Carolus Linnaeus 1707 - 1778 (Part 2) The same picture of increasing gaps holds true within the fossil record. This fact is common knowledge to both creationists and evolutionists. The latter take the data and infer a branching tree connecting them all, but the actual observational evidence shows only tips of the branches, not the trunks and nodes. The true picture is more like a lawn than a tree; small groups of organisms at the species level show variations, but there is no evidence, living or fossil, for one “kind” of animal changing into another, such as a reptile into a bird or a fish into a salamander. Actually, one could say that species are the only level we observe. The other relationships – families, orders, classes, phyla – are all inferred because they share one or more similar characteristics. Taxonomists can be confused about what phylum or class an organism should be placed in, because many animals and plants are composed of mosaics of characteristics from several groups. Consider the platypus, for example. It lays eggs like a reptile, has webbed feet like a duck, a venomous spur like a rattlesnake, and fur like a mammal. Classification can be even more confusing for one-celled organisms. Some have been recently placed into whole kingdoms separate from plants and animals. It is often an arbitrary choice where to classify an organism. The sunflower family, for instance, is kind of a catch-all category for many diverse flowering plants that do not fit well into other families. Evolutionists have a hard time with these mosaics, often invoking the hand-waving answer “convergent evolution” when asked to explain how “unrelated” organisms share common characteristics, such as the remarkable similarities between placental mammals and their marsupial look-alikes. On the other end, it is often difficult to know where the species boundaries are. Consider that bison and many different kinds of cattle can interbreed (ever had a beefalo burger?). Horses, donkeys and zebras can interbreed more or less, and so can lions and tigers, yet most of us would consider each of these animals to be separate species. At the level of species, many organisms show great variety in size, shape and coloration: think of dogs, pigeons and roses for example. Yet higher up, at the genus and family levels, there appear to be stricter boundaries. No one has ever seen a dog change into a cat, or a goldfish turn into a seahorse. Evolutionists believe that variation has no limits and all things are interrelated, but that is a belief, not an observed fact. Even breeders know they can only take a horse or a rose or a cow or a sugar beet so far before a trait becomes impossible to modify further. Taking the data as we find it, without an evolutionary presupposition, we see living things organized into groups within groups within groups, with the major groups separated from one another by large gaps. The Linnaean classification system reflects the observational evidence. Despite its occasional points of debate or confusion, it has stood the test of time. Sadly, some evolutionists are trying to push an alternate “PhyloCode” classification scheme, which organizes plants and animals according to their presumed evolutionary relationships. If successful, this would only cloud the issue. It would embed evolutionary assumptions into the way students approach the data.
Posted on: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:34:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015