Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No reptiles any more?


Someone says the reptile category doesn’t really exist :

You have likely been to a zoo at some point and visited their reptile house. A building where the climate control dial is stuck on the “wet sauna” setting, and filled with maniacal children competing to be the first to press their ice cream covered face and hands on every available piece of clean glass.

Assuming you managed to find some clean glass, and supposing the animals were not hiding from the incessant banging and requests to perform like circus animals, you would have likely seen turtles, crocodiles, snakes and lizards.

But what if I told you reptiles don’t exist.

I am not suggesting that you imagined seeing scaly creatures, but the group of animals we refer to as “reptiles” does not exist – at least not anymore.

Cladistsics, you see.

Maybe it comes down to: Cladistics exists or reptiles don’t?

Dunno. Local grass snakes keep insisting that reptiles exist—as long as they can get below the frost line over winter, through cavities in the Shield.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

as to:
"Maybe it comes down to: Cladistics exists or reptiles don’t?"
Here are a few links as to the abuse of cladistics to offer false support for Darwinian claims,,, ,,, Stephen Meyer explains why the use of cladistic analysis -- stem groups, crown groups, cladograms, ghost lineages -- fails to satisfy.
"In order to compensate for missing fossils, we have to postulate more missing fossils. So I don't think that this really solves the problem of the missing fossils. I think it actually accentuates it." Stephen Meyer Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer's Argument for Intelligent Design Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4 Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k
Berlinski is fairly blunt in his assessment,,,
A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin's theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. "Phylogenetic systematics," the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, "relies on the theory of evolution." To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air. Tight fit, major fail.7 No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that "phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever."8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html
Cladistics, you see. Maybe it comes down to: Cladistics exists or reptiles don’t?
I employ the same technique to get rid of those pesky spiders and ants in our house. I wonder if that would work to rid the world of evil? awstar

Leave a Reply