nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote: I do not object to Linnaean taxonomy when its use is limited to its original intent. It was simply classification based on morphological features. However, nowadays, it has been hijacked to imply lineage.This sort of anti-science rhetoric is offensive. Classification based upon morphology is limited in its application. It totally ignores things like analagous structures.
In addition, taxonomy is simply the naming. What we are talking about here is systematics, which is meant to imply ancestry. The claim of hijacking is simply baseless.
Baseless?
“Over time, the understanding of the relationships between living things has changed. Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. The greatest change was the widespread acceptance of evolution as the mechanism of biological diversity and species formation, following the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. It then became generally understood that classifications ought to reflect the phylogeny of organisms, the descent by evolution. (emphasis mine)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
Rather than having a special taxonomy for humans, the Linnaean taxonomy should be used only to describe physical features and not have any implications of lineage. If this is accepted, then I have no problem classifying humans as primates.Why are you so obsessed with an outdated classification system?
Obsessed? Isn’t this part of the debate topic?
Outdated? Is the binomial system still in usage today?
Similarities do not necessarily mean lineage. It could also mean they were designed is a similar fashion. HP and Gateway computers share many similarities, but they did not derive from the other.Except computers are not self-replicating organisms. The analogy is moot.
Are you saying that only self-replicating organisms can be used as an analogy? This would then be question begging.
Also, as far as I know, no evolutionist claims that there is a direct lineage from a chimp to a human. So, even if there are similarities, a chimpanzee would not show how humans evolved from primates.Sure it does. Specific genetic similarities determine relationships. This is done all the time, especially in the areas of paternity tests. The only difference is, in systematics we take it a few steps further.
Also, given the fact that we do not know what organism is the shared common ancestor of chimps and humans, there is no link established between chimps and humans. Yes, there are morphological and genetic similarities, but that in itself does not establish lineage. It can also be a result of a common designer.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=313694#p313694
Goat wrote:This is from Humans as a Case Study for Evolution
12 LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION OF HUMANS (& OTHER PRIMATES)
SEVEN LINES OF EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGY1. Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification (Linnaeus)
* primates naturally forming nested hierarchical groupingsCategory number 1 (Hierarchical Taxonomic Classification) is a good example of a pattern that can, of course, be explained by special creation. Linnaeus did just that. But Darwin a century later explained the same set of ordered relationships between organisms as being the result of divergent evolution and shared ancestry.
Here is further evidence that the Linnaean taxonomy has been hijacked to imply lineage.
Another important and seldom appreciated characteristic of the evolutionary explanation for the existence of organisms in naturally nested or hierarchical groupings is that it allows us to predict that organisms with certain combinations of features — such as chimpanzees with wings, flowers with bony skeletons, or humans with hooves instead of feet — are biologically impossible because of the unbridgeable gaps produced by the major divergent evolutionary events that separate chimps from birds, flowers from vertebrates, and humans from horses.
Chimps with wings? Flowers with bony skeletons? Humans with hooves? How about a man with straw?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=315577#p315577
nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote: Again, similarity doesn’t prove lineage.Says who?
Because similar features can either be homologous or analogous. If it’s homologous, they would not be directly related. So, similarity doesn’t prove lineage.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=315597#p315597
nygreenguy wrote: Systematic biology (hereafter called simply systematics) is the field that (a) provides scientific names for organisms, (b) describes them, (c) preserves collections of them, (d) provides classifications for the organisms, keys for their identification, and data on their distributions, (e) investigates their evolutionary histories, and (f) considers their environmental adaptations. This is a field with a long history that in recent years has experienced a notable renaissance, principally with respect to theoretical content. Part of the theoretical material has to do with evolutionary areas (topics e and f above), the rest relates especially to the problem of classification. Taxonomy is that part of systematics concerned with topics (a) to (d) above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematics
We cant use taxonomy to infer any sort of evolutionary relationship.
Yes, I completely agree with you.
But, the article that goat pointed to has as its very first evidence the Linnaean classification.
1. Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification (Linnaeus)
* primates naturally forming nested hierarchical groupings
So, since we cannot infer any sort of evolutionary relationship from Linnaean classification, it does not serve as evidence for evolution.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=315839#p315839
Goat wrote:
otseng wrote:
Goat wrote:This is from Humans as a Case Study for Evolution
12 LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION OF HUMANS (& OTHER PRIMATES)
SEVEN LINES OF EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGY1. Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification (Linnaeus)
* primates naturally forming nested hierarchical groupingsCategory number 1 (Hierarchical Taxonomic Classification) is a good example of a pattern that can, of course, be explained by special creation. Linnaeus did just that. But Darwin a century later explained the same set of ordered relationships between organisms as being the result of divergent evolution and shared ancestry.
Here is further evidence that the Linnaean taxonomy has been hijacked to imply lineage.
Nope, not at all. That is your prejudice talking.
Prejudice? Your source acknowledges that Linnaeus believed in special creation, but that the Linnaean classification is now evidence for evolution – “Category number 1 (Hierarchical Taxonomic Classification) is a good example of a pattern that can, of course, be explained by special creation. Linnaeus did just that. But Darwin a century later explained the same set of ordered relationships between organisms as being the result of divergent evolution and shared ancestry.”
I noticed you are still in the process of ‘Let’s attack evolution and it’s evidence’, and have yet to provide any evidence of your own.
Noticed correctly. As I asked before, I’m still waiting on the list of the claims of human evolutionary theory, a list of predictions, and a list of ways to falsify it. When this list is produced, I’ll produce mine and the evidence to support my claims.
The evidence is there that exactly would lead one to the conclusion that evolution happens.
Well, if you claim that, then I claim that God designed it that way that would exactly lead one to conclude that it was designed.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=315842#p315842