Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Evolution

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 7:23pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,802 posts

Knight

Why use it if we have simian or anthropoids, pretty much unambiguous terms?


Same way we go about using ape.

Many characters aren't as visible on photos as on the original; for example the distinction of sediment and actual fossil. If others have looked at the original, which is to be expected from published material, you can use the photo to visualize their arguments, but a photo alone is not a base for arguments.


Using the photo to visualize the argument while pointing out what is being said in the field was the whole idea. Guess I just didn't get that across right.

What are monkeys anyway? Extant non-apes,


This is kind of the issue with the term used in that way. Keep in mind we at one point used ape in a similar fashion excluding humans.

Perhaps a visual of what I was trying to say.
Currently this is basically what we are saying by excluding apes.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/Evolution/monkey2_zpsd0b0784b.jpg

This is basically what I'm saying.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/Evolution/monkey1_zps140fa401.jpg
 

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 8:03pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,802 posts

Knight

And I should have put monkey in quotes. So pretend those visual have it written as "Monkey".

 

Posted Mar 19, '13 at 11:44pm

aknerd

aknerd

1,430 posts

On the Naming of Things

Within the scope of evolution, we primarily want names to reflect relatedness. Things (ALL things) with the same name should be more related to related (genetically related, that is) to each other than to things with other names. This... makes sense. It would be silly to do things any other way, and from what I've read over the last couple pages this seems to be to motivation over the discussion over the label "monkeys".

Of course, things are not always so simple. The relevant genetic data is not always to easy to find, and is sometimes confusing or contradictory (as with bacteria, or in some cases when you compare mitochondrial DNA to nuclear DNA). But just because a task is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try, right? In this day and age, to let a clade remain knowingly paraphyletic just seems... wrong.

BUT. As with all things, there is another side. There is more to biology than evolution, and we typically want names to be consistent across all disciplines. The point was raised earlier (I think) that humans are, if we want things to be strictly monophyletic, lobe finned fish. Suppose I'm an ecologist, and I want to examine the effects of climate change on all lobe-finned fish. Should I include humans in my study (and every other tetrapod)?

Well... no. Lobe-finned fish are very, very different from humans in terms of the scope of this study. So, in this sense, names are context dependent, even within the biological sciences. But this is a HUGE problem, because there should be only one group of things that have the same name, in order to avoid confusion.

One possible solution would be to keep the cladistic view, but be more when careful naming things. Instead of saying "lobe finned fish" I could have said "Lung fish and Coelacanths", which basically constitutes all lobed finned fish minus the tetrapods. But, in some cases this work-around would get rather messy and tedious, and is hardly ideal.

Basically, we have a trade-off between practicality and information-loading: we can have names describe evolutionary relationships or current ecological function*, but we can't always do both very well. Solutions?

*Or, really, a lot of other things: morphology, behavior, chemistry, etc. And we have secondary names for some of this things, but often we use primary latin naming system for everything, which creates problems.

 

Posted Mar 20, '13 at 1:24pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,460 posts

Knight

No need for visuals. I know very well what you mean, and we basically agree on the whole. I just think "monkey" is an outdated term and shouldn't even be used for NW and OW "M". Though maybe using the term ape and not the term monkey makes me unconcistent linguistically; but the linguistics is weird in this case anyway. Since "simian" literally means both monkey and ape in latin, or simply "Affe" in German and "singe" in French, why use any of the term in any different way than to qualify the whole group? So maybe if I won't use "monkey", I shouldn't use "ape" either?

Solutions?

None, I guess. If you want to be really correct, you have to name the actual groups you want to analyze. In your example, you want to look at extant lung fishes and coelacanths, as you said. Though usually, studies restrain to a set of species which are listed separately anyway, no? Like, "we're looking at the lobe-finned fish species A, B, C, D and E". In that way, you mention the actual species while saying what bigger group they belong to.
 

Posted Apr 24, '13 at 2:01pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Evolution's retarded. God made us 8000 years ago. The world is not even a week older. Evolution was created by atheists to make it harder to believe in God. It's really stupid when u think about it. I didn't come from a fish, bird, bacteria, or ape. Why are there still all of those creatures, and why don't they evolve?!

 

Posted Apr 24, '13 at 4:01pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

God made us 8000 years ago. The world is not even a week older.


Where is this specific, 8000 years and not one week older claim coming from? Today marks year 8000 exactly, huh.

Evolution was created by atheists to make it harder to believe in God.


1) Evolution is the name for the theory which explains how life changes over time. It was proposed by Charles Darwin, a Christian.
2) Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God. Even if you want to argue that the earth is 8000 years old, we have seen evolution take place in bacteria and ring species.

I didn't come from a fish, bird, bacteria, or ape


Why, you're exactly right! It's a good thing the Theory of Evolution claims no such thing, and would actually be disproved if that was found to be so!

Why are there still all of those creatures, and why don't they evolve?!


We share common ancestors with apes. They evolved too. As for why we still have bacteria, birds, fish and what not, different ecological pressures, events, niches and mutations are your answer. Organisms respond to their environment and in a stable one, there are not many changes.
 

Posted Apr 24, '13 at 4:11pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,954 posts

Evolution's retarded. God made us 8000 years ago. The world is not even a week older. Evolution was created by atheists to make it harder to believe in God. It's really stupid when u think about it. I didn't come from a fish, bird, bacteria, or ape. Why are there still all of those creatures, and why don't they evolve?!


After viewing your other posts and your profile..it is fair to say, you are a troll. And a poor one at that
 

Posted Apr 24, '13 at 4:35pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,460 posts

Knight

Why are there still all of those creatures, and why don't they evolve?!

We did not evolve from the same organisms we see today, as "evolving from" something implies that that something has changed (d'uh). All organisms today are still evolving.. heck, WE are still evolving! Now go plant your head back in the sand. You've overslept too many centuries already, better go back to ignore the world.

1) Evolution is the name for the theory which explains how life changes over time. It was proposed by Charles Darwin, a Christian.

Mind ya, Charles Darwin did not coin nor propose the name "evolution". And todays theory has changed a bit compared to what he proposed (keeping the basic idea of course).
 

Posted Apr 24, '13 at 4:45pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,954 posts

Why are there still all of those creatures, and why don't they evolve?!


Oh yes..forgot something

If Americans came from Europe..why are there still Europeans?!
Checkmate, Atheists
 

Posted Apr 24, '13 at 5:04pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,460 posts

Knight

If Americans came from Europe..why are there still Europeans?!
Checkmate, Atheists

So, spontaneous generation of American people? Now that would at least explain certain things... X)
 
Reply to Evolution

You must be logged in to post a reply!