Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
trees for classification
| Quote | | Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history. |
With respect to biology Linnaean Classification lays out the pattern of common design expected. Linne based his scheme on the basis of "archetypes" with common design being part of that:
| Quote | | “One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.”-- Ernst Mayr |
Simpson echoed those comments:
| Quote | | “From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.” |
They were trying to explain the pattern. They never said descent with modification or branching descent predicts it. Seeing that every population has the chance to be a divergence point the pattern will be pretty messy after a thousand generations. The alleged theory of evolution definitely didn't predict this existing array of organisms would be around to classify. And given the fact that descent with modification isn't about progression, just whatever modifications happen to survive, losing defining characteristics could be as probable as gaining novel characteristics. When that happens grouping organisms by their true ancestor-descendent relationships based on defining characteristics becomes virtually impossible.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
