So much for morphological taxonomy. What does this say about the entire palentological classifications and presumed kinships?

its too bad darwin never saw a platypus...

He did.

This is the sort of breathless 'discovery' that proves my point about the almost complete ignorance of most people regarding darwinism in general and taxonomy in particular.

If anyone actually knew anything about taxonomy, the notion that gross (and sometimes even fine) morphological characters are not firmly dispositive would generate merely a ho-hum.

That's what the hot dispute about cladistics is about. You'd never know, from the numerous posts here, that cladistics even existed.

If this is supposed to disqualify darwinism, it doesn't.

That Darwin never saw a platypus, Chris, is too bad.

I concur that the principle under consideration does not "disqualify" Darwinism. Nor does it support it, being no more or less compatible with intelligent design.

What is being attempted here is the old "Inherit the Wind" gambit. Confuse and confound the Bible-thumping dummies by refuting 7-24-hour-days creation and then pretend you have refuted intelligent design.

Harry:

Cladistics? Even nthe people who use it don't think it's science.

I ain't trusted flamingoes since I learned that they maintain their pink by food additives stiffed in by the zookeepers.

Sure they do.

I happen not to be a fan of cladistics myself, because it requires a selection of characters that is just as impeachable as the selections made by the old-fashioned anatomists.

Nevertheless, both traditional taxonomy and cladistics are more accurate than Christian taxonomy.

Genetic analysis turns out to be a great deal less subject to error, which is the actual lesson of this article, though the dumbo author does not know it.

As Fred says, pinkness is not a character of these birds but comes from eating pink food.

ID can never be refuted, Lou, because it proposes nothing testable and says nothing about anything.

Harry:
"Nevertheless, both traditional taxonomy and cladistics are more accurate than Christian taxonomy."
The question is not Christian taxonomy, whatever in the world that is (straw-man alert), but the reliability of paleontological taxonomy, which must be based solely on skeletal characteristics (unless they start doing DNA analysis, in which case you are in for even more surprises).

JD:

The Linnean classification, based as it is on structural similarities, is prone to error because sometimes evolution, operating on different species in the same environment, can sometimes result in structural convergence.

DNA analysis is the tie-breaker. But it is noteworthy how consistent DNA analysis is with the existing taxonomy.

I think what Harry means by the Christian Taxonomy is the Biblical assertion that all species were created independently, and did not share a common ancestor. Therefore, the Christian taxonomy, if true, must be parallel lines each starting from the same instant.

Evolutionary taxonomy, on the other hand, resembles a bush emanating from a single point.

Harry's assertion is not a straw man; rather, it marks a significant distinction between the Biblical account and the phylogenetic tree.

Harry:

Actually they don't:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html

Jeff:

In Christian taxoinomy all creatures share the same Ancestor. No one would expect Him to reinvent the wheel everytime he made a new one.

harry, put your thesaurus away and calm down. i only mentioned the platypus as a humorous aside.
its not like i brought up the gene responsible for pedantry...(light fuse and retire a safe
distance)

OJ:

Perhaps you are reading a different Bible. This is what mine says: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Meaning every living thing comes from their own kind alone, hence the Christian taxonomy.

I wasn't aware God was confined to our expectations of God.

"God made" That's one ancestor--which seems an awful lot more coherent than the idea that all life arose naturally from one single celled orrganism.

WTF? "Christian taxonomy" from the way the Book of Genesis is translated? I thought we were beyond the silliness of the "Inherit the Wind" gambit. Of course you can find believers who hold that creation took 84 hours, just as you can find Darwinists who imagine that the monkeys typed Shakespeare.

Orrin's attempt to find significance in Anna Gosline's writeup, is so pedestrian. The fact that genetic patterns will cause us to revise the pattern that's based upon anatomy - - this process will ultimately STRENGTHEN the case for common-descent-with-modification.

Jeff Guinn is right: "But it is noteworthy how consistent DNA analysis is with the existing taxonomy."

Let's consider the assumption that similar anatomy and physiology indicates taxonomic relatedness - - that is a first approximation which will always be relied upon - - what else would we pick as the starting point, especially when working in the field? In less than about six decades we've gone from suspicions about the nature of DNA to use of DNA as an indicator within many areas of biology. Corrections to taxonomy are long overdue; it's certainly not a big deal, except perhaps to folks like Orrin who desperately grind on the proverbial axe.

Also, you can bet that when variations in the gene for beta-fibrinogen manage to CONFIRM the presently assumed avian taxonomy, that will not be discussed as a great revelation. Yet, the VAST MAJORITY of variation has to correspond to the (presently developed) taxonomy - - otherwise, the gene for beta-fibrinogen would NOT be used as a criterion for picking out significant modifications to "the tree."(some other gene would be picked as a 'reliable' proxy for the pattern of speciation.)

Orrin, I trust that you are fully aware of this situation: that variations in the gene for beta-fibrinogen had to reliability correspond to variations within the vertebrate class Aves. Otherwise, when the researchers Fain and Houde submitted a paper, albeit based upon a pattern "…across some 150 bird families" they would be asked how they could DEPEND upon such a pattern. There surely are creationists or folks who reject the idea of any significance to "gene difference relates to genealogical distance." Then the work to check gene variation could seem futile; finding a gene that reflects relatedness would then be a circular argument.

As I said in the first paragraph, I appreciate such papers because they tend to ultimately STRENGTHEN the case for common-descent-with-modification. The counterintuitive is sometimes a strong element in the web of knowledge. Naturally, Fain and Houde(and probably others) will seek corroboration from other genes.

Let's consider a relationship in (American) football. Occasionally we witness that a running back receives the football from the quarterback, stays on his side of the line of scrimmage, then throws a pass to a downfield receiver. This rare but legal maneuver should not cause the fans to leap up and apoplectically proclaim, "Our understanding of football has been TOTALLY torn asunder !! It's been a sham!"

"Cladistics? Even nthe(sic) people who use it don't think it's science." Posted by: oj at December 15, 2004 11:25 PM

Orrin, your conduct over time, and within several submissions concerning Darwinism, demonstrate a pattern of deceit. I suppose this could arise out of desperation, or maybe an attempt to be cute.

Larry:

Though amused by your assertion that co-believers would insist on proof from Fain and Houde that is required of no one else in the field I'm unconvinced.

Feel free to find anything scientific in cladistics as described here:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html

It's a tool.

Every darwinist understands that taxonomy is a difficult science. That's why taxonomies are routinely revisited. They get better and better with more careful study and better data, the way violinists get better by playing the same measures over and over.

By Christian taxonomy I was thinking of the barnacle goose. If that's as accurate as Christians can get -- and it is -- I'll take the darwinist kind.

"difficult science" Good one!

"God made" That's one ancestor.

Only if you completely ignore all the rest of the words, which clearly state every species is the result of an independent making.

By God.

So?

Even if your torturing of the text is taken as true, then Christian taxonomy would look precisely like spokes radiating from the hub of a bicycle wheel.

Which bears precisely zero resemblance to what Nature's God actually instigated.

Nope, a tree (of Life).

... after his kind ...

Doesn't leave much room for a kind that is also before another kind as well.