• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Explaining the terminology used in Evolutionary Sciences

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Most sciences (any field of systematic study in fact) use a set of technical terminology that are defined in ways quite distinct from everyday English. Evolutionary sciences do the same. The most difficult part of this is the terminologies associated with phylogenetics, which uses the features in the biological features of living and extinct life-forms to infer and reconstruct possible evolutionary relationships between animals, plants etc.

This thread is an attempt to shed some light on what these terminologies mean and how they are used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of organisms. Hopefully, it will help in clarifying the issues a bit.

Let's start with the most central term: The Species
A species is a lineage,i.e. a collection of organisms, that share a unique evolutionary history and are held
together by the cohesive forces of reproduction and development.


That is a very succinct definition. Future posts will make clear what is meant by unique evolutionary history and what they cohesive forces of reproduction and development are.

Origin of Species
Every species has a unique historical origin, either by
a) Cladogenesis, which is defined as the division of one (ancestral) species into new (daughter) species, or b) Reticulate speciation, which is defined as the formation of a new species through the hybridization of two (ancestral species).

Note that the term "unique historical origin" does not imply that there is a specific and sharp time instant when speciation occurred. The "speciation event" may be a long drawn out process that may span hundreds to hundreds of thousand years through which the many many generations of the ancestral species group are slowly diverging/transforming/hybridizing to form the clearly differentiable daughter species group.

In phylogenetic classification, the word taxon (plural: taxa) is regularly used. So I will define it next.

Taxon
A taxon is ANY named group of organisms.

That's it. Its basically a fancy word for "group". It can be any group. So for example, the word "Bird" is a name that groups certain organisms together. So "Bird" is taxon. So does the word "elephant" or the word "dog". Any such word that groups a set of organisms together is a taxon. So a taxonomist is a scientist that groups organisms together in a scientifically systematic manner. Usually when the word taxon or taxa is used, it means that that specific group has been created by taxonomists using certain systematic scientific standards.

The next most important word in phylogenetics is the word Clade.

Clade
A clade is a monophyletic group of taxa (i.e. a group of groups) that encompasses an ancestral species and all its descendant species.

So consider, for example, the following figure:-

upload_2019-10-14_9-3-18.png


Note that ancestor species 3, ancestor species 4 and species I, L, O, B together form a monophyletic group and hence is a clade as an ancestor and all its descendants have been taken into account. So this clade can be expressed as {3, 4, I, L, O, B}

Similarly ancestor 2 and T, R form another clade as, again an ancestor and all its descendants have been considered. So this clade is {2, T, R}

Of course ancestor1, ancestor 2, ancestor 3, ancestor 4 and T, R, I, L, O, B all together also form a clade where the ancestor is the species 1 and everyone else is its descendants. {1,2,3,4, T, R, I, L, O, B}.

Similarly another clade can be {4, L, O, B} etc.

Note that the group {2, 4, R, B} is not a clade as an ancestor and all its descendants have not been grouped together.

Clearly then, the clades are basically what is commonly known as evolutionary trees where an ancestor and all its evolutionary descendant species have been correctly grouped into a single super-group.

Inferring these clades from features of living and extinct life forms is the primary task of a phylogenticist.

That, I hope, is a reasonable beginning. I will add more to this as time permits.

Note: I will use different sources for my posts in this thread. The current definitions are mostly taken from the book "The Nature of Diversity" by Brooks and McLennan. Please see the link to the book,
The Nature of Diversity

The author profiles:-
Daniel R Brooks - Google Scholar Citations
D. Mclennan
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
In phylogenetic classification, the word taxon (plural: taxa) is regularly used. So I will define it next.

Taxon
A taxon is ANY named group of organisms.

That's it. Its basically a fancy word for "group". It can be any group. So for example, the word "Bird" is a name that groups certain organisms together. So "Bird" is taxon. So does the word "elephant" or the word "dog". Any such word that groups a set of organisms together is a taxon. So a taxonomist is a scientist that groups organisms together in a scientifically systematic manner. Usually when the word taxon or taxa is used, it means that that specific group has been created by taxonomists using certain systematic scientific standards.
I like to add that the field of taxonomy goes back to Carolus Linnæus. His "Systema Naturae" was published in the 1730th, more than 100 years before "The Origin of Species". The classification of H. Sapiens as a Great Ape is by Linnæus and was established knowledge in Darwin's time.
Taxonomy is the question that the Theory of Evolution answers.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Does evolutionary science still talk about everything arises from a form of primordial soup?
If we look for example at Christian theology and even some evidence from Buddhism the primordial
soup theory could actually be true :)
In Christianity, it is said that God created Eve from clay, so technically primordial soup
In Theravada Buddhism it is spoken about that life arises from something similar to the primordial soup.

Can it be as simple as evolution theory and religious people see the same thing from different P.O.V ?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Does evolutionary science still talk about everything arises from a form of primordial soup?
If we look for example at Christian theology and even some evidence from Buddhism the primordial
soup theory could actually be true :)
In Christianity, it is said that God created Eve from clay, so technically primordial soup
In Theravada Buddhism it is spoken about that life arises from something similar to the primordial soup.

Can it be as simple as evolution theory and religious people see the same thing from different P.O.V ?
This seems to be a question about abiogenesis, rather than evolution.

Evolution by natural selection, which is what is normally meant by "evolution", describes the process by which one species arises from another. This requires a mechanism for passing traits from one generation to the next, by replication of genetic material. The process by which the first genetic material arose had to occur before the mechanism of natural selection could start to operate. This is a key part of the study of how life arose in the first place, i.e. abiogenesis.

There is no theory of abiogenesis, so far, just lots of bits of information and several hypotheses for various stages of the process. There are hypotheses involving "warm little ponds", perhaps tidal by the seashore, or beside volcanic springs, and others involving deep sea volcanic vents. So far as I know, there is no consensus yet.

But this thread is about evolution of species.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
This thread is an attempt to shed some light on what these terminologies mean and how they are used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of organisms. Hopefully, it will help in clarifying the issues a bit.

I think it helps to picture what you are saying....just for those of us who are not familiar with the scientific jargon.
Let me see if I have this straight.....

Here is an example of the Red Fox.....at a glance, this diagram makes the fox appear to be part of a group of creatures who are grouped in scientific terms so that they appear to be related down a line of biological classifications.

1200px-Taxonomic_Rank_Graph.svg.png


So what do we deduce from this? That Red Foxes are in the canidae Family. (Wolf or dog family)...right so far?

166189-004-0182A785.jpg


Then we see another couple of classifications because Canines are "carnivores" and they are also "mammals".
But is this because all carnivores and mammals are somehow related as the diagram implies?

What are the carnivores then...?

i.jpg


Are these really related in some way or are they all just meat eaters by design?

What about mammals? Are they all somehow related by evolution?

1432831452.png

...... or is it just that they have a common method of feeding their young?

Moving right along....the Red Fox belongs to the Phylum Chordata.....which means that creatures under this banner are extremely diverse. You can see from the following diagram that at the very bottom are these assumed phantom 'ancestors' that never seem to rate a mention.....but then we are supposed to believe that all these are somehow related in the long evolutionary process with branches suddenly taking creatures in different directions.....but no one has any evidence that this ever took place except in the imagination of scientists who wanted it to be true.
Chordate-Famly-Tree.jpg


So what about "Clades"?

cladesCladogram.jpg


This diagram makes them all look related too, doesn't it? But the problem I see in this diagram is that the lines joining these diverse creatures are drawn by scientists who have no actual evidence for their conclusions. They are based on inferences and assumptions about these relationships, because their theory demands it.

The whole evolutionary 'chain' is based on assumptions. You can classify them as much as you like...shroud them in scientific terminology....but you cannot prove that any of these creatures are related in a slow evolutionary process.

Once you question the validity of the relationships, the lines become rather comical because they are based on nothing but guesswork. Look where humans are....
confused0009.gif
...obviously we are related to rabbits and squirrels...?

And, where does that first vertical line come from? Who or what is it connected to?......who said that all the other lines in this graph have a single shred of evidence that ties any of these creatures together?

(All diagrams are from Google searches)

Clearly then, the clades are basically what is commonly known as evolutionary trees where an ancestor and all its evolutionary descendant species have been correctly grouped into a single super-group.

That is a matter of opinion. I believe that the "evolutionary trees" will fall over on their own because they have no roots. Your complicated theory has no solid foundation.

Inferring these clades from features of living and extinct life forms is the primary task of a phylogenticist.

Yep.....Inferring is what its all about......

So as far as I can see, the technical terminology does nothing to promote confidence in the theory of evolution at all because it is based on belief, not facts....just as creation is.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
This diagram makes them all look related too, doesn't it? But the problem I see in this diagram is that the lines joining these diverse creatures are drawn by scientists who have no actual evidence for their conclusions.
Only if you don't bother looking into what the tree of life is actually based on:

Assembling the tree of life

To simply assert that it is based on "no evidence" is little but gross ignorance. The tree of life is a model BASED ON the evidence presented - that being common genetic lineage and the fossil record. They did not start from the conclusion and draw the graph - the graph is the conclusion DRAWN FROM the evidence.

The whole evolutionary 'chain' is based on assumptions. You can classify them as much as you like...shroud them in scientific terminology....but you cannot prove that any of these creatures are related in a slow evolutionary process.
"Proof" isn't the question. It's evidence.

The fact that all living things share common genetic traits and inheritance is evidence of common ancestry, as is the nested hierarchy of the fossil record. Currently, there is no other sufficient explanation for what is observed in either than common ancestry.

Consider the following:
There is currently only ONE known mechanism which produces an organism with similar genetics to a previous organism: reproduction.

Until you present some means by which complex organisms with genetic codes that are very similar to other extant complex organisms can appear without sharing common ancestry, your dismissal of the tree of life is based on nothing but your prior beliefs that require common ancestry to be false. You are the one looking at the tree and dismissing it, not because of a lack of evidence, but because you need it to be false in order for your religious beliefs to be true.

Or is this not the case?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
but because you need it to be false in order for your religious beliefs to be true.

Not all religious beliefs dismiss the science of evolution.

Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.

“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
“The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Catholics have long accepted that the creation story as written in the book of Genesis in the Bible can stand along the scientific theory of evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive.

“It should be non-news but it’s new especially for American Catholics because in America the debate on faith and science and the question of evolution is still very much a part of our day-by-day intellectual menu,” says Massimo Faggioli, a theology professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. “This statement will be met with almost total indifference in Europe while in America it’s a completely different story.”
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Not all religious beliefs dismiss the science of evolution.
Agreed. Deeje's beliefs do, however, because her particular church specifically denounces evolutionary theory.

Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.

“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
“The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Catholics have long accepted that the creation story as written in the book of Genesis in the Bible can stand along the scientific theory of evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive.

“It should be non-news but it’s new especially for American Catholics because in America the debate on faith and science and the question of evolution is still very much a part of our day-by-day intellectual menu,” says Massimo Faggioli, a theology professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. “This statement will be met with almost total indifference in Europe while in America it’s a completely different story.”
This is something I've said in multiple threads myself. I've always asked creationists why it couldn't be that "evolution" is merely the biological expression of God's will. Most often, I am met with silence on that question, but the few who answer seem utterly intent that their God is some kind of parlour magician only capable of conjuring rabbits out of hats, rather than an immoral, ineffable creator of the Universe whose mere will births into existence a billion-year long biological process.

I find this attitude odd, and seems to stem from a very limiting view of God.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I think it helps to picture what you are saying....just for those of us who are not familiar with the scientific jargon.
Keep in mind folks - this person has claimed to have been debating and studying evolution for YEARS!

And yet she cannot understand the basic - I mean, middle-school level - "jargon"????
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
This diagram makes them all look related too, doesn't it? But the problem I see in this diagram is that the lines joining these diverse creatures are drawn by scientists who have no actual evidence for their conclusions.
Only if you don't bother looking into what the tree of life is actually based on:

Assembling the tree of life

To simply assert that it is based on "no evidence" is little but gross ignorance.

There comes a point where ignorance, forgetfulness, spite, etc., just no longer work as excuses. And one is left with but one obvious conclusion.

I will never get over the pride with which some creationists out and out lie about evolution. It can only be a lie, for at this point, people like deeje have been presented with examples of the very evidence she claims does not exist HUNDREDS of times.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
To simply assert that it is based on "no evidence" is little but gross ignorance.
It's Deeje's only game.....goad the "evolutionists" with taunts of "it's all assumption/speculation", accusations of fraud, and claims that there is zero evidence for any of it.

Then when people line up to try and show her some of the evidence, she'll scan through the material looking for words like "likely", "possibly", or "might" and once she finds them, use them as an excuse to declare that it's all just "assumption/speculation". Or, if someone provides something she doesn't understand, she'll wave it away as "technobabble" and accuse the scientists of deliberately using jargon to conceal their fraud. And if someone gives her layperson-friendly material, she'll say "is this all there is" and wave it away as incomplete.

IOW, she has her built-in excuses all ready to go. All she needs is someone to step up and try and show science to her, which is what the taunting and goading is for.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Then when people line up to try and show her some of the evidence, she'll scan through the material looking for words like "likely", "possibly", or "might" and once she finds them, use them as an excuse to declare that it's all just "assumption/speculation". Or, if someone provides something she doesn't understand, she'll wave it away as "technobabble" and accuse the scientists of deliberately using jargon to conceal their fraud. And if someone gives her layperson-friendly material, she'll say "is this all there is" and wave it away as incomplete.

IOW, she has her built-in excuses all ready to go. All she needs is someone to step up and try and show science to her, which is what the taunting and goading is for.
EXACTLY.

Sad how predictable they are.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
And one of the reasons I have her on "Ignore.".
Can't say as I blame ya. I don't have anyone on official ignore, but when it comes to her posts I usually skip over them, mostly because it's the same script ad nauseum. It's kinda like another creationist here who has only one shtick...."you can't prove everything wasn't completely different in the past". Not a full ignore, but effectively....yeah, pretty much.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Let's start with the most central term: The Species
A species is a lineage,i.e. a collection of organisms, that share a unique evolutionary history and are held
together by the cohesive forces of reproduction and development.
I don't know where you got your definition (It always helps, and, in fact, is mandatory on RF, to show the source of a quote) but it's not as clear-cut as you imply. Consider:

"Unfortunately, the biological sciences have yet to come up with a universal definition of 'species.' The various species concepts now in use have arisen out of a need to address classification issues that are often particular to only one branch or sphere of biology. and are therefore not widely applicable. These concepts include biological, biosystematic, evolutionary, genetic, morpohological, paleontological, and phylogenetic definitions.

The most widely used of these definitions, based on the biological concept of species, usually takes a form akin to that formulated by biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr contends that a species is a 'reproductively isolated aggregate of populations that can interbreed with one another because they share the same isolating mechanisms.'* The heart of this definition lies in the criterion of reproductive isolation.

Reproductive isolation embraces any element of nature that prevents the reproduction of fully viable offspring."

Source. Mortenson, Philip. This Is Not A Weasel: a Close Look at Natures Most Confusing terms. New York: John Wiley, 2014, p20

* Mayr, Ernst. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1982), p311



Taxon
A taxon is ANY named group of organisms.

That's it. Its basically a fancy word for "group". It can be any group. So for example, the word "Bird" is a name that groups certain organisms together. So "Bird" is taxon.
Actually, it is not. In taxonomy, which is what you're dealing with here (evidenced by your reference to a taxonomist), a taxon is a taxonomic unit of a rank. That is, a unit whose designation is officially recognized by the discipline it serves. Therefore, while "Aves" is the taxon name for the class of Chordata (those animals with backbones) containing birds, "Bird" is not. "Bird" is merely a descriptor.

Here's an example of how it works

taxons example.png


You appear to be conflating phylogenetics and taxonomy. From your link.

"Taxonomy is the identification, naming and classification of organisms. It is usually richly informed by phylogenetics, but remains a methodologically and logically distinct discipline."

.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Only if you don't bother looking into what the tree of life is actually based on:

Assembling the tree of life

To simply assert that it is based on "no evidence" is little but gross ignorance. The tree of life is a model BASED ON the evidence presented - that being common genetic lineage and the fossil record. They did not start from the conclusion and draw the graph - the graph is the conclusion DRAWN FROM the evidence.

Thank you for the link. I always appreciate seeing the “evidence” for myself. I may read these things with a different lens to someone who thinks that science is actually presenting the truth. I question the statements as they are written.

What are the opening words of this article?....

“It's easy to see how you're related to your parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and cousins. It's not so easy to see how you're related to apple trees, worms, or elephants.

From algae to zebras, all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. The Tree of Life Project aims to show how these species are related to one another by putting them into a family tree. Biologists and other scientists all over the world are working to identify and sort Earth's organisms—from plants to microbes to animals, living or extinct—to see how they fit together.”


So it begins with a premise....that “all living things on Earth have a common ancestor”......that is an assumption that is not provable. It is a speculation based on a belief....but spoken as if it were fact. Guesses are not facts.

“So far, scientists have identified about 1.7 million species around the world. At least 4 million more species remain to be discovered. And these numbers don't include the millions of species, such as dinosaurs, that have already gone extinct.

Amazingly, this diversity apparently arose from a single primitive organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago. Over time, cells formed, changed, and merged. Groups of cells developed into distinct organisms, splitting into different species that could not reproduce with each other.”

Is “apparently” a scientific term? Isn’t it an assumption that “a single primitive organism” changed over 3.5 billion years to produce all the diversity of life that science can identify? Where is the evidence for the kind of “splitting” that science assumes to have taken place? We see ‘branches’ in their evolutionary tree but are they really based on anything but guesswork? It is the theory itself that influences the assumptions.....the pre-conceived conclusion squeezed into the so called "evidence". Not the other way around.

“For most of history, no one was around to record what was happening. So, there are lots of gaps in the record and many questions about how, when, and where species split.”

With that admission, how does science bridge those "gaps" and answer those "questions" without departing into complete fantasy? With guesses and assumptions that take “might have” or “could have” all the way to “must have” when its nothing more than the power of suggestion.

“Katja Schulz, an entomologist at the University of Arizona, agrees. "It can be hard to make sense of dragonflies with weird wings or parasitic worms with weird hooked mouths," she says "But when you put a historical spin on it, you can begin to think about what might have happened along the way."

And there you have a classic statement when you “begin to think about what MIGHT HAVE happened along the way.” What constitutes a “historical spin”? What is spin?

According to one dictionary....”To put a spin on (something) means....
To report or relay information to someone else in a way that makes their interpretation or understanding of it more palatable, acceptable, or favorable.”

Isn’t that exactly what happens with the whole macro-evolutionary question? It is presented in such a way as to be considered as “acceptable” fact, when it never was. When it has the backing of people who are accepted as experts in their field, who is going to argue with them?

Changes, or mutations, in DNA drive evolution. Members of the same species start with lots of DNA in common. But as species split, their DNA becomes less similar. Using new technologies, scientists can compare stretches of DNA to find out the point at which two organisms split from their common ancestor.”

How many “changes or mutations” would it take to begin with a single celled organism, (itself not a simple lifeform) then to be able to eventually morph itself into a dinosaur? Try to imagine what that means.....something you can't see with the naked eye becomes something the size of a three story building! Science wants us to believe that this took place, with no real evidence that it ever did.....so who has the fantasy that is being sold as fact, whilst pointing fingers at Bible believers for claiming to see intelligent design in nature?

“As some scientists struggle to assemble a complete evolutionary tree, researchers at the University of Arizona are putting what is known so far into a format that people can easily understand and navigate.”

The “struggle to assemble a complete evolutionary tree” is really not stressed though, is it? Most science students are not aware that there is any struggle at all, because the information available to them, and what is taught in their educational institutions is presented as if it were established fact. It is extremely dishonest to present suggestions and assumptions as if they were irrefutable scientifically backed truth.....they never were and never will be. What will be presented is “spin” suggested to a willing audience who will assume that everything presented is backed up by more than “might have’s” and “could have’s”. Don’t we all deserve the truth?

As far as I can see, the truth of the statements in these articles, and the way they “spin” the information, escapes the notice of those trusting in science as a virtual substitute for religion. As I see it, we have two competing *belief systems*.....only one claims to have the scientifically backed "evidence".....but since it interprets its own evidence, how reliable is it? I think your article answers those questions.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
ImmortalFlame said:
pcarl said:
Not all religious beliefs dismiss the science of evolution.
Agreed. Deeje's beliefs do, however, because her particular church specifically denounces evolutionary theory.

It is not just that my religion specifically denounces evolution....but that the evidence presented by science itself is full of holes....big ones. Science gets all wobbly and even combative when it is questioned. Scientists get bent out of shape when you point out the obvious flaws in their arguments....this then leads to personal insults because they have nothing left to throw at us. Its a dead giveaway that they are out of argument because they have been cut off at the knees, exposed for the frauds that they are. It is a mistake to put something so flawed on a pedestal.

ImmortalFlame said:
pcarl said:
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.

“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
“The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Catholics have long accepted that the creation story as written in the book of Genesis in the Bible can stand along the scientific theory of evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive.

“It should be non-news but it’s new especially for American Catholics because in America the debate on faith and science and the question of evolution is still very much a part of our day-by-day intellectual menu,” says Massimo Faggioli, a theology professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. “This statement will be met with almost total indifference in Europe while in America it’s a completely different story.”

This is something I've said in multiple threads myself. I've always asked creationists why it couldn't be that "evolution" is merely the biological expression of God's will. Most often, I am met with silence on that question, but the few who answer seem utterly intent that their God is some kind of parlour magician only capable of conjuring rabbits out of hats, rather than an immoral, ineffable creator of the Universe whose mere will births into existence a billion-year long biological process.

Nicely demonstrating what is considered by the science buffs to be a convincing counter-argument. :facepalm:

God is neither magician nor is he someone who has no purpose for his creation. Life was not begun here and left to its own devices....a Creator is one who creates....one who has a purpose and is skilled, taking all the time necessary, and paying meticulous attention to what he has brought into existence. Each creative period is concluded with a statement of his satisfaction with his achievements. No life is a fluke. Everything has a place and a purpose....even if we don't know what it is at present.

Those who want to blend creation and evolution as if it somehow makes them appear to be less ignorant or uneducated, are selling out to a half baked idea that has no solid foundation. It is insulting to question the God who created all things, just as he said he did. Who are we to say otherwise just because some people want to make him disappear.....or to make believers feel stupid? I believe that we shall soon see who is more gullible.

Science has constructed an elaborate mansion built on matchsticks.... a powerful force will reduce it to rubble....the same force that constructed everything. Time will tell.

I find this attitude odd, and seems to stem from a very limiting view of God.

The attitude I find to be odd is that a person who professes no belief in God can make a comment like that. Evolution is putting limits on God...not the other way around.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know where you got your definition (It always helps, and, in fact, is mandatory on RF, to show the source of a quote) but it's not as clear-cut as you imply. Consider:

"Unfortunately, the biological sciences have yet to come up with a universal definition of 'species.' The various species concepts now in use have arisen out of a need to address classification issues that are often particular to only one branch or sphere of biology. and are therefore not widely applicable. These concepts include biological, biosystematic, evolutionary, genetic, morpohological, paleontological, and phylogenetic definitions.

The most widely used of these definitions, based on the biological concept of species, usually takes a form akin to that formulated by biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr contends that a species is a 'reproductively isolated aggregate of populations that can interbreed with one another because they share the same isolating mechanisms.'* The heart of this definition lies in the criterion of reproductive isolation.

Reproductive isolation embraces any element of nature that prevents the reproduction of fully viable offspring."

Source. Mortenson, Philip. This Is Not A Weasel: a Close Look at Natures Most Confusing terms. New York: John Wiley, 2014, p20

* Mayr, Ernst. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1982), p311




Actually, it is not. In taxonomy, which is what you're dealing with here (evidenced by your reference to a taxonomist), a taxon is a taxonomic unit of a rank. That is, a unit whose designation is officially recognized by the discipline it serves. Therefore, while "Aves" is the taxon name for the class of Chordata (those animals with backbones) containing birds, "Bird" is not. "Bird" is merely a descriptor.

Here's an example of how it works



You appear to be conflating phylogenetics and taxonomy. From your link.

"Taxonomy is the identification, naming and classification of organisms. It is usually richly informed by phylogenetics, but remains a methodologically and logically distinct discipline."

.
I have included the information of the sources in the OP. Thanks for pointing out the omission. In this thread I am presenting topics pedagogically, that is slowly building up the concepts from the ground up (hopefully if time allows). So some of the additional concepts associated with the words will be incorporated into the meaning of these technical words as the logical structure of the theory unfolds over future posts.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Thank you for the link. I always appreciate seeing the “evidence” for myself. I may read these things with a different lens to someone who thinks that science is actually presenting the truth. I question the statements as they are written.

What are the opening words of this article?....

“It's easy to see how you're related to your parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and cousins. It's not so easy to see how you're related to apple trees, worms, or elephants.

From algae to zebras, all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. The Tree of Life Project aims to show how these species are related to one another by putting them into a family tree. Biologists and other scientists all over the world are working to identify and sort Earth's organisms—from plants to microbes to animals, living or extinct—to see how they fit together.”


So it begins with a premise....that “all living things on Earth have a common ancestor”......that is an assumption that is not provable. It is a speculation based on a belief....but spoken as if it were fact. Guesses are not facts.

“So far, scientists have identified about 1.7 million species around the world. At least 4 million more species remain to be discovered. And these numbers don't include the millions of species, such as dinosaurs, that have already gone extinct.

Amazingly, this diversity apparently arose from a single primitive organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago. Over time, cells formed, changed, and merged. Groups of cells developed into distinct organisms, splitting into different species that could not reproduce with each other.”

Is “apparently” a scientific term? Isn’t it an assumption that “a single primitive organism” changed over 3.5 billion years to produce all the diversity of life that science can identify? Where is the evidence for the kind of “splitting” that science assumes to have taken place? We see ‘branches’ in their evolutionary tree but are they really based on anything but guesswork? It is the theory itself that influences the assumptions.....the pre-conceived conclusion squeezed into the so called "evidence". Not the other way around.

“For most of history, no one was around to record what was happening. So, there are lots of gaps in the record and many questions about how, when, and where species split.”

With that admission, how does science bridge those "gaps" and answer those "questions" without departing into complete fantasy? With guesses and assumptions that take “might have” or “could have” all the way to “must have” when its nothing more than the power of suggestion.

“Katja Schulz, an entomologist at the University of Arizona, agrees. "It can be hard to make sense of dragonflies with weird wings or parasitic worms with weird hooked mouths," she says "But when you put a historical spin on it, you can begin to think about what might have happened along the way."

And there you have a classic statement when you “begin to think about what MIGHT HAVE happened along the way.” What constitutes a “historical spin”? What is spin?

According to one dictionary....”To put a spin on (something) means....
To report or relay information to someone else in a way that makes their interpretation or understanding of it more palatable, acceptable, or favorable.”

Isn’t that exactly what happens with the whole macro-evolutionary question? It is presented in such a way as to be considered as “acceptable” fact, when it never was. When it has the backing of people who are accepted as experts in their field, who is going to argue with them?

Changes, or mutations, in DNA drive evolution. Members of the same species start with lots of DNA in common. But as species split, their DNA becomes less similar. Using new technologies, scientists can compare stretches of DNA to find out the point at which two organisms split from their common ancestor.”

How many “changes or mutations” would it take to begin with a single celled organism, (itself not a simple lifeform) then to be able to eventually morph itself into a dinosaur? Try to imagine what that means.....something you can't see with the naked eye becomes something the size of a three story building! Science wants us to believe that this took place, with no real evidence that it ever did.....so who has the fantasy that is being sold as fact, whilst pointing fingers at Bible believers for claiming to see intelligent design in nature?

“As some scientists struggle to assemble a complete evolutionary tree, researchers at the University of Arizona are putting what is known so far into a format that people can easily understand and navigate.”

The “struggle to assemble a complete evolutionary tree” is really not stressed though, is it? Most science students are not aware that there is any struggle at all, because the information available to them, and what is taught in their educational institutions is presented as if it were established fact. It is extremely dishonest to present suggestions and assumptions as if they were irrefutable scientifically backed truth.....they never were and never will be. What will be presented is “spin” suggested to a willing audience who will assume that everything presented is backed up by more than “might have’s” and “could have’s”. Don’t we all deserve the truth?

As far as I can see, the truth of the statements in these articles, and the way they “spin” the information, escapes the notice of those trusting in science as a virtual substitute for religion. As I see it, we have two competing *belief systems*.....only one claims to have the scientifically backed "evidence".....but since it interprets its own evidence, how reliable is it? I think your article answers those questions.
I should have known you'd go back to the well of selectively quoting sources and making ridiculous assumptions based on uncertain terminology.

You honestly believe that admitting uncertainty or acknowledging difficulties in research is somehow scientists exposing evolution for the shame it is.

Here's an important question, Deeje: If evolution really were fundamentally based on a lie, why would scientists deliberately use uncertain terminology and admit the gaps and difficulty in their research?

Your argument makes no sense. Tell me which of the following statements is more likely to come from a dishonest person:

"There is definitely a gold bar in the garage. But I won't show you, you'll have to take my word for it. But there absolutely, definitely is."

Or

"There may be a gold bar in the garage. I've done some research which presents evidence of this, though my work is incomplete."

Tell me honestly, Deeje.
 
Top