'Kitzmiller v Dover' Judge's comment

[Subduction Zone]

A founding species? There couldn't be more than one founding species?

Of a clade, no. Of birds, perhaps but dubious.

So, what is this "first bird"? With what species do you start your bird clade?

One can only approximate. Why fret so?

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.

Yep, just as a chihuahua in the chihuhua clae is conforming to both the definition of a dog and to the definition of a chihuahua. What is so interesting about that?

Yup.

So just like chihuahuas are descended from other dogs they are still dogs.

Aside from the illogic of your "just as you are. . . ," considering your claim that birds descended from dinosaurs, which means they are still dinosaurs, then because birds descended from tetrapods, why doesn't it mean they're still tetrapods? Your arbitrary cut-off point is duly noted.

No "illogic" stopped at that error. Damn, couldn't help but to read on. Yes, birds are tetrapods. That should be obvious. So are snakes by the way. The cutoff point for any clade is with the first species in that clade. You do not have the hang of this yet.

Not with the logic you use. In any case, I'm sticking with my "hang of it."

My logic is flawless. Yours, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

skwim you appear to have a problem understanding that clades go from the found down. You keep trying to go backwards. That only ends up in confusion for you.

 

[Skwim]

skwim you appear to have a problem understanding that clades go from the found down. You keep trying to go backwards. That only ends up in confusion for you.

I give up. I thought this would be a far more fruitful exchange. My mistake in overestimating both your knowledge and ability to process information.

Have a good day.

.

.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If you believe this is meaningful in the argument that birds are dinosaurs then I suggest you look up the definition of "clade."


.

clade: "a group of organisms believed to have evolved from a common ancestor, according to the principles of cladistics."

Birds are dinosaurs in the same way that a Chihuahua is a dog.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

What is wrong with grouping birds with all other tetrapods and calling the clade Tetrapoda? I am not seeing the problem here. Tetrapoda just means 4 legs. It just so happens that birds use their forelegs for flying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

clade: "a group of organisms believed to have evolved from a common ancestor, according to the principles of cladistics."

Birds are dinosaurs in the same way that a Chihuahua is a dog.

Hey!! That was one of my arguments. It didn't work

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is wrong with grouping birds with all other tetrapods and calling the clade Tetrapoda? I am not seeing the problem here. Tetrapoda just means 4 legs. It just so happens that birds use their forelegs for flying.

in at least one of his posts he tried to use the concept of a clade going before the founder of that clade. For example he implied that all tetrapods could be called "birds". That is merely a very confused understanding of what a clade is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

A founding species? There couldn't be more than one founding species?

It would probably be more accurate to describe it as a founding population which would include the possibility of hybridization between two species.

So, what is this "first bird"? With what species do you start your bird clade?

That would be the species or founding population that split off from non-bird dinosaurs and gave rise to the bird lineage.

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.

A Chihuahua conforms to both the definition of a dog and a Chihuahua. So does it confuse you when I say that a Great Dane is also a dog even though it does not conform to the definition of a Chihuahua?

Aside from the illogic of your "just as you are. . . ," considering your claim that birds descended from dinosaurs, which means they are still dinosaurs, then because birds descended from tetrapods, why doesn't it mean they're still tetrapods? Your arbitrary cut-off point is duly noted.

There is no cut off point. The entire tree is continuous with all the branches meeting at nodes.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

in at least one of his posts he tried to use the concept of a clade going before the founder of that clade. For example he implied that all tetrapods could be called "birds". That is merely a very confused understanding of what a clade is.

Then how in the world does his mind wrap around the idea that both Chihuahuas and Great Danes are dogs, but Great Danes are not Chihuahuas?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then how in the world does his mind wrap around the idea that both Chihuahuas and Great Danes are dogs, but Great Danes are not Chihuahuas?

We can all be victims of cognitive dissonance when a favorite idea is challenged. I started a thread on a subject that challenged even the physicists here. I myself opposed the idea until I wrapped my brain around it.

 

[Skwim]

clade: "a group of organisms believed to have evolved from a common ancestor, according to the principles of cladistics."

Birds are dinosaurs in the same way that a Chihuahua is a dog.

.​

 

[Skwim]

What is wrong with grouping birds with all other tetrapods and calling the clade Tetrapoda? I am not seeing the problem here. Tetrapoda just means 4 legs. It just so happens that birds use their forelegs for flying.

While "Tetrapoda" is a very poor choice of name for the clade that includes birds, there's a difference in a calling a clade by some name, and calling a particular animal by that name.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I

.​

I hope that you meant to use a "Doh!!" smiley because you finally got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While "Tetrapoda" is a very poor choice of name for the clade that includes birds, there's a difference in a calling a clade by some name, and calling a particular animal by that name.

.

Why is it a poor name? It tells us about the evolutionary history of members of that clade. And"birds" is not a particular animal. It is a classification.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

While "Tetrapoda" is a very poor choice of name for the clade that includes birds,

Why?

there's a difference in a calling a clade by some name, and calling a particular animal by that name.

.

What's the difference? Do you have a problem with calling a Chihuahua a dog, or a bear a mammal?

 

[sayak83]

While "Tetrapoda" is a very poor choice of name for the clade that includes birds, there's a difference in a calling a clade by some name, and calling a particular animal by that name.

.

No. Then that animal will be called Daisy. But we are scientifically classifying Daisy as a penguin, that is a bird, that is a therapod dinosaur , that is a diapsid archosaur, that is a tetrapod, that is a vertebrate, that is a chordate, that is an animal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me give this one last shot.

Cladistics is merely a consistent classification system. The old Linaean system is not consistent, that is why it is being replaced. For example the closest related species to chimpanzees and bonobos is man. It makes no sense to call chimps apes and try to claim that their closest relatives are not apes while more distant relatives are apes.

A clade begins with a population (thanks to @Thermos aquaticus for the classification/correction) and all of its descendants.

The first population of "birds" would be almost indistinguishable from some of the other dinosaurs of that era. One would call both the ancestral birds and it's close relatives dinosaurs. And as a result all birds that followed would be dinosaurs as well.

Change of kind is a creationist concept, not an evolutionary one.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Let me give this one last shot.

Cladistics is merely a consistent classification system. The old Linaean system is not consistent, that is why it is being replaced. For example the closest related species to chimpanzees and bonobos is man. It makes no sense to call chimps apes and try to claim that their closest relatives are not apes while more distant relatives are apes.

It also has to do with the taxonomic levels in Linnaean taxonomy which incorrectly describe how evolution works. Linnaean taxonomy states that as a group of species acquires an arbitrary amount of diversity that it becomes a new Genus. However, there is no way to have a Genus inside of another Genus with Linnaean taxonomy. Linnaean taxonomy forces us to detach a group from it's ancestry and reattach it at a lower point in the tree of life which isn't how it works.

There is also the arbitrary nature of Linnaean taxonomy. What are the objective criteria for determining which species belong to a Genus? Well, there aren't any. A Genus can be whatever humans want it to be. You could put all primates in a single Genus if you wanted to. Cladistics, on the other hand, does use objective criteria which are shared derived characteristics.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No. Then that animal will be called Daisy. But we are scientifically classifying Daisy as a penguin, that is a bird, that is a therapod dinosaur , that is a diapsid archosaur, that is a tetrapod, that is a vertebrate, that is a chordate, that is an animal.

.....that is bacteria (excuse me, amoeba).

 

[Subduction Zone]

.....that is bacteria (excuse me, amoeba).

No, amoebae are a group under the category of eucaryotes. You are a eucaryote, I am one, a tree is one. That is a HUGE group when it comes to cladistics.

Your error was akin to calling a Great Dane a Chihuahua. Both are dogs, but there is a fair amount of difference between the two. Amoebae and birds are both eucaryotes. You might have noticed a slight difference between the two of them.