Are dolphins then “degenerated tetrapods”?
1 Like
This is complete garbage.
Phylogenetic relationships between animals were investigated before DNA sequencing was possible - and they weren’t done using level of similarity.
1 Like
@scd:
Every post you have made in every thread you’ve presented your faked phylogenies in has made it clear to every-one here who does know how about phylogenies that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and can’t be bothered to remedy that.
1 Like
Oh my.
In the words of Herbert Morrison . . .
again: we are talking about the rule. in general trucks have bigger wheels than cars. in general trcuks have mudflaps and cars dont. in general trucks have a reverse beeper and cars dont etc.
depend on the assumptions and the definitions. according to evolution dolphin is a tetrapod.
so what is your way to check vehicles “phylogeny” if not by similarity level?
Sure, its fuel economy stinks, you can only drive it on salt flats or a flat desert (and I don’t know if it will actually turn), and its probably so loud that if you had any neighbours (out there in the desert) they’d complain about the noise, but if you really want one … 
2 Likes
Based on that phylogeny, these small vehicles with four or less wheels are cars:
while these larger vehicles with extra wheels are trucks:
The only alternative would be that your “phylogeny” is wrong.
1 Like
Yes, dolphins are in the tetrapod clade, with tetrapod ancestors, so would you call them “degenerated tetrapods”?
3 Likes
You need to show that the noise is lower than the signal, which you haven’t done. You have simply asserted it.
1 Like
if i believe in evolution then no. but im not sure if its the same as a fish that lost a trait since in the dolphin case that trait (limbs) has not been lost but evolved into flippers, where in the fish case its basically a trait loss (unless the bony trait evolved into the cartilage) . but i will not argue with you about that since its not realy matter.
no. once again im talking about the rule.not about the exceptional.
do you agree that in general a car is more similar to other car than to a truck?
The same way that it is done for animals.
1 Like
Hind limbs were lost.
How about tetrapods themselves? Are reptiles just “degenerated fish” because they no longer have a caudal fin?
1 Like
According to your phylogeny, those vehicles are cars. Either those vehicles are cars, or your phylogeny doesn’t work.
Pick one.
Alternatively, you could admit what the rest of us have always known: that vehicles can’t be fitted into a nested hierarchy.
1 Like
No. When you take all the parts into account, there is no general trend like the one you are talking about. Look at the distribution of 4 cyl, 6 cyl, and 8 cyl engines as one example.
1 Like
again it depend on the definitions but if by definition a tetrapod is animals with 4 libs and a snake has no limbs at all i think that we might call it a degenerated tetrapod. but again i will not argue about that.
if you go by the exceptional then that nested hierarchy is false too since snakes for instance have no limbs and a dolphin has no hair.
its only a single trait so it will not tell us much. also remember that we may talking about a single designer so we should check what happen in a single company.
My irony meter just exploded.
There are examples of a car and truck model from the same manufacturer sharing the same engine while two cars from the same model have different engines.
2 Likes
Yet another mistaken assumption on your part; I like learning new things, that is why I pop in here when time allows. With the helpful answer from John_Harshman I was able to locate a few useful articles, including a thread from here which I missed back in August. I have added Young Life Creationism to wikipedia’s disambiguation page, but I have classified it as a subgroup of Old Earth Creationism. If you think that is incorrect start a new thread and we can discuss it.
1 Like
Nope, that isn’t how morphological phylogenetics works either. Arguing from a position of complete ignorance is not to your advantage.
Not really true. Bone first appears in jawless fish that had both dermal and perichondral bone. There might be some question about endochondral bone, and the fossil in the article you linked may have something to do with that.
“Degenerated” has no biological meaning; you’re making some kind of baseless value-judgment.
No, you’re making up a tree and finding a few characters that fit it. Phylogenetic analysis works the other way: abstract a bunch of characters from real organisms and find the tree that best fits them. Of course the way you make trees is the way creationists approach science: make up a story about the bible and look for data that fit the story. Not real science.
3 Likes
Actually some do:
1 Like
Hence the “traditionally” in my comment - prior to the discovery and understanding of bony stem gnathostome fossils, there was that view.