Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 218 (821112)
10-02-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
09-28-2017 5:17 AM


Nested Hierarchies = kinds and clades
Genesis 1 describes how God created creatures "according to their kinds". Creationist Literalists are often critiqued for not being able to define what "kinds" are. I would like to suggest the possibility that "kinds" actually refers to what are known by biologists as "nested hierarchies".
A clade in biology is defined as a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life".
Genesis defines (loosely) kind as a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants ("according to their kinds") so it would seem that we are talking about the same thing, with today's species descending from a common ancestor (population\breeding pair\etc) via (micro)evolution:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
With multiple population division events followed by independent evolution, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent population division events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.
... I would like to suggest the possibility that "kinds" actually refers to what are known by biologists as "nested hierarchies".
So the biological term is clade.
Message 1: God created primates, which includes humans. Is this not a nested hierarchy?
Quick answer is yes, however care has to be taken to ensure all descendants are included in the clade to be monophyletic.
The question is how far back do we -- can we -- go to find the common ancestor and determine the created kind -- ie is there a limit to how far back we can go, and what causes that limit.
Here is a simplified cladogram:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate]Primates[/url]
 │
 └─[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strepsirrhini]Strepsirhini[/url]
    │ └─(*) All living and extinct strepsirhini not listed below
    │
    ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorisoidea]Lorisiformes[/url]
    │       └─(*) All living and extinct lorises
    │
    ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuriformes]Lemuriformes[/url]
    │       └─(*) All living and extinct lemurs
    │
    ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapiformes]Adapiformes[/url]
    │       └─(*) All extinct apadiformes (including Pelycodus)
    │
    ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplorhini]Haplorhini[/url]
    │       └─(*) All living and extinct haplorhini
    │
    ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarsiiformes]Tarsiiformes[/url]
    │       └─(*) All living and extinct tarsiiformes
    │
    └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian]Simiiformes[/url] (or Anthropoidea)
           │ └─(*) All living and extinct simiiformes not listed below
           │
           ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_monkey]Platyrrhini[/url]
           │       └─(*) All living and extinct new world monkeys
           │
           └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini]Catarrhini[/url]
                  │ └─(*) All living and extinct catarrhini not listed below
                  │
                  ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World_monkey]Cercopithecidae[/url]
                  │       └─(*) All living and extinct old world monkeys
                  │
                  ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colobinae]Colobinae[/url]
                  │       └─(*) All living and extinct colobinae
                  │
                  └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape]Hominoidea[/url] (superfamily)
                         │ └─(*) All living and extinct apes not listed below
               ┌─────────┘
               │
               ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate)]Proconsul[/url]
               │       └─(*) All extinct proconsul desendants
               │
               └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyapithecus]Kenyapithecus[/url]
                  │     └─(*) All extinct kenyapithecus desendants
                  │
                  └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon]Hylobatidae[/url] (gibbons)
                     │      └─(*) All living and extinct gibbons
                     │
                     └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae]Hominidae[/url] (family)
                            │ └─(*) All living and extinct great apes not listed below
                  ┌─────────┘
                  │
                  ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryopithecus]Dryopithecus[/url]
                  │       └─(*) All extinct dryopithicus desendants
                  │
                  └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierolapithecus]Pierolapithecus[/url]
                     │     └─(*) All extinct pierolapithecus desendants
                     │
                     └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponginae]Ponginae[/url] (family)
                        │     └─(*) All living and extinct Orangutans
                        │
                        └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae]Homininae[/url] (subfamily)
                               │ └─(*) All living and extinct homininae not listed below
                               │
                               ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samburupithecus]Samburupithecus[/url]
                               │       └─(*) All extinct samburupithecus desendants
                               │
                               ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus]Nakalipithecus[/url]
                               │       └─(*) All extinct nakalipithecus desendants
                               │
                               └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillini]Gorillini[/url] (tribe)
                                  │     └─(*) All living and extinct Gorillas
                                  │
                                  └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini]Hominini[/url] (tribe)
                                         │ └─(*) All living and extinct hominini not listed below
                               ┌─────────┘
                               │
                               └──┬─?─[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus]Sahelanthropus[/url](possible common ancestor)
                                  │     └─(*) All extinct sahelanthropus desendants
                                  │
                                  ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee]Panina[/url] (subtribe)
                                  │       └─(*) All living and extinct Chimpanzees
                                  │
                                  └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo]Hominina[/url] (subtribe)
                                          └─(*) All living and extinct Hominina
                                               including Homo sapiens

Notes
(*) denotes "a nested clade of ..."
For a more complete listing see Primate cladogram evolution
So the question becomes: is this what you meant by the Primate kind?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : link for clade

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 09-28-2017 5:17 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2017 2:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 218 (821386)
10-06-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
10-02-2017 3:10 PM


Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
Dredge,
Do you agree
Message 7:
A clade in biology is defined as a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life".
Genesis defines (loosely) kind as a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants ("according to their kinds") so it would seem that we are talking about the same thing, with today's species descending from a common ancestor (population\breeding pair\etc) via (micro)evolution:
To my mind genesis is definitely speaking of clades as we define them in biology. The question then becomes how far back do we go?
Now you might think that "primate" turns out to be too big for what you were thinking, but where do you stop and why?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2017 3:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2017 9:53 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 25 of 218 (821427)
10-07-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
10-07-2017 9:53 AM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
To my mind, someone took a few words from Genesis about animals giving birth to their own kind, a statement that we all agree is factual, and then ran with it off into silly land to interpret it to mean that animals cannot evolve.
Curiously, I think there is a little more to it. People of the times were animal herders of domestic breeds and were familiar with breeding creating variations, but sheep only bred new forms of sheep, cows only bred new forms of cows, dogs only bred new formes of dogs, etc etc etc.
Hence the comments like "dogs will always be dogs."
Creationists now accept microevolution, so the gripe has moved to macroevolution. ie never breed "out of their kind"(whatever that means to them) or develop new kinds.
It rather amuses me that what is described for descent from original kinds so perfectly matches the description of clades descent from ancestor populations. I would have thought that creationists would have jumped all over cladistics as vindication for their arguments ... except for that dangerous territory of finding where the original kinds fit without having any predecessors ...
If the earth is only 6000 years old, then animals did not have time to evolve regardless of whether they had the potential to do so. ...
Dredge, I believe, is an old earth creationist, so time not so important for his argument.
... It's ridiculous; no more and no less so than everything else in Creation Science.
Yes, but the old argument for defining "kinds" as some taxon category is also rather ridiculous imho -- when we can use clades, show how they match their description for "kinds" and then move on to what is the earliest common ancestor for each branch, and demonstrate that there is always an ancestor population in the fossil record and in the genetic record.
Though cladistics the argument against original created kinds is stronger, imho, than previous arguments based on taxons.
Enjoy
abe -- Primate Cladogram now lists ~300 living and extinct species, with some yet to list, and is by no means complete for extinct species. I think Dredge may be surprised at how big this clade is.
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : abe

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2017 9:53 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 10-07-2017 12:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 218 (821445)
10-07-2017 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ringo
10-07-2017 12:06 PM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
I think the Bible uses the word "kind" much as we do - e.g. "What kind of dog is that?" Poodles beget poodles and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs but there's no suggestion that interbreeding is impossible.
and the creationist refrain: but the offspring will always be dogs.
Which happens to be true for clades as well.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 10-07-2017 12:06 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 10-09-2017 1:11 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 218 (822218)
10-21-2017 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dredge
10-20-2017 9:06 PM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
I don't think there is a need for a creationists to explain what a "kind" is. ...
Then they can't say what is not a "kind" ... but then you try to explain what a "kind" is:
That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds.
Would that not mean that in any generation of any species, that the young would appear to be pretty much the same as their parents within the variation seen in that generation? Certainly within the variation seen in dogs, yes?
Let's look at A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate
quote:
Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
Does that not look like a species reproducing "according to their kinds" from generation to generation?
... If God initially created simple life forms that later evolved into all the life we see on earth today, there would be no point in him saying creatures were created "according to their kinds", because the original "kinds" were destined to evolve into oblivion.
How so?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:06 PM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 37 of 218 (822241)
10-21-2017 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
10-21-2017 12:03 PM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
But "fixity of kinds" requires an explanation of what kinds are. What, exactly, is fixed? Poodles beget poodles after their kind and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs after their kind. Dogs are not necessarily a kind. What is fixed?
The dogs that don't meet the purebred standard?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 10-21-2017 12:03 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 57 of 218 (822328)
10-23-2017 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dredge
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


recanting?
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.
So now you are recanting on your claim that "Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies" ... interesting. In Message 1 you said:
Genesis 1 describes how God created creatures "according to their kinds". Creationist Literalists are often critiqued for not being able to define what "kinds" are. I would like to suggest the possibility that "kinds" actually refers to what are known by biologists as "nested hierarchies".
If "kinds" don't fall into nested hierarchies, then that would be evidence to me that they never existed ... because life does fall into nested hierarchies. It is one of the pieces of evidence we have for macroevolution.
In Message 3 you asked: "God created primates, which includes humans. Is this not a nested hierarchy?" ... presumably you agreed with the simplified nested hierarchy of primates I listed in Message 7 (with over 300 species of primates included), seeing as you haven't replied.
Then you attempted to clarify your position in Message 31 by saying:
I don't think there is a need for a creationists to explain what a "kind" is. That is not the point of the Scripture, which is this: If God initially created simple life forms that later evolved into all the life we see on earth today, there would be no point in him saying creatures were created "according to their kinds", because the original "kinds" were destined to evolve into oblivion.
That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds.
To which I replied in Message 32 with an example of smooth transition in the fossil record and asked "Does that not look like a species reproducing "according to their kinds" from generation to generation?" ... and you haven't answered that, yet, but now appear to give up your argument, saying
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.
Interesting ... basically an admission of failure for your original thesis
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 7:32 PM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 218 (822535)
10-27-2017 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:43 PM


platypus nested hierarchy
How does a playpus fit into a nested hierarchy?
quote:
Wikipedia Platypus:
The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), sometimes referred to as the duck-billed platypus, is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal endemic to eastern Australia, including Tasmania. Together with the four species of echidna, it is one of the five extant species of monotremes, the only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth. The animal is the sole living representative of its family (Ornithorhynchidae) and genus (Ornithorhynchus), though a number of related species have been found in the fossil record. ...
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Monotremata
Family: Ornithorhynchidae
Genus: Ornithorhynchus
Species: O. anatinus
... In fact, modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree, and a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups.[66][68] Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19—48 million years ago.[69]
The oldest discovered fossil of the modern platypus dates back to about 100,000 years ago, during the Quaternary period. The extinct monotremes Teinolophos and Steropodon were once thought to be closely related to the modern platypus,[67] but are now considered more basal taxa.[71] The fossilised Steropodon was discovered in New South Wales and is composed of an opalised lower jawbone with three molar teeth (whereas the adult contemporary platypus is toothless). The molar teeth were initially thought to be tribosphenic, which would have supported a variation of Gregory's theory, but later research has suggested, while they have three cusps, they evolved under a separate process.[72] The fossil is thought to be about 110 million years old, making it the oldest mammal fossil found in Australia. Unlike the modern platypus (and echidnas), Teinolophos lacked a beak.[71] ...
Reconstruction of ancient platypus relative Steropodon
               ┌────Platypus

┌───────┤
│ │
│ └────Echidnas

───────┤
│ ┌────Marsupials
│ │
│ live birth │
└──────────────┤
│ true placenta
└─────────────────Eutherians
Evolutionary relationships between the platypus and other mammals.[70]
Also:
quote:
Mammalia
Mammaliformes

└─Mammalia
├─Australosphenida
│ ├─Ausktribosphenidae
│ └─Monotremata
└─┬─Triconodonta
└─┬─Spalacotheroidea
└─Cladotheria
├─Dryolestoidea
└─Theria

├─Metatheria
└─Eutheria
Monotremata: Ornithorhynchos (platypus), Steropodon, Tachyglossus (echidna).
fr lwK of Aus & SAm.
Australosphenida : Ausktribosphenidae + *.
Teeth absent in adults; molars have two transverse ridges, perhaps not comparable to trigon - trigonid; dentary slender, with low or absent coronoid process; jaw opened with detrahens muscle (Vth nerve only); post-dentary bones fully incorporated into ear, but external auditory meatus lies at posterior base of jaw; Platypus cochlea coiled [H+97]; jugal reduced or absent; anterior extensions of petrosal cover much of therian alisphenoid area; skull bones fuse early in life; cervical ribs present; pectoral girdle primitive with strong ventral elements (both coracoids, clavicle & interclavicle); interclavicle rigidly bound to clavicles [H+97]; scapula robust and provides rigid connection; humerus remains horizontal to substrate; pelvic girdle similar to therians, but with widely angled anterolaterally directed epipubic bones; median spurs on ankles; metabolic rate lower than therian mammals; electrosensory system in rostrum; lack effective evaporative cooling; single urogenital sinus with cloaca; scrotum absent; oviparous, but egg is retained for some time in the uterus and actively provided nutrients by mother; egg not calcified; lactation, but nipples absent; prolonged brooding; low reproduction rate, with individuals very long-lived; all living species fossorial (platypus is aquatic & fossorial).
So I can expand the monotreme branch as follows:
Mammaliformes

└─Mammalia
├─Australosphenida
│ ├─Ausktribosphenidae
│ └─Monotremata │ └─Monotremata
│ ├─Steropodon or │ ├─Steropodon
│ ├─Ornithorhynchos (platypus) │ │ └─Ornithorhynchos (platypus)
│ └─Tachyglossus (echidna) │ └─Tachyglossus (echidna)
└─┬─Triconodonta
└─┬─Spalacotheroidea
└─Cladotheria
├─Dryolestoidea
└─Theria

├─Metatheria (marsupials)
└─Eutheria (placental mammals, including humans)
quote:
Theria: Deltatherium, Kielantherium. LCA wallabies and Wallace.
Fr mK.
Cladotheria: Dryolestoidea + *: Metatheria + Eutheria.
No quadrate-articular jaw articulation; all post-dentary bones incorporated into middle ear; tribosphenic molar; jaw opened by digastric muscle (ennervated by Vth & VIIth nerves); $ facial muscles (derived from neck constrictor colli, VIIth nerve); $ spiral cochlea; auditory pinna (external ear); $ able to seal pharynx with tongue and/or epiglottis (for suckling, swallowing by mouthfuls); scapula with supraspinous fossa; loss or fusion of coracoid elements; scapulae move independently around its dorsal border, held in place only by muscles and soft tissues of "scapular sling"; $ supracoracoideus (humeral protractor) reorganized as infraspinatus and supraspinatus which stabilize humerus; $ crurotarsal ankle joint with flexion between tibia and astragalus, astragalus proximal to calcaneum, and gastrocnemius inserting on calcaneal heel; $ mammary glands with nipples (derived from apocrine or sebaceous glands); $ viviparity, with no egg shell; separate anal & urogenital openings; skin with free nerve endings (pain receptor?), Pacinian corpuscles, growing hair, sebaceous, apocrine (and eccrine glands in some specialized forms), and numerous neuroreceptors for touch, temperature, stretch, etc.
Note: " mammary glands with nipples (derived from apocrine or sebaceous glands);" and viviparity (live birth)
Or as Ogden Nash Wrote:
The Platypus
I like the duck-billed platypus
Because it is anomalous.
I like the way it raises its family
Partly birdly, partly mammaly.
I like its independent attitude.
Let no one call it a duck-billed platitude.
Note that this is two different sources that give the same information. One very easy to find if you want to learn instead of troll.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : graphics
Edited by RAZD, : ogden
Edited by RAZD, : optional arrangement

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:43 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dredge, posted 11-06-2017 1:12 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 218 (823105)
11-06-2017 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dredge
11-06-2017 1:12 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
... "The fossilised Steropodon ... is composed of a an opalised lower jawbone with three molar teeth". Yep, one can tell a whole lot from just a jawbone with three teeth! ...
Indeed. Teeth are very valuable evidence, and marsupial teeth are different from placental mammal teeth, so that helps identify them.
... Furthermore, this "ancestor" of the platypus had teeth, whereas the adult platypus has no teeth at all. ...
quote:
wiki: Platypus: Modern platypus young have three teeth in each of the maxillae (one premolar and two molars) and dentaries (three molars), which they lose before or just after leaving the breeding burrow; ...
Curiously that is sufficient evidence for showing evolution from a toothed ancestor.
... Then there is some other "ancestor" of the platypus, "Tienolophos", which the article nonchalantly mentions,"lacked a beak". ...
quote:
wiki: Tienolophos: Teinolophos trusleri was a prehistoric species of monotreme, or egg-laying mammal. It is known from a lower jawbone found in Flat Rocks, Victoria, Australia. It lived during the Aptian age of the Lower Cretaceous.
The holotype is a partial left dentary known as NMV P208231. An age of approximately 123 million years makes this the earliest known monotreme. The lower molar is broadly similar in morphology to the m2 of Steropodon. The trigonid is compressed and the talonid has no basin. The dentary is about one sixth the size of Steropodon's, and wear facets indicate an "orthal" occlusion with the upper molars.
The construction of the lower jaw differs from existing monotremes. Among the contrasts are the condyle, which is well above the tooth row (instead of at about the same height); and the ascending ramus, which is also higher. Also different is that Teinolophos probably had a strong bite. A unique feature for known toothed monotremes is that the trigonid is tall, while the talonid is set much lower. This is more like the general mammalian arrangement. The molar is double-rooted, which is plesiomorphic when compared to ornithorhynchids, but is a shared characteristic with Steropodon and Kollikodon. Subsequent monotreme molars are multi-rooted.
So you see how valuable teeth are in determining evolutionary relationships. Here we see the monotreme lineage diverting from the basal mammalian ancestry.
... ... a mouthful of teeth vanish and a beak appears!
The fossils show exactly the intermediate stages we would expect from evolution and stages that are illogical for any "special creation" concepts.
Thanks for another opportunity to discuss evolution and educate other readers via the conduit of your ignorance.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dredge, posted 11-06-2017 1:12 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dredge, posted 11-15-2017 2:34 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 98 of 218 (823691)
11-15-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dredge
11-15-2017 2:34 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
I take your point. If you took the skeletons of all creatures in the world today, you could line them up to form lots of imaginary "evolutionary sequences". All you need to "join the dots" is a bit of imagination. You can play the same meaningless game with fossils.
And yet scientists consistently come to the same nested hierarchy arrangement, just as Linnaeus had, and amazingly they also match what is derived from DNA
It's the consilience of results that demonstrates accuracy.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dredge, posted 11-15-2017 2:34 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dredge, posted 11-26-2017 6:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 122 of 218 (824409)
11-28-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dredge
11-26-2017 6:37 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
They have to arrive at a nested hierarchies otherwise evolution falls to pieces ...
And yet, curiously, every attempt comes up with the same basic nested hierarchy pattern, starting with Linnaeus, who was before Darwin and who had never heard of nested hierarchies ... and continuing to this day, when DNA analysis keeps coming up with the same basic nested hierarchy patterns as those derived from fossils morphology.
If it is just made up, why do they keep getting the same results?
... otherwise evolution falls to pieces ...
Except that we see it all around us every day. That evidence still needs to be explained ... in a testable manner.
... and that would be like losing one's religion or getting kicked out of the cult.
And yet it is the scientist dream to upset the apple cart.
They have to ...
Says the one in deep denial of the world realities
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dredge, posted 11-26-2017 6:37 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 11-28-2017 8:21 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 128 by dwise1, posted 11-28-2017 3:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 124 of 218 (824412)
11-28-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Pressie
11-28-2017 8:21 AM


scientist dream
Yes. Upsettig the apple cart is my dream. That would increase my current salary of around USD 36 000 a year to millions of USD every year. And those prizes and interviews on Fox. Worth millions. Would love that.
Failing that you could always fly a homemade rocket to prove the earth is flat.
People will be falling all over each other to donate to your enterprise.
LOL
Edited by RAZD, : link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 11-28-2017 8:21 AM Pressie has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 126 of 218 (824422)
11-28-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
11-28-2017 11:09 AM


homologies
Look at a bat's wing and a human hand.
and then a chicken wing ... look at the joints and the long bones ... one then two then many is typical of tetrapods.
Note that the phalanges are fused (eg modified) but still identifiable.
Here are all three from shoulder to finger tips
You can see differences in proportions of lengths -- that's some of the modifications.
The similarities between these limbs are called homologies:
quote:
In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures is the forelimbs of vertebrates, where the wings of bats, the arms of primates, the front flippers of whales and the forelegs of dogs and horses are all derived from the same ancestral tetrapod structure. Evolutionary biology explains homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Homology was explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in 1859, but had been observed before this, from Aristotle onwards, and it was explicitly analysed by Pierre Belon in 1555. The term was applied to biology by the anatomist Richard Owen in 1843.
The principle of homology: The biological relationships (shown
by colours) of the bones in the forelimbs of vertebrates were
used by Charles Darwin as an argument in favor of evolution.
By Волков Владислав Петрович - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0
In developmental biology, organs that developed in the embryo in the same manner and from similar origins, such as from matching primordia in successive segments of the same animal, are serially homologous. Examples include the legs of a centipede, the maxillary palp and labial palp of an insect, and the spinous processes of successive vertebrae in a vertebral column. Male and female reproductive organs are homologous if they develop from the same embryonic tissue, as do the ovaries and testicles of mammals including humans.
Sequence homology between protein or DNA sequences is similarly defined in terms of shared ancestry. Two segments of DNA can have shared ancestry because of either a speciation event (orthologs) or a duplication event (paralogs). Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity. Significant similarity is strong evidence that two sequences are related by divergent evolution from a common ancestor. Alignments of multiple sequences are used to discover the homologous regions.
And there we have another teachable moment, brought to you by Dredge.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 11-28-2017 11:09 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 130 of 218 (824444)
11-29-2017 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by dwise1
11-28-2017 3:33 PM


More nested hierarchies
Whatever do lizards have to do with flying? Nobody thinks that birds evolved from lizards! ...
However there is a gliding lizard, but the wings are not homologous with bird wings or with tetrapod limbs nor even with insect wings, but with non-gliding lizard ribs:
quote:
Draco is a genus of agamid lizards that are also known as flying lizards, flying dragons or gliding lizards. These lizards can move by gliding; their ribs and their connecting membrane may be extended to create "wings" (patagia), the hindlimbs are flattened and wing-like in cross-section, and a flap on the neck (the gular flag) serve as a horizontal stabilizers. Draco are arboreal insectivores.
Male Draco spilonotus extending the gular flag
(throat flap) and patagia ("wings") in Sulawesi,
By A.S.Kono - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0
While not capable of powered flight they often obtain lift in the course of their gliding flights. Glides as long as 60 m (200 ft) have been recorded, over which the animal loses only 10 m (33 ft) in height, which is quite some distance, considering that one of these lizards is only around 20 cm (7.9 in) in total length (tail included).[1] They are found in S. Asia and are fairly common in forests, areca gardens, teak plantations and shrub jungle.
Here the ribs are modified to form the gliding surfaces. Their small size makes the task easier. There are also gliding frogs that use webbing in their feet. They were documented by Wallace:
quote:
Wallace's Flying Frog or the Abah River flying frog (Rhacophorus nigropalmatus) is a moss frog found at least from the Malay Peninsula into western Indonesia, and is present in Borneo and Sumatra. It is named for the biologist, Alfred R. Wallace, who collected the first specimen to be formally identified.
Illustration from Wallace's, The Malay Archipelago
R. dennysii, R. maximus and Polypedates feae were once contained within Wallace's flying frog as subspecies. Similar frogs also occur in Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and southern China; these may be R. nigropalmatus or an undescribed, closely related species.[1]
Showing once again that modification over generations of existing elements can develop significantly different structures with new abilities, but those features will be homologous with ancestral species and sister species with less derived versions, and their development and diversification will still show nested hierarchies.
Break that vicious cycle you've locked yourself into. Learn something!
Another teachable moment, brought to you by Dredge.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by dwise1, posted 11-28-2017 3:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2017 12:40 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 131 of 218 (824447)
11-29-2017 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by RAZD
11-29-2017 12:10 AM


Re: More nested hierarchies, homologies and analogies
Then there are flying fish:
quote:
Flying Fish
The Exocoetidae is a family of marine fish in the order Beloniformes class Actinopterygii. Fish of this family are known as flying fish. About 64 species are grouped in seven to nine genera. Flying fish can make powerful, self-propelled leaps out of water into air, where their long, wing-like fins enable gliding flight for considerable distances above the water's surface. This uncommon ability is a natural defence mechanism to evade predators.
Sailfin flying-fish
Parexocoetus brachypterus (1)
Flying fish taking off (2)
The oldest known fossil of a flying or gliding fish, Potanichthys xingyiensis, dates back to the Middle Triassic, 235—242 million years ago. However, this fossil is not related to modern flying fish, which evolved independently about 66 million years ago.[1][2]
(1)By David Starr Jordan and Barton Warren Evermann - Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, Vol. XXIII, for 1903. Part I. P. 574, Plate III. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Domain, File:Sailfin flyingfish.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
(2) http://www.moc.noaa.gov/mt/las/photos2.htm
Here the fins are modified into gliding surfaces, and the 64 species amazingly fall into another nested hierarchy.
These wings are not homologous with the bats, birds, gliding lizards, gliding snakes, flying squirrels, sugar gliders, or frogs, but with the front fins on non-flying fish.
quote:
Homologies and analogies
Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature so the presence of four limbs is a homology.
Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.
Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.
Bird and bat wings are analogous that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they have both experienced natural selection that shaped them to play a key role in flight. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.
Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.
There are those pesky nested hierarchies again.
And that's another teachable moment brought to you by Dredge.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2017 12:10 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 11-29-2017 6:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024