Thoughts on Religion vs Evolution...

It does have to do with it. You can't expect me to look at genealogy and think cladistics.. Not going to happen...

 

Okay... Discussed one part of this which is ridiculous... Now, can anyone spot the other complete FAIL's?

 

And why would I be concerned about what you think when looking at genealogy?

 

Yes. They are all members of the same species. We already agreed that.

But they are not, themselves, either a species or a clade.

I'm pretty sure we agreed that too.

Uuuuhhh, no. Cladistics is pretty much the opposite of polygenesis.

It can be. Sure. If I had doubts who my grandfather was, there are some simple genetic tests that could rather neatly nail it down. And these are the same sort of genetic tests that would determine genetic distances between distantly related species.

None of that changes the definition of a clade. It is completely fractal.

 

Because you should have the same concerns when talking about clades and someone suggests that it is the same as genealogy maybe? No...

Do you think them the same?

 

Maybe not.

I think that since the concept of a clade is completely fractal, his post was completely correct.

 

Then why on this Green Earth are you fighting FOR that poster since he/she is clearly wrong that it was a clade?

I'm pretty sure polygenesis is... What is it?

No...

Doubts who your grandfather was, because your mother or someone told you that he was...

Also, if we had three great uncles, a great great grandfather, a couple old uncles on each side. What test would point to the "right" one you are looking for? Please explain what test to us please... Then tell us how this test is used for life forms that lived 500 mya.

There are many readers for this thread (roughly 50-100 daily) so please - we are waiting for how this works...

and it shouldn't... Clades deal with whole species and the example dealt with tracing a family tree which is called geneaology.

As you said to me - it's okay if you don't understand the meaning of Clade... I will help you out with some sites!

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html

http://fossilnews.com/1996/cladistics.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~clade/faculty/lipscomb/Cladistics.pdf

Please read so you will understand your family (parents and so forth) is not a clade in any way shape or form. I know it's hard to be proven wrong, but it's the internet - who cares! Sorry... but family genealogy isn't a clade. Nor should you be suggesting that it is or was.

 

Then I will suggest you stop posting on the subject genealogy and cladistics.

Nice try… I will give you that, but anyone reading and looking at EVER LINK that I put down and the definition that you even stated yourself of the example NOT BEING A CLADE suggest that either you are wrong now, or was wrong before? Either way – you are wrong.

I will say that I am backed with all the links that the internet can provide with the example is COMPLETELY wrong. If you can support your statement that clades, per definition and the study of evolution is below the species level, then we can talk.

Because little did we the readers know that the study of evolution means the study of your grandparents getting jiggy with it… Is that how we categorize evolutionary steps? See, because in your mind your grandparents were fish or where they Sasquatches? Because we both know it would be ridiculous for you to suggest that evolution is measured by your parents right and they are, per evolution, your common ancestor right… That would just be ridiculous… You are not a ridiculous poster and know reason right? You know about evolution right? You know that evolution is above the species level right? You know the definition right?

So… why in world would you suggest that the study of evolution is you, your sister and your parents?

Cladistics definition and examples – you pick:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...l5687l0l6500l12l10l1l0l0l0l219l1047l5.2.2l9l0

 

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE F* * * * KIDDING ME!!! You Google'd Clade and copied the FIRST SITE YOU SAW!!!

And then f'ed it all up to boot?!?!? To top it off the site was called "What is a Clade"!!!!!!!

You've got to be joking me... Next time I suggest putting it into your own words genius! Also, as I stated - you Google'd clade and got this site and then posted something retarded about your family!

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-clade.htm

From that retarded site: Apes aren't a clade because humans descended from apes and humans generally aren't considered apes. If you include humans and the extinct relatives of humans, like Neanderthals, to be apes, then apes are a clade, but this generally isn't done.

You tried to change this into your family and got it all F'ED UP!!! For one - Homosapien Sapien did not descend from "APES" genius - we are part of that classification (for the slow - doesn't mean we descended from us - other humans)! There are more than one "ape" (per-say for description and discussion) and they all live today - APE is a classification and there is a clade for ape if you add the "missing link"... how the hell can we descend from something that already exists? That is about as retarded as stating that our brother and sister are our parents - since the rest of the apes are lateral to us...

Sheesh - it's like wow... That post just beat out Grasping FAIL of all FAIL's... But, the sad thing is - I think they are one in the same poster because they both are just..

Special posters...

 

Because he said it wasn't a clade.

The opposite of the #1 key requirement for a clade. A clade must have a single shared ancestor. Polygenetic groups have multiple and different ancestors.

The source of the doubts are irrelevant. The way to settle them is unchanged.

Basic DNA profile would start. Grandfathers and Uncles would share 25% of their DNA, and great uncles only 12.5%. So that would at least decide between which of those two groups contained the father.

That would be essentially the identical test used to for those comparisons of ancient life forms.

And then we would then look at specific genetic markers to sort out the individuals that we had narrowed ourselves down to.

Oh I'm sure they are waiting with bated breath.

 

Last time I do an analogy for the University Biology Professor. Anyone want to point out the errors in his claim that he teaches this at university?

 

I considered your suggestion. Sorry, but I cannot accommodate you.

 

Did he really say he was a University biology professor?

 

No Dawkins, I gave the birds, reptiles and mammals example because that's the one biologists seem to always give when they're talking about it, probably because everyone has heard of birds, reptiles and mammals.

I doubt you even finished High School.

 

You haven't noticed a lot of us making fun of him for making a claim that he helps teach this at a university?

 

I have now!

 

Let me break this down so you’ll understand since you seem to be coming into a mind block…

I know you can understand simple sentence structure right? Okay – let me explain – there is the post RIGHT THERE TO FOLLOW ALONG!!! The posters says – that his father and immediate family Is not a clade. Why? Because he has 2 half siblings. THEREFORE, it is not a clade, BUT, if he were to “INCLUDE” his/her half siblings it would be a clade.

Now, since cladistics is the study of grouping species – how can the posters immediate family be a clade, unless each of them are descendants of a completely different species of life? Explain that…

You are making yourself look foolish in this argument. I have stated this several times – Darwinist are religious because they cling onto their beliefs like those religious fanatics who have never read the Bible… And thus, we get ridiculous gibberish from them. I have always stated that the Darwinist is FAR worst because they did not study biology and only know what they Google or what some idiot told them without any research and hold onto those beliefs without fail…

You are wrong… everyone reading sees your wrong… I have provided links on what a clade is, and that is not a clade. You can redeem yourself if you show us a genealogy clade with a definition. If not, please refrain from posting about this again.

Please give us the link with the definition of “polygenesis”. I really think now you’re making things up!

INCORRECT!!!! Sorry Skippy, but the test would state that you are all Homosapien sapiens. We don’t test fossils to find out who is whos grandfather or uncle, we test it to find out what the hell it is and what scientific classification it falls under. The test that they would run for your uncles and so forth would be to find out what “species” you are. AS I STATED!!! After that you need to get OFF THE TRAIN AND GET ON A BUS, because it is now different. Do you understand now? The Jerry Springer “LaDamion is NOT the father” test is different from it falls in the Aves classification….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test

Tell me where you see Carbon Dating please? Do you know a BIG part of things that lived 500mya? Is how we find out how old they are… From dating methods… Please… you’re starting to look suspect in your posts… They are completely different!!! COMPLETELY!!!

Looks like they were…

 

Then I will treat you as the others who have no clue what they are talking about...

Post away!!!

 

Maybe this is why you two think alike!!! You both have extravagant imaginations… You can just make up your own crap at a heartbeat and think it is real. I do believe they have medication for that…

 

IF I haven’t finished high school and have been internet pimp slapping you and the rest of the Peanut Gallery on this subject for two years, what does that put you at? If you can’t make a high school drop out look silly on the internet – how retarded does that make you?

Think about it… I know it might be hard and make sure you have water or a fire extinguisher around close, but REALLY THINK – If I am a high school drop out – how does that make you look?

I know Dawkins didn’t say that. Give me the example from Dawkins saying that please… Or you’re fibbing on the internet… AGAIN! You got that from that “What is a Clade” website because you have no clue Grasping, nor did you ever have one – ever.

 

NOW THE ANSWER…

What we know is that a clade is how biologist “group” species together with all the descendants showing common descent in an evolutionary diagram. This is called a cladogram. Example would be we found the missing link and named it Ralph. The clade would be Ralph at one end then a node (of evolutionary steps happening) then lines to the classification of Ape which include us and three other species. NOT Ralph and his uncles and so forth – please erase that from all thought!!! That was the “second” problem. Now the first is the vague “common ancestor and all of it’s descendants”. This is where the first problem came in because it doesn’t say anything about “species” and/or extinct life. Because can you have a clade with an extinct species at the beginning of the branch? Is that acceptable? Or how about at the end? These need to be specified in the definition.

So, that’s two right there. The last one… Birds are a clade and so forth. HORRIFIC!!!

For one – we are on a discussion about Clades! Reptiles are from Reptilia – thus are not a clade because guess what folks??!?! Reptilia is from a different taxon (structure for classifying different life on this planet). Reptilia is Linnean Class and is Reptilia. The Clade for reptile is Sauropsida. IF YOU ARE UNLEARNED IN THE ART OF BIOLOGY AND CLADES this mistake will happen because you have no clue what you’re talking about as the poster didn’t (nor did the other who said family members make clades).

OH – but it even gets better (or worst for the poster)… there is no classification (clade) for mammals and reptiles… and I won’t even start with Aves…

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizard

Over on the right is the scientific classification of each that was listed. You tell me when they all “reach” where they are the same… and it is here: Chordata, well that’s fine, but there are only like (less than) 10 division of phylum. Now look… 10 divisions.. ALL LIFE THAT HAS LIVED ON THIS PLANET – scooped up in 10 divisions… do you know what the category above phylum is? It just has to be an “animal” is all… So, it’s basically saying that they are all animals… Thanks – but, I think we (you guy/gals) know that already.

The post above is so ridiculously ridiculous on every level that I thought that at least someone who has been arguing over evolution would notice at least ONE THING!!! But, I was wrong, so I will continue to educate you all.

So, when speaking of certain taxon please make sure you are using the correct one (don’t cross over like the above retard post). When reading crap on the internet you don’t understand – do some research so you don’t make EPIC mistakes like the poster above. I mean – there is NOTHING in that post that is write except for the posters name for God’s Sake!!!

I won’t even go into the part about the whole “reptile” debate… but, if you want to know about it – they are trying to make “one” taxon (for you *Ahklut) and decide on what should be what. Reptile is something old and still wants to lurk around, but it has no place thus the debate.

*Ahklut – this is why I asked you which phylogenetic tree you thought was right since there isn’t just one. I don’t know why you suggested that. I think you need to pimp slap your teacher for leading you down a wrong path!!

 

Oh my god. Did you just say that? You are offically the biggest idiot on the forum.

A scientific "theory" does not mean the same thing as the everyday use of theory. Y'know cause the theory of gravity hasn't been proven as fact.

From http://www.notjustatheory.com/

It cites its sources, you are obviously misinformed and you've lost any opportunity to redeem yourself in the future. All I can say is wow...

 

I read that "answer." I read it four times.

I can make neither heads no tails of what the hell you were trying to say.

Honestly.

 

You are offically the biggest idiot on the forum.

The theory of gravity has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the hypothesis of evolution... You are a brainwashed clone that spits off crap that you hear from your Reverend Darwin!

I suggest you don't call people idiots when... Pot... Kettle... Black... you follow?

wow...

 

It has everything to do with scientific meaning of "theory."