Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 158 (544697)
01-27-2010 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:13 PM


Re: Another transitional fossil flies into the picture
Hi again hawkes nightmare,
but i believe it was just a type of bat that died out because it couldn't adapt o its environment, not a transitional species
You are welcome to your opinion, however opinion is curiously incapable of altering reality to match.
but i know the layout of forums, as i am currently registered to about 5 or 6 of them.
And this forum has some features not found on many. This of course, is due to intelligent design, but that's a different topic for a different thread.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 45 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:13 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 47 of 158 (544703)
01-27-2010 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
01-12-2010 10:13 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils and a Nested Hierarchy Test
here's you disproof: Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design
Edited by hawkes nightmare, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2010 10:13 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:48 PM hawkes nightmare has replied
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 10:50 PM hawkes nightmare has replied

  
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 48 of 158 (544705)
01-27-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils and a Nested Hierarchy Test
and more: If a giraffe's neck only has seven vertebrae, how is it so flexi | HowStuffWorks also, not mentioned, is their circulatory system pertaining to their neck. the heart needs to be strong to pump all that blood up to their heads. otherwise it would be passing out a lot. but once the giraffe bends down to get water, all of that muscle pressure that pumps the blood up to the head would make the giraffe's head explode! so God came up with a plan and inseted valves in the neck's passageways that oen and close corresponding to the neck's position. one is open, one is closed. when the giraffe bends down, they switch, partially cutting off blood arteries so the head won't explode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:38 PM hawkes nightmare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:49 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 49 of 158 (544706)
01-27-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:48 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils and a Nested Hierarchy Test
hey guess what? i found more! Proofs that evolution never happened, with rebuttals
Edited by hawkes nightmare, : No reason given.

[b][color=red]I am lost, I am found. I am lost to myself, found in the darkness beneath hell itself
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former. -Albert Einstein[/color=red][/b]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:48 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 11:15 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 158 (544707)
01-27-2010 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:38 PM


PRATTs NOT ON TOPIC
Hi hawkes nightmare.
If you want to discuss this PRATT please start a new thread.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. One of the things we like to do in the forum is stay on topic.
This has nothing to do with transitional fossils.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 47 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:38 PM hawkes nightmare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 51 of 158 (544710)
01-27-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
01-27-2010 10:50 PM


Re: PRATTs NOT ON TOPIC
no i shouldn't because it is relevant to this thread. cyote said he wanted animals that disprove evolution, i gave him three websites.

[b][color=red]I am lost, I am found. I am lost to myself, found in the darkness beneath hell itself
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former. -Albert Einstein[/color=red][/b]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 10:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2010 11:36 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2010 7:05 AM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 158 (544715)
01-27-2010 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:49 PM


hawkes nightmare gish galloping pratts
Coyote is waiting for you here
Message 1.
Edited by RAZD, : sbtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:49 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 158 (544719)
01-27-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:57 PM


Re: PRATTs NOT ON TOPIC
no i shouldn't because it is relevant to this thread. cyote said he wanted animals that disprove evolution, i gave him three websites.
Looking at the first of them, I see that it states:
the bombardier beetle shows evidence of evolution and seriously challenges the concept of design
The second attributes the neck of the giraffe to, and I quote:
survival of the fittest
... and gives no hint of a reason to suppose that it did not evolve.
And the third is explicitly devoted to debunking dumb creationist arguments.
Would you like to shoot yourself in the foot a fourth time? Only we now have a thread explicitly devoted to your brand of flagrant nonsense.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:57 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 54 of 158 (544758)
01-28-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:57 PM


Re: PRATTs NOT ON TOPIC
Just to be clear, hawkes nightmare,
no i shouldn't because it is relevant to this thread. cyote said he wanted animals that disprove evolution, i gave him three websites
Coyote's comment is not the topic. The topic is transitional fossils show evolution in process. Read Message 1: that is the topic.
If you want to discuss your websites with Coyote, he is waiting for you here
PRATT Party and Free for All, Message 1.
Note also that bare links with no comment are violations of forum guidelines. You may want to read them to be sure they are like other forums:
Forum Guidelines
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 51 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:57 PM hawkes nightmare has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 55 of 158 (544759)
01-28-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
01-27-2010 9:02 PM


Re: The Variety of Ecophenotypes or the Diversity of Morphospecies
The evidence shows that whenever genetic analysis is done, that no evidence for ecophenotypic variation is found, and in it's place, several cryptic species are found that are more than adequate to explain the previous old (1976) idea that ecophenotypic variation was involved
Wow. That's a pretty sweeping statement. Let's see if the latest literature by the top scientists supports it.
quote:
Uvigerina is a common genus of benthic foraminifera,
often used as a proxy for paleoclimate and
paleoenvironment reconstructions. Better understanding of
the phylogeny of Uvigerina would improve its proxy value
and would allow us to check whether its different
morphospecies are real species or ecophenotypes only. M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005
Some heavy names there, RAZD. And they obviously see ecophenotypes not only as a possibility but as a real problem in using this particular foram as a proxy.
I think Michael Knappertsbusch articulates the central problem most handsomely:
quote:
A major difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy is that clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients can produce morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change. Furthermore, migration of similar forms from neighbouring areas can mask evolutionary or ecophenotypic signals in the sediments. Because of these difficulties, an evolutionary study must attempt to separate environmentally-caused morphological signals from those that occur due to non-environmental genetic changes. Molecular taxonomy is one way to do this as was demonstrated impressively by DARLING et al (1996), DEVARGAS et al (1997), DARLING et al(1997), STEWART et al (2001), DARLING et al (1999), DARLING et al (2000), KUCERA& DARLING(2002), and DARLING et al(2004).
Obviously, in extinct species this approach is not possible.
Knappertsbusch 2007
I understand why you have embarked on this Quixotic mission to destroy the concept of ecophenotypy, RAZD. You appreciate that it renders the foraminiferal fossil record nonsensical as "an unbroken evolutionary progression".
But how on earth are you going to counter all of that scientific literature? Try googling "ecophenotypic foraminifera", and you'll see what you're up against.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 9:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2010 10:31 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2010 9:22 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 56 of 158 (544765)
01-28-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
01-27-2010 9:02 PM


Re: The Variety of Ecophenotypes or the Diversity of Morphospecies
I didn't think your original point had all that much to do with the frequency with which ecophenotypic variation is found in foraminifera. I thought that Kaichos Man was claiming that Arnold and Parker had confused species differences with ecophenotypic differences, which isn't true, and which KM's evidence doesn't touch on anyway. The extent to which ecophenotypism is actually exhibited by the foraminifera doesn't seem very relevant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 9:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 57 of 158 (544774)
01-28-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Kaichos Man
01-28-2010 7:10 AM


Re: The Variety of Ecophenotypes or the Diversity of Morphospecies
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
I understand why you have embarked on this Quixotic mission to destroy the concept of ecophenotypy, RAZD.
He's not trying to destroy the concept, Kaichos Man: he's arguing that the molecular phylogeny paper you provided earlier helps resolve the problem you are proposing.
-----
Kaichos Man writes:
I think Michael Knappertsbusch articulates the central problem most handsomely...
...and promptly demonstrates that evolution, and not ecophenotypic variation, is the proper conclusion.
Here is a link to the discussion section of that article. Read the segment titled "Did the predictions hold true?" You will see Knappertsbusch propose that the morphological variation in these forams is evolutionary, and varies over evolutionary time, and mention nothing about ecophenotypes or variation over ecological time).
You cited two scientists stating why they were doing their particular studies, and ignoring the fact that the studies purport to have solved the problem in favor of evolution.
Edited by Bluejay, : Minor cosmetic alterations.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Kaichos Man, posted 01-28-2010 7:10 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 158 (544865)
01-28-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Kaichos Man
01-28-2010 7:10 AM


Re: The Variety of Ecophenotypes or the Diversity of Morphospecies
Still grasping at hope, Kaichos Man?
I understand why you have embarked on this Quixotic mission to destroy the concept of ecophenotypy, RAZD. You appreciate that it renders the foraminiferal fossil record nonsensical as "an unbroken evolutionary progression".
Curiously it doesn't. All the articles that mention ecophenotypes are discussing species varieties already known at the time, and in no case that I have seen has anyone said that two species from outside of a genus were found to be ecophenotypic varieties of a single species. Here's the 1978 paper by Helen Tappan:
quote:
Just a moment...
DOI: 10.1306/A1ADD99E-0DFE-11D7-8641000102C1865D
GCAGS Transactions
Volume 28 (1978)
ABSTRACT
The shallow, brackish-water environment of San Antonio Bay, Texas, supports a benthic foraminiferal fauna whose major constituents are widespread around the margin of the Gulf of Mexico, the southern Atlantic Coast of the U. S., the West Indies, and in low latitudes along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of South America. Several species of Ammotium, Ammonia, and Elphidium have been recognized by most authors as the dominant taxa in these estuaries. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of the exterior test morphology in five species from San Antonio Bay (Ammonia parkinsoniana, Elphidium gunteri, E. galvestonense, Palmerinella palmerae, and Ammotium salsum) reveals that two distinct phenotypes are present within each species. Each phenotype of a given pair is linked to the other by transitional phenotypes whose taxobases vary clinally. The distribution of each member of a phenotypic pair is directly correlated with the distribution of salinity and temperature in the bay. Thus, the paired phenotypes are ecophenotypes. ... Field and laboratory evidence demonstrates that this paired ecophenotypy is caused by contrasting results of delayed reproductive maturation in minimum environments, versus accelerated maturation in optimum environments. Longer growth periods produce larger, thickly calcified tests; shorter growth periods produce smaller, thinly calcified tests. The phenomenon of paired ecophenotypy, though rarely mentioned, has persisted in low-latitude estuaries since at least the early Miocene, as demonstrated by a review of published records. ...
Notice that she talks about variations within a species that are already known as variants, and she explains it by ecophenotypic variation. Notice that she also lists two such species from the same genus, Elphidium but does not suggest that they are one species. Notice that one of her ecophenotype species, Ammonia parkinsoniana comes from the genus that was later found to be composed of cryptic species when genetic analysis was done.
Here's another article:
quote:
JSTOR: Access Check
Equatorward Migration of Globorotalia truncatulinoides Ecophenotypes through the Late Pleistocene: Gradual Evolution or Ocean Change?
G. P. Lohmann and Bjorn A. Malmgren
Paleobiology, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 414-421 (article consists of 8 pages)
Published by: Paleontological Society
Stable URL: JSTOR: Access Check
Abstract
The biogeography of differences in average shape of the modern planktonic foraminifer Globorotalia truncatulinoides (d'Orbigny) exhibits systematic relationships to changes in the ocean's surface environment. Comparison of these shape changes, as they exist today in the Southern Hemisphere, with fossil shapes preserved in a Late Pleistocene record from the South Atlantic Ocean, shows that the biogeography of G. truncatulinoides ecophenotypes has changed markedly through time. Beginning at least 700,000 yr ago and continuing up to the present, there has been a gradual but clear migration of certain morphotypes of G. truncatulinoides toward lower latitudes. The history of this migration bears no simple relationship to the cyclic climatic changes that characterize the Late Pleistocene. We conclude that either (1) phenotypic variants of Gr. truncatulinoides reflect some previously unmeasured, gradually changing aspect of Late Pleistocene oceans, or (2) we are witnessing a gradual evolution of the environment preferences of G. truncatulinoides.
So we have another species with known ecophenotype variants, and we still see change in the frequency of traits in their populations from generation to generation, either in response to environmental factors, or to adaptation within the ecophenotypes for different ecological preferences. Looks like that still supports the topic thesis that Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process.
This is the best case for ecophenotypes I could find, and it is not any comfort for your position, because it does not change any species classifications or group any species together into a new super species, and that is the kind of result you need to invalidate Parker and Arnold.
Note that I did find this in google:
quote:
"ecophenotypic foraminifera" - Google Search
Quantitative image analysys: Application to planktonic ...
by N Healy-Williams - 1984 - Cited by 4 - Related articles
Early on, Parker (1962) recognized the difficulties in differentiating phenotypic from ecophenotypic variation in fossil foraminifera. ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016699584802004
Unfortunately the abstract says nothing more about Parker, but we can certainly feel confident that he was well aware of the issue of ecophenotypic variation in fossil foraminifera when he and Arnold made their morphological analysis. Here's the abstract:
quote:
Geobios
Volume 17, Supplement 1, 1984, Pages 425-432
doi:10.1016/S0016-6995(84)80200-4 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Copyright 1984 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS
Quantitative image analysys: Application to planktonic foraminiferal paleoecology and evolution
Purchase the full-text article
Nancy Healy-Williams*
Available online 11 August 2007.
Abstract
A complete understanding of the taxonomic and paleoenvironmental information contained in the morphology of foraminifera depends heavity on quantitative methods to describe phenotypic and ecophenotypic variation. Automated image analysis systems now make it possible to rapidly and precisely describe the two dimensional shape of almost any microfossil. Our results using Fourier shape analysis with Fourier series in closed form demonstrate the feasibility of using these shape descriptors as a quantitative biometric tool. Analysis of the planktonic foraminiferal species, Neogloboquadrina pachyderma and Globorotalia inflata, indicate that the test outlines of these species reflect various physical parameters of the water column.
In other words, the people developing the automated image analysis systems, such as the one later used by Parker and Arnold to analyze all known planktonic foraminifera, were calibrating them against known instances of ecophenotypic variations within certain known species. With this calibration the system then identifies the variations within Neogloboquadrina pachyderma and Globorotalia inflata as being members of a single species, and not divided out into new species based on morphology alone. The result is a conservative underestimation of species diversity, where some differences in morphology may be grouped together when they are actually distinct species, as has been found to be the case when genetic analysis is done. This further weakens your position.
And your link doesn't necessarily prove your case either, only that they are discussing whether it is one or the other when they say (see italics):
quote:
Uvigerina is a common genus of benthic foraminifera, often used as a proxy for paleoclimate and paleoenvironment reconstructions. Better understanding of the phylogeny of Uvigerina would improve its proxy value and would allow us to check whether its different morphospecies are real species or ecophenotypes only. M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005
Want to provide the link so we can see what the whole abstract says? I could not find it, however I did find this:
quote:
http://jfr.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/4/355
Taxonomy And Distribution Of The Uvigerina Peregrina Plexus In The Tropical To Northeastern Atlantic
Joachim Schnfeld
Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences IFM-GEOMAR, Wischhofstr. 1-3, D-24148 Kiel, Germany.
The Journal of Foraminiferal Research; October 2006; v. 36; no. 4; p. 355-367; DOI: 10.2113/gsjfr.36.4.355
2006 Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research
Uvigerina peregrina Cushman 1923 and related taxa are extensively used for paleoceanographical studies. A high degree of inter- or intra-specific variability leaves the status of these species unclear and has hampered sound paleoenvironmental interpretations to date. The species concept and diagnostic features of Uvigerina peregrina and the closely related Uvigerina pigmea d’Orbigny 1826, Uvigerina peregrina parva Lutze 1986 are re-assessed in this paper. Uvigerina sp. 221 Lutze 1986 is formally described and named Uvigerina celtica n. sp. The overall size of the tests, the length/width ratio, and the morphology of costae are considered key diagnostic features while the presence or absence of spines is of minor importance for species characterization. Geographic and depth distributions of living Uvigerina taxa are described using faunal census data from the northwest African and western European continental shelf and slope from the 2 S to 70 N, and from the Caribbean. The regional distribution and inferred population dynamics reveal that Uvigerina peregrina, Uvigerina celtica n. sp. and Uvigerina pigmea are indeed different species. Uvigerina peregrina parva is most likely a subspecies of Uvigerina peregrina and not an ecophenotype.
Again, it looks like division into subspecies (ie a subpopulation variety) is more likely than a single species with different development in different ecologies. It will be interesting to see what happens when we get to genetic analysis eh? I'd bet on sibling cryptospecies within a morphospecies resulting in increased diversity one more time, but it isn't necessary.
Do you understand that whether they are ecophenotypic varieties within a single known species, or actually a morphospecies with multiple cryptic species, that the classification is still a group of forams that have evolved as different genetic lineages from other foram species? Do you understand that this does not affect the tree of life of common ancestry as determined by Parker and Arnold? Do you understand that they are not saying that Uvigerina peregrina is the same species as Globorotalia truncatulinoides, Ammonia parkinsoniana, Elphidium gunteri, Elphidium galvestonense, Palmerinella palmerae, AND Ammotium salsum - as was falsely claimed by Troste and Pitman?
That would be the kind of information you need, not articles discussing the level of variation seen within these species as they are currently classified.
Try googling "ecophenotypic foraminifera", and you'll see what you're up against.
I have, and I have found very few articles (per information above) that actually talk about ecophenotypes existing, rather than articles where ecophenotypes are being reclassified as cryptic species or distinct subpopulation varieties.
I also went to the home page for The Journal of Foraminal Research:
http://jfr.geoscienceworld.org/
and a search of their data base for "ecophenotype" turned up three (3) articles:
quote:
My search criteria: ecophenotype (in Keyword), Jan 1971 through Oct 2009
Joachim Schnfeld
TAXONOMY AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE UVIGERINA PEREGRINA PLEXUS IN THE TROPICAL TO NORTHEASTERN ATLANTIC
Journal of Foraminiferal Research, Oct 2006; 36: 355 - 367.
......likely a subspecies of Uvigerina peregrina and not an ecophenotype. INTRODUCTION Benthic foraminifera from the...likely a subspecies of Uvigerina peregrina and not an ecophenotype. Atlantic Ocean biogeography biometry Buliminacea......
P. J. Van Hengstum, E. G. Reinhardt, P. A. Beddows, R. J. Huang, and J. J. Gabriel
THECAMOEBIANS (TESTATE AMOEBAE) AND FORAMINIFERA FROM THREE ANCHIALINE CENOTES IN MEXICO: LOW SALINITY (1.5—4.5 psu) FAUNAL TRANSITIONS
Journal of Foraminiferal Research, Oct 2008; 38: 305 - 317.
......the morphological fluidity and ecophenotypes in individual thecamoebian species...euryhaline thecamoebian. This ecophenotype is interpreted as the most favorable...centropyxid taxa trended towards ecophenotypes without spines with increasing......
Paul N. Pearson and Bridget S. Wade
TAXONOMY AND STABLE ISOTOPE PALEOECOLOGY OF WELL-PRESERVED PLANKTONIC FORAMINIFERA FROM THE UPPERMOST OLIGOCENE OF TRINIDAD
Journal of Foraminiferal Research, Jul 2009; 39: 191 - 217.
......bulla; we separate it as a morphospecies although only detailed morphometric work will determine whether it is merely an ecophenotype of T. angustiumbilicata. Stable isotope paleobiology. Oxygen isotopes indicate a warm surface mixed-layer habitat......
The first one is already listed above, the second talks about Ammonia, Tritaxis and Elphidium, two of which have already been discussed, and the abstract for the third article mentions neither ecophenotypes nor morphospecies. This is three out of hundreds and hundreds of articles about foraminifera.
Some heavy names there, RAZD. And they obviously see ecophenotypes not only as a possibility but as a real problem in using this particular foram as a proxy.
And again, your conclusion just does not follow from the data: they are not regrouping species together into a new superspecies, but discussing existing classifications, and in many cases refining the definitions with either sybling cryptic species or subspecies populations.
As for your "heavy names" attempted argument from authority, I note that Jan Pawlowski is one of the authors of the article we've discussed previously (Message 40):
And here is the whole abstract:
quote:
Diversity and geographic distribution of benthic foraminifera: a molecular perspective
Jan Pawlowski1 and Maria Holzmann2
... Recently, however, new molecular techniques based on analysis of DNA sequences have been introduced to study the genetic variation in foraminifera. Although the number of species for which DNA sequence data exist is still very limited, it appears that morphology-based studies largely underestimated foraminiferal diversity. ... The first case deals with molecular and morphological variations in the well-known and common calcareous genus Ammonia. The second case presents molecular diversity in the poorly documented group of monothalamous (single-chambered) foraminifera. Both examples perfectly illustrate high cryptic diversity revealed in almost all molecular studies. ...
...
So when the paper says that both examples "perfectly illustrate high cryptic diversity revealed in almost all molecular studies" they specifically mean that there are cryptic species that look very similar but that they are genetically distinct.
...
Likewise when they say that "morphology-based studies largely underestimated foraminiferal diversity" they means that there are more species than is readily apparent from just looking at the morphology due to the cryptic species looking so similar. Entirely the opposite of what your creationist website tries to pretend.
So I'm still not finding any evidence that begins to support your position.
But how on earth are you going to counter all of that scientific literature? Try googling "ecophenotypic foraminifera", and you'll see what you're up against.
Curiously, that is how I found all the articles on morphospecies and cryptic species. For instance, here is another one by those "heavy names" Jan Pawlowsli and Maria Holzmann:
quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science
Molecular phylogeny of Foraminifera a review
Jan Pawlowski, and Maria Holzmann
Department of Zoology and Animal Biology, University of Geneva, 154, route de Malagnou, CH-1224 Chne-Bougeries/Geneva, Switzerland
Received 22 October 2001; revised 12 December 2001; accepted 12 December 2001. Available online 3 November 2004.
Foraminifera are traditionally defined as marine granuloreticuloseans characterized by the presence of a membraneous, agglutinated or calcareous test. This definition has been recently challenged by molecular phylogenetic studies which showed that Foraminifera include both testate and naked species and that they occur in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial environments. Molecular data also revealed high taxonomic diversity of monothalamous (single-chambered) foraminiferans that developed different types of organic and agglutinated tests. First analyses of ribosomal DNA sequences suggested an early divergence of Foraminifera in the evolutionary history of Eukaryotes, but this result was not confirmed by later protein sequence data. Furthermore, analysis of variable regions in ribosomal DNA revealed the presence of several cryptic species, whose geographic distribution seems to be related to oceanic water mass circulation and productivity.
We still see genetic analysis finding cryptic species replacing previous classifications of ecophenotypes. We still find that
"The evidence shows that whenever genetic analysis is done, that no evidence for ecophenotypic variation is found, and in it's place, several cryptic species are found that are more than adequate to explain the previous old (1976) idea that ecophenotypic variation was involved."
That's a pretty sweeping statement. Let's see if the latest literature by the top scientists supports it.
If it is wrong, then it should be a simple matter for you to find a single article that refutes it. The fact is, still, that none of your articles yet posted either support your position or invalidates that statement.
It seems that the issue of ecophenotypic variants is already known in the study of forams, and that the degree of variation involved is not enough to turn the phylum of foraminifera into a single species. If anything, this has led to a conservative classification of foram species into general morphological groupings that includes the ecophenotypic variation, and that rather than the overestimating the numbers of species this has underestimated the actual species diversity.
Nor is the degree of variation involved sufficient to invalidate the hundreds of speciation events and evolutionary lineages of descent found in the fossil record, as found by Parker and Arnold. When we see transitions like this in the fossil record:
It is because there is no confusion of the different test formations at different ages, the ones at one level are not found with the others in their levels.
Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 55 by Kaichos Man, posted 01-28-2010 7:10 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Kaichos Man, posted 01-29-2010 3:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 59 of 158 (544880)
01-29-2010 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
01-28-2010 9:22 PM


Re: The Variety of Ecophenotypes or the Diversity of Morphospecies
Do you understand that whether they are ecophenotypic varieties within a single known species, or actually a morphospecies with multiple cryptic species, that the classification is still a group of forams that have evolved as different genetic lineages from other foram species?
Yes I do.
Do you understand that this does not affect the tree of life of common ancestry as determined by Parker and Arnold?
No I don't.
RAZD, let's look at some of the terms used frequently in the study of foraminifera:
"Ecophenotypic". "Morphospecies". "Plasticity" "Cryptic genetic diversity". "Cryptic genetic variation". "Intra-species variation". "Clinal morphology".
Do you notice anything about these terms, RAZD? They all (more or less) mean the same thing. They certainly lead to the same conclusion:
The extreme genetic flexibility of foraminifera makes morphology a very poor indicator of species.
Regarding Arnold and Palmer's evolutionary progression as real science is like regarding Hans Christian Anderson's work as a factual history of Denmark.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2010 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-29-2010 6:52 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2010 8:10 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 158 (544891)
01-29-2010 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Kaichos Man
01-29-2010 3:52 AM


Re: The Variety of Ecophenotypes or the Diversity of Morphospecies
Kaichos Man writes:
RAZD, let's look at some of the terms used frequently in the study of foraminifera:
"Ecophenotypic". "Morphospecies". "Plasticity" "Cryptic genetic diversity". "Cryptic genetic variation". "Intra-species variation". "Clinal morphology".
I don't think this is true, and I'm wondering why you think it is true.
Google scholar gets 104,000 hits for "foraminifera" and only 456 for "foraminifera ecophenotypic". This means that the term "ecophenotypic" appears in less than half a percent of articles about foraminifera. The word "ecophenotype" appears in only a little over half a percent of the articles. "Morphospecies" in about half a percent. "Plasticity" one percent. "Cryptic genetic diversity" and "cryptic genetic variation" about .7 percent (and that's with a search only for the presence of these terms, not their order). "Intra-species variation" less than half of a tenth of a single percent. "Clinal morphology" about half a percent.
Would you believe that the words "clinal morphology" appears more often in papers on astrophysics than on foraminifera? Well, believe it!
How are you defining "frequently?" Perhaps to you "frequently" means "not completely absent from papers on foraminifera?"
Regarding Arnold and Palmer's evolutionary progression as real science is like regarding Hans Christian Anderson's work as a factual history of Denmark.
If you have any evidence at all (as opposed to making stuff up) supporting your claim that Arnold and Parker (not Palmer) mistook ecophenotypic diversity for species diversity, then please cite it now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Kaichos Man, posted 01-29-2010 3:52 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2010 8:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 64 by Kaichos Man, posted 01-29-2010 10:30 PM Percy has replied
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 9:01 PM Percy 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