Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Mistake in this example is due to misunderstanding, not due to the inferiority of the system. Similar situation happened in all classification systems.
Have a better example?
Reptiles and birds. Invertebrates and vertebrates. How many exactly do you need?
Behold the amazing leaps of logic in evolutionary thinking.Animals group together based on similar character traits. That's all cladistics is. It says nothing about ancestral relation. Relatedness is a metaphysical assumption based on a belief in Evolution.Animals grouped together because they look alike: stamp collecting.
Animals grouped together because they are related to one another: biological sense.
Is it really that hard to understand?
Here is an example, Linnaeus initially classified whales as fish (Pisces), an error that he later corrected, but this is what was published in the first editions of Sistema Naturae. And it is very easy to commit errors like these when you base your taxonomy on similarities rather than shared derived characters.
It changes classification from stamp collecting to a classification that reflects biology.
Good. Then please tell me how does the idea of common ancestor improves the function of Linnaean taxonomy.
Translation: It changes classification from being based on empirical data, to being based on mystical transmutation stories.
Translation: It changes classification from being based on empirical data, to being based on mystical transmutation stories.
Do you ever check this stuff out before you post? Here is a definition from Wiki. If you don't like wiki there are others.Behold the amazing leaps of logic in evolutionary thinking.Animals group together based on similar character traits. That's all cladistics is. It says nothing about ancestral relation. Relatedness is a metaphysical assumption based on a belief in Evolution.
Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCladistics is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are grouped together based on whether or not they have one or more shared unique characteristics that come from the group's last common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. Therefore, members of the same group are thought to share a common history and are considered to be more closely related.
Here is a whole bunch of information of cladistis from Berkeley. Why Do Biologists Need Cladistics? The Need for CladisticsIt is not just the presence of shared characteristics which is important, but the presence of shared derived characteristics.
No we are committed to methodological naturalism not philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is how science works and has nothing to say about "natural philosophy".It's easy to understand. You're deeply committed to a natural philosophy and your mission in life is to convince everyone to believe it's science.
You apparently don't like using similarities to classify so what would you suggest that we use instead?Your logic is self-contradictory, CabVet. The features that classify a whale as mammalia is just another layer of similarity. Yet you just criticized the idea of committing errors by inferring things only from similarity.
Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is an quote from Introduction to Cladistics from Berkeley.Here is a whole bunch of information of cladistis from Berkeley. Why Do Biologists Need Cladistics? The Need for Cladistics
So, is the animal which share the "common ancestor" of monkey be used as preliminary tester? What is that? Pig or rat?
Cladistics does not identify "shared derived traits" between major taxa groups.
You have to actually understand the methodology and not simply quote-mine Wikipedia and Berkeley.
You apparently don't like using similarities to classify so what would you suggest that we use instead?
You have to actually understand the methodology and not simply quote-mine Wikipedia and Berkeley.
Cladistics does not identify "shared derived traits" between major taxa groups. This is a metaphysical statement about evolutionary ancestry and is found nowhere in the data. Cladists will simply tend to group organisms by the highest levels of similarity. Discordant similarity will be rationalized as being "convergent".
Take Megabats for example. Because Megabat eye/brain anatomy were found to be more similar to Primates than Microbats, some Cladists had trouble resolving whether those features were "shared derived traits" and the Megabat wings "convergently evolved" separately from Microbats, or vise versa. (bat wings are "shared derived traits" and the primate-like eye/brain anatomy "convergently evolved")
This led to the proposal of a "Flying Primate Theory"
We flightless primates Tetrapod Zoology
The point is, in cladistics, there is no magic label that absolutely identifies a "shared derived trait", It's something the evolutionist must infer from the data and is often completely subjective.
This is the danger of simply accepting what Evolutionists tell you as a fact, because they will not advertise the copious amounts of subjective rationalizations that go into their claims.
No system is 100% flawless. Even the theory of gravity has flaws, having some flaws doesn't make a theory or system trash, it just marks some potential for improvement.
What strawman is this? I didn't say anything had to be 100% flawless.
The claim was made that cladists have some ability to objectively distinguish "general similarity" from "similarity due to common ancestry".
They don't.
What strawman is this? I didn't say anything had to be 100% flawless.
The claim was made that cladists have some ability to objectively distinguish "general similarity" from "similarity due to common ancestry".
They don't.
It is based on subjective rationalization.
In a thread named "Clade", shouldn't you be asking how the idea of common ancestry improves cladistics instead of Linnaean taxonomy?
Well, we do use pretty much all mammals for our tests. And it is actually pretty interesting how similar pigs and humans are bodily wise. Ultimately, the majority, if not all, mammals share a common ancestor. So there probably is a far back ancestor of pigs, rats, chimps, and humans that was a mammal.
We can also use fishes, shrimps, etc. Right?
So, don't worry about the common ancestor of anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?