Resources on Evolution

[juvenissun]

What is wrong about the classification? Humans fit the definition of each of those classes.

Whether you accept common ancestry or not, the classification is still valid.

If somebody used the the classification of the square to incorrectly conclude that all squares started out as lines, it doesn't change the fact that the square fits the classification.

The classification is wrong because it is used as the strongest proof of evolution. the Bible clearly pointed this out several thousands years ago.

 

[Speedwell]

The classification is wrong because it is used as the strongest proof of evolution.

Is it? Or is it the other way around? That the diversity of life which the classification system reveals to us is something that the theory of evolution must explain.

 

[46AND2]

The classification is wrong because it is used as the strongest proof of evolution. the Bible clearly pointed this out several thousands years ago.

No it isn't used as the strongest proof of evolution.

Even if it was, it still isn't wrong, because humans do, in fact, possess the traits which place them in those classes.

You can believe that god created humans with those traits, if you want. The classification doesn't describe anything about how they got those traits...just that they have them.

 

[juvenissun]

Is it? Or is it the other way around? That the diversity of life which the classification system reveals to us is something that the theory of evolution must explain.

You wish. It won't happen.

 

[juvenissun]

No it isn't used as the strongest proof of evolution.

Even if it was, it still isn't wrong, because humans do, in fact, possess the traits which place them in those classes.

You can believe that god created humans with those traits, if you want. The classification doesn't describe anything about how they got those traits...just that they have them.

It is.
Even, as you understand, it is not logic.

When I asked an evidence of evolution, many will throw out the cladogram and said: see, here is the proof.

 

[Speedwell]

It is.
Even, as you understand, it is not logic.

When I asked an evidence of evolution, many will throw out the cladogram and said: see, here is the proof.

Because the cladogram shows that living creatures form a pattern of nested hierarchy (which confirms rather than "proves" the theory of evolution). That pattern is observable regardless of what classification scheme is used.

 

[juvenissun]

Because the cladogram shows that living creatures form a pattern of nested hierarchy (which confirms rather than "proves" the theory of evolution). That pattern is observable regardless of what classification scheme is used.

Every classification gives a pattern. A pattern does not prove an origin. I use skin or fur color as a criterion, I would also get a pattern which may imply a different origin.

 

[Speedwell]

Every classification gives a pattern. A pattern does not prove an origin. I use skin or fur color as a criterion, I would also get a pattern which may imply a different origin.

So do it. Instead of classifying creatures by morphology, pick a single aspect of morphology (fur or skin color, you suggested) and classify creatures that way. What do you learn by it? Does that classification help you study the creatures more efficiently?

But classifying creatures by morphology (their overall shape and appearance) is a reasonable and practical choice for a naturalist and has a history which predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years. You will have a difficult job to show that the method was specifically selected to fake a pattern which supports evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We look like chimp. So we are evolved.
That is what can go wrong with morphological classification.

This is just juvenile.

I don't buy for a second that you even believe yourself that this is how evolutionary biologists classify species.
It's juvenile and pathetic.


I suggest you grow up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem is, the conclusion: “so, evolution is right” jumped out.
Wrong classification leads to wrong conclusion.

There's nothing wrong with the classification.
This is why you never point out what is supposedly wrong with it - you just claim it.

Secondly, the classification isn't what leads to the conclusion of evolution.
The classification pattern (the nested hierarchy), is what the model of evolution predicts.

That organisms fall into that pattern of classification, is exactly how it should be, if evolution is accurate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The classification is wrong because it is used as the strongest proof of evolution

As @44AND2 just pointed out, however you use the classification, doesn't matter to the accuracy of the classification itself.

Secondly, you're wrong about the secondly as well. It is not at all used as the "strongest" proof (or any proof whatsoever for that matter).

It seems high time for you to inform yourself on the topic you are hellbend on arguing against, but clearly don't understand even the basics of....

. the Bible clearly pointed this out several thousands years ago.

The bible is a religious book which has no bearing on what is actually real.

 

[juvenissun]

So do it. Instead of classifying creatures by morphology, pick a single aspect of morphology (fur or skin color, you suggested) and classify creatures that way. What do you learn by it? Does that classification help you study the creatures more efficiently?

But classifying creatures by morphology (their overall shape and appearance) is a reasonable and practical choice for a naturalist and has a history which predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years. You will have a difficult job to show that the method was specifically selected to fake a pattern which supports evolution.

Morphology classification suggest evolution, but does not prove evolution. It is an insufficient way to explore the origin problem. ALL evolution supporters SHOULD admit that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A pattern does not prove an origin.

But a single very specific pattern, does support a single specific model of origins.

If evolution is accurate, and all organisms are related, then the pattern of those organisms at the species level should reveal a sensible family tree. A nested hierarchy.

And that's exactly what we find, regardless of classification.

Only birds have feathers.
Only mammals have fur
Etc.

You can take any trait and track it down and it will reveal a nested hierarchy.
Exactly what you would expect, if species share ancestry.

I use skin or fur color as a criterion, I would also get a pattern which may imply a different origin.

Try using skin or fur itself, as a trait.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Morphology classification suggest evolution, but does not prove evolution. It is an insufficient way to explore the origin problem. ALL evolution supporters SHOULD admit that.

There's nothing to admit.

The model of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.
When studied and mapped out (independently), a nested hierarchy is what pops out.
Exactly like evolution expects.

So the pattern of traits and morphology, is supportive evidence for evolution.

It's just the way it is.

You're just in extreme denial.

 

[juvenissun]

But a single very specific pattern, does support a single specific model of origins.

If evolution is accurate, and all organisms are related, then the pattern of those organisms at the species level should reveal a sensible family tree. A nested hierarchy.

And that's exactly what we find, regardless of classification.

Only birds have feathers.
Only mammals have fur
Etc.

You can take any trait and track it down and it will reveal a nested hierarchy.
Exactly what you would expect, if species share ancestry.




Try using skin or fur itself, as a trait.

Learn a basic logic:
A --> B True
B --> A. False

 

[Speedwell]

Morphology classification suggest evolution, but does not prove evolution. It is an insufficient way to explore the origin problem. ALL evolution supporters SHOULD admit that.

LOL! Admit it? We have worked ourselves to a state of jaded dejection trying to explain exactly that to creationists. And now you think that you have somehow maneuvered us into a a position where we will be forced to admit it?

Morphological classification of species reveals patterns which confirm, not "prove" the theory of evolution. Evolutionary biology, like all sciences, is based on inductive logic and the conclusions of inductive logic are not considered to be "proven" in the sense that the conclusions of deductive logical systems like mathematics are. Rather, they are said to be confirmed or, rather, as you so nicely put it, "Morphology classification suggests evolution, but does not prove evolution." The thing is, there are very many things like that which suggest evolution, and nothing so far which suggests otherwise. Which is good as it ever gets for a scientific theory,

 

[DogmaHunter]

Learn a basic logic:
A --> B True
B --> A. False

How does this address the point being made in the post you are replying to?

Here is that point again, for your convenience:

The evolutionary model predicts that mapping out the traits of living things will reveal a family tree, which is a nested hierarchy.

When we study living things and map out traits, we find that they form exactly such a nested hierarchy.

Therefore, the pattern of distribution of traits, matches the prediction of the evolution model.
That makes this pattern evidence in support of evolution.


Please point out the faulty logic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL! Admit it? We have worked ourselves to a state of jaded dejection trying to explain exactly that to creationists. And now you think that you have somehow maneuvered us into a a position where we will be forced to admit it?

Morphological classification of species reveals patterns which confirm, not "prove" the theory of evolution. Evolutionary biology, like all sciences, is based on inductive logic and the conclusions of inductive logic are not considered to be "proven" in the sense that the conclusions of deductive logical systems like mathematics are. Rather, they are said to be confirmed or, rather, as you so nicely put it, "Morphology classification suggests evolution, but does not prove evolution." The thing is, there are very many things like that which suggest evolution, and nothing so far which suggests otherwise. Which is good as it ever gets for a scientific theory,

It's almost like these creationists don't understand how science operates.
Or at least, that they forget how it operates whenever the conclusion doesn't fit their a priori dogmatic and fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[juvenissun]

LOL! Admit it? We have worked ourselves to a state of jaded dejection trying to explain exactly that to creationists. And now you think that you have somehow maneuvered us into a a position where we will be forced to admit it?

Morphological classification of species reveals patterns which confirm, not "prove" the theory of evolution. Evolutionary biology, like all sciences, is based on inductive logic and the conclusions of inductive logic are not considered to be "proven" in the sense that the conclusions of deductive logical systems like mathematics are. Rather, they are said to be confirmed or, rather, as you so nicely put it, "Morphology classification suggests evolution, but does not prove evolution." The thing is, there are very many things like that which suggest evolution, and nothing so far which suggests otherwise. Which is good as it ever gets for a scientific theory,

In terms of using cladogram, it can not "confirm" evolution in logic. If you don't believe, then try one. You WILL see that the illogic part is quite obvious.

 

[juvenissun]

How does this address the point being made in the post you are replying to?

Here is that point again, for your convenience:

The evolutionary model predicts that mapping out the traits of living things will reveal a family tree, which is a nested hierarchy.

When we study living things and map out traits, we find that they form exactly such a nested hierarchy.

Therefore, the pattern of distribution of traits, matches the prediction of the evolution model.
That makes this pattern evidence in support of evolution.


Please point out the faulty logic.

They predicted one, but failed one hundred.
Of course, they won't tell you those failures.