Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yep. A related note. Some people seem to think we have more "information" in our genome than an amoeba. These same people will also claim there is no such thing as " junk DNA ". Just for fun compare the size of the human genome sequencing to that of an amoeba. Some species of Amoeba have a genome one hundred times the length of human's.
Evolution involved genetics for changes to be passed on to future generations, not intelligence.
Cladistics is simply one approach to biological classification. Another is phylogenetic (or phenetic if you wish) taxonomy. That phylogenetic taxonomy happens to be older than cladistics doesn't mean it lacks validity, and it's a grave mistake to refer to cladistics as "the classification system." Whether one uses cladistics or phylogenetic taxonomy depends on what one wants to say about the relationship among organisms.
Only because it's specifically aimed at reconstructing evolutionary histories, to which I can only say, of course it is, but so what?.
Nope. The most that can be said is that they are both members of the same clade. Thing is, there comes a point in the evolutionary process where an organism no longer possess those characteristics that define its ancestor, and, in fact, has developed characteristics inapplicable to its ancestor. And it's these differences that give us reason to use different words---"bird" and "dinosaur" in this case--- to distinguish them. We call animal A a bird because it has those defining characteristics of birds. and we call animal B a dinosaur because it has those defining characteristics of dinosaurs.
Phylogenetic taxonomy is cladistics:Cladistics is simply one approach to biological classification. Another is phylogenetic (or phenetic if you wish) taxonomy. That phylogenetic taxonomy happens to be older than cladistics doesn't mean it lacks validity, and it's a grave mistake to refer to cladistics as "the classification system." Whether one uses cladistics or phylogenetic taxonomy depends on what one wants to say about the relationship among organisms.
Only because it's specifically aimed at reconstructing evolutionary histories, to which I can only say, of course it is, but so what?.
Nope. The most that can be said is that they are both members of the same clade. Thing is, there comes a point in the evolutionary process where an organism no longer possess those characteristics that define its ancestor, and, in fact, has developed characteristics inapplicable to its ancestor. And it's these differences that give us reason to use different words---"bird" and "dinosaur" in this case--- to distinguish them. We call animal A a bird because it has those defining characteristics of birds. and we call animal B a dinosaur because it has those defining characteristics of dinosaurs.
Thing with clades is that, time wise, one can construct them as large as one wants. One could construct the clade that includes birds to not only include dinosaurs, but their progenetors, the archosaurs, animals not considered to be dinosaurs.
And going back even further in time one finds that the archosaurs evolved from the diapsids about 237 million years ago
The archosaur Postosuchus
So, how about we call birds diapsid reptiles because they belong to a clade we could construct that includes both?
The one foot-long diapsid Petrolacosaurus
.
According to science they are. I just showed you.
Birds are archsaurs as well as diapsid tetrapods. Obviously.Cladistics is simply one approach to biological classification. Another is phylogenetic (or phenetic if you wish) taxonomy. That phylogenetic taxonomy happens to be older than cladistics doesn't mean it lacks validity, and it's a grave mistake to refer to cladistics as "the classification system." Whether one uses cladistics or phylogenetic taxonomy depends on what one wants to say about the relationship among organisms.
Only because it's specifically aimed at reconstructing evolutionary histories, to which I can only say, of course it is, but so what?.
Nope. The most that can be said is that they are both members of the same clade. Thing is, there comes a point in the evolutionary process where an organism no longer possess those characteristics that define its ancestor, and, in fact, has developed characteristics inapplicable to its ancestor. And it's these differences that give us reason to use different words---"bird" and "dinosaur" in this case--- to distinguish them. We call animal A a bird because it has those defining characteristics of birds. and we call animal B a dinosaur because it has those defining characteristics of dinosaurs.
Thing with clades is that, time wise, one can construct them as large as one wants. One could construct the clade that includes birds to not only include dinosaurs, but their progenitors, the archosaurs, animals not considered to be dinosaurs.
And going back even further in time one finds that the archosaurs evolved from the diapsids about 237 million years ago
The archosaur Postosuchus
So, how about we call birds diapsid reptiles because they belong to a clade we could construct that includes both?
The one foot-long diapsid Petrolacosaurus
.
Interesting! Now, what do you think about the hyrax and the elephant?Cladistics is simply one approach to biological classification. Another is phylogenetic (or phenetic if you wish) taxonomy. That phylogenetic taxonomy happens to be older than cladistics doesn't mean it lacks validity, and it's a grave mistake to refer to cladistics as "the classification system." Whether one uses cladistics or phylogenetic taxonomy depends on what one wants to say about the relationship among organisms.
Only because it's specifically aimed at reconstructing evolutionary histories, to which I can only say, of course it is, but so what?.
Nope. The most that can be said is that they are both members of the same clade. Thing is, there comes a point in the evolutionary process where an organism no longer possess those characteristics that define its ancestor, and, in fact, has developed characteristics inapplicable to its ancestor. And it's these differences that give us reason to use different words---"bird" and "dinosaur" in this case--- to distinguish them. We call animal A a bird because it has those defining characteristics of birds. and we call animal B a dinosaur because it has those defining characteristics of dinosaurs.
Thing with clades is that, time wise, one can construct them as large as one wants. One could construct the clade that includes birds to not only include dinosaurs, but their progenitors, the archosaurs, animals not considered to be dinosaurs.
And going back even further in time one finds that the archosaurs evolved from the diapsids about 237 million years ago
The archosaur Postosuchus
So, how about we call birds diapsid reptiles because they belong to a clade we could construct that includes both?
The one foot-long diapsid Petrolacosaurus
.
What about them? They are more closely related than the rank amateur would think, but then if one goes back far enough all mammals share a common ancestor. And if one goes back far enough you will see that you and a snake have a common ancestor. So why would it be surprising that the elephant and hyrax are related?
To some degree you're correct (I should have emphasized "phenetic taxonomy"). Unfortunately, the terminology of Phylogenetic taxonomy as well as its concepts are undergoing a whole lot of deliberation and debate, which has made for a lot of confusion and questionable assertions. I highly recommend reading the source of the following statements.
Nothing is wrong with it unless one is going use them to make rather nonsensical claims such as, "We can logically call birds flying diapsid reptiles because they belong to a clade that includes both." If this is how you wish to regard birds go right ahead, but you should be aware of how silly it is. But why stop at diapsid reptiles? Why not make a clade that includes birds and go back past the diapsids and anapsids, past their ancestor, the amphibians, and include the tetrapods, those crazy fish that walked out of the water on their fins 400 million years ago to become the precursors of all vertebrate land animals.
Actually, you showed me no such thing other than I don't believe you understood what you read.
*sigh* Now you're confusing taxonomy with cladistics.
Well, I know that at one time the hyrax was considered to be the closest living relative to the elephant, which at the time I thought was quite odd. Now its just another relative, the manatee and dugong having usurped the hyrax as the elephant's closest living relative.
Clades start at a founding species and moves on from there. The Clade of birds would start with the "first bird". But clades do not end as long as a descendant is alive. Your image is of a predecessor of a bird so it cannot be a bird. Yet birds are descended from dinosaurs. That means that they are still dinosaurs just as you are still a vertebrate.To some degree you're correct (I should have emphasized "phenetic taxonomy"). Unfortunately, the terminology of Phylogenetic taxonomy as well as its concepts are undergoing a whole lot of debate and deliberation, which has made for a lot of confusion and questionable assertions. I highly recommend reading the source of the following statements.
Phylogenetic taxonomy, like modern Linnean taxonomy, was modeled on a phylogenetic tree rather than a cladogram and, like its predecessor, perpetuates the use of morphology as a means of recognizing clades. Both practices have generated confusion in graphical representation, operational terminology, and definitional rationale in phylogenetic taxonomy, the history of which is traced.
Phylogenetic taxonomy, as originally conceived (Gauthier et al., 1988; de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990, 1992) and as currently formalized in a draft code of nomenclature (draft PhyloCode, hereafter “dPC”; Cantino and de Queiroz, 2004), has not fully disengaged from two longstanding traditions of modern Linnean taxonomy: (1) recourse to a phylogenetic tree and ancestor-descendant lineages in graphical depictions and terminological definitions and (2) the continued use of morphology in addition to phylogeny in clade recognition.
As shown below, these shortcomings have generated unnecessary interpretive complexity, a flawed abbreviational scheme, and the false equation of apomorphies and taxonomic entities in phylogenetic definitions.
source
Nothing is wrong with it unless one is going use them to make rather nonsensical claims such as, "We can logically call birds flying diapsid reptiles because they belong to a clade that includes both." If this is how you wish to regard birds go right ahead, but you should be aware of how silly it is. But why stop at diapsid reptiles? Why not make a clade that includes birds and go back past the diapsids and anapsids, past their ancestor, the amphibians, and include the tetrapods, those crazy fish that walked out of the water on their fins 400 million years ago to become the precursors of all vertebrate land animals.
Birds are tetrapods!
"BIRDS OF THE WORLD UNITE"
Actually, you showed me no such thing other than I don't believe you understood what you read.
*sigh* Now you're confusing taxonomy with cladistics.
Well, I know that at one time the hyrax was considered to be the closest living relative to the elephant, which at the time I thought was quite odd. Now its just another relative, the manatee and dugong having usurped the hyrax as the elephant's closest living relative.
So, what do you think about the hyrax and the elephant?
.
A founding species? There couldn't be more than one founding species?
So, what is this "first bird"? With what species do you start your bird clade?
So the dinosaur in your bird clade is a bird; conforming to both the definition of a dinosaur and to the definition of a bird. Interesting to say the least.
Yup.
Not with the logic you use. In any case, I'm sticking with my "hang of it."
Cladistics is the modern and scientific way of doing taxonomy.To some degree you're correct (I should have emphasized "phenetic taxonomy"). Unfortunately, the terminology of Phylogenetic taxonomy as well as its concepts are undergoing a whole lot of deliberation and debate, which has made for a lot of confusion and questionable assertions. I highly recommend reading the source of the following statements.
Phylogenetic taxonomy, like modern Linnean taxonomy, was modeled on a phylogenetic tree rather than a cladogram and, like its predecessor, perpetuates the use of morphology as a means of recognizing clades. Both practices have generated confusion in graphical representation, operational terminology, and definitional rationale in phylogenetic taxonomy, the history of which is traced.
Phylogenetic taxonomy, as originally conceived (Gauthier et al., 1988; de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990, 1992) and as currently formalized in a draft code of nomenclature (draft PhyloCode, hereafter “dPC”; Cantino and de Queiroz, 2004), has not fully disengaged from two longstanding traditions of modern Linnean taxonomy: (1) recourse to a phylogenetic tree and ancestor-descendant lineages in graphical depictions and terminological definitions and (2) the continued use of morphology in addition to phylogeny in clade recognition.
As shown below, these shortcomings have generated unnecessary interpretive complexity, a flawed abbreviational scheme, and the false equation of apomorphies and taxonomic entities in phylogenetic definitions.
source
Nothing is wrong with it unless one is going use them to make rather nonsensical claims such as, "We can logically call birds flying diapsid reptiles because they belong to a clade that includes both." If this is how you wish to regard birds go right ahead, but you should be aware of how silly it is. But why stop at diapsid reptiles? Why not make a clade that includes birds and go back past the diapsids and anapsids, past their ancestor, the amphibians, and include the tetrapods, those crazy fish that walked out of the water on their fins 400 million years ago to become the precursors of all vertebrate land animals.
Birds are tetrapods!
"BIRDS OF THE WORLD UNITE"
Actually, you showed me no such thing other than I don't believe you understood what you read.
*sigh* Now you're confusing taxonomy with cladistics.
Well, I know that at one time the hyrax was considered to be the closest living relative to the elephant, which at the time I thought was quite odd. Now its just another relative, the manatee and dugong having usurped the hyrax as the elephant's closest living relative.
So, what do you think about the hyrax and the elephant?
.