Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolutionary chain
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 204 (257167)
11-05-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Yaro
11-05-2005 8:28 PM


Re: Topic
Hey crash, I think hes refering to the bit about geneologies in the bible.
They're just an illustrative example about how decendance does, or doesn't, work.
What, we can't use analogies now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Yaro, posted 11-05-2005 8:28 PM Yaro has not replied

  
today9823 
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 204 (257224)
11-06-2005 2:33 AM


I'm telling you guys listen to my point with creation power
take my sight... this is something new arriving in my mother... although I have the ability to see talk and think I am a creator and I figure we are kinda like cell although we are bigger and more indipendant
Love RIchard

  
today9823 
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 204 (257225)
11-06-2005 2:35 AM


now creation
we can think... we can create something within our creation power... and then take a look at our eyes... a creation from a master

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-06-2005 3:55 AM today9823 has not replied
 Message 50 by AdminNWR, posted 11-06-2005 7:40 AM today9823 has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 49 of 204 (257229)
11-06-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by today9823
11-06-2005 2:35 AM


Re: Where are the admins?
What happened???!! I thought you would suspend this moron. I would recomend complete deletion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by today9823, posted 11-06-2005 2:35 AM today9823 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminNWR, posted 11-06-2005 7:52 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 204 (257246)
11-06-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by today9823
11-06-2005 2:35 AM


today9823 suspended indefinitely
I have removed your posting privileges, today9823. In spite of earlier warnings, you have continued to preach, rather than engage in on-topic discussion.
If you want your privileges restored, you will need to request that via email to one of the site administrators.
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-06-2005 06:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by today9823, posted 11-06-2005 2:35 AM today9823 has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 204 (257249)
11-06-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Lithodid-Man
11-06-2005 3:55 AM


Re: Where are the admins?
...suspend this moron
Please avoid disrespectful language when referring to other members. See the site rules.
Added in edit: Please stay on topic in threads. Comments on moderation should be made in General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution.
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-06-2005 06:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-06-2005 3:55 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 52 of 204 (257341)
11-06-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Minnemooseus
11-05-2005 10:06 AM


Re: Mick's diagram in message 30
Hi minnemooseus,
minnemooseus writes:
The diagram had me a bit confused at first - I guess I was looking at it geologically, with the progression being bottom (oldest) to top (youngest). I just want to clarifiy that the progression is from upper left to lower right.
There are lots of ways you could look at that tree. It's a horizontal tree, so the basic idea is that branching points to the left are older than branching points to the right (so read it left to right, don't worry about top to bottom).
The top to bottom order doesn't actually matter. For example here are two trees which have identical topology. You are wrong if you think that the first tree tells you that aardvarks and mice are closely related, while the second tree tells you that chimps and elephants are closely related. The only thing that matters in a tree drawn like this is the horizontal position of branch points. The genealogical relationships implied by these two trees are identical.
minnemooseus writes:
Would it be accurate to say that the various line junctions would represent the proverbial "missing links" (no chain pun intended)? A common ancestor to the species that came later?
The branching points, or as you call them "line junctions", represent changes in traits. The tree was generated by examining a whole bunch of traits (bone shape, DNA sequence, whatever) and trying to find the most parsimonious tree that relates those traits (in practise, it is often the tree that requires the fewest trait changes). Each time a branch splits into two, it represents a change in one of the traits that was used to generate the tree. Those branching points DO NOT REPRESENT SPECIATION EVENTS. They just represent changes in the traits used to generate the cladogram. (I should say that this mistake is made by many biologists as well as intelligent laypersons).
For example let's say we sequence a rapidly-evolving gene or microsatellite or someting on the Y chromose of my immediate family. It's on the Y chromosome, so it's only found in males. We go round the homes of my male relatives and get a tissue sample. We sequence the gene and generate a phylogeny that looks something like this:
The branching points DO NOT represent missing ancestors! They DO NOT represent missing links! They represent mutation events in the gene on the Y-chromosome that are of phylogenetic significance.
Hope this helps!
Mick
First edit: made my family phylogeny more straightforward
Second edit: I just wanted to make it clear, there is no "missing link" between me and my father. Look at the cladogram above, and you will understand that the branch point does not represent any missing data. A tree is just a way of representing a hereditary trait. Trees don't contain less data than chains.
This message has been edited by mick, 11-06-2005 06:52 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 11-06-2005 07:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-05-2005 10:06 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2005 7:17 PM mick has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 204 (257348)
11-06-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by mick
11-06-2005 6:44 PM


Thanks for the clarification
I thought I understood what those diagrams meant. If I had been asked the details there is a good chance I would have gotten it wrong.
That was very helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 6:44 PM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 54 of 204 (257365)
11-06-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Lithodid-Man
11-05-2005 6:18 AM


Hi Lithodid-Man,
lithodid writes:
I really like your example, I would love a good ref for your picture. I think it answers many creo arguments.
Here's a version of the picture which includes a reference (I should have given the reference originally, sorry). I hope it is useful.
lithodid writes:
As an aside, I like your avatar and was wondering where it came from. It is Pandalus platyceros, P. borealis, P. hypsinotus, another P. borealis, and P. goniurus. Definatley an E Pacific group.
Ah... that's a problem. I copied it from an academic website while browsing but have no idea where it came from. I liked it because of the clear evolutionary process, the colours, and because it makes me think of olive oil and lots of garlic....
I assume the photographers won't mind too much.
lithodid writes:
I am a caridean shrimp biologist in Alaska
Were you at the SSE meetings last year in Fairbanks? I say I am from the UK on my account here, but I'm currently based in Vancouver BC. I was there, probably missed your talk...
Cheers
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-05-2005 6:18 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 9:56 PM mick has not replied
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 10:39 PM mick has replied
 Message 65 by Christian, posted 11-14-2005 5:24 PM mick has not replied

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


Message 55 of 204 (257374)
11-06-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mick
11-06-2005 8:55 PM


nice picture
Presumably this is from the randman files ...
It would be interesting to me to see some kind of representation of the fossil record to go with the graphic and show some drift from one to another in the process. Not sure how you could tie it together coherently though.
You can get an idea of what I mean from
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
Although the linked information is not related strictly to the fossil record density.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 8:55 PM mick has not replied

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


Message 56 of 204 (257384)
11-06-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mick
11-06-2005 8:55 PM


another example
here is another example of what I mean
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus
You get a feeling for the number of fossils within the tree structure and the diversity at each level before and after the split.
This one strikes me as a general trend to larger and larger size for the main population from P. ralstoni through P. jarrovii and on to N. venticolus with a branching speciation event at P. jarrovii to N. nunienus that reverts rapidly in size to the P. ralstoni range.
When two similar species compete, it is not uncommon that one fairly quickly becomes different - in this case, smaller. This presumably reduces the competition between the species.
This would also indicate to me that the original habitat was gradually abandoned by the larger and larger versions in favor of other {food\niche\behavior} - perhaps more time on the ground and less in the upper branches - until there was sufficient opportunity for a smaller version to take advantage of the old one with pre-adapted abilities.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 8:55 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mick, posted 11-08-2005 2:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 57 of 204 (257830)
11-08-2005 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
11-06-2005 10:39 PM


Re: another example
razd writes:
here is another example of what I mean
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus
Yeah, that's fantastic. I haven't seen anything similar for whales but I bet it's possible to build one using the computerised catalogues of each museum's fossil collection. For example, Berekely has a database (searchable by class, order, family, genus, species) at http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/ucmp/advanced.shtml which contains over 250,000 fossils, and over 1000 cetacean fossils. I'm sure if one searched the catalogues of each major museum in north america one could easily(?) create a similar graphic showing the transition for cetaceans (and many other groups).
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 10:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2005 8:28 PM mick has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 58 of 204 (257913)
11-08-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
11-04-2005 2:17 AM


Re: Chains you've been given
There's so much in this thread now, it's hard to find the chains I've been given. You gave me a list, but I clicked on all of those and got nothing. Maybe you could list the chains you want me to take a look at and I'll do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2005 2:17 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 59 of 204 (257916)
11-08-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by coffee_addict
11-04-2005 2:00 AM


It's difficult to know where to start since it's been awhile since I've posted on this topic and so much has been said. I still haven't read everything that's been said. So if I ask questions which have already been answered please bear with me.
To anyone I haven't responded to: Please understand that this is because of a lack of time and not because of any desire to avoid anything.
That said, I'll jump in.
Again, you are asking for something from fantasy land.
Maybe you can tell me what percentage of people living today are decendants of people that have been recorded in history.
I think you misunderstood me. There have been studies done to try to determine just how complete or incomplete the fossil record is. I thought I'd ask for the information rather than provide it so people wouldn't attack my source. Here's a quote from Michael Denton's book Evolution: a theory in crisis
G.G.Simpson recently estimated the percentage of living species recovered as fossils in one region of North America and concluded that, at least for larger terrestrial forms, the record may be almost complete!(Simpson, op cit, Table 8)
Here's a Table compiled from Romer (whatever that is):
#of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates.......43
# of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates found as fossils.....42
percentage fossilized..............................97.7%
# of living families of terrestrial vertebrates..............329
# of living families of terrestrial vertebrates found as fossils..261
percentage fossilized...........................79.1%
# of living families of terrestrial vertebrates excluding birds...........178
# of living families of terrestrial vertebrates found as fossils excluding birds .........156
percentage fossilized............87.8%
(Romer,op cit,compiled from information on pp 347-96)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by coffee_addict, posted 11-04-2005 2:00 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2005 8:56 PM Christian has replied
 Message 67 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 5:51 PM Christian has not replied

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


Message 60 of 204 (257970)
11-08-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mick
11-08-2005 2:26 PM


Re: another example
I think it is better than thinking of images in chains and branches because it reflects the actual information better while still showing the overall trends
and the divergences are more easiliy seen as a parting of the ways of individuals rather than one individual type becoming two types - a herd of animals divided in a stampede through time into separate paths

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mick, posted 11-08-2005 2:26 PM mick 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