Perhaps this will help:
This refers to the phylogenetic system, a.k.a. evolutionary trees, which reconstructs evolutionary history of organismal lineages as they change through time. In contrast to the traditional Linnaean system, phylogenetic classification names only clades and proceeds from there. The website, Understanding Evolution, Berkeley, gives the example of a cladogram and then comments: “However, the reptiles do not form a clade, as shown in the cladogram. That means that either ‘reptile’ is not a valid phylogenetic grouping or we have to start thinking of birds as reptiles.” From this example, plus the Tree of Life Web Project, one observes that the process of classifying living organisms is an on-going process.
My bet is if we took the complete fossil record and had twenty scientists reconstruct it their would be twenty different renderings.This refers to the phylogenetic system, a.k.a. evolutionary trees, which reconstructs evolutionary history of organismal lineages as they change through time. In contrast to the traditional Linnaean system, phylogenetic classification names only clades and proceeds from there. The website, Understanding Evolution, Berkeley, gives the example of a cladogram and then comments: “However, the reptiles do not form a clade, as shown in the cladogram. That means that either ‘reptile’ is not a valid phylogenetic grouping or we have to start thinking of birds as reptiles.” From this example, plus the Tree of Life Web Project, one observes that the process of classifying living organisms is an on-going process.
One should note that the concept of classifying nature did not begin with Carolus Linnaeus. One could go back to Aristotle who taught that each species had a unique “form” and could be classified by its functions. Aristotle developed a ladder-like hierarchy.
The point is that humans have changed the methods used to classify nature. The discovery of the archaea is a good example of knowledge being expanded by modern studies.
In other words, plants and animals do not wear name tags or security badges. Therefore, scientists rely on the tools of reason, logical evaluation, and analytical thought to classify and re-classify.
In my humble opinion, the heart of the “wolves” question should be addressed from the scientist’s point of view which is to examine the natural world as matter or material. This is how Charles Darwin discovered the theory of evolution. He took what he could see and what he could physically examine and formulated his thesis. Neo-Darwinists are doing the same thing. It should be obvious from looking at the history of natural classification systems that regardless if there are wolves, reptiles, etc. and no apes, the theory of modification could be organized to reflect the human species cladistically. This would be concluded from morphological, biochemical, gene sequence, and other evidence as the evolutionary theory claims that all organisms on earth are genetically related. From what I have read on the “evolutionary” websites, there is no physical or empirical evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the idea of the human species descending as part of the clade (the make-up of which is determined by scientists) which could possibly include wolves or reptiles is theoretically possible according to the basic formulation of the evolutionary theory.
Without going to a “special creation” in the middle of the evolutionary process, one can theorize that a clade contained a variety of matter or material, not necessarily in the exact formation of the current human being. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence suggesting that a pre-human had to look and act a certain way. We assume the pre-human’s looks because current great apes do resemble in numerous ways the human being. Genetics can, in part, confirm similarities. However, there is no evidence that cousin chilly chimp was the only organism that is similar in genomic structure. The available evidence can only say that chilly chimp is the only extant organism at this time.
Especially when one goes back in time to clades, there is no certainty of evidence linking the human species to a particular clade devised by current scientists. What we have is circumstantial evidence. As far as I am concerned, it is valid for scientists to use circumstantial evidence to define individual clades. Nonetheless, it must be maintained that while circumstantial evidence can lead to knowledge, it needs to be evaluated by human intellectual powers. Even then, certainty is not always possible.
Please note that I do recognize the genetic relationships between the human species and other living organisms because I believe in the unity of creation or as some others suggest in the unity of the “appearance” of life, the how of which has not been determined with certainty.
This reply to post 91 will be continued.
Regarding a clade which is taxonomically remote as canines:
This is truly Clintonesque. Your proposition, then, is actually “if humans (being apes) did not exist, neither would we”. That has nothing to do with any of your other explanations. You simply are presenting a tautology as if it proves anything.
When I was a freshman in high school taking Speech 1, the debate coach cautioned us that it is an illigitimate method of debate to simply cite some work and, in effect, tell the oponent to go look it up and become persuaded in the process. Besides being an unpersuasive method, it’s tacky. Using arcane “trade terms” in a discussion without explaining them is even more tacky.
I don’t object to any truths (ie true statements about reality). Do you mean what non-supernatural beliefs do I object to in Catholicism?
Naw, it doesn’t prove anything other than that your scenario (if apes had never existed and never had then we would have descended from some other bizarrely groip) is meaningless. It’s like saying if felines did not and had never existed then we would have to posit that tigers descended from orca whales. Bonkers.
Not at all. It is not important to those who do not believe in religion to taunt those who do with propositions like tigers descending from whales.
Look, you began this discussion by criticising the methods and conclusions of a substantial piece of research that has been published. In order for your criticism to have any merit whatsoever, a minimum criterion is that you have read and understood the work that you are seeking to criticise. This is not some obscure piece of research that I have dragged into the discussion that I have to explain, but is the very subject of the discussion that you initiated. Now it’s obvious from what you have posted that you are unaware of even the most basic findings, methods, reasoning and conclusions in the work that *you *have chosen to criticise, not to mention the fact that you misunderstand basic concepts of evolutionary biology such as sexual selection. If anyone’s method is tacky here, it is undeniably yours.
But you are the one that posed the proposition that hypotheses published in Science about Ar ramidus are unwarranted. It turns out that your opinion is based on an almost total ignorance of what those hypotheses are and how they are arrived at. How can it possibly be my responsibility not only to explain the contents of the work in detail to you, work which is, after all, in the public domain and that you began by criticising, but also to teach you the meaning of basic evolutionary concepts? As it is, I have gone to some trouble to explain some of the findings which are most relevant to the questions you asked, and to correct your misunderstanding of the meaning of sexual selection, all of which is specific solid content that you have avoided with these ridiculous charges. Basically you have been exposed for not knowing what you are talking about, hence your rather clumsy attempt to shift the debate from content to process and to shift the burden of evidence to me. It won’t wash.
If you had said, right up front, that evolutionary theory is your religion, which it seems to be, I probably would have just let it all go, since it is rarely a fruitful enterprise to argue religion with anyone.
I suppose you have evidence that hec’s belief in evolution constitutes religion? Unless of course you were just making an outrageous claim to avoid having to actually deal with his refutation.
Yes
Actually Darwinism is accepted under religion in the Canadian census. It is absurd – it is a scientific theory.
I will be happy to deal with his refutation as soon as he makes one.
I would not deny that there is a lot of science to it. There are also lots of leaps of faith. The Canadians are only half wrong.
Not really - evolutionism is a philosophy turned dogmatic qualifying as a religion although religion means to bind to God so it really isn’t. HUH…
Performing an action with religious fervor is not the same as practicing a religion.
Depends, I guess, on how one defines “religion”. Classic Buddhism, for example, does not bear a lot of the earmarks of what most of us think of as a “religion”, but it’s generally considered one just the same. But I understand the point.
Either you are lying, or you have been lied to.