Thoughts on Religion vs Evolution...

He just like to hear himself talk. Over at his Government Clerks job, no-one takes him seriously, so he comes on here, to make himself feel better

 

Nope, if I were to go on to another thread and talk like you Peanut Gallery do to Christians and myself with your 6 year old name calling - yes I would be banned.

But, I only say what you all have said to me. I could care less about the internet and people like you, but since you have no lives of your own, you think it really matters what people post! You really think I give a rats behind?

I have shoved your internet typing fingers in your rectum so many times they smell like rs199 semen. That is why you never type on evolution, because you don’t want to be embarrassed over again!!

Must be rough knowing that this “troll” as you call me makes your posts look retarded huh?

Yea – so I come to this forum to feel better about myself by getting in debates with idiotic posters to boost my ego!!!

I FEEL LIKE SUPERMAN!!!

 

Hey...

You got those fossils yet Mickey Mouse?

 

Unlike you, I have a life outside of this forum. I have "responsibilities" and "obligations" that preclude me spending every waking hour at the computer feverishly hitting F5 and waiting for someone's response.

I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what anyone else says a clade is. Unlike you, I'm actually in a class where we're discussing nothing but phylogenies and clades. So, I know I'm correct about a clade, and whatever you're blithely blithering on about is, frankly, irrelevant.

 

Clade, a common ancestor and all of its descendents.

Example. My father, myself, my brother and my sister are not a clade. Why? Because I also have 2 half siblings.

Birds are a clade.
Mammals are a clade.
Reptiles are not a clade. Why? Because both birds and mammals evolved from reptiles.

 

Google is your friend.

 

he's off work by now.

 

AKHLUT - You must have missed this huh?

IGNORE?!?!

HIGH - LARIOUS!!!! Now, we will discuss your "equation from the first website shall we. Why would I ignore something that I know I will be the only one that understands it...?

First we have to agree on which equation best assesses "common descent with modification" and then we will solve for (you'll have to tell us what we will be solving for also)...

You know I'm laughing because you have NO CLUE what equations you just put up do you!!! I mean - I LAUGHED OUT LOUD !!!!

Soooo... Go ahead and post which equation you think best describes common descent and then let us know what we will be solving for please...

 

No... That's not me, but the Peanut Gallery... I might take a whole week off… I have better things to do than spend like days on this…

I am glad you could give a crap on their "wrong" definitions! I do agree that they have no clue what they are talking about, but you are in bed with them, thus, you’ll get the “group” responses like I have done. Unless you correct idiotic posts you see about definitions that they are wrong on (all the time)… But, if you still want to be grouped with people who don’t know what the definition of evolution, speciation, adaptation, what a clade is, and many others, then go ahead, but be advised, I will respond to your post as more than likely, before I even read them, to be 70% ridiculous…

Why is it when you post up something that incriminates you, that you did yourself, you don’t explain yourself?!?!? I mean – you asked for math, and I’ve been asking for math for about two years!!! Where is “your” math on evolution that “you” believe in?!?!

 

But, you insist on being in the same boat as posts like this:

Really!!! You want to be in the same boat as these posters? REALLY?!?!

Since you do not correct all the WRONG all up IN that post and you say you know SO MUCH, I just know that you don't, or YOU'D CORRECT IT!!!

Just like your conversation with Wolverine...

 

Why am I going to Google something that you said WAS ALREADY PRESENT?!?!

Are you posting retardation and just didn't know you posted some that ridiculous? Explain why I need to Google something you said was already present?

 

I'LL GIVE THIS ONE TO ANYONE OUT THERE...

I will commend anyone who can look at this post and reply on how this post is retarded!! I would bless Grasping him/herself if I get a post and it's correct!!!

I want to know if you can see the errors and point them out is all...

GOOD GOD!!! This is so RETARDED I can't even EXPRESS just how retarded it is... This poster obviously has been Google'ing and Wiki or TalkOrigins told him some nonsense that poster didn't understand and then THAT happened...

So... anyone?

 

A clade isn't a common ancestor and all of its descendents. Pray tell what do you think it is then?

 

Oh well. No commendation for me. The post looks spot on.

 

Too bad... Should have looked at it a little better... But, no worries, there are still errors in that post... anybody who knows anything could have gotten the first one... Who on this planet (besides Grasping and the rest of the Peanut Gallery) actually thought that the definition of a clade is your flippin' family tree?!?! How can you argue FOR or even AGAINST evolution if you don't even know what a "clade" is?!?!

Well... There are other errors though - a HUGE one!!!

FIRST OFF - Just high school biology here... you and your family are of the same species...

Well... maybe... I have seen how you post...

 

Yes. They are therefore members of that clade. They are also members of the primate clade, the mammalian clade, the chordate clade, the dueterostome clade and the bilateria clade.

They are not, themselves, a clade.

 

Technically, they could be considered members of a very small clade with certain common ancestors. However, outside of genealogy or susceptibility to certain diseases, it isn't really useful as a clade.

 

Correct... When you get down to it, clades deal with groups of species [edit] and their common ancestor.

An example would be the ape classification and what our common ancestor is/would be....


There are other taxonomies (or is it taxonimic - I forget) out there for when we break down biology "below" the species level...

Ha!!! There is a hint of what is wrong with the other part of that post WITHING my post!!!

 

The way the poster suggested it is – his family is not a clade UNTIL they add the two (2) half siblings. Also, I would argue with you over them “being part” of a clade such as primate. They are part of a species, yes, but that doesn’t make them part of a clade since it is only defined “by” species… Clade do not go below the species level… or well shouldn’t as far as I understand their usage.

Correct!!

 

So... you are conceding that he was correct.

Good start.

But the definition of clade does not change. It is completely fractal.

 

Except for the half siblings.

Cladistics is not really useful in genealogy, primarily because of issues such as that and (of course) the multiple different paths one individual can be descended from the same ancestor.

 

Actually, not even then.

At the scale he was discussing, the half sisters represent a breakdown of the cladistic paradigm.

I never said they were "part" of anything. I said they were members of those clades. And every individual is a member of the nested set of clades that contain all of living organisms.

You do not seem to actually understand what a clade is. Don't feel bad. Traditional taxonomists also really hated the way cladistics threw the Linnean taxonomy ass over tea kettle. Change is hard for some.

But the definition of clade does not change. It's completely fractal.

 

No the poster is not correct. Cladistics was created and used for phylogenetics, not mapping out where Uncle Bernie should sit in the Christmas photo.

Then I suggest that you use it in the way that the initial post was brought to the readers. They were clades, as it showed common descent of species.

 

Non responsive. Your objection here has nothing to do with whether or not he was correct.

I will consider your suggestion.

 

No - it doesn't matter who or what or if he included the family pets. The family are all of the same species.

Cladistics is polygenetics and polygenetics is not dealing "within" a single species.

I will continue to disagree. Question then. How you find out who your grandfather was, is that the same scientific lab work that you use to set up common descent from 500 mya? It is not. Thus, cannot be looked at as the same. Once you get down to a certain level (species) you need to get off the Train and get on a bus. Two different methods. What you are referring to is genealogy is what that person was describing. The definition fits, because that is what it is…

It is for phylogenetics… Don’t feel bad. Read this, it may help… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyletic

[edit]

In common cladistic usage, a monophyletic group is a taxon (group of organisms) which forms a clade, meaning that it contains all the descendants of the possibly hypothetical closest common ancestor of the members of the group. The term is synonymous with the uncommon term holophyly. Monophyletic groups are typically characterized by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies).