Determining Meaningful Traits

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

other threads have been derailed by an interesting question, how do we determine what traits signify relatedness and which ones dont? The scientific answer to this is cladistics. since evolution allows for addition, subtraction, and convergence, scientists have developed a way of sorting out which traits are which. cladistics utilizes a cladogram. any given species has billions of genetic locations so every species has more than enough traits that can be compared. essentially you have your list of species and list of traits. the most common traits are likely to be the most ancestral. Here is a good place to look: http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/CLAS/CLAS.Clad.html
as you can see, traits become more and more unique as one moves further along the cladogram. you can also see how the traits are organized in a chart before putting them on the cladogram. spine is unique to vertebrates and all vertebrates have them thus is a primitive trait of vertebrates. bearing fur is a derived trait for vertebrates but a primitive trait for mammals. If you have problems deciding which traits are meaningful and which arent, make a list of traits and see how prevelant they are among your list of species.

The key here is you cant simply assume a trait is meaningful or meaningless based on your whim, you need an objective standard. this system provides an objective standard.

 

[Bombila]

Thanks, CJM, that is an excellent and nicely simple explanation of basic cladistics. I hope the people who are most in need of understanding it take a good long look at the article.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope the people who are most in need of understanding it take a good long look at the article.

I didn't understand it, so I moved on. What kind of situation would a person be in, that they would find themselves "in need" of understanding it? (Let alone, "most in need of".)

 

[Bombila]

I didn't understand it, so I moved on. What kind of situation would a person be in, that they would find themselves "in need" of understanding it? (Let alone, "most in need of".)

I don't believe you bothered to read it, or you would have understood it. I am aware that you are not your avatar: you just pretend to be. IOW, you are not stupid, and the article was very simply worded. Even without believing in evolution, cladistics offers a convenient method of classifying animals and determining relationships. That kind of information could have important uses in medicine, animal husbandry, zoology, and so on.

For example, some exotic or rare animals have ended up in zoos where the keepers have no idea what they normally eat. The animal may not look, superficially, much like some animal related to it. Using cladistics, one might deduce where the animal fits and what other animals are closely related, and from that determine some kinds of food it might be able to eat. One might, in medicine, determine that a drug that works well for one animal might work also for closely related animals (this certainly includes people, and is why testing drugs on distantly related animals like rats is so imperfect). And so on.

In fact, I was not thinking of you at all when I said 'most in need', but of several persons who do ask questions which require an understanding of such relationships in order to understand the answers they are offered. As it stands, they just argue in a fashion that makes it obvious they don't know very much about the natural world, with or without evolution.

Lack of desire to know about the natural world is something I find difficult to comprehend, though I know lots of smart people who don't care in the least about the diversity of plants and animals, or the odd traits that pop up, like carnivores in the plant world, fungi that throw 'cannonballs' of spores, little crustaceans that can live for years in a dried up puddle, etc. I'm enthusiastic about these things; they interest me greatly, and though an understanding of evolution enhances my interest, the demolition of the TOE wouldn't reduce my enjoyment.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, some exotic or rare animals have ended up in zoos where the keepers have no idea what they normally eat.

I'll admit --- you've got an excellent point here.

Lack of desire to know about the natural world is something I find difficult to comprehend...

As someone once said, "I love flowers, but I hate botany". I'm not quite that way ---QV please. I need to know the scientific name of the flower, and though I don't go so far as to need to know what the pH content of the soil it's growing in is, it would be nice.

I studied Zoology as a teenager. My dad got me a Time-Life encyclopedia set on Zoology, and I read every volume, taking notes and making cross-references.

I love the Animal Planet channel.

 

[Bombila]

I'll admit --- you've got an excellent point here.As someone once said, "I love flowers, but I hate botany". I'm not quite that way ---QV please. I need to know the scientific name of the flower, and though I don't go so far as to need to know what the pH content of the soil it's growing in is, it would be nice.

I studied Zoology as a teenager. My dad got me a Time-Life encyclopedia set on Zoology, and I read every volume, taking notes and making cross-references.

I love the Animal Planet channel.

Bet you read every single one of Gerald Durrell's books as well. I certainly did; found them in the library when I was around ten and loved them all, though I suspect modern zooloogists might find some of his collecting methods shocking today.

Me, I like to know the Latin name of a wildflower, mostly because I can then figure out what else it might be related to, but remembering Latin names is another thing entirely.

 

[Split Rock]

I love the Animal Planet channel.

I thought you were always angry with Animal Planet because you and your wife cannot watch a single show on it without being subjected to evolutioary biology? Or is this another one of those "paradoxes" you are so fond of? Like, how you respect science so very much, but sciecne can "take a hike?"

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you were always angry with Animal Planet because you and your wife cannot watch a single show on it without being subjected to evolutioary biology?

Yes, I was gonna mention that, but decided against it. If we filter out the propaganda, we can enjoy it; but for the record --- you're right --- it does ruin the show.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Yes, I was gonna mention that, but decided against it. If we filter out the propaganda, we can enjoy it; but for the record --- you're right --- it does ruin the show.

im sorry you let facts get in the way of your enjoyment of the show, seeing as you dont let facts get in the way of anything else.

 

[AV1611VET]

im sorry you let facts get in the way of your enjoyment of the show, seeing as you dont let facts get in the way of anything else.

Ya --- well --- they can keep their "facts" to themselves. I don't need to "know" where current science says a lion came from in order to enjoy watching it eat a deer. There just isn't any good family entertainment on TV anymore.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Ya --- well --- they can keep their "facts" to themselves. I don't need to "know" where current science says a lion came from in order to enjoy watching it eat a deer. There just isn't any good family entertainment on TV anymore.

well evolution is essential to gaining full insight into what a lion does and why a lion does it. you can compare its killing style to other cats and see almost an identical strategy. that's common ancestry. why does a new dominant male kill the young of the pride? evolution says that this ensures that the dominant male, who has superior genes, has his genes passed on. whats the creationist answer? god willed it to be so? thats pretty cruel if its the design of a loving God.

 

[AV1611VET]

well evolution is essential to gaining full insight into what a lion does and why a lion does it. you can compare its killing style to other cats and see almost an identical strategy. that's common ancestry. why does a new dominant male kill the young of the pride? evolution says that this ensures that the dominant male, who has superior genes, has his genes passed on. whats the creationist answer? god willed it to be so? thats pretty cruel if its the design of a loving God.

That's not my creationist answer.

This creationist says that God put in writing that death is an enemy of His; and if a new dominant male kills the young of the pride, he does it thanks to FIRST ADAM, not SECOND ADAM.

But when all is said and done, and Eternity Future is ushered in, all these male-dominant felines who are wanting to pass on superior genes are suddenly going to have a change of heart.

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

That's not my creationist answer.

This creationist says that God put in writing that death is an enemy of His; and if a new dominant male kills the young of the pride, he does it thanks to FIRST ADAM, not SECOND ADAM.

But when all is said and done, and Eternity Future is ushered in, all these male-dominant felines who are wanting to pass on superior genes are suddenly going to have a change of heart.
Originally Posted by Isaiah 11:6-9

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
​

that would require a change in the digestive tract, it's got nothing to do with heart.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

how many adam's are there?

 

[AV1611VET]

how many adam's are there?

Well --- I'll admit --- "Second Adam" comes from a Christmas carol; however ---

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

lions cant digest grasses so how will they become friendly with impala all of a sudden?

 

[AV1611VET]

lions cant digest grasses so how will they become friendly with impala all of a sudden?

The same way, I suppose, that we're not going to have any need of the sun anymore.

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The same way, I suppose, that we're not going to have any need of the sun anymore.

Originally Posted by Revelation 21:23

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.​

Energy...who needs that?
​

 

[MoonLancer]

The same way, I suppose, that we're not going to have any need of the sun anymore.

your sun gods do not impress me

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

returning to the OP: using the cladistic method, traits are organized and given value based on how common they are among the species and that way it is objective. how would you determine whether or not a trait is significant in determining relatedness?