Birds before Dinosaurs???

[Mallon]

Give 10 bones and ask to arrange them by any criteria. So you arranged them into a sequence.

Give the 11th bone, ask to insert it into the sequence.

You can always do that.

That is your evolution theory: a game of classification.

Taxonomy is but one small aspect of evolutionary theory, and you've managed to completely butcher how it works. Please don't pass judgment on things you are completely unfamiliar with.

And gluadys, you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[Dannager]

Give 10 bones and ask to arrange them by any criteria. So you arranged them into a sequence.

Give the 11th bone, ask to insert it into the sequence.

You can always do that.

That is your evolution theory: a game of classification.

Your mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory can't harm it, juvenissun. No one here falls for that sort of nonsense.

 

[gluadys]

Give 10 bones and ask to arrange them by any criteria. So you arranged them into a sequence.

Give the 11th bone, ask to insert it into the sequence.

You can always do that.

That is your evolution theory: a game of classification.

In the first place, taxonomy is not about a linear sequence. It is about grouping things into categories.

Still your analogy holds this far. If one is arranging ten bones into e.g. three categories, one can always add an 11th.

But will you get the same groupings if you change your criteria?

For example, if you are grouping the bones by length you may get the sets A=1, 5 6; B=2, 3, 8, 10 and C= 4, 7, 9

But if you are grouping the bones by colour you may get the sets A=1, 3, 8; B=4, 6, 9, 10 and C=2, 5, 7

What makes the classification of living things special is that they fall into a nested hierarchy even when you change the criteria. In fact they fall into the same nested hierarchy even when you change the criteria.

Can you still add the 11th bone? Depends. If you are dealing with a small clade, and the 11th bone does not have the characteristics of the clade, it can only be added as an outgroup: not part of the set of 10 bones you have been dealing with.

 

[juvenissun]

Taxonomy is but one small aspect of evolutionary theory, and you've managed to completely butcher how it works. Please don't pass judgment on things you are completely unfamiliar with.

And gluadys, you've hit the nail on the head.

So what is the big part?

 

[Mallon]

So what is the big part?

There is no one single big part to evolution. The theory has many parts that contribute equally to the theory (like embryology, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, functional morphology, palaeoecology, biostratigraphy, etc., etc., etc.).
You admitted before that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution. So I hardly think it's fair that you should heap so much criticism on the theory.

 

[juvenissun]

There is no one single big part to evolution. The theory has many parts that contribute equally to the theory (like embryology, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, functional morphology, palaeoecology, biostratigraphy, etc., etc., etc.).
You admitted before that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution. So I hardly think it's fair that you should heap so much criticism on the theory.

How does embryology contribute to the idea of evolution?

 

[Mallon]

How does embryology contribute to the idea of evolution?

Read all about it. Evo-devo is a huge field, and growing still faster.
You might also try Gould's cornerstone book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny.

 

[juvenissun]

Read all about it. Evo-devo is a huge field, and growing still faster.
You might also try Gould's cornerstone book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny.

Please do not point to me books or articles. I want to hear some (simple) explanations or descriptions from YOU.

 

[Mallon]

Please do not point to me books or articles. I want to hear some (simple) explanations or descriptions from YOU.

I don't study much evo-devo, so you're better off learning about it from someone who does. If you're genuinely interested in how developmental biology relates to evolution, you will pick up a book and read it.

 

[juvenissun]

There is no one single big part to evolution. The theory has many parts that contribute equally to the theory (like embryology, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, functional morphology, palaeoecology, biostratigraphy, etc., etc., etc.).
You admitted before that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution. So I hardly think it's fair that you should heap so much criticism on the theory.

Among these studies related to evolution, which one are you able to answer some related questions?

I do not want to read those books, I do not have time. But since I am talking to you in this forum, I may just ask you some questions that you could answer.

Of course, you do not have to take this conversation.

 

[Mallon]

Among these studies related to evolution, which one are you able to answer some related questions?

My degree is in palaeontology. Feel free to ask me as many questions about that as you like.

I do not want to read those books, I do not have time.

You could spend less time online.
Just a suggestion.

 

[artybloke]

I do not want to read those books,

Don't let your prejudices be affected by anything as diversionary as facts, eh?