nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + +
→"similar species": Reaching some common ground.
::::::::: Yes, it is getting tiresome, but I'm trying my best to be patient and give you an opportunity to defend you pro-evolutionary edit rather than just revert it again. But I will if I don't get a satisfactory answer before my patience runs out. You are still not answering the question. I asked ''why'' evolutionists consider those creatures related, and your answer (dated 19:16, 26th March, above) said, in essence, that it's because that's what the evidence indicates. Which is ''not'' an answer, at least a satisfactory one, to the question! Your latest answer doesn't help either. But to try and get something useful out of it, if cladistics shows (or is based on) them having ''shared characters'', then surely they are, to that extent, ''similar''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, it is getting tiresome, but I'm trying my best to be patient and give you an opportunity to defend you pro-evolutionary edit rather than just revert it again. But I will if I don't get a satisfactory answer before my patience runs out. You are still not answering the question. I asked ''why'' evolutionists consider those creatures related, and your answer (dated 19:16, 26th March, above) said, in essence, that it's because that's what the evidence indicates. Which is ''not'' an answer, at least a satisfactory one, to the question! Your latest answer doesn't help either. But to try and get something useful out of it, if cladistics shows (or is based on) them having ''shared characters'', then surely they are, to that extent, ''similar''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: They are similar in respect to presencee of lack of the characters being studies. They are '''not''' generically similar. Scientists believe that these animals are realted because the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous (or probable or likely depending on the statistical framework being used) way in which the character states observed in modern elephants sirenians... could have come to be. I know people have a problem with evolution but calling these species similar - which they clearly aren't for a lot of traits, is just mealymouthed weasel words. ---[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: They are similar in respect to presencee of lack of the characters being studies. They are '''not''' generically similar. Scientists believe that these animals are realted because the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous (or probable or likely depending on the statistical framework being used) way in which the character states observed in modern elephants sirenians... could have come to be. I know people have a problem with evolution but calling these species similar - which they clearly aren't for a lot of traits, is just mealymouthed weasel words. ---[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: I think we might be finally getting somewhere. You've now (finally) admitted that they ''do have similarities''. For my part, I'm quite happy to admit that the wording you changed could be improved, although it did already describe them as the "most similar" ''according to "Molecular and morphological evidence"''. But even if a bit simplistic, it was ''correct'', as the creatures are ''similar'' in respect to the particular characteristics that are considered evolutionary significant.
::::::::::: But although I think we've reached some common ground, we haven't actually agreed on what the wording should be. The current wording that says that the different creatures ''are'' related is unacceptable, as it presumes the evolutionary view to be true (and by the way, your description ("... the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous...") appears to presume that creatures ''are'' related, and it's just a matter of working out ''which'' relationship is the correct one. As such, it doesn't show that they ''are'' related). So do you want to propose better wording, or shall we revert to what was there, which did at least ''suggest'' that they were similar ''insofar as the molecular and morphological evidence is concerned''?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)