Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supporting life aboard the ark
Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 32 (38751)
05-02-2003 7:12 AM


It seems to me that a great many animal species would not be able to survive a prolonged stay in the ark unless very special arrangements were made to accomodate them; one example I would like to discuss is Chalcid Wasps.
Many species of Chalcid wasps have a symbiotic relationship with a single species of fig tree; the breeding and larval stages taking place inside the fruit and often providing a service of pollination for the plant.
They need living, developing fruit in which to complete their life cycle. Some of these fig species are large trees before they come into bearing.
How could the Chalcid wasps have survived the flood?
[This message has been edited by Mangetout, 05-02-2003]
{Fixed formating by swapping positions of bracketed b and bracketed i (UBB code) - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-06-2003]

Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 32 (38754)
05-02-2003 7:14 AM


OK, and why didn't my formatting work?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 05-02-2003 7:25 AM Mangetout has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 32 (38755)
05-02-2003 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mangetout
05-02-2003 7:14 AM


Well, as to the formatting, just like math you have to put the i-b and /b-/i in the right order - which is what got messed up, I think (i.e., end with what you started with).
As to the wasps, the creationist explanation is a) neither insects nor plants were required to be on the Ark in the first place - viable seeds surviving their immersion and insects surviving on floating vegetation mats, and b) if they were, it was obviously a generic "wasp kind" and "fruit kind" that later microevolved into the host-specific insect and insect-specific pollinator symbiosis. Why can't you evos understand how easy it is?
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mangetout, posted 05-02-2003 7:14 AM Mangetout has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 05-05-2003 11:05 PM Quetzal has not replied

Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 32 (38759)
05-02-2003 9:34 AM


Sheesh, is it just me or does this 'kind' thing get a bit bbroader every time I blink?
How long before kind==phylum?

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2003 3:57 AM Mangetout has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 32 (38845)
05-03-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mangetout
05-02-2003 9:34 AM


Ultimately I think the problem is that creationists fail to recognize that any system of taxa is inherently approximate; the boundaries between "adjacent" taxa tend to be fuzzy. A lot of the time it's lingusitic - we call some animals "cats" but that doesn't mean that they have some unique cat nature that separates them from their close non-cat cousins.
Lingusitically I don't think we really have the leeway anymore to make up a radical new name for an incipent species radically different from its ancestors. In that sense, the creationists are right - we'll never see a cat give rise to non-cats simply because in our langauge, cats could never change enough that we would stop calling them cats.
It's a problem with our words, not biology. This makes it almost impossible to communicate, and I'm sure I've failed right here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mangetout, posted 05-02-2003 9:34 AM Mangetout has not replied

Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 32 (38888)
05-03-2003 6:36 PM


Sure, it is also true that the taunt "haha!, speciation is one thing, but show me the evolution of a new genus!" is a tall order because the taxonomy that exists below the level of species/subspecies/varieties (that is changing now, albeit slowly), is legacy.
Expecting a cat to evolve into a dog is like expecting Apple to start producing Wintel PCs - somewhere back in the mists of time, there was a point where there was no Apple, Intel and Microsoft; they all branched off from common roots, but they are stuck with the legacies of those branch events.
Anyway, we're getting off topic. Are there any literalists here?

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2003 11:35 PM Mangetout has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 7 of 32 (38900)
05-03-2003 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Mangetout
05-03-2003 6:36 PM


Actual cases of new genera and higher
You're absolutely right that higher taxonomic levels are legacy, but that doesn't mean we still can't see new ones showing up.

Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.

PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]

 


Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

 

Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]

 


Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.

PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]

 


[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.

PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 


Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
It seems we've got not only new genera but also new families.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Mangetout, posted 05-03-2003 6:36 PM Mangetout has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2003 12:07 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 10 by Mangetout, posted 05-04-2003 7:50 PM Rrhain has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 8 of 32 (38903)
05-04-2003 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rrhain
05-03-2003 11:35 PM


Re: Actual cases of new genera and higher
Hey Rrhain! A most hearty welcome to you! Are you to the point where you just can't take any more *frank*?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2003 11:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by wj, posted 05-04-2003 6:06 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2003 6:58 AM Coragyps has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 32 (38905)
05-04-2003 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coragyps
05-04-2003 12:07 AM


Re: Actual cases of new genera and higher
quote:
Are you to the point where you just can't take any more *frank*?
Or Bloopers. Or Newt. Or 4truth denier. Or Bob the boob. There seems to be a diminishing supply of creationists lately. Are they being converted or becoming scare to have their beliefs challenged?
You'll find more intelligent, but equally wrong, creationists here. However they tend to avoid the topics with too much science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2003 12:07 AM Coragyps has not replied

Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 32 (38944)
05-04-2003 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rrhain
05-03-2003 11:35 PM


Re: Actual cases of new genera and higher
Sure, but aren't those 'new' in the sense of them just being new discoveries, rather than 'new' in the sense of them having arisen as a result of branching off from something else while we're watching.
Like that organism froma 'new' phylum (the one that lives on lobster mouthparts) - it isn't really new, we just took a long time to notice it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2003 11:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2003 11:19 PM Mangetout has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 11 of 32 (38954)
05-04-2003 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mangetout
05-04-2003 7:50 PM


Re: Actual cases of new genera and higher
Mangetout responds to me:
quote:
Sure, but aren't those 'new' in the sense of them just being new discoveries, rather than 'new' in the sense of them having arisen as a result of branching off from something else while we're watching.
No, not really. The problem, as we all agree, is that higher taxonomic levels are legacy. That is, you don't normally have a speciation event and have that new species really be a new genera. Instead, you have a bunch of speciation events and upon examination of all of the new species that come around, you realize that a new grouping needs to take place. This is what is described in the last reference. A quote from the abstract:
quote:
The hierarchic taxonomic framework described recently for the phylogenetic structure of the suborder Micrococcineae, class Actinobacteria, on the basis of 16S rDNA sequences and signature nucleotides was modified and extended. With the recent addition of novel taxa into the suborder, the phylogenetic coherence of some families was disrupted, leading to the emergence of novel lineages that, as judged by the depth of their branching points, were equivalent to those of described families.
As a professor of biology once told me, evolution is not a tree. It's a bush. New things happen at the tips. As the bush grows larger, those tips move back to become branches of their own but at the moment that they're tips, you wouldn't be able to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mangetout, posted 05-04-2003 7:50 PM Mangetout has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mangetout, posted 05-05-2003 7:56 PM Rrhain has not replied

Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 32 (39032)
05-05-2003 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rrhain
05-04-2003 11:19 PM


Re: Actual cases of new genera and higher
Indeed; had there been human observers at the time when the split between chordates and [whatever else there was], they would almost certainly have classified the new organism Somethingia Chordata - i.e. they would have viewed it as a speciation event, even though it looks from here like a branch at phylum level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2003 11:19 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2003 10:29 PM Mangetout has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 32 (39043)
05-05-2003 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mangetout
05-05-2003 7:56 PM


Re: Actual cases of new genera and higher
Indeed; had there been human observers at the time when the split between chordates and [whatever else there was], they would almost certainly have classified the new organism Somethingia Chordata - i.e. they would have viewed it as a speciation event, even though it looks from here like a branch at phylum level.
The current thought, as I understand it, is that chordates are decended from an invertebrate species that, as juveniles, have a primitive spinal cord which they then lose as adults. This is an example of Neoteny, I understand - the phenomenon where adult members of one species posess traits that are found only in the juveniles of a closely related species. (Certain human characteristics display the same neoteny to chimp juveniles.)
This, if a creationist had been observing the event along with the scientist, he or she would have likely countered "Not speciation at all, but rather a degenerate form of this invertebrate. It stubbornly refuses to become an adult." Or something similar. I think this example shows how creationist demands for evidence of new taxa is a kind of loaded question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mangetout, posted 05-05-2003 7:56 PM Mangetout has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 14 of 32 (39046)
05-05-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Quetzal
05-02-2003 7:25 AM


I know you were just giving a creationist explanation, Quetzal, but the issue was the insect needing the fruit. So neither the insect nor the tree was on the ark; I can understand the insect being on a floating vegetation mat, but was the tree alive and growing on a floating vegetation mat? Maybe that would explain how the dove got an olive branch so fast after the waters receded!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 05-02-2003 7:25 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mangetout, posted 05-06-2003 5:49 AM truthlover has replied

Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 32 (39066)
05-06-2003 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by truthlover
05-05-2003 11:05 PM


But if there were floating vegetation mats of such size that they were able to sustain entire ecosystems (including large mature fruitiing trees) for the duration of the flood, these would be quite suitable for occupation by humans.
Furthermore, if the floating mats were able to remain intact through conditions at the onset of the flood, there seems to be no good reason why humans also wouldn't survive, clinging to large pieces of floating debris (until they could get to one of these floating island ecosystems).
Really, I think the floating mat hypothesis has no merit whatever; the vast majority of trees cannot tolerate waterlogging at the roots.
(edited for typos)
[This message has been edited by Mangetout, 05-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 05-05-2003 11:05 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 1:41 PM Mangetout has not replied
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 05-06-2003 8:22 PM Mangetout has 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