Reptilian features with bipedal/mammalian structures. Does this fit into the nested hierarchy? If not, why not?
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Nested Hierarchy Hypothesis
- Thread starter crjmurray
- Start date
Reptilian features with bipedal/mammalian structures. Does this fit into the nested hierarchy? If not, why not?
Smidlee
Veteran
It interesting you brought this up since they are having trouble trying to get reptiles to fall into a nested hierarchy. (man's box)
http://theconversation.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-reptiles-any-more-and-heres-why-31355
http://theconversation.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-reptiles-any-more-and-heres-why-31355
But sometimes living things break out our of boxes we try to force them in.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Too bad that you did not understand that article. It explains how we now know that the term "reptiles" is a poorly formed term. If snakes, turtles, and crocodiles are all "reptiles" then by cladistics so are birds. Snakes, turtles and crocodiles but not birds are a paraphyletic group. They do not form a clade. Just as Old world monkeys and new world monkeys but not humans or other apes are a paraphyletic group too. Wiki has a nice article on clades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade
This is not a "problem" of science, this is a correction by science.
Upvote
0
Would it be possible to classify the organisms in the OP? Also, check out my thread on birds with mammalian breasts. That never got the attention it deserved.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Reptilian features with bipedal/mammalian structures. Does this fit into the nested hierarchy? If not, why not?
The Sleezaks? No. Sllezaks would be a major problem for the theory of evolution. If their structure is truly mammalian they would be go counter to what is predicted by evolution. There is no reason why one could not have such a creature with creationism, there are problems of such for evolution. A Pegasus would also be a huge problem for evolution. They have features of an organism from another clade and no explanation of how the got there.
Upvote
0
Can you explain why this organism would be a problem for evolution? In more detail, I mean.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Read the article on Clades. Otherwise you won't understand the correct terminology. And of course you are wrong. Scientists do not force. They reclassify when necessary.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
It would be better to get a biologist to do it. The hips of a bird or dinosaur that is bipedal are quite different from bipedal apes. The Sleezak seem to have human or ape hips. I have no conceivable way that they could have evolved them.
But thanks for another example besides the Cambrian Bunny Rabbit that would refute evolution. There is no reason that they could not exist with "a common designer" there are reasons that they could not exist with evolution.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
But you are wrong of course.
The classification of "reptile" existed before the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains why it is wrong.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Actually that is exactly what theories do.
Smidlee, if you don't even know the basics of science why are you trying to debate here?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Hardly. I do get tired of people that have no understanding of science trying to argue against the process while enjoying the benefits of science.
Upvote
0
So the hips, legs, ribcage, arm and shoulder orientation would not make any sense if evolution were true? These are all features that occur in modern humans but if a reptile had these features it would falsify our current understanding of evolution correct?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Yes, but you have demonstrated time and again that you are no judge of science at all. People have tried to help you here and you post nonsense in return. Perhaps if you started on the basics and worked up from there.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
