nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: − + +
→"similar species": Yes, tiresome, but I'm trying to be patient.
:::::: Because of molecular, morphological and biogeographic evidence that supports the hypothesis --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 19:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Because of molecular, morphological and biogeographic evidence that supports the hypothesis --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 19:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::: ''How'' does that evidence support the hypothesis? Isn't it because of molecular, morphological, and biogegraphical ''similarities''? If not, then what ''is'' it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::: ''How'' does that evidence support the hypothesis? Isn't it because of molecular, morphological, and biogegraphical ''similarities''? If not, then what ''is'' it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: This is really very tiresome. Cladistic studies are not based on 'similarties' that's called phentics. If we studied whales, sirenians and elephants by phenetics using the criteria above we might group whales and sirenians as most similar (thick outer skin, reduced limbs, marine lifestyle, blubber...) but if we use cladistics, which is about shared characters and the change of characters over time then we arrive at the relationships talked about above. And morpholigcal and molecular data arrive at the same position. If you still fail to understand the difference I'd invite you to read an introduction to cladistic methods.
:::::::: This is really very tiresome. Cladistic studies are not based on 'similarties' that's called phentics. If we studied whales, sirenians and elephants by phenetics using the criteria above we might group whales and sirenians as most similar (thick outer skin, reduced limbs, marine lifestyle, blubber...) but if we use cladistics, which is about shared characters and the change of characters over time then we arrive at the relationships talked about above. And morpholigcal and molecular data arrive at the same position. If you still fail to understand the difference I'd invite you to read an introduction to cladistic methods. {{unsigned|Igor nz}}
::::::::: 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)