Strange analogy....if a film needs a director, then how come nature doesn't need a director? I am waiting for someone to explain to me how a brainless plant makes the replica of an insect as part of its strategy to keep its species pollinated and perpetuated without an intelligent direction from "someone"...?
Cause nature is real life, not a movie. I already explained that in specifics, the general answer to all your questions is "Natural Selection."
All undirected chance......like lighting a fire for warmth. No one directs that of course. When humans want to warm themselves they had to invent the means to cause flames. Funny how no animals warm themselves by deliberately lighting a fire.
Dolphins think humans are really stupid since we can't catch squid by echo-locating. I think you were making a point here, what was it again?
And what has belonging to the same "kind" got to do with looks or size. Look at felines...all shapes and sizes, but all felines. Leopards, panthers, cheetahs, manx, mountain lions...all cats.
More properly termed "felids" a family level grouping, based on the following criteria. Felids are obligate canivores. Their canines are are large and robust. Their upper third premolar and lower molar are adapted as carnassials. Felid jaws can only move vertically, which prevents them from being able to chew but makes it easier for their jaws to hold struggling prey. This is, in large part compensated for by horny papillae that cover their tongue and rasp meat from prey as well as aid in grooming. All felids have protractable claws attached to the terminal bone of the toe with a robust ligament. There are (nrmally) five toes on the forefeet and four on the hindfeet. The
baculum is shorter than in the Canidae
How do scientists determine what "family" of animals a specific species belongs to?
Family is a taxonomic "rank." Such ranks, including species are conveniences that try to group organisms by similarity (a.k.a. the distance of their evolutionary relationship).
This is what your Wiki link said.....
Cladistics (from Greekκλάδος, klados, i.e. "branch")[1] 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.[2][3][4][5]
Now, I don't look at things through the same lens as you do, but that is tantamount to guesswork in my understanding. If it has a characteristic in common with something living, it must belong to the same family. OK but where do we then see this animal as not still belonging the same "kind" as its supposed ancestor?
Cladistics is a filed that is applied to the classification of all sorts of things, organisms, machine parts, automobiles, aircraft, etc. Your attempting to grock cladistics at your level of understanding, by looking in wiki is like your trying to drink out of a firehose ... you're going to get it wrong, even if you were not predisposed to do so, as you are.
Where I to give you an assortment of vehicles, a jeep, a mustang, a truck, a wright flyer, a p-51, a cesna skymaster, a bulldog tank and an amphibious tracked weasel and ask you to classify them ... you'd apply cladistics. You could classify them by name, but that would make the mustang car and the p-51 indistinguishable, you could classify them as civilian vs military but with the exception of the mustang car there are military and civilian versions of each item, you could sort them into land vehicles vs aircraft but there's that mustang problem again. You could sort them by chassis length ... but the jeep and the weasel use the same chassis, you could classify them by animal name vs non-animal name or by the number of wheels. Do you start to see the issues? So you apply more than one characteristic in general and use differences in single characteristics to break ties.
Now, this looks supiciously like a bovine. How do they know it's a giraffe?
I do not know what the exact criteria are, since it is only known from fossils I'd suspect that it a suite of osteolgical characteristics such nerve locations and basocranial circulation patterns as well as over all skeletal similarities. There is, undoubtedly, or more such characters that exclude it from the bovines ... but I'd have to ask a specialist to determine what it is.
Your thinking that it looks like this of that is entirely irrelevant, I suspect that if presented with the skeletons of a fish, an ichthyosaur and a dophin you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
The link begins by saying what all writings supporting evolutionary science conveys.....
"The majority of the bones visible seem to be those of the short-necked giraffe or Sivathere but there is evidence of wales, seals, various elephants and different sabre toothed cats as well."
The language is self explanatory. Things are not always what they "SEEM" to be.
Y'all take a lot for granted.
That quote is from a travel blog written by Edward Foster, an amateur astronomer whose sole scientific credential is :Nature Guide (Level One). Get real, the scientific community as a whole is not responsible for his blogs.
You trust your teachers to be telling the truth. How does that make you different to me? You assume that the evidence is interpreted correctly...what if it isn't? What if they have been misinterpreting the evidence all these years? Building their house of straw......how would you know? It looks to me like pre-conceived ideas forcing conclusions, rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself.
Perhaps it is in my training and education? Sure I assume that the classification of SIvathere is correct, but if it was of any real import I could pick up the phone and talk to the experts and likely even have a cast of the skull on loan. That is hardly a house of straw. What it looks like to you, who knows none of this and has never operated in this world, is entirely irreverent.
I have seen many illustrations and computer animations that come out of people's imaginations and presented as fact. But the fact is, no one knows what these creatures looked like from their skeletons...they can guess through.
Usually such illustration are labeled as artist's depictions and know to be best guesses ... so what?
Since it is claimed that all life originated from the primordial soup, then all life forms came from the same ancestors way back. Isn't it amazing what undirected chance mutations can achieve when you give then a few hundred million years?
When are you going to stop with the same stupid strawman that you've been repeatedly told does not apply. Please either show where that claim was made of stop using using, else you will be branded as a liar.
Yet if they all had the same Maker, who used the same raw materials in his designs, then that would explain a lot, without evolution ever being mentioned
We had a designer and Maker who is the most brilliant scientist in existence. Ask the men who seek to copy his designs. No one wants to talk about bio-mimetics? How come it takes someone with a scienc degree to copy the designs in nature but it took Mr Nobody to design them in the first place? Amazing huh?
Amazing that you'd believe such rubbish.
