It is true that taxonomic (taxon = group of organisms) rank originated in, and was confined to, phenomenological considerations - groups posited on the basis of similarities in appearance, organic structure and behavior. But, the subsequent science of Cladistics provided an alternative method, involving "classification of life forms according to the proportion of characteristics that they have in common (called synapomorphies). It is assumed that the higher the proportion of characteristics that two organisms share, the more recently they both came from a common ancestor." [Wiki]
An ancillary method, molecular systematics, based on genetic analysis is "especially useful when few phenotypi characters can resolve relationships, as, for instance, in many viruses, bacteria and archaea, or to resolve relationships between taxa that arose in a fast evolutionary radiation that occurred long ago, such as the main taxa of placental mammals." [wiki]
Origin is important where different biological groups arise at different time periods. Perhaps the most obvious mutations are seen in viruses, which mutate and change all the time.
Perhaps the biggest creationist fallacy is to posit that all animal species that ever lived all existed at the same point in time on the surface of the earth. Re extinction, over 5 billion species are estimated to have already died out. 300 mammalian species have been erased during the human era since the Late Pleistocene. OTOH, "The Norwegian lemming (Lemmus lemmus) is among the most recently evolved mammal species, with new research indicating it split from its closest relative, the Western Siberian lemming, only about 35,000 years ago." [AI]
Given the fossil record, the widely different locations of fossils, and the various radiometric dating techniques, it is absurd to posit that all extant life forms whose remains can be detected all existed at the same time on the earth's surface. The dying out of "kinds," mutation of extant "kinds" into new "kinds" is ongoing.
Seems to me, you're either willing to espouse science, or you just reject science as "not in the bible." Well, science isn't in the bible, and there is no denying it, but also, there is no reason why it should be there. Such is bibliolatry, and misuse of the scriptures which are not to be construed as "the definitive guide to science."
The lawyer analogy is not to point as occupation in a civilized society doesn't reflect genetic make-up, but social considerations.
An ancillary method, molecular systematics, based on genetic analysis is "especially useful when few phenotypi characters can resolve relationships, as, for instance, in many viruses, bacteria and archaea, or to resolve relationships between taxa that arose in a fast evolutionary radiation that occurred long ago, such as the main taxa of placental mammals." [wiki]
Origin is important where different biological groups arise at different time periods. Perhaps the most obvious mutations are seen in viruses, which mutate and change all the time.
Perhaps the biggest creationist fallacy is to posit that all animal species that ever lived all existed at the same point in time on the surface of the earth. Re extinction, over 5 billion species are estimated to have already died out. 300 mammalian species have been erased during the human era since the Late Pleistocene. OTOH, "The Norwegian lemming (Lemmus lemmus) is among the most recently evolved mammal species, with new research indicating it split from its closest relative, the Western Siberian lemming, only about 35,000 years ago." [AI]
Given the fossil record, the widely different locations of fossils, and the various radiometric dating techniques, it is absurd to posit that all extant life forms whose remains can be detected all existed at the same time on the earth's surface. The dying out of "kinds," mutation of extant "kinds" into new "kinds" is ongoing.
Seems to me, you're either willing to espouse science, or you just reject science as "not in the bible." Well, science isn't in the bible, and there is no denying it, but also, there is no reason why it should be there. Such is bibliolatry, and misuse of the scriptures which are not to be construed as "the definitive guide to science."
The lawyer analogy is not to point as occupation in a civilized society doesn't reflect genetic make-up, but social considerations.
Last edited:
