Is classification in biology an Invasive presumption nullifying biological origin conclusions even if accurate? YES!

As a creationist I note that conclusions in origins of biological beings starts with the presumptions of how biology is classified in all its divisions. They do not start clean when begibning investigation but start from presumptions already settled. Al these from small numbers of men in ancient Greece or almost ancient europe.

Even if they were accurate, which they are not, it still would nullify scientific investigation into origins for biology. Its not a pure embracing of raw facts but they are skewed a already settled system or relationships.

So they start with divisions like Animals, insects, plants. Then mammals, reptiles, marsupials monotremes, birds, and finally dinosaurs and others.

Yet all these divisions are not proven before one begins investigations. However received they are hypothesis only. so hypothesis are presumed to be true before more hypothesis are made. I insist this corrupts/nullifies all biological conclusions on origins . its unscientific and has led, this creationist says, to gross error .

Yes i am saying god never created mammals, reptiles, marsupials, dinosaurs, at all. Yes he created plants  animals, insects, birds.

Yet this is not my point here. its that classification systems are a first place to start in understanding why biological origin ideas has been so enduring false.

I’m talking about scientific methodology. Classification broke the rules. I’m very intersted to see why I’m wrong or how others suspect this also. True science must be neutral out of the gate.

0

90 thoughts on “Is classification in biology an Invasive presumption nullifying biological origin conclusions even if accurate? YES!

  1. I clicked the buttons to publish this post.

    I cannot say who wrote it. The post itself say “Robert Byers”. But I cannot go by that. To use that name would be to classify the author as a member of the Byers family. But, according to the post itself, classification is somehow an invalid thing to do.

    0
  2. Robert, I too am at a loss at understanding your point.

    How does a taxonomic classification system hamper “understanding biological origins” (which is code language for deciding that divine creation is correct, I presume).

    0
  3. Moved a comment to Guano. If your comment was not about someone who posts here I apologize for the mistake.

    And Trump isn’t ignorant.

    ETA: Moved the post quoting the comment as well.

    0
  4. Rumraket: This is simply gibberish.

    If you work your way through it you can sort of figure it out. Corneel managed to grasp some of it. Just pretend you’re a young earth creationist.

    0
  5. Mung: And Trump isn’t ignorant.

    This seems an odd thing for a moderator to put into a moderation post. It seems an odd thing in general. Of course he’s ignorant, willfully so.

    0
  6. Corneel: How does a taxonomic classification system hamper “understanding biological origins”

    Presumably it leads to the false belief that birds are derived from dinosaurs rather than the other way around.

    The only classifications we should use are those in the Bible.Those classifications don’t give us any false ideas about origins.

    Man should be classified as dirt.

    0
  7. So what Robert needs to think about is whether the authors of the Biblical texts were not themselves engaged in biological classification. It seems to me that they were.

    0
  8. Mung: I’m sure someone will explain it to you John.

    I’m also sure it won’t be you. Would it help if I just admitted that you’re so much cleverer than I am?

    0
  9. Mung,

    So what Robert needs to think about is whether the authors of the Biblical texts were not themselves engaged in biological classification. It seems to me that they were.

    This is a good point. What was not assumed was common descent of all living organisms.

    0
  10. Mung:

    ETA: Moved the post quoting the comment as well.

    Huh. I was kinda proud of that go at Bayesian humor, so having it moved is a bit of a pain in the posterior.

    0
  11. Mung: Just pretend you’re a young earth creationist.

    Moreover, a biblical literalist.

    Mung: So what Robert needs to think about is whether the authors of the Biblical texts were not themselves engaged in biological classification. It seems to me that they were.

    You need to take your own advice. A literalist knows that every single word in the Bible is God’s Word, irrespective of whom God used to record it. However, that belief can be maintained only with willful ignorance, unless one is stupid. (I’m pretty sure that others distinguish ignorance and stupidity just as I do. It is common for people who are plenty intelligent to ignore what is in front of their noses.)

    0
  12. BruceS: Huh. I was kinda proud of that go at Bayesian humor, so having it moved is a bit of a pain in the posterior.

    Speaking of Bayesian humor, have you seen this?

    0
  13. This is a very interesting OP Bob. Thanks for keeping a few bored boys awake!
    It’s always helpful when you read their arguments over and over again…I don’t read them but I know they are there… lol

    0
  14. Neil Rickert:
    I clicked the buttons to publish this post.

    I cannot say who wrote it.The post itself say “Robert Byers”.But I cannot go by that.To use that name would be to classify the author as a member of the Byers family.But, according to the post itself, classification is somehow an invalid thing to do.

    A little funny. yet the publication is not a scientific investigation and so not under same methodology rules.

    0
  15. Corneel:
    Robert, I too am at a loss at understanding your point.

    How does a taxonomic classification system hamper “understanding biological origins” (which is code language for deciding that divine creation is correct, I presume).

    Starting off with taxonomic conclusions in biology, which are important and not just to organize things, means CONCLUSIONS about biological heritage will be corrupted.
    I do have as a example the claim that a theropod is a reptile. so they say its a dinosaur. then they say its the origin of birds because its bird like.
    YET to start without these presumptions one would of STRAIGHT AWAY said the creature was a flightless bird. Nop reptile, no dino, no start of the bird types.
    A pure investigation would say its just another bird. The other classifications are false.
    ANYWAYS they corrupted the investigation. The taxonomic prejudice/presumption was not scientific methodology.
    THUS one of the great flaws that is behind the present evolutionist paradigm error we live in.

    0
  16. Mung: Presumably it leads to the false belief that birds are derived from dinosaurs rather than the other way around.

    The only classifications we should use are those in the Bible.Those classifications don’t give us any false ideas about origins.

    Man should be classified as dirt.

    Yes. Thats an example but all biology is corrupted in investigating its origins.
    Marsupials are falsely tagged. Mammals and reptiles falsely tagged.
    From these dinosaurs are invented and falsely tagged.

    I’m not saying bible terms should be used. I’m saying scientific investigation is corrupted by the taxonomic presumption.
    It interferes with a simple reductionist approach to biology origins.

    0
  17. J-Mac:
    This is a very interesting OP Bob. Thanks for keeping a few bored boys awake!
    It’s always helpful when you read their arguments over and over again…I don’t read them but I know they are there… lol

    Thanks. It is a more demanding thread.
    Yet I think it hits a intellectual nerve.
    Evolutionism is not playing by the rules of scientific methodology.
    Its starting with great presumptions in how biology is related to each other BEFORE they make further conclusions on relatedness.
    they have beings evolving/not evolving merely on ideas of what things look like/
    So its full of error and not correcting their errors.

    0
  18. Robert Byers: A little funny. yet the publication is not a scientific investigation and so not under same methodology rules.

    Classification is always into a human defined category.

    Yes, scientists try to define their categories as well as they can. But they are still human defined.

    0
  19. Hey y’all.
    aThis is a good thread about the essence of evolutionary conclusions being unscientific.
    I’m accusing.
    If evolutionism is not a legitamate scientific theory, but only untested hypothesis, then one of the reasons is the cheating here.
    This cheating includes classification presumptions.
    They have forever been telling creationists/public that reptiles evolved into dinos and into mammals, for some, and into birds etc.
    If these classifications are false then evolutionism loses a big point.
    I’m not just saying they are false but am saying they break scientific investigation rules.
    They are starting out of the gate as if having proved their are these divisions based on looks etc.
    Back into the gate and drop this.
    if your right it shouldn’t matter. If wrong it will trip your side up.
    I think its wrong!

    um. do people here think there are such a group as mammals, reptiles, dinos, marsupials, ??
    WHY? Who said this? whats the connections?

    0
  20. Robert Byers: I do have as a example the claim that a theropod is a reptile. so they say its a dinosaur. then they say its the origin of birds because its bird like.
    YET to start without these presumptions one would of STRAIGHT AWAY said the creature was a flightless bird. Nop reptile, no dino, no start of the bird types.
    A pure investigation would say its just another bird. The other classifications are false.

    Nitpick: Every bird is a theropod, so not all theropods are flightless. 🙂

    But I guess you were talking about non-avian theropods. First, I’d say you are confusing the conclusions of cladistic analysis with the act of classifying itself. Secondly, non-avian theropods were initially not classified as birds, so your suggestion that classification stacked the deck in favour of identifying birds as a descendant lineage of mesozoic theropods is clearly false. Thirdly and most importantly, saying STRAIGHT AWAY that a theropod dinosaur is a flightless bird is also an act of making a biological classification, which according to your OP is a big no-no. It just happens to be the classification that leads to the conclusion you happen to like. Now why didn’t you notice that, Robert?

    0
  21. BruceS: Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science
    NYT so paywalled (after 10 articles/month, I think).

    Reading it now.

    I have long thought that Latour got a bum rap.

    I remember reading his book “Laboratory Life” many years ago. Well, more precisely, I borrowed it from the campus library. I’m not sure how closely I read it. But I could not find anything particularly troublesome. Of course scientists come up with new facts that were not previously anything we knew about.

    If what Latour wrote was controversial, that would only show that philosophy of science is way off track.

    Anyway, I’m heading back to finish reading that NYT article.

    0
  22. After completing that NYTimes article on Latour, I see where I disagree with him. I don’t see science as political as Latour thinks it is. But I guess that I can — more or less — see why Latour comes to that conclusion.

    Roughly, Latour sees that there is a problem with traditional epistemology. So he comes up with his own alternative. But his own alternative also has problems, and he is less able to recognize those.

    I might add that, on reading the NYTimes article, one is trapped in the problem of reading what was written by a reporter, and that reporter probably doesn’t understand Latour. So where I see problems in Latour’s view of knowledge, I can’t be sure whether those are Latour’s problems or the reporter’s problems.

    0
  23. You seldom go wrong by assuming a journalist has mucked things up.

    They’ve made inexcusable errors in every story where I have had first hand knowledge.

    I have no knowledge of malicious or harmful reporting. But I have seen a story about a family member that was just made up. Didn’t hurt anyone, but it was fantasy.

    0
  24. Neil Rickert: Classification is always into a human defined category.

    Yes, scientists try to define their categories as well as they can.But they are still human defined.

    Aw but thats the point here and important.
    The people in these cases are not just making UP classification and so only a human concept. THEY are saying these are real biological boundaries in nature.
    They are convinced nature , “created”, mammals, reptiles, marsupials, fdinosaurs.
    These are from, they say, original types that expanded into the greater numbers in these groups. They say there was a original reptile male/female from whence all reptiles come. Likewise mammals. Likewise marsupials.
    marsupials are seen as sa real group of many from the few originals.
    I’m saying this is wrong but more IMPORTANT I’m saying its breaking scientific investigative rules.
    Conclusions about biological origins are being drawn which can’t be falsified because these boundary presumptions are insisted on.
    Its first a methodology serious error that questions evolutionist conclusions being a scientific theory OR EVEN a yestable hypothesis.
    I need better words. its the words they use , um, like “prior…” something.
    i use the word presumption is wrongly at the gate while science is about denying presumptions in a pure investigation.

    0
  25. Corneel: Nitpick: Every bird is a theropod, so not all theropods are flightless.

    But I guess you were talking about non-avian theropods. First, I’d say you are confusing the conclusions of cladistic analysis with the act of classifying itself. Secondly, non-avian theropods were initially not classified as birds, so your suggestion that classification stacked the deck in favour of identifying birds as a descendant lineage of mesozoic theropods is clearly false. Thirdly and most importantly, saying STRAIGHT AWAY that a theropod dinosaur is a flightless bird is also an act of making a biological classification, which according to your OP is a big no-no. It just happens to be the classification that leads to the conclusion you happen to like. Now why didn’t you notice that, Robert?

    My saying a theropod is just a flightless bird is from anatomical evidence.
    I don’t see it the same as the creation of a classification before the anatomical evidence is looked at. Except , i guess, the bird group. Hmm. I guess the bird group is a proven thing. The others are not. I could also say I’m just seeing a single type of theropod as a single type of flightless bird.
    Evolutionism can’t live without its classification presumptions. creationism can.

    0
  26. Robert Byers: They say there was a original reptile male/female from whence all reptiles come.

    Actually, they don’t say that. Instead, they say that all reptiles had a common ancestor.

    I’m saying this is wrong but more IMPORTANT I’m saying its breaking scientific investigative rules.

    What scientific investigative rules?

    Conclusions about biological origins are being drawn which can’t be falsified because these boundary presumptions are insisted on.

    There have been cases where biologists have changed their minds about whether a group is a species. Does that count as being falsified?

    0
  27. Neil Rickert:

    I have long thought that Latour got a bum rap.

    If what Latour wrote was controversial, that would only show that philosophy of science is way off track.

    Looking only at contemporary articles on Latour in SEP, it seems to be that Latour’s ideas are taking serious by philosophers of science. I would not call principled disagreement a “bum rap”.

    On the other hand, it may be very fair to say that some scientists and other warriors in the science wars of the 90s focused on an extreme and inaccurate interpretation of his constructivism, taking it as unbridled relativism. That would be a bum rap.

    A similar case is the use of Kuhn’s ideas on eg incommensurability to claim he was a relativist and subjectivist about scientific knowledge. Kitcher has a good review of a recent semi-popular book which takes that approach to Kuhn.

    Latour has a MOOC which introduces his ideas and which I enjoyed.

    0
  28. BruceS: Looking only at contemporary articles on Latour in SEP, it seems to be that Latour’s ideas are taking serious by philosophers of science. I would not call principled disagreement a “bum rap”.

    Okay, I looked at that SEP article, and particularly at what it reports as Hacking’s criticism.

    If you want to ever understand human cognition/human consciousness, then you will need to think like Latour and not like Hacking.

    0
  29. Neil Rickert:

    If you want to ever understand human cognition/human consciousness, then you will need to think like Latour and not like Hacking.

    I am not sure what you are getting at. I took Hacking to be discussing scientific research, scientific explanation and realism about scientific theories. Not human cognition. Not human consciousness (ie phenomenality). Maybe you were referring to whether and how science could explain either of those?

    I notice that I screwed up a link in my original post. The bolded ‘Latour’ was supposed to be a link to Relativism article in SEP. You can find it and plenty of other Latour references by searching there

    While looking for Latour references at IEP, I came across this quote which made me think of your position on scientific realism and representation:

    We need not think that just because there is no perfect representation of the world, that there is therefore no world to be represented. Their insights could equally contribute to an intermediate view in which we reject this perfect-representation view of science, but still maintain that science is giving us knowledge of the real world. That is, we can simultaneously deny that representations “are some kind of transparent imprints of reality with a single determinable relationship to their targets” while still affirming that the “artificial features of scientific representations…result from well-motivated epistemic strategies that in fact enable scientists to know more about their objects” (Knuuttila 2014, 304).

    0
  30. BruceS: I am not sure what you are getting at.

    I guess I should not be surprised at that.

    I took Hacking to be discussing scientific research, scientific explanation and realism about scientific theories.

    Yes, that’s about right.

    Hacking is a theist and a dualist.

    Okay, if you were to ask Hacking, he would probably deny both. But he thinks like a theist and a dualist.

    From a theists perspective, the explanation of human cognition is that god created us that way. And for a substance dualist, the explanation of consciousness is that it is the immaterial soul that is conscious.

    Someone who thinks like a theist and dualist cannot understand human cognition and consciousness, except in theistic and dualistic terms. And if that person also asserts that he is neither theist nor dualist, then he also cannot understand cognition and consciousness in theistic and dualistic terms.

    Latour, by contrast, wants to explain science in human terms. So he is at least open to the possibility of explaining cognition and consciousness in human terms.

    The bolded ‘Latour’ was supposed to be a link to Relativism article in SEP.

    Fixed (I think).

    0
  31. Neil Rickert: Actually, they don’t say that.Instead, they say that all reptiles had a common ancestor.

    What scientific investigative rules?

    There have been cases where biologists have changed their minds about whether a group is a species.Does that count as being falsified?

    NO.! Its still all presumptions about taxonomy befire investigation in figuring out the origins of creatures.

    The scientific rules be broken are that there are not to be presumptions about the subject when the subject is what is being figured out.
    You can’t study about biology origins if you start with boundaries that already have settled some biology origins.
    Science must have a methodology that it obeys or its not science. its just guessing using raw data.

    0
  32. Robert Byers: The scientific rules be broken are that there are not to be presumptions about the subject when the subject is what is being figured out.

    That’s not how science is done.

    We do science by trying things out. And if they don’t work as well as expected, then we see if we can adjust them or maybe try something different.

    We don’t wait until it is all worked out before we start.

    0
  33. I understand Byer’s point: his claim is that we classify organisms into categories in advance, rather than inferring them from the evidence. I have no idea how they did it in ancient times, but nowadays we don’t do this. We feed DNA sequences into clustering algorithms, and the algorithms identify the categories. It is remarkable how well these modern categories agree with that of the 19th century. There have been surprises, such as the fact that birds are dinosaurs. But on the whole, modern classification has supported earlier classifications.

    0
  34. Neil Rickert: That’s not how science is done.

    We do science by trying things out.And if they don’t work as well as expected, then we see if we can adjust them or maybe try something different.

    We don’t wait until it is all worked out before we start.

    Aha. YES Thats my point. In making taxonomic classification boundarys, mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, marsupials, THEY are/have already worked things out.
    THEN aqfter this they start to figure out the origin of creatures and relationships to each other.
    I’M saying to have a scientific investigation of origins of creatures, so relationships, they must DROP these classification systems.

    I’m saying the errors of/in evolutionism are not seen because of convictions there are DINOSAUR divisions, REPTILE divisions, Marsupial divisions, Mammal divisions.
    Take these away and much of the claimed evidence for evolution fails.
    Creationists also are wrong to accept thgese manmade divisions.
    THEN I think it would lead creationism, or anybody, to a new concept. that biological options are from a common blueprint.
    So laying egggs is not a trail of creatures descent, common decent, but its just a good idea that can be grabbed as needed.
    so some snakes lay eggs, some don’t. Some furry creatures lat eggs, monotremes etc, some don’t. birds lay eggs, possibly some have not, Laying eggs is just a option for anyone.
    presuming egg laying is a trail of heritage is laying the biggest egg of all!

    0
  35. Robert Byers: Aha. YES Thats my point. In making taxonomic classification boundarys, mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, marsupials, THEY are/have already worked things out.
    THEN aqfter this they start to figure out the origin of creatures and relationships to each other.
    I’M saying to have a scientific investigation of origins of creatures, so relationships, they must DROP these classification systems.

    Is that it? You believe that inferring evolutionary relationships relies on predetermined classifications? Well, it doesn’t, so that’s easily solved.

    0
  36. AlanRogers:
    I understand Byer’s point: his claim is that we classify organisms into categories in advance, rather than inferring them from the evidence. I have no idea how they did it in ancient times, but nowadays we don’t do this. We feed DNA sequences into clustering algorithms, and the algorithms identify the categories. It is remarkable how well these modern categories agree with that of the 19th century. There have been surprises, such as the fact that birds are dinosaurs. But on the whole, modern classification has supported earlier classifications.

    Yes. Thats what I mean. You said it better then me.

    Oh no. I don’t think they just feed DNA sequences into such and such.
    The categories were settled long ago and they work from them.
    if they did find DNA problems it would only be in monor ways that affect their classifications.
    Anyways the DNA would follow creatures body types. creatures with traits of reptiles would have this dna yet there is no reptile group, I say. just clusters of traits with following dna.

    The birds being like some “dinos” is only a surprise because they first had these groups. BIRDS, REPTILES,DINOSAURS.
    It would not be a surprise if accurate scientific investigation without these settled classifications as a lead off.
    they would not of invented a dinosaur group. they wouldm, for some, just see a spectrum of birds,
    your point still includes that there are dinosaurs as a group. THEN BANG they find they are bird like/birds. so they invent a evolution of dinos to birds.
    yet there is no evidence of this but only a classification boundary FORCING this conclusion.
    these are birds , feathers and all. its a great error and failure of science competence.

    0
  37. Corneel: Is that it? You believe that inferring evolutionary relationships relies on predetermined classifications? Well, it doesn’t, so that’s easily solved.

    iT is historically what they did. What they do now. How they seek to persuade people/public to their conclusions.
    Oh Yes. I’m glad your suggesting their is something wrong with INFERRING evolutionary relationships from classifications.
    YET I accuse them of done/doing/still doing.
    Case in point is marsupials grouped as a group. Or theropods etc said to be dinosaurs despite being clearly birds , feathers aplenty.
    They are grouping things on trivial traits and ignoring the greater number of traits.
    Evolutionism is founded on a predetermined classification system that if it operated without it would undercut many/most conclusions. I think geology presumptions actually does more however.

    0
  38. Robert Byers: Oh Yes. I’m glad your suggesting their is something wrong with INFERRING evolutionary relationships from classifications.
    YET I accuse them of done/doing/still doing.
    Case in point is marsupials grouped as a group. Or theropods etc said to be dinosaurs despite being clearly birds , feathers aplenty.

    Let’s examine theropods, dinosaurs and birds, since you seem to be hung up about them. I believe they are all natural groups (that is, they are monophyletic). All birds are theropods, and all theropods are dinosaurs. So blue tits are birds and they are theropods and they are dinosaurs. Now, it is important to realize that this classification is based on evolutionary relationships, not the other way around!

    So let’s take a theropod, say Megalosaurus (incidently the first dinosaur to be validly named*). Is it a bird? No, it’s not, because the most recent common ancestor of all birds is not an ancestor of Megalosaurus. See? The classification relies on the evolutionary relationship, not vice versa

    * The wikipedia lemma for Megalosaurus mentions that the first scientific name given for it was Scrotum humanum. It also assures us that “this is not considered valid today”.

    0
  39. Corneel: Let’s examine theropods, dinosaurs and birds, since you seem to be hung up about them. I believe they are all natural groups (that is, they are monophyletic). All birds are theropods, and all theropods are dinosaurs. So blue tits are birds and they are theropods and they are dinosaurs. Now, it is important to realize that this classification is based on evolutionary relationships, not the other way around!

    So let’s take a theropod, say Megalosaurus (incidently the first dinosaur to be validly named*). Is it a bird? No, it’s not, because the most recent common ancestor of all birds is not an ancestor of Megalosaurus. See? The classification relies on the evolutionary relationship, not vice versa

    * The wikipedia lemma for Megalosaurus mentions that the first scientific name given for it was Scrotum humanum. It also assures us that “this is not considered valid today”.

    I understand your point. yet i disagree, greatly, thats it true.
    They first had these divisions and then placed cratures in them. The first dinosaur found was rejected as a regular creature and thought to be a reptile. This because of traits that they saw reptiles had. YET the reptile group was what made them put the first dino into that reptile group!

    I just watched on youtube a Jake Horner video. He is a famous dino hunter. in it he admits they are the ones who classify creatures. So he shows how theropods are birdlike and how they are trying to make a modern chicken have teeth/tail like a theropod.
    Its all about grouping but its the groups which came first. not the evolutionary relationships. This is why the mistake of seeing these theropod dinos as not just ordinary birds. Yet the same anatomy. So the ordinary bird becomes a reptile/dinosaur.
    its a classification entrapment.

    0
  40. Robert Byers: Its all about grouping but its the groups which came first. not the evolutionary relationships. This is why the mistake of seeing these theropod dinos as not just ordinary birds. Yet the same anatomy. So the ordinary bird becomes a reptile/dinosaur.

    Question: If what you are saying is correct, then why are birds moved into reptiles, instead of simply moving non-avian theropods into birds?

    You seem to be oblivious to the fact that taxonomy has changed since the 19th century. When Richard Owen classified dinosaurs as reptiles, he expanded the group originally containing turtles, crocodiles, snakes and lizards. Today, there is consensus that this group should include birds as well (turtles and mammals have been bouncing around, but let’s ignore that for now). Do you understand why this change in classification was called for? Do you really believe this is because non-avian theropods were mistakenly classified as reptiles nearly two centuries ago?

    0
  41. Corneel: Question: If what you are saying is correct, then why are birds moved into reptiles, instead of simply moving non-avian theropods into birds?

    You seem to be oblivious to the fact that taxonomy has changed since the 19th century. When Richard Owen classified dinosaurs as reptiles, he expanded the group originally containing turtles, crocodiles, snakes and lizards. Today, there is consensus that this group should include birds as well (turtles and mammals have been bouncing around, but let’s ignore that for now). Do you understand why this change in classification was called for? Do you really believe this is because non-avian theropods were mistakenly classified as reptiles nearly two centuries ago?

    Yes. I say non avian theropods were wrongly classified as reptiles.
    if they did, if, have a few traits like reptiles it was irrelevant. in deed i say there are no reptiles. turtles and crocs have no relationship . Any like trait is irrelevant.

    theropods should just be seen as birds. flightless birds in a spetrum of diversity of birds./ there never was dinosaurs. its an error.
    its only hinted at these days as better research demands seeing theropods and birds as so alike as to be clearly related.
    Whoops. they wrongly turned our birds into dinosaurs. Whoops.
    They are getting to the true equation but stll embrace old school classification concepts.
    Kill the classification concepts and true science will be done.
    i think i offer a persuasive case on the classification problem that creationism should take up. THEN start to figure out better KINDS of creatures and no more lame divisions made up by a few ancients.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.