₦airaland Forum

sinequanon:
You still are confused and going round in circles. So let us take smaller steps.

1. Apart from morphological evidence, do you know of any other major method considered in asserting that birds descended from early reptiles?

2. IF ONLY MORPHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE WAS CONSIDERED, why was DESCENDANCY ASSUMED to be the cause of morphological similarity, when other factors can cause morphological similarity?

If you are trying to say that gene transfer was not considered, explain why, and then explain why other factors that cause morphological similarity were not considered.

If you are trying to say that a particular method of gene transfer was considered, but the others weren't, then tell us which and explain why.

IF YOU ACCEPT THAT THE ONLY METHOD OF TAXONOMICAL CATEGORIZATION OF BIRDS IS MORPHOLOGY, THEN, AS THE OP EXPLAINS, THIS DOES NOT PROVE DESCENDANCY.

(awaiting your next evasion tactic...)

I think you need a proper understanding of how traits are determined to be homologous, like the unique bones found only in birds and dinosaurs fossils.

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/circular-definitions

"This claim has a long history in the creationist literature, but is uniformly rejected by biologists as rooted in basic misunderstandings. The apparent homology of a single trait would not be treated as evidence of common descent. By examining multiple traits, all showing the same nested hierarchy of modifications of a common starting point, scientists can test hypotheses about common descent. There is nothing circular about this process."


Consequently, here is your answer. Feel free to replace the name Wells with yours, wherever it is found.

[b]"Wells claims that homology is used in a circular fashion by biologists because textbooks define homology as similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and then state that homology is evidence for common ancestry. Wells is correct: this simplified reading of homology is indeed circular. But Wells oversimplifies a complex system into absurdity instead of trying to explain it properly. Wells, like a few biologists and many textbooks, makes the classic error of confusing the definition of homology with the diagnosis of a homologous structure, the biological basis of homology with a procedure for discovering homology. In his discussion, he confuses not only the nature of the concept but also its history; the result is a discussion that would confuse. What is truly important here is not whether textbooks describe homology circularly, but whether homology is used circularly in biology. When homology is properly understood and applied, it is not circular at all.
…
Today, biologists still diagnose homologous structures by first searching for structures of similar form and position, just as pre-Darwinian biologists did. (They also search for genetic, histological, developmental, and behavioral similarities.) However, in our post-Darwin period, biologists define a homologous structure as an anatomical, developmental, behavioral, or genetic feature shared between two different organisms because they inherited it from a common ancestor. Because not all features that are similar in two organisms are necessarily inherited from a common ancestor, and not all features inherited from a common ancestor are similar, it is necessary to test structures before they can be declared homologous. To answer the question, "could this feature in these groups be inherited from a common ancestor?" scientists compare the feature across many groups, looking for patterns of form, function, development, biochemistry, and presence and absence.
…
If, considering all the available evidence, the distribution of characteristics across many different groups resembles a genealogical pattern, it is very likely that the feature reflects common ancestry. Future tests based on more features and more groups could change those assessments, however — which is normal in the building of scientific understanding. Nevertheless, when a very large amount of information from several different areas (anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, etc.) indicates that a set of organisms is genealogically related, then scientists feel confident in declaring the features that they share are homologous. Finally, while judgments of homology are in principle revisable, there are many cases in which there is no realistic expectation that they will be overturned.

So Wells is wrong when he says that homology assumes common ancestry. Whether a feature reflects common ancestry of two or more animal groups is tested against the pattern it makes with these as well as other groups. Sometimes, though not always, the pattern reflects a genealogical relationship among the organisms — at which point the inference of common ancestry is made.
…
Evolution and homology are closely related concepts but they are not circular: homology of a structure is diagnosed and tested by outside elements: structure, position, etc., and whether or not the pattern of distribution of the trait is genealogical. If the pattern of relationships looks like a genealogy, it would be perverse to deny that the trait reflects common ancestry or that an evolutionary relationship exist between the groups. Similarly, the closeness of the relationship between two groups of organisms is determined by the extent of homologous features; the more homologous features two organisms share, the more recent their common ancestor. Contrary to Wells's contention, neither the definition nor the application of homology to biology is circular.
…
Some formulations of the concept of homology appear to be circular, but as discussed above, because there is an external referent (the pattern that characteristics take across groups) that serves as an independent test, the concept, properly defined and understood, is not. Wells's claim that homology is circular reveals a mistaken idea of how science works. In science, ideas frequently are formulated by moving back and forth between data and theory, and scientists regularly distinguish between the definition of a concept and the evidence used to diagnose and test it."[/b]

sinequanon:
At last!

Umpteen posts later, somebody addresses the OP. Was that so difficult?

OK, taxonomists assert that birds are [size=16pt]descended[/size] from early reptiles, based on morphology. Which [size=16pt]non-inheritance[/size] mechanisms were considered to explain morphological similarities? Or was only heredity considered?

So, I am looking for refutations such as

The taxonomy is not based on morphology, it is based on ______________.

or

Mechanisms X, Y , Z were considered in case (give examples), but heredity was preferred because ____________________

Other methods of gene transfer were first ruled out. Horizontal gene transfer has been shown to occur between prokaryotes, prokaryotes to humans, prokaryotes to eukaryotic microbes but not between two full sized eukaryotes like dinosaurs and birds.

Mimicry doesn't involve gene transfer at all.

Do you know of any other method by which genes can be transferred without reproduction?

gatiano:
that does not call for an abuse. yes, people give their own allergorical meaning to the books to suit their agenda which is wrong, guessing the meaning of the books too is not right and can infact be regarded as a lie. I said we black people have some kind of phobia for snakes, it is not that we fear the nature of this reptile, rather we fear a story behind it as it is written in the Bible. and that story of the snake, the donkey, the sheep, the goat and the Lamb are allergorical meaning refering to people or a person.

In many cultures around the world, snakes are revered as sacred creatures.

sinequanon:
Answer the question. Don't try to twist it into an assertion. That is troll behaviour.

How do you justify HEREDITY AS A DEFAULT ASSUMPTION without independent proof, when other mechanisms exist?



Stop twisting and using rhetoric. If you have a point, you can phrase it directly..

e.g DNA testing is perfect, therefore heredity can be relied on to confirm immediate parentage in a custody case, therefore fossils with similar morphology have a common ancestor.

When you word it directly, instead of using some half-baked rhetoric, we can see where you are going, and that it is rubbish.

Heredity is not assumed by default. Where did you get that idea from?

sinequanon:
"Readily available online" is not an answer.

You obviously have a comprehension problem, too.

"HOW do you justify an ASSUMPTION of HEREDITY" is a totally different question to "How does phylogenetics address the issue of horizontal gene transfer?"

Just so we're clear, you're saying that there is no basis to assume a hereditary relationship between two organisms because genes can be transferred by non hereditary means.

If that is true, than DNA tests that determine paternity are flawed, since heredity can only be assumed.

I told you what I thought the OP was asking. You denied it, only to come repeating the same question.

How does phylogenetics address the issue of horizontal gene transfer? That's your question, and a pretty good one at that.
I suggest you read up on your material before posting. Some of these answers are readily available online.

sinequanon:
The OP is about TAXONOMY in general.

Answer the question in the OP and stop trying to change it into a subjective and meaningless squabble about whether one phenomenon is similar/similar enough to another.

You have a certain aggression about you. What's the point of opening a thread if you're going to behave like a spoiled child who has just conceded a goal?

What's the point of mentioning the slug in the OP, if I'm expected to completely ignore it?

mrlaw93:
Are you sure the flood in Noah story flood the whole of earth.. Cos my great grand pa told me it neva reach Africa

Poverty and hunger are the only floods that ever hit Africa.

plaetton:
I think that extended life for humans would seriously distort the ecosystem and open a countdown to extinction.

I agree. But it still doesn't mean that the ability won't be utilized when it does become realistic. I compare it to smoking cigarettes. Smokers know that cigarettes kill, but still hope that they are the exception.

Look around now, we are making a lot of efforts towards extinction as we speak.

sinequanon:
From the OP



Now, can you answer the correct question.

[size=18pt]NOT[/size] "what other mechanisms are there, apart from heredity" -- the OP even gives examples, for you!

BUT -- [size=16pt]GIVEN THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER MECHANISMS, WHY IS HEREDITY ACCEPTED IN MOST CASES, WITHOUT PROOF.[/size]

e.g Similar morphology in fossils is usually explained by heredity, without considering other possibilities, even though there is no independent proof of heredity in that specific instance.

Your slug shares an endosymbiotic relationship with a certain type of green algae. It says that right in the wiki link you provided. The slug ingests chloroplasts from the algae and keeps them alive inside its body.

Show me a similar phenomenon which was attributed to the hereditary transfer of information, and not horizontal gene transfer.

LordReed:
A stopped clock is right twice a day.

That's my point.

sinequanon:
Nope. That question is not in the OP. Neither does a similar gene imply transfer of that gene.

The question is why are you ASSUMING gene transfer and heredity (a phylogenetic tree) from the actual observation, which is INFORMATION TRANSFER.

The actual observation is information transfer.

The ASSUMPTION in the vast majority of cases is HEREDITY, usually without any consideration of other mechanisms.

For example, the mass of evidence in the fossil record is simply ASSUMED to be cause by heredity.

Wait a minute. You do know that the horizontal gene transfer is responsible for the algal dna found in the slug, right?

sinequanon:
Taxonomy started out as an exercise in categorizing organism by similarity in form -- morphology.

Heredity was determined as the mechanism which explained why similar structures could be found in different species.

This led Darwin to propose common ancestry and a possible ultimate common ancestor -- "last universal ancestor".

This is really a problem in information transfer. How does information (like structure) transfer from one organism to another. Just because we see this information transfer, does it demonstrate heredity?

Take a look at these..

https://m6.i.pbase.com/o2/98/8198/1/103530756.N3SGg4DO.mothstripedid.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/103530756

This is not a wasp. Its structural similarities to a wasp are not inherited. It is a moth.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Elysia_viridis.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_viridis

This slug contains "genes" found in plant cell nucleii. This transfer of information is not by inheritance.

Therefore evidence for transfer of information, morphological or genetic, does not imply heredity.

This puts into question the taxonomical basis for common ancestry.

[Please ignore the trolls.

They will obfuscate by ignoring the point, repeating how "science works", regurgitating the Theory of Evolution for no reason, and copying and pasting irrelevant essays on the NON-inheritance mechanisms (like mimicry in natural selection) that may account for the examples above (just to give the impression that they are clued up and nobody else is). Meanwhile, their essay will not address the point of the thread. Please ignore them -- the usual suspects.]

I may be wrong, but I believe what you're asking is, how are phylogenetic trees constructed if genes can be transferred horizontally?

The article suggests that a lot of people would prefer to die rather than alter their pre-existing paradigm to that extent.

I'm dying to know who some of these people are, no pun intended.
Would any of our resident Christians or Muslims choose to live indefinitely on earth?

Ran across an interesting article on Disinfo last week. Thought I'd share it here.

By: John G. Messerly

"The Transhumanist Wager, brainchild of noted transhumanist Zoltan Istvan, can be understood as follows. If one loves and values their life, then they will want (the option) to live as long as possible. How do they achieve this?

Alternative #1 – do nothing and hope there is an afterlife. But since you don’t know there is an afterlife, doing nothing doesn’t help your odds.

Alternative #2 – use science and technology to gain immortality. By doing something you are increasing your odds of being immortal.

The choice is between bettering your odds or not, and good gamblers say the former is the better choice. At least that’s what the arguments supporters say.

There are two basic obstacles that prevent individuals from taking the wager seriously. First, most people don’t think immortality is technologically possible or, if they do, believe such technologies won’t be around for centuries or millenia. Most are unaware that research on life-extending and death-eliminating technologies are progressing rapidly. Some researchers think we are only decades from extending life significantly, if not defeating death altogether.

Second, even if convinced that we can overcome death, many feel we shouldn’t. I have written extensively about this topic in my recent book, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Perspectives, and in recent articles, arguing that death should be optional, not mandatory. I am always amazed at how many people—when confronted for the first time with the idea that technology may give them the option of living much longer, happier, and healthier lives—claim to prefer death. There are many reasons for this, but for most the paradigm shift required is too great, guided as they are by superstition, ancient religion, distorted views of what’s natural, or a general love of stasis and disdain for change—even if it means condemning their consciousness to oblivion!"

Read the rest here:

http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/11/10/transhumanist-wager-can-defeat-death/

My question is, if we do manage to develop the ability to prolong our lives indefinitely, should we do it?

tevinsolt:
Morality by definition is an idea that upholds the worth and dignity of humans. immorality is opposite, you can't have one be the other that's a contradiction. there's never a time the murder of someone is right or the rape of someone is right, in the absolute sense of it rape is wrong, regardless of anyone's opinion.

Have you read the bible?

coolmoon500:
No mortal can see the future except through the influence of Jehovah. Iv heard some people claim they can see into the future and end up quoting false and unreasonable claims.

You don't really get to see the future. The future is continuous like the present. What you see is milliseconds of information and you must use your brain to analyze it.

dorox:
My friend, as you very well know it is the Good Lord the does the fighting for us, we show lack of faith if we attempt to fight the battle that belongs to God, for the bible says that "we battle not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities".
Don't let the devil trick you into fighting him physically by planting a voice in your head, telling to you use a weapon against one of his agents, because if you do, then you have lost the battle. God will abandon you.
You should bind any voice that tells you to hurt someone in Jesus name.

This God business is more complicated than Calculus. Too many variables to consider.

Jennifer89:
You think it's easy to die? there is no easy way u will die without passing through pains. if u die today the least your people will do is cry and mourn you for some weeks and life goes on. So why can't you be a man and stand up to your challenges. 'If i begin tell u my own story u go just kukuma die for me seff'. just dust ur self and move on. please go and buy Our Daily Manna (ODM) and read.

It's easy to die, if you can remember that death is inevitable. No one gets to escape it.

The greatest pain isn't physical, but the knowledge that you may not ever see your loved ones again. It's like the best suspense novel ever written.

We've been making guesses about the outcome since antiquity.

voodoo85:
leave her alone, u see that she is one from those stupidd women which u can't do anything about, thick like a brick wall

She needs Jesus. Or somebody.

lecturerdabo:
I'm not TB Joshua's fan but I can't stop thinking

"This is how Christ was mocked"

Christ was mocked because he wouldn't save HIMSELF from being tortured to death.

This guy is directly implicated in the deaths of over a hundred people, people who wouldn't have been in that rotten building if he hadn't been claiming to defy the laws of nature.

LordReed:
8 days don pass America never burn finish? LoL

Spirit things are mysterious. Give it time, someone will launch a nuclear missile.

veecovee:
wonders are happening now, check out this descending horse https://www.nairaland.com/2020205/caught-cam-black-horse-somewhat

Cameras and imaging software are getting better. That is a wonder too, I guess.

By the time Jesus gets here, he'll have to fight the T-3000 series, not Lucifer.

gatiano:
how can a donkey talk?

How can a human being walk on the whole ocean?

Debeloved87:
so.. What about it?

You're going through a moment of confusion, concerning your relationship with a family member or a neighbor. Your problem is decision making. I can help.

GooseBaba:
Look around you. The whole world is fuvking..

Another wise comment from you brother. That is by far the most common activity on this planet.

Ultimatesammie:
The miracles, how do they happen. we hv seen and hrd cases of how people with terminal diseases that doctors claim cannot be cured nd dey were healed while going to church, the lame walks the blind sees how do u explain all that.

Where are the blind people regaining their sight? Around your neighborhood?

gatiano:
freemasons are builders. that hiram abiff is actually you and me the blackman hit on the head. yes today's freemasons are evil because they the devils hijacked it. those people pope and his brothers are made a freemason. you are blackman are/si born a freemason. the knowledge is getting back to us.

Dude, you must be smoking on that gas. You're all the way on Pluto.

baye2023:
Where is God? is lyk asking where is Air..unseen buh evrywherr nd can b felt same as God....wat u seek is within you..

There is no argument about the wind being real. If the God of that bible is within you, then you need help. The man sacrificed his own son.

GooseBaba:
God is your essence......

When you're pounding a very sweet toto and your trouser snake is ready to vomit.. .... Bros, That is where God resides..

This is so true!

vooks:
Psalms 2:1-2 (KJV) ​
1 Why do the heathen rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord, and against his anointed,

Whoever wrote this must have been under the influence of something.

Rilwayne001:
Not at all, am not behaving like an atheist...I don't believe the jargonz the OP wrote, to me its a joke.

That was why i asked those questions. Can you please answer them now?

I had a dream last night. Someone carrying your name was eating rice and stew. The person then refused to share his meal with me.

I've got my eyes on you. My battle with you will be won by the 17th of next month. Bring your gloves because it's going down!