. Otherwise you won't understand the correct terminology. And of course you are wrong. Scientists do not force. They reclassify when necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you explain why this organism would be a problem for evolution? In more detail, I mean.

It would be better to get a biologist to do it. The hips of a bird or dinosaur that is bipedal are quite different from bipedal apes. The Sleezak seem to have human or ape hips. I have no conceivable way that they could have evolved them.

But thanks for another example besides the Cambrian Bunny Rabbit that would refute evolution. There is no reason that they could not exist with "a common designer" there are reasons that they could not exist with evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

Read the article on Clades. Otherwise you won't understand the correct terminology. And of course you are wrong. Scientists do not force. They reclassify when necessary.

I totally disagree. They have to reclassify because creatures doesn't fit man's assumptions. When a creature is reclassified the creature is not what changed ... it's man's opinion that changed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I totally disagree. They have to reclassify because creatures doesn't fit man's assumptions.

But you are wrong of course.

The classification of "reptile" existed before the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains why it is wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

But you are wrong of course.

The classification of "reptile" existed before the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains why it is wrong.

I never claimed it didn't. A theory doesn't explain anything it's mans to trying to explain away why thing don't always fit into his boxes.
Classification is just the way man "sees" things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed it didn't. A theory doesn't explain anything it's mans to trying to explain away why thing don't always fit into his boxes.
Classification is just the way man "sees" things.

Actually that is exactly what theories do.

Smidlee, if you don't even know the basics of science why are you trying to debate here?

 

[Smidlee]

Actually that is exactly what theories do.

Smidlee, if you don't even know the basics of science why are you trying to debate here?

Another loaded question? Theories are like computer programs they only do what man wants them to do. If man totally refuses to consider ID for example and living creatures are truly ID then the theory will never get to the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another loaded question?

Hardly. I do get tired of people that have no understanding of science trying to argue against the process while enjoying the benefits of science.

 

[Smidlee]

Hardly. I do get tired of people that have no understanding of science trying to argue against the process while enjoying the benefits of science.

I don't believe you have a monopoly on science or what is true.

 

[crjmurray]

It would be better to get a biologist to do it. The hips of a bird or dinosaur that is bipedal are quite different from bipedal apes. The Sleezak seem to have human or ape hips. I have no conceivable way that they could have evolved them.

But thanks for another example besides the Cambrian Bunny Rabbit that would refute evolution. There is no reason that they could not exist with "a common designer" there are reasons that they could not exist with evolution.

So the hips, legs, ribcage, arm and shoulder orientation would not make any sense if evolution were true? These are all features that occur in modern humans but if a reptile had these features it would falsify our current understanding of evolution correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe you have a monopoly on science or what is true.

Yes, but you have demonstrated time and again that you are no judge of science at all. People have tried to help you here and you post nonsense in return. Perhaps if you started on the basics and worked up from there.