Clade

[Dizredux]

There have been some rigorous work done on Baraminology (kinds) classification recently, if you search around for it.

Don't expect much intelligent discussion on the subject here. Most members are absolutely desperate to trash anything related to the Bible, and they don't care if their points make any sense or not, just as long as they're flinging some mud at the Word of God. Just look at one of the last comments "'Kinds' doesn't work because we can transplant pig organs to humans." That is the level of intellect you're dealing with here.

Gosh, I wish I was smart like you and be able to look down at people like you do. It would make me feel superior even though I know I am far less than you.

I guess that since I have the pitiful intellect of the others here I can't do it. Too bad, it would be wonderful if I was right on everything like you are. It would be so nice.

Perhaps then I could understand the value of baraminology but alas I have to do with the the poor intellect that I have and stay with science based taxonomy.

In abject sadness and low intellect,

Dizredux

 

[biggles53]

Gosh, I wish I was smart like you and be able to look down at people like you do. It would make me feel superior even though I know I am far less than you.

I guess that since I have the pitiful intellect of the others here I can't do it. Too bad, it would be wonderful if I was right on everything like you are. It would be so nice.

Perhaps then I could understand the value of baraminology but alas I have to do with the the poor intellect that I have and stay with science based taxonomy.

In abject sadness and low intellect,

Dizredux

 

[OllieFranz]

I like to make this a little clear:

1. a and b are related: physical
2. c was the common ancestor of a and b: ideological
3. A is classified at a higher lever of a (So is B to b): physical
4. A is similar to B just as a is similar to b: physical
5. Is A related to B?
6. Was C the common ancestor of A and B?: ideological

I think items 2 and 6 could be temporarily deleted from the argument. And the question is on item 5.

I really don't know how to answer this. The major problem is on the criteria of "higher lever".

And, I can imagine, the idea of "higher level" is very critical. Again, the criteria must be carefully chosen. And I think it should be chosen according to a purpose in the classification system. Once that is set, then I probably can answer item 5.

If:

a = dogs
b = cats
Is there any way that item 1 could be true?

Or is there a better assignment for a and b?

A and B are related (or similar, if you prefer) to one another similarly to how a and b are related (or similar), but there is no reason why A should be related to a or B to b.

To give a couple of concrete examples, a could be gray wolves and b could be domestic dogs, or a could be jaguars and b could be leopards. In both cases, these are different species, that are close enough to interbreed (though with difficulty), so we know that they are related and have a common ancestor.

Their higher level counterparts (for example if A is an early feline and B is an early bear-dog) would not be closely related species, so there would be no chance for interbreeding, but their similar DNA and the fossil record of a common ancestor would still show that their similarity is probably due to relatedness.

If you show that they cannot be related, that would empirical evidence for the Last Thursday YEC scenario. Without that LT evidence, there are early weasel-like carnivores that present as likely common ancestors for the felines and bear-dogs. Following the evidence, we have to model our theory on the weasel-thing being the common ancestor to A and B, unless science can justify the LT assumption.

 

[juvenissun]

A and B are related (or similar, if you prefer) to one another similarly to how a and b are related (or similar), but there is no reason why A should be related to a or B to b.

To give a couple of concrete examples, a could be gray wolves and b could be domestic dogs, or a could be jaguars and b could be leopards. In both cases, these are different species, that are close enough to interbreed (though with difficulty), so we know that they are related and have a common ancestor.

Their higher level counterparts (for example if A is an early feline and B is an early bear-dog) would not be closely related species, so there would be no chance for interbreeding, but their similar DNA and the fossil record of a common ancestor would still show that their similarity is probably due to relatedness.

If you show that they cannot be related, that would empirical evidence for the Last Thursday YEC scenario. Without that LT evidence, there are early weasel-like carnivores that present as likely common ancestors for the felines and bear-dogs. Following the evidence, we have to model our theory on the weasel-thing being the common ancestor to A and B, unless science can justify the LT assumption.

I am lost.
I love animals, but I hate to classify them. (I do not envy Adam's job at all)

Sorry, if you are not going to clarify it for me, that is fine.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

I was mostly talking about medicinal studies involving predicting disease patterns and testing treatments, not making the treatments themselves necessarily. You eat the herbs or extract their chemicals and apply them to the human body by some means, but most people wouldn't risk testing a new medication on a human first when they don't know for sure what the best dosages are or even if it is safe. Hence why animal trials are often used, but you need to know which animals are best suited for comparing to humans (since plenty of them will not react to medications the same way humans will). Thankfully new test methods are being developed so we won't have to use animals anymore, but until those are perfected we'll have to live with animal testing.

 

[OllieFranz]

I am lost.
I love animals, but I hate to classify them. (I do not envy Adam's job at all)

Sorry, if you are not going to clarify it for me, that is fine.

As a non-scientist, you don't need to worry about these things if you don't want to, but if you are going to criticize scientists for their choices in making these classifications, you really should understand what they do and why when they make these choices. They have tried to explain it to you, but you choose to ignore them because they get all technical, or even just a little long-winded.

Many of your posts come off (I am not saying that you intend them to be read that way, but it is the impression they make) as saying "I don't need or use X in my daily life as a non-scientist, and I don't see why a scientist would need to use it either." This impression is so strong, that it comes across as you demeaning scientists, their life's work and their integrity. And when they attempt to defend themselves from this percieved attack, you say "If you are going to get all technical, I'm going to ignore you and say you have nothing to say," which comes off as "If you don't answer my attack in 10 words or less, I am going to claim that you can't deny the insults that I made."

 

[juvenissun]

I was mostly talking about medicinal studies involving predicting disease patterns and testing treatments, not making the treatments themselves necessarily. You eat the herbs or extract their chemicals and apply them to the human body by some means, but most people wouldn't risk testing a new medication on a human first when they don't know for sure what the best dosages are or even if it is safe. Hence why animal trials are often used, but you need to know which animals are best suited for comparing to humans (since plenty of them will not react to medications the same way humans will). Thankfully new test methods are being developed so we won't have to use animals anymore, but until those are perfected we'll have to live with animal testing.

So, in testing a drug for human use, is chimp a better sample than a dog? I am not sure.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, in testing a drug for human use, is chimp a better sample than a dog? I am not sure.

Yeah, a chimp is way better than a dog. There are tons of chemicals that are harmless to humans that would kill a dog (chocolate comes to mind, and you would be amazed at how deadly raisins are to dogs). Additionally, side effects experienced by dogs would likely not match up with those experienced by humans.

 

[juvenissun]

As a non-scientist, you don't need to worry about these things if you don't want to, but if you are going to criticize scientists for their choices in making these classifications, you really should understand what they do and why when they make these choices. They have tried to explain it to you, but you choose to ignore them because they get all technical, or even just a little long-winded.

Many of your posts come off (I am not saying that you intend them to be read that way, but it is the impression they make) as saying "I don't need or use X in my daily life as a non-scientist, and I don't see why a scientist would need to use it either." This impression is so strong, that it comes across as you demeaning scientists, their life's work and their integrity. And when they attempt to defend themselves from this percieved attack, you say "If you are going to get all technical, I'm going to ignore you and say you have nothing to say," which comes off as "If you don't answer my attack in 10 words or less, I am going to claim that you can't deny the insults that I made."

I do not intend to learn biology in this thread. All I like to see is an example which is explained in a way that I can understand. It is no use to dump a biology book on me as your argument. If you could not make a simple but effective explanation, then it is your problem, not mine.

So, instead of asking me to understand your wolf-dog stuff, can you answer the question in my OP by using these animals as an example?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I do not intend to learn biology in this thread. All I like to see is an example which is explained in a way that I can understand. It is no use to dump a biology book on me as your argument. If you could not make a simple but effective explanation, then it is your problem, not mine.

So, instead of asking me to understand your wolf-dog stuff, can you answer the question in my OP by using these animals as an example?

We have to use dogs and wolves? Why?

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, a chimp is way better than a dog. There are tons of chemicals that are harmless to humans that would kill a dog (chocolate comes to mind, and you would be amazed at how deadly raisins are to dogs). Additionally, side effects experienced by dogs would likely not match up with those experienced by humans.

Have all human drugs tested on chimp? Even it could be expensive, but would human life worth the money?

Why is it not done?

 

[lasthero]

All I like to see is an example which is explained in a way that I can understand.

If you don't even understand basic biology, though, you're not going to get it, no matter how well it's explained.

I don't understand Advanced Physics. If someone tried to explain even a basic concept of it to me, I couldn't make any sense of it - some topics just can't be reduced to the least common denominator in a few paragraphs. I'd have to at least get some basic instruction and study it first before I could hope to do anything with it.

Just because people have trouble explaining something to you doesn't necessarily mean the problem is with the concept. It could just be you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Have all human drugs tested on chimp? Even it could be expensive, but would human life worth the money?

Why is it not done?

Honestly, most drugs are now tested on apes or monkeys (monkeys get close enough), then go on to human trials which are observed over periods of time to check for long term effects. The process takes years and is expensive, that is why many medications are so expensive, particularly when they are new. But companies still make a profit and a great deal of people benefit from the medications, so I would say it is worth it.

 

[juvenissun]

Honestly, most drugs are now tested on apes or monkeys (monkeys get close enough), then go on to human trials which are observed over periods of time to check for long term effects. The process takes years and is expensive, that is why many medications are so expensive, particularly when they are new. But companies still make a profit and a great deal of people benefit from the medications, so I would say it is worth it.

I like to believe you. But do you have a reference or two on this?

 

[juvenissun]

If you don't even understand basic biology, though, you're not going to get it, no matter how well it's explained.

I don't understand Advanced Physics. If someone tried to explain even a basic concept of it to me, I couldn't make any sense of it - some topics just can't be reduced to the least common denominator in a few paragraphs. I'd have to at least get some basic instruction and study it first before I could hope to do anything with it.

Just because people have trouble explaining something to you doesn't necessarily mean the problem is with the concept. It could just be you.

If you asked me geology question, no matter how hard it is, I can make you understand.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If you asked me geology question, no matter how hard it is, I can make you understand.

If English were you first language and you were a real geologist this might be a credible statement.

 

[EternalDragon]

If you don't even understand basic biology, though, you're not going to get it, no matter how well it's explained.

I don't understand Advanced Physics. If someone tried to explain even a basic concept of it to me, I couldn't make any sense of it - some topics just can't be reduced to the least common denominator in a few paragraphs. I'd have to at least get some basic instruction and study it first before I could hope to do anything with it.

Just because people have trouble explaining something to you doesn't necessarily mean the problem is with the concept. It could just be you.

I've read Einstein's theories and also have a book by a physicist that had a section explained in layman terms as well as a section with the technical. With no formal training I could understand the easier section just fine.

I'm sure you would be fine with it as well.

 

[Dizredux]

Yeah, a chimp is way better than a dog. There are tons of chemicals that are harmless to humans that would kill a dog (chocolate comes to mind, and you would be amazed at how deadly raisins are to dogs). Additionally, side effects experienced by dogs would likely not match up with those experienced by humans.

And there is a reason for this, do you think you could come up with it. (Hint, genetics).

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

I just wonder where do those knowledgeable evolutionists go? Are they simply chickened out?

I gave you multiple scientific, peer reviewed research papers where a classification system based on evolution and common ancestry was shown to be useful.

Did you chicken out?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've read Einstein's theories and also have a book by a physicist that had a section explained in layman terms as well as a section with the technical. With no formal training I could understand the easier section just fine.

I'm sure you would be fine with it as well.

You can't teach those who refuse to learn.