Clade

[OllieFranz]

One practical application is in immunology. We know that we have to develop a new flu vaccine every year because there is a new flu virus every year. If viruses did not evolve, the same vaccine would work from year to year.

BTW: The scientists that develop the new vaccines need to keep abreast of how and why the virus evolves. They need to know the kind of information in those long, boring reports of which loudmouth has posted the abtracts. Those reports contain the information you keep asking for. But of course you don't care. You have alreaady determined that they are not relevent, at least not to you. But then, as you said, you are not a biologist or a geneticist (nor are you an immunologist, though you'll gladly benefit from their hard work while denying that the basis for it is in any way "practical.")

And an abstract is just a (relatively short summary of the key points of a report. The fact that "clade" was only mentioned once, and "phylogeny" was only mentioned a few times in the abstract does not mean that they were not important. The fact that they werementioned at all means that they had a major impact. To discover how major, it is necessary to read the entire report. But if you are not going to read the abstract because it is too long and technical, that does not bode well for your patience to examine the whole report.

 

[lifepsyop]

Cladistics is most reminiscent of Typology, or arrangement of species within distinct, discontinuous 'types', instead of continuous gradations of character traits that might have been expected under evolution theory. For this reason, some evolutionists were even skeptical of cladistics when it was first rising to popularity due to the fact that it really has nothing to say about Evolution. Evolution theory is actually useless to cladistic methodology. It's just metaphysical narrative that gets tacked on afterwards.

 

[lasthero]

For this reason, some evolutionists were even skeptical of cladistics when it was first rising to popularity

Such as?

 

[juvenissun]

Cladistics is most reminiscent of Typology, or arrangement of species within distinct, discontinuous 'types', instead of continuous gradations of character traits that might have been expected under evolution theory. For this reason, some evolutionists were even skeptical of cladistics when it was first rising to popularity due to the fact that it really has nothing to say about Evolution. Evolution theory is actually useless to cladistic methodology. It's just metaphysical narrative that gets tacked on afterwards.

Thank you. I wish what you said is true.

Neverthless, evolutionist jumped on it and pirated it. So they raised this classification system whenever they want to argue about the idea of common ancestor. Your explanation is good. But it is certainly annoy that it needs to be repeated to remind and to convince ignorant evolutionists.

The connecting lines in the cladistic diagram are very misleading, simply because the objects are life forms.

 

[juvenissun]

One practical application is in immunology. We know that we have to develop a new flu vaccine every year because there is a new flu virus every year. If viruses did not evolve, the same vaccine would work from year to year.

BTW: The scientists that develop the new vaccines need to keep abreast of how and why the virus evolves. They need to know the kind of information in those long, boring reports of which loudmouth has posted the abtracts. Those reports contain the information you keep asking for. But of course you don't care. You have alreaady determined that they are not relevent, at least not to you. But then, as you said, you are not a biologist or a geneticist (nor are you an immunologist, though you'll gladly benefit from their hard work while denying that the basis for it is in any way "practical.")

And an abstract is just a (relatively short summary of the key points of a report. The fact that "clade" was only mentioned once, and "phylogeny" was only mentioned a few times in the abstract does not mean that they were not important. The fact that they werementioned at all means that they had a major impact. To discover how major, it is necessary to read the entire report. But if you are not going to read the abstract because it is too long and technical, that does not bode well for your patience to examine the whole report.

For life forms (I assume virus is a form of life) changed every year, it is certainly useful to compare them and detect the trend of change. This idea has been proven false since we could not predict the flu virus of the next year. If this is used as a case of evolution, then the evolution is totally busted.

I said I am not a biologist neither a geneticist. You expect ME to read their professional articles? In fact, I don't have to. If there were anything significant, the news must have exaggerated it world-wide loud.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For life forms (I assume virus is a form of life) changed every year, it is certainly useful to compare them and detect the trend of change. This idea has been proven false since we could not predict the flu virus of the next year. If this is used as a case of evolution, then the evolution is totally busted.

I said I am not a biologist neither a geneticist. You expect ME to read their professional articles? In fact, I don't have to. If there were anything significant, the news must have exaggerated it world-wide loud.

Wrong, try again. That a virus can evolve differently than predicted is very weak evidence against the theory. There are many ways that life can evolve, if it takes an unexpected turn that is not big news. The fact that very often they have been able to devise protection against changing viruses is very strong evidence for the theory.

 

[lifepsyop]

Thank you. I wish what you said is true.

Neverthless, evolutionist jumped on it and pirated it. So they raised this classification system whenever they want to argue about the idea of common ancestor. Your explanation is good. But it is certainly annoy that it needs to be repeated to remind and to convince ignorant evolutionists.

The connecting lines in the cladistic diagram are very misleading, simply because the objects are life forms.

Everything, no matter how unfavorably it once portrayed Evolution theory in the past, has been accommodated into the theory, highly sanitized and re-packaged to the public, with any hint of discord swept under the rug. Evolution is simply a jello-like overarching philosophy that can be molded around any changing landscape of data. Most evolutionists don't have a clue and believe the the theory has been one big gravy-train since its inception, instead of the train-wreck of ad-hoc theory-rescuing devices that its truly been.


"... as the theory of cladistics has developed, it has been realized that more and more of the evolutionary framework is inessential, and may be dropped. The chief symptom of this change is the significance attached to nodes in cladograms... in all early work in cladistics, the nodes are taken to represent ancestral species. This assumption has been found to be unnecessary, even misleading, and may be dropped. Platnick (1980) refers to the new theory as "transformed cladistics" and the transformation is away from dependence on evolutionary theory." (Colin Patterson 1980 "Cladistics" - Biologist, p.239)

"... As I understand it, cladistics is theoretically neutral so far as evolution theory is concerned. It has nothing to say about Evolution. You don't need to know about Evolution, or believe in it, to do cladistic analysis. All that cladistics demands is that groups have characters, and that the groups have non-overlapping characters." (Colin Patterson 1981)

"We have no strong principle telling us to use the method of maximum parsimony; we only have a weak one. It is that evolution is relatively improbable. It is unlikely enough that all mutations should arise and should be selected for one character in one species, but that similar events should take place independently in another is even more improbable. Shared characters are therefore more likely to be due to common ancestry than convergence." (Evolution and Classification: The reformation of cladistics 1986)

"No one needs reminding that we are well into a revolutionary phase in the study of evolution, systematics, and the interrelationships of organisms.... to the thesis of Darwinian evolution... has been added a new cladistic antithesis which says that the search for ancestors is a fool's errand, that all we can do is determine sister group relationships based on the analysis of derived characters.... It is a change in approach that is not easy to accept for, in a sense, it runs counter to what we have all been taught." (Thompson, K. (1981) "A Radical Look at Fish-Tetrapod Relationships" Paleobiology, p153)

Evolution theory could revert back to some flavor of saltation (hopeful monsters), and in another generation they'd be teaching the public as if it had been an essential part of the theory all along. They are car salesmen.

 

[lifepsyop]

One practical application is in immunology. We know that we have to develop a new flu vaccine every year because there is a new flu virus every year. If viruses did not evolve, the same vaccine would work from year to year.

So ridiculous.... Viruses aren't "evolving" (whatever that means). The virus's components are breaking down and this sometimes makes it harder for vaccines to target them. Loss of functional complexity can sometimes increase survival.

Simple analogy: If a city empire is under attack and destroys its own bridges, then it will make it much more difficult for the invading enemy to cross over and claim the city. This is analogous to what is being called "evolution" in the molecular world.

Thus 'Evolve' is a complete useless word. But equivocation is the lifeblood of evolution theory.

 

[juvenissun]

Everything, no matter how unfavorably it once portrayed Evolution theory in the past, has been accommodated into the theory, highly sanitized and re-packaged to the public, with any hint of discord swept under the rug. Evolution is simply a jello-like overarching philosophy that can be molded around any changing landscape of data. Most evolutionists don't have a clue and believe the the theory has been one big gravy-train since its inception, instead of the train-wreck of ad-hoc theory-rescuing devices that its truly been.

Hey, thanks a lot. It seems your biology is much better than mine. It is nice to have your help.

But so far, I have not seen any real challenge to the OP yet.

 

[Dizredux]

OK can you explain what you mean by "practical question."?

Dizredux

 

[lifepsyop]

Hey, thanks a lot. It seems your biology is much better than mine. It is nice to have your help.

But so far, I have not seen any real challenge to the OP yet.

Is this system only ideologic and has no practical use (except labeling)? Since evolutionists will certainly oppose this idea, so I really like to learn even a single case that this ancestry-focused classification system is useful to solve a practical question. What I meant is that if we do not involve the use of ancestry, then this classification system won't work in a practical sense.

In cladistics, the nodes that represent the "common ancestor" of all members of a clade are purely imaginary. They are fantasy data points.

The actual systematic methodology works fine simply as comparisons of biological character traits. But then "Evolution" is like a little kid that comes along and starts scribbling fanciful pictures with crayons trying to fill in the gaps between the pronounced discontinuity and come up with other imaginary devices like "convergent evolution" when he can't get the pieces to fit right.

 

[juvenissun]

OK can you explain what you mean by "practical question."?

Dizredux

We want to "do" something (make something happen) but can't do it without the understanding.

It is something like a project needs to be done by an engineer.

 

[juvenissun]

In cladistics, the nodes that represent the "common ancestor" of all members of a clade are purely imaginary. They are fantasy data points.

The actual systematic methodology works fine simply as comparisons of biological character traits. But then "Evolution" is like a little kid that comes along and starts scribbling fanciful pictures with crayons trying to fill in the gaps between the pronounced discontinuity and come up with other imaginary devices like "convergent evolution" when he can't get the pieces to fit right.

You explained it well.

This is why I think the Biblical term "kind" CAN also be elaborated into a system comparable to the cladistic system, but only with a more "practical" criteria. I really like to see that Christian biologists would develop such a system. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen. If I were a biologist and give me 20 more years, I WILL do it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If so, bird and human are the same kind. Is this your logic?

No, but you see how just dividing creatures by kind isn't functional in medical practice. As it happens, depending on disease origins, a kind based system wouldn't be predictive of disease patterns at all, nor would it explain why some animals, such as rats, are more likely to host diseases that harm humans without harming the vector rat.

It also wouldn't explain why pig heart valves can be safe replacements for damaged valves in humans (their hearts, sadly, are not). Would you ever guess that beings that weren't even the same "kind" could safely receive donated body parts from each other (we haven't really experimented with donating human parts to other animals so much, but I would imagine that it could be done)?

The "kinds" idea doesn't reveal the medicinal significance of animals as well as the currently accepted system does.

 

[lasthero]

I really like to see that Christian biologists would develop such a system. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen.

Why don't you think they've done it?

 

[Dizredux]

We want to "do" something (make something happen) but can't do it without the understanding.

It is something like a project needs to be done by an engineer.

Thanks for the response but I still don't understand what you mean by "Practical question". Could you give me a couple of examples of what you are looking for.

Dizredux

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks for the response but I still don't understand what you mean by "Practical question". Could you give me a couple of examples of what you are looking for.

Dizredux

For example:

1. We want to treat these animals this way because their common ancestor was this.

2. Because the common ancestor of these life forms was this, so they are unique in providing this material for this purpose.

etc.

 

[juvenissun]

Why don't you think they've done it?

Because satan controls this world.

Please do not reply. This is not what this thread is for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because satan controls this world.

Please do not reply. This is not what this thread is for.

Then why did you make such a foolish and incorrect post in the first place?

 

[juvenissun]

No, but you see how just dividing creatures by kind isn't functional in medical practice. As it happens, depending on disease origins, a kind based system wouldn't be predictive of disease patterns at all, nor would it explain why some animals, such as rats, are more likely to host diseases that harm humans without harming the vector rat.

It also wouldn't explain why pig heart valves can be safe replacements for damaged valves in humans (their hearts, sadly, are not). Would you ever guess that beings that weren't even the same "kind" could safely receive donated body parts from each other (we haven't really experimented with donating human parts to other animals so much, but I would imagine that it could be done)?

The "kinds" idea doesn't reveal the medicinal significance of animals as well as the currently accepted system does.

This is an example which suggests that we can trash the cladistic classification. Some herbs are excellent for human health.