Micro/Macro what's it all about?

[AV1611VET]

“Two of all the living creatures”

No, the Bible doesn't say "two of all the living creatures."

 

[createdtoworship]

You have not shown that the field of phylogenetics was invented as an alternative to taxonomy, don’t be silly.

Maybe this will help.. Taxonomy and phylogeny

sir I need peer review. Everyone has opinions and theories, even I do. But most are not scientists, that is why we need peer review at a very minimal. Anyway, let me explain to you taxonomy.

taxonomy was not good enough for evolutionists because it does not prove universal common ancestry. Due to a natural barrier to evolution, the simple fact that animals only reproduce and have fertile offspring with the same type of animal. So because of this barrier in taxonomical structure, they created phylogeny, which does not have that same barrier, but at the same time, according to the peer review, assumes universal natural selection is true. which is a blatant violation of begging the question fallacies.
An article in science daily in 2011 says that -“A New Evolutionary History of Primates,” claims that ...researchers have created “[a] robust new phylogenetic tree” which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."
A new evolutionary history of primates
so that quote reveals that phylogeny was used to revamp taxonomy, and another quote reveals the motive for revamping classical taxonomy:
a peer review journal in "biology theory" states this
"Molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness."*

the quote is saying that phylogenics (molecular trees) are based on the assumption of universal common ancestry (something not found in taxonomy)
in the previous quote I showed that they had found issues with taxonomy, and these problems according this quote are related to universal common ancestry ( a major premise of monkey to man evolution)

*- Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca, “Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics,” Biological Theory, 1(4):357-371, (2006).

 

[Yttrium]

taxonomy was not good enough for evolutionists because it does not prove universal common ancestry. Due to a natural barrier to evolution, the simple fact that animals only reproduce and have fertile offspring with the same type of animal. So because of this barrier in taxonomical structure, they created phylogeny, which does not have that same barrier, but at the same time, according to the peer review, assumes universal natural selection is true. which is a blatant violation of begging the question fallacies.

gradyll, I do like the research you do here. However, you seem to be overthinking this whole taxonomy/phylogeny thing. Taxonomy and phylogeny are used for different things. Taxonomy wasn't a barrier, it was a classification system. That was the tool it was made for. It is still used as that tool. Phylogeny is a different tool. It expresses evolutionary relationships. You don't want to go messing up the classification system with a hypothetical relationship tree.

The theory of evolution predicts that there are relationships between the different species. Phylogeny is a tool that is used to express those relationships in order to help test that prediction. Consequently, phylogeny doesn't have a "begging the question fallacy". It's meant to be part of evolution theory.

 

[Jimmy D]

sir I need peer review.

It was merely an attempt to describe the concepts.

Everyone has opinions and theories, even I do. But most are not scientists, that is why we need peer review at a very minimal. Anyway, let me explain to you taxonomy.

It was merely an attempt to describe the concepts, I understand what the taxonomic system is.

taxonomy was not good enough for evolutionists because it does not prove universal common ancestry.

This is not explaining taxonomy, it is just a repetition of your strange opinion that the classification of animals has to prove common ancestry.

Due to a natural barrier to evolution, the simple fact that animals only reproduce and have fertile offspring with the same type of animal.

That is not a barrier to evolution. It seems that you are under the impression that the TOE suggests anything other than that animals only reproduce with members of their own species (or in rare cases with closely related species I suppose).

To repeat what Tas said....a system of naming things is not a barrier to an actual biological process.


Do you understand how speciation works? Your posts imply that you think for evolution to occur different species, genera etc are interbreeding, that's not what happens.

So because of this barrier in taxonomical structure, they created phylogeny,

You keep saying this but it isn't true. You posted one link to support it and it doesn't say anything about barriers in the taxonomic system, or the creation of phylogenetics. If you claim this again you will be dismissed as a liar.


An article in science daily in 2011 says that -“A New Evolutionary History of Primates,” claims that ...researchers have created “[a] robust new phylogenetic tree” which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."

We have all read the article and it..

Doesn't say...

That phylogenetics were invented because of barriers in the taxonomic system.

It does say...

This study provides more detailed insights into primate taxonomy and that new information from molecular biology has resolved ambiguities in the primate family tree.

I also hope you realize that your article is not "peer review" as you claim, but a news article reporting on the findings of a peer- reviewed paper. I don't know if you've bothered reading the paper it summarizes but what I can understand of it is very interesting.

However, the Otolemur lineage (node 180) is placed as part of a paraphyletic grouping (node 182) along with two other extant Galago lineages (nodes 181, 183), suggesting that further taxonomic investigation of Galago is warranted.

What's that? further taxonomic investigation is warranted? Doesn't sound like "evolutionists chose not to use taxonomy" as you say.

The molecular genetic resolution of the primate phylogeny provides a robust comparative genomic resource to affirm, alter, and extend previous taxonomic inferences.

What's that? More information "affirms, alters and extends previous taxonomic inferences? Doesn't sound like "evolutionists chose not to use taxonomy" as you say.

See that? Primates divided into groups using taxonomic nomenclature. Molecular information has been used to clarify evolutionary relationships. Taxonomy has not been abandoned or replaced in anyway. New information has been used to clarify taxonomy.

It might sound like I'm repeating myself but I really hope we can put this weird claim of yours behind us and get back on topic.

Incidentally, the paper provides solid evidence for the primate family tree, I take it you agree with the findings?

so that quote reveals that phylogeny was used to revamp taxonomy,

No it doesn't. Where does it say "revamp"... the actual paper says, many times, that it intends to clear up ambiguities and provide a more detailed picture of primate taxonomy.

and another quote reveals the motive for revamping classical taxonomy:

The "motive" is clearly stated in the paper....

"Here we provide new genomic sequence (∼8 Mb) from 186 primates representing 61 (∼90%) of the described genera, and we include outgroup species from Dermoptera, Scandentia, and Lagomorpha. The resultant phylogeny is exceptionally robust and illuminates events in primate evolution from ancient to recent, clarifying numerous taxonomic controversies and providing new data on human evolution. "

NOTHING TO DO WITH REVAMPING TAXONOMY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SUPPORT COMMON DESCENT.

the quote is saying that phylogenics (molecular trees) are based on the assumption of universal common ancestry (something not found in taxonomy)
in the previous quote I showed that they had found issues with taxonomy, and these problems according this quote are related to universal common ancestry ( a major premise of monkey to man evolution)

Nothing that you have posted shows any issue with taxonomy related to common descent. Absolutely nothing.

Please, can we please drop this and get back on topic.

 

[xianghua]

The theory of evolution predicts that there are relationships between the different species. Phylogeny is a tool that is used to express those relationships in order to help test that prediction.

actually phylogeny doesnt prove a relationship. it assume it. we can get the same phylogeny even if all creatures were made by design.

 

[Yttrium]

actually phylogeny doesnt prove a relationship. it assume it. we can get the same phylogeny even if all creatures were made by design.

Phylogeny doesn't prove it or assume it. It proposes it, based on what seems to be the most likely relationships at the time. The phylogeny trees are adjusted as new evidence comes in.

Phylogeny would only be used for ID to propose the trees between species within "kinds", I suppose.

 

[createdtoworship]

phylogeny doesn't have a "begging the question fallacy". It's meant to be part of evolution theory.

if this is true, why does peer review say that phylogeny assumes universal natural selection, and thus evolution? Taxonomy is only different from phylogeny because, one assumes evolution. There would not be two if this was not the case.

 

[Yttrium]

if this is true, why does peer review say that phylogeny assumes universal natural selection, and thus evolution? Taxonomy is only different from phylogeny because, one assumes evolution. There would not be two if this was not the case.

I will reiterate. They are different tools. They are not used for the same thing. Taxonomy is the classification system. Phylogeny is the tool used under evolution theory to describe hypothetical trees of relationships between things. Both tools are used for their respective purposes.

They don't put phylogeny directly in taxonomy because that would be adding hypothetical evolutionary trees to a classification system, and that's not what the classification system is meant to do.

 

[Ophiolite]

I will reiterate. They are different tools. They are not used for the same thing. Taxonomy is the classification system. Phylogeny is the tool used under evolution theory to describe hypothetical trees of relationships between things. Both tools are used for their respective purposes.

They don't put phylogeny directly in taxonomy because that would be adding hypothetical evolutionary trees to a classification system, and that's not what the classification system is meant to do.

This is a near perfect post. You have expressed the heart of the matter with fulsome clarity and no ambiguity. Gradyll has studiously avoided understanding this point. He might have argued that it was not previously well made. He can do so longer. If he persists in his argument his position will take on the appearance of wilful ignorance.

 

[createdtoworship]

I will reiterate. They are different tools. They are not used for the same thing. Taxonomy is the classification system. Phylogeny is the tool used under evolution theory to describe hypothetical trees of relationships between things. Both tools are used for their respective purposes.

They don't put phylogeny directly in taxonomy because that would be adding hypothetical evolutionary trees to a classification system, and that's not what the classification system is meant to do.

sir, I don't disagree that they do different things, nor do I believe they put phylogeny into taxonomy. I simply said that taxonomony was not good enough, so they changed it. Yes they classify diffferent things, that is why they changed it.

 

[Yttrium]

sir, I don't disagree that they do different things, nor do I believe they put phylogeny into taxonomy. I simply said that taxonomony was not good enough, so they changed it. Yes they classify diffferent things, that is why they changed it.

Changed what? You might as well have said that the periodic table of the elements was not good enough, so they changed it and added phylogeny. Leave taxonomy out of it. They added phylogeny because they needed some handy hypothetical relationship charts to help test predictions for the theory of evolution. Phylogeny assumes evolution theory is true because that's the whole point; it was created to be used directly in support of evolution theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

Changed what? You might as well have said that the periodic table of the elements was not good enough, so they changed it and added phylogeny. Leave taxonomy out of it. They added phylogeny because they needed some handy hypothetical relationship charts to help test predictions for the theory of evolution. Phylogeny assumes evolution theory is true because that's the whole point; it was created to be used directly in support of evolution theory.

Indeed. Part of the difficulty here may lie in the use of the word assume. A fuller statement might read:

For the purpose of establishing, clarifying and portraying relationships between organisms that arose through evolutionary processes we shall be assuming that those evolutionary processes exist. Since these evolutionary processes have been established beyond reasonable doubt, by evidence from a multitude of sources, it is a practical assumption. The relationships identified and validated by various genetic tools unavailable to our predecessors will allow us to revisit, where appropriate, current taxonomy in order to bring it into line with the evidence. This seems only fair, since the hierarchical relationships revealed by taxonomists were a valuable confirmation of evolutionary theory.

Of course, all this assumes the reader understands the scientific process, else they are likely to obsess over the word assume.

 

[createdtoworship]

It was merely an attempt to describe the concepts.



It was merely an attempt to describe the concepts, I understand what the taxonomic system is.



This is not explaining taxonomy, it is just a repetition of your strange opinion that the classification of animals has to prove common ancestry.



That is not a barrier to evolution. It seems that you are under the impression that the TOE suggests anything other than that animals only reproduce with members of their own species (or in rare cases with closely related species I suppose).

To repeat what Tas said....a system of naming things is not a barrier to an actual biological process.


Do you understand how speciation works? Your posts imply that you think for evolution to occur different species, genera etc are interbreeding, that's not what happens.



You keep saying this but it isn't true. You posted one link to support it and it doesn't say anything about barriers in the taxonomic system, or the creation of phylogenetics. If you claim this again you will be dismissed as a liar.


An article in science daily in 2011 says that -“A New Evolutionary History of Primates,” claims that ...researchers have created “[a] robust new phylogenetic tree” which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."

We have all read the article and it..

Doesn't say...

That phylogenetics were invented because of barriers in the taxonomic system.

It does say...

This study provides more detailed insights into primate taxonomy and that new information from molecular biology has resolved ambiguities in the primate family tree.

I also hope you realize that your article is not "peer review" as you claim, but a news article reporting on the findings of a peer- reviewed paper. I don't know if you've bothered reading the paper it summarizes but what I can understand of it is very interesting.

However, the Otolemur lineage (node 180) is placed as part of a paraphyletic grouping (node 182) along with two other extant Galago lineages (nodes 181, 183), suggesting that further taxonomic investigation of Galago is warranted.

What's that? further taxonomic investigation is warranted? Doesn't sound like "evolutionists chose not to use taxonomy" as you say.

The molecular genetic resolution of the primate phylogeny provides a robust comparative genomic resource to affirm, alter, and extend previous taxonomic inferences.

What's that? More information "affirms, alters and extends previous taxonomic inferences? Doesn't sound like "evolutionists chose not to use taxonomy" as you say.

See that? Primates divided into groups using taxonomic nomenclature. Molecular information has been used to clarify evolutionary relationships. Taxonomy has not been abandoned or replaced in anyway. New information has been used to clarify taxonomy.

It might sound like I'm repeating myself but I really hope we can put this weird claim of yours behind us and get back on topic.

Incidentally, the paper provides solid evidence for the primate family tree, I take it you agree with the findings?



No it doesn't. Where does it say "revamp"... the actual paper says, many times, that it intends to clear up ambiguities and provide a more detailed picture of primate taxonomy.



The "motive" is clearly stated in the paper....

"Here we provide new genomic sequence (∼8 Mb) from 186 primates representing 61 (∼90%) of the described genera, and we include outgroup species from Dermoptera, Scandentia, and Lagomorpha. The resultant phylogeny is exceptionally robust and illuminates events in primate evolution from ancient to recent, clarifying numerous taxonomic controversies and providing new data on human evolution. "

NOTHING TO DO WITH REVAMPING TAXONOMY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SUPPORT COMMON DESCENT.



Nothing that you have posted shows any issue with taxonomy related to common descent. Absolutely nothing.

Please, can we please drop this and get back on topic.

sir I provided a peer review showing that phylogeny makes basic assumptions that universal common ancestry is true, thus it is both biased, and begs the question as to the validity of evolution.

here I will provide it again:


An article in science daily in 2011 says that -“A New Evolutionary History of Primates,” claims that ...researchers have created “[a] robust new phylogenetic tree” which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."
A new evolutionary history of primates
so that quote reveals that phylogeny was used to revamp taxonomy, and another quote reveals the motive for revamping classical taxonomy:
a peer review journal in "biology theory" states this
"Molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness."*

the quote is saying that phylogenics (molecular trees) are based on the assumption of universal common ancestry (something not found in taxonomy)
in the previous quote I showed that they had found issues with taxonomy, and these problems according this quote are related to universal common ancestry ( a major premise of monkey to man evolution)

*- Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca, “Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics,” Biological Theory, 1(4):357-371, (2006).

 

[Kylie]

No.

What's the point?

Only the top genera boarded the Ark.

Domestic dogs, for example, wouldn't be aboard.

(Unless, of course, God wanted them there.)

Genesis 6:19.

Would you care to define "sort" for us in this context?

 

[Jimmy D]

here I will provide it again:

No need thanks, we've seen it four or five times now.

An article in science daily in 2011 says that -“A New Evolutionary History of Primates,” claims that ...researchers have created “[a] robust new phylogenetic tree” which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."
A new evolutionary history of primates
so that quote reveals that phylogeny was used to revamp taxonomy,

This has been dealt with by five or so posters, on multiple occasions. It's tantamount to spamming now, please desist, or start your own thread.

a peer review journal in "biology theory" states this
"Molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness."*

Unlike you, I suspect, I have read Schwartz's paper. It cautions about ignoring the assumptions inherent in molecular systematics, and encourages objective scrutiny.

I don't know why you have this strange obsession with this paper, do you think that critically examining the validity of scientific processes is somehow a bad thing?

the quote is saying that phylogenics (molecular trees) are based on the assumption of universal common ancestry

Actually the quote is not saying that, as common ancestry is an accepted fact. The quote says that "degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness" is the assumption and that we should be wary of this assumption.

The author is optimistic... "Acknowledging that organismal development is a tightly controlled process lends itself to a melding of “morphology” and “molecules” in a way that can lead to more realistic models of evolutionary change and to methodological approaches to phylogenetic reconstruction."

I'm sure that you're attempting to argue against common descent, but so far you've provided nothing to suggest that it hasn't occurred with these strange misrepresentations of valid scientific research.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis 6:19.

Would you care to define "sort" for us in this context?

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

sort (n.)

late 14c., "group of people, animals, etc.; kind or variety of person or animal," from Old French sorte "class, kind," from Latin sortem (nominative sors) "lot; fate, destiny; share, portion; rank, category; sex, class, oracular response, prophecy," from PIE root *ser- (2) "to line up."

 

[Kylie]

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

sort (n.)

late 14c., "group of people, animals, etc.; kind or variety of person or animal," from Old French sorte "class, kind," from Latin sortem (nominative sors) "lot; fate, destiny; share, portion; rank, category; sex, class, oracular response, prophecy," from PIE root *ser- (2) "to line up."

So Noah didn't take representatives from all species, he took representatives from all the different groups. So a cat representative, a dog representative, and so on.

Was there just a single bird representative, or was there a parrot representative, a hawk representative, a finch representative, etc?

 

[AV1611VET]

So Noah didn't take representatives from all species, he took representatives from all the different groups. So a cat representative, a dog representative, and so on.

Was there just a single bird representative, or was there a parrot representative, a hawk representative, a finch representative, etc?

I believe I have given you enough information now that it's time for you to end this ... line of questioning and make a value judgment.

Doves and ravens are two different genera.

 

[Kylie]

I believe I have given you enough information now that it's time for you to end this ... line of questioning and make a value judgment.

Doves and ravens are two different genera.

So there was a single parrot representative then?

How do you suppose we got the myriad varieties of parrots that we have today?

 

[Jimmy D]

I believe I have given you enough information now that it's time for you to end this ... line of questioning and make a value judgment.

How many kinds of cattle were on there?

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind"