Big new hole in evolution theory?
.
Again, my thanks to FortheKids of the Reasonable Kansans blog for the cartoon.
It seems that the Darwinists have been taking one step forward and two steps back in their efforts to prove evolution theory. There have been recent discoveries of "missing link" fossils, e.g., Tiktaalik, but now a news article says,
.
I think that the findings of the above study show the folly of cladistic taxonomy, the classification of organisms according to their known evolutionary histories. With the known evolutionary histories constantly changing, they cannot be used to establish a uniform and permanent system of classification.
Again, my thanks to FortheKids of the Reasonable Kansans blog for the cartoon.
It seems that the Darwinists have been taking one step forward and two steps back in their efforts to prove evolution theory. There have been recent discoveries of "missing link" fossils, e.g., Tiktaalik, but now a news article says,
.
The big dinosaur extinction of 65 million years ago didn't produce a flurry of new species in the ancestry of modern mammals after all, says a huge study that challenges a long-standing theory.
Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals.
Only mammals with no modern-day descendants showed that effect.
"I was flabbergasted," said study co-author Ross MacPhee, curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
I think that the findings of the above study show the folly of cladistic taxonomy, the classification of organisms according to their known evolutionary histories. With the known evolutionary histories constantly changing, they cannot be used to establish a uniform and permanent system of classification.
Labels: Cartoons
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/29/2007 03:27:00 PM
6 Comments:
The article does not seem inconsistent with evolution. What' your point?
Bahahaaa, learning new things is so hysterical!
I notice you are linking to a thread that you abandoned after realizing you didn't know the difference between an amphibian and an echinoderm. Do you have any responses to the series of questions left at the end of the thread or are you going to admit you still don't understand what cladistics is?
Anonymous from Cladistic thread said...
>>>>>> Do you have any responses to the series of questions left at the end of the thread or are you going to admit you still don't understand what cladistics is? <<<<<<
You stupid fathead, I completely understand what cladistic taxonomy is -- it is a taxonomic system that is partly based on evolution. And I already said that it is contrary to the goal of having a universal and permanent taxonomic system.
Partly based upon evolution? Is that anything like being partly pregnant?
Contrary to the goal of having a universal and permanent taxonomic system? How is it contrary? It works. Your imaginary ravings don't do anything. I choose (as do scientists) the method that works. . . cladistic taxonomy.
>>>>>> Partly based upon evolution? Is that anything like being partly pregnant? <<<<<
I presume that cladistic taxonomy is also partly based on structure and function. Also, I presume that there are gaps in knowedge of evolution that would prevent cladistic taxonomy from being entirely based on evolution.
>>>>>> Contrary to the goal of having a universal and permanent taxonomic system? How is it contrary? <<<<<<
As our knowledge of evolution changes, cladistic taxonomy may have to change, too. Also, cladistic taxonomy is often in conflict with traditional Linnaean taxonomy, which remains popular, especially outside of paleontology.
>>>>> It works. <<<<<
There are lots of things that "work" that we don't use because they don't work as well as alternatives.
Cladistic taxonomy is partly an attempt to help show how important Darwinism supposedly is as a grand overarching unifying "theory of everything" in biology. Cladistic taxonomy is thus part of a prestige war that biologists are waging against sciences that do not have such a "theory of everything." Biologists have an inferiority complex because of the view expressed by Lord Rutherford that "all science is either physics or stamp-collecting."
Post a Comment
<< Home