Clade

[CabVet]

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?

 

[juvenissun]

Reptiles and birds. Invertebrates and vertebrates. How many exactly do you need?

In fact, I thought over on your fish example.

What's could go wrong if I classify a whale as a fish? (of course, modify the definition of fish a little to accommodate it)

Of course, something else might also need to be changed. But if everything is adjusted according to it, then what could be wrong practically?

Take this question in another way, why did Linnaeus want to correct his classification on whale? Where did he correct it to?

-------

For me, I think whale is perfectly to be a fish, a special fish, regardless if it is a mammal or not.
Tell me how serious is the mistake I just made.
Mess up the ancestry line? So be it. I do not recognize the idea of common ancestry.
Anything else?

 

[lifepsyop]

Animals grouped together because they look alike: stamp collecting.

Animals grouped together because they are related to one another: biological sense.

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.

Is it really that hard to understand?

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.

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.

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.

 

[lifepsyop]

It changes classification from stamp collecting to a classification that reflects biology.

Translation: It changes classification from being based on empirical data, to being based on mystical transmutation stories.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good. Then please tell me how does the idea of common ancestor improves the function of Linnaean taxonomy.

In a thread named "Clade", shouldn't you be asking how the idea of common ancestry improves cladistics instead of Linnaean taxonomy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Translation: It changes classification from being based on empirical data, to being based on mystical transmutation stories.

Cladistics uses empirical data, namely the measurable shared features between species.

Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We can determine empirically that all placental mammals produce milk. That is a data point used in cladistics.

 

[OllieFranz]

Translation: It changes classification from being based on empirical data, to being based on mystical transmutation stories.

And it is the empirical data that suggests common ancestry. There is no empirical data for Special Creation. That there is no empirical data for Special Creation does not prove Special Creation false, but it requires any Special Creation scenario, including YEC, to be a Last Thursday scenario. Science is built from empirical evidence. Last Thursdayism, even were it true, requires assumptions that have no place in empirical science.

 

[Dizredux]

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.

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.

Cladistics 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.

Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is an quote from Introduction to Cladistics from Berkeley.

It is not just the presence of shared characteristics which is important, but the presence of shared derived characteristics.

Here is a whole bunch of information of cladistis from Berkeley. Why Do Biologists Need Cladistics? The Need for Cladistics

In fact there is a good short course on the subject on the site.

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.

No we are committed to methodological naturalism not philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is how science works and has nothing to say about "natural philosophy".

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.

You apparently don't like using similarities to classify so what would you suggest that we use instead?

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

juvenissun

You keep asking about the value of cladistics. Here is a very good article from UC Berkeley titled Why Do Biologists Need Cladistics? The Need for Cladistics

There are several articles teaching about cladistics. I hope they are some help.

Dizredux

 

[lifepsyop]

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

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, is the animal which share the "common ancestor" of monkey be used as preliminary tester? What is that? Pig or rat?

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Cladistics does not identify "shared derived traits" between major taxa groups.

From here

1. Choose the taxa whose evoutionary relationships interest you. These taxa must be clades if you hope to come up with plausible results.

2. Determine the characters (features of the organisms) and examine each taxon to determine the character states (decide whether each taxon does or does not have each character). All taxa must be unique.

3. Determine the polarity of characters (whether each character state is original or derived in each taxon). Note that this step is not absolutely necessary in some computer algorithms. Examining the character states in outgroups to the taxa you are considering helps you determine the polarity.

4. Group taxa by synapomorphies (shared derived characteristics) not plesiomorphies (original, or "primitive", characteristics).

5. Work out conflicts that arise by some clearly stated method, usually parsimony (minimizing the number of conflicts).

6. Build your cladogram, which is NOT an evolutionary tree, following these rules:

--All taxa go on the endpoints of the cladogram, never at nodes.

--All cladogram nodes must have a list of synapomorphies which are common to all taxa above the node (unless the character is later modified).

--All synapomorphies appear on the cladogram only once unless the character state was derived separately by evolutionary parallelism.


Deny it all you want, but cladistics is based on the empirical observation of shared derived traits.

 

[Dizredux]

You have to actually understand the methodology and not simply quote-mine Wikipedia and Berkeley.

No, I was trying to help *you* understand. Apparently I failed since you seemed to have rejected everything that was posted.

So I will repeat my question:

You apparently don't like using similarities to classify so what would you suggest that we use instead?

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

 

[lifepsyop]

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.

It is based on subjective rationalization.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Evidence please.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

General similarity? As in just pure physical features? That isn't used to determine clades.

 

[juvenissun]

In a thread named "Clade", shouldn't you be asking how the idea of common ancestry improves cladistics instead of Linnaean taxonomy?

I thought the cladistics bears the idea of common ancestry. Does it?
If not, then which one does?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We can also use fishes, shrimps, etc. Right?
So, don't worry about the common ancestor of anything.

No, those animals are rarely if ever used for medicines targeted for humans.