|
Author
|
Topic: evolutionary chain
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 143 of 204 (265350)
12-03-2005 10:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by Christian
12-01-2005 5:21 PM
|
|
Re: Pelycodus
I've taken a while to respond thinking of the ramifications and implications of expectations here.
Still, I don't see a macroevolutionary chain. What you need to understand is that you will never see a massive change in a short time, that all change is of the normal microevolutionary level -- here we have a speciation event, marked as the two sizes seperate into two distinct groups.
Looks like they got bigger,and then some got bigger while others got smaller. There is a "rule" that given the opportunity all species will tend to increase in size. It is a general rule rather than a hard and fast one, but it often pans out in practice. We see this happening here, up until the point of dividing, and beyond -- the larger species continues the same size trend line. What I find intersting is that the size increase likely means that at some point the behavior of the species has to change (especially for an arboreal creature) as it is no longer able to take advantage of the original habitat of the smaller original species, and thus it is likely leaving a void for a smaller animal to take advantage of. The rapid (relatively speaking) reduction in size of the second species down to the original species size does two things then: it takes advantage of the void left by the increase in size and it differentiates the niche of the smaller one from the bigger one so that they are not in such direct competition as would otherwise be the case. But that is my speculation on what happened.
That's interesting, but not what I was looking for. The problem here is to more fully define what exactly it is you are looking for. This is the point at which these two species split, the moment of division between their lines, but it is also the point at which two genuses split: One goes on to become the genus Smilodectes and the other goes on to become the genus Notharctus. This is a division above the species level, as each genus includes several species that are more closely related to each other than they are to the other genus species:
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus. I took a look at the chipmunk thread, also interesting, but more talking about the idea that macroevolution CAN occur, by the same processes with which microevolution occurs. That is what happens. The original event is a microevolutionary speciation. After that has happened the species diverge further, and more microevolutionary events happen, and the subsequent species diverge further, and this keeps happening until you get such differences that you have significant changes in size, behavior, features and other characteristics that even genus level taxonomy does not do them justice. The significance of the event is not evident at the time, but only after many other microevolutionary events have layered on top of it do we see that {{here}} is when the divide began. I guess I have to ask what you think macroevolution is and how it occurs?
I would like to see something distinctive being developed. Perhaps this is the crux of the problem. We can talk about horses and the development of the modern horse and hoof from the splayed toed dog sized "eohippus" (or more properly Hyracotherium. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm The hoof take several intermediate stages to develop from the four toes of eohippus to the one toe of the modern horse. There were several other changes too, increase in size, change in teeth, etc. It's your call. Define what you want to see a little more, and we'll see where we can go from there.
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 142 by Christian, posted 12-01-2005 5:21 PM | | Christian has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Pelycodus
Are we on a "downward trend" then? Because it is my understanding that there used to be giant dragonflies and beetles and lizzards, larger than any we know of today. This may be off topic though. Same question as above, then. Why are there not larger creatures than what once existed, long ago? I said a general rule not a mandatory one. It has to do with fitness and survival and mating opportunities that tend to favor small increases in size over time. This doesn't mean that it always happens. The other thing we see is resetting of the sizes in mass extinction events and where the larger versions become extinct for other reasons (giant sloths were killed off by early man in america), while smaller species still survive. Remember that one branch of Pelycodus became much smaller than the other which continued the size trend, but once it bottomed out it likely started back getting bigger again, but now would be under selection pressure from the cousins to keep them small.
I'm not looking for change in a short time. I don't care how long the chain is, I only want to see that one could've evolved from the previous up until we have something distinctively different. Then maybe you can show me the chain of them becoming more distinct? That would be the next step. I would need some help with the actual links, though, and that is why I suggested looking at the horses.
I only want to see that one could've evolved from the previous up until we have something distinctively different. The big horse with one toe and the little horse with three toes are both horses. Do you agree that one toe is distinctivly different from three toes? Or are we redefining what "distinctively" means? As I said we may need some further definition of the positions. distinctivelyadv : in an identifiably distinctive manner; "the distinctively conservative district of the county" distinctlyadv 1: clear to the mind; with distinct mental discernment; "it's distinctly possible"; "I could clearly see myself in his situation" [syn: clearly] 2: in a distinct and distinguishable manner; "the subtleties of this distinctly British occasion" 3: to a distinct degree; "urbanization in Spain is distinctly correlated with a fall in reproductive rate" dis·tinc·tiveadj.
1. Serving to identify; distinguishing: distinctive tribal tattoos. See Usage Note at distinct.
2. Characteristic or typical: “Jerusalem has a distinctive Middle East flavor” (Curtis Wilkie).
3. Linguistics. Phonemically relevant and capable of conveying a difference in meaning, as nasalization in the initial sound of mat versus bat. To me the difference between the horses is very distinctive, based not just on one having three (back) and four (front) toes and the other only one on each foot, but in the relative sizes, the changes in the teeth, the changes in the jaw, the changes in the legs, the changes in the torso, the changes in the tail .... from: EohippusEohippus was a descendent of the Condylarth, a dog-sized, five-toed creature that lived about 75 million years ago. It lived during the early Eocene period, which took place 50 to 60 million years ago. Eohippus, which means "dawn horse," stood about twelve to fourteen inches at the shoulder and weighed about twelve pounds. It looked nothing like a horse. It had an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and a long tail. Its color probably most resembled that of a deer, a darker background with lighter spots. The legs of Eohippus were flexible and rotating with all major bones present and unfused. It had a choppy, up-down gait and was not very fast. There were four toes on each front foot and three toes on the hind. The vestigial toes - two on the front feet and one on the hind - were still present. It had a small brain and low-crowned teeth with three incisors, one canine, four distinct premolars, and three "grinding" molars in each side of each jaw. Browsing on fruit and fairly soft foliage, Eohippus probably lived in an environment with soft soil, the kind found on jungle floors and around the edges of pools. Since Eohippus walked on the pads of its feet, it was able to cross wet, marshy ground without much difficulty. The coloration of course, is pure speculation. But that also makes for different diet and environment. (This last description kind of brings to mind the sitatunga, talked about (briefly) at the {Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet} thread -- is it possible eohippus had webbed feet? LOL)
There are many different kinds of dogs and many different kinds of cats. Any with different numbers of {claws\toes}? With different kinds of teeth? I guess the question is - how much change is enough?
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 144 by Christian, posted 12-05-2005 5:12 PM | | Christian has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 149 of 204 (267041)
12-08-2005 11:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by Christian
12-08-2005 6:08 PM
|
|
Re: Pelycodus ...Horse ...Elephant?
Actually, I think that #1 under distictive is a pretty good definition: 1. Serving to identify; distinguishing: distinctive tribal tattoos. See Usage Note at distinct. What I mean is a defining characteristic. Something like the trunk of the elephant, or the quills on a porcupine. But the elephant nose is still just a nose and the porcupine quills are still just fur...  Trunks, being soft tissue, are poorly represented in fossils ... usually all there is consists of a big hole in the center of the skull (and possibly the origin of the cyclops myth btw, as mammoth skulls were common in ancient greece). The change from five toes to one toe is much more dramatic than a nose that just gets longer. Look at the tapir and you can see that this is the same feature "prehensile nose" ... just not as long as an elephants. In fact we can go back further in the history of the horse, before eohippus to the Condylarths mentioned previously, which is actually a very large classification grouping of many species over a large area and time-frame. From Condylarths: Archaic hoofed mammals(click):
Back in the northern hemisphere, another family of condylarths, the Phenacodontidae, may include the ancestors of a more familiar ungulate order: The odd-toed ungulates or Perissodactyla, represented by horses, rhinos and tapirs in the recent fauna. Historically, phenacodontids form the core of the Condylarthra. Well-preserved skeletons are known for the type genus Phenacodus, which is a good model of an ancestral ungulate with beginning adaptations for running. Unlike arctocyonids, periptychids or mioclaenids, the phenacodontids are not part of the first wave of condylarths that populated North America. They first appear with the fox-sized Tetraclaenodon in the middle Paleocene of that continent. The appearance of the more advanced phenacodontids Phenacodus and Ectocion marks the beginning of late Paleocene time in North America. The type genus Phenacodus covers the large size range of phenacodontids and includes roughly sheep-sized animals. Members of the genus Ectocion were usually smaller, with a body mass of only 3 kg in the smallest species, but there is some overlap in size between the two genera. Phenacodontids were the dominant mammals in the latest Paleocene of North America and account for up to 50% of all mammal specimens in faunas of that age. You can see the similarity of the condylarth meniscotherium here to eohippus shown before eh? Do you still think this is indistinct from a horse? This is the most horse like artistic rendering I saw of what it might have looked like: The fact is that the horse fossils do have very distinct differences -- distinct differences is what each species definition is really based on, and the horse chart is talking about genuses (groups of species ... remember that level of division that the Pelycodus ends up at?) to get from eohippus to modern horse you have to go through at least 8 distinct genus level changes to get to modern equus (which includes horse, zebra and donkey\ass, each distinctly different). Now let's look at that horse hoof a little closer, from Functional Anatomy of the Horse Foot (click):
A horse's hoof is composed of the wall, sole and frog. The wall is simply that part of the hoof that is visible when the horse is standing. It covers the front and sides of the third phalanx, or coffin bone. The wall is made up of the toe (front), quarters (sides) and heel. The wall of the hoof is composed of a horny material that is produced continuously and must be worn off or trimmed off. The hoof wall does not contain blood vessels or nerves. In the front feet, the wall is thickest at the toe; in the hind feet the hoof wall is of a more uniform thickness. The wall, bars and frog are the weight-bearing structures of the foot. Normally the sole does not contact the ground. As weight is placed on the hoof, pressure is transmitted through the phalanges to the wall and onto the digital cushion and frog. The frog, a highly elastic wedge-shaped mass, normally makes contact with the ground first. The frog presses up on the digital cushion, which flattens and is forced outward against the lateral cartilages. The frog also is flattened and tends to push the bars of the wall apart (Figure 3). When the foot is lifted, the frog and other flexible structures of the foot return to their original position. When the foot is placed on the ground, blood is forced from the foot to the leg by the increase in pressure and by the change in shape of the digital cushion and the frog. The pressure and the change in shape compress the veins in the foot. When the foot is lifted, the compression is relieved and blood flows into the veins again. In this way, the movement of these structures in the hoof acts as a pump. This is much more difference in a feature than "just an increase in length" (as in an elephants trunk), it is a totally different structure to stand on (eohippus stood on his toes pads, equus stands on a hoof which not only is not a toe pad, but a feature that wasn't present in the eohippus) and it incorporates a new {added\changed} structure to increase blood flow by acting as a secondary pump. Not only that the effect of changing the foot structure from a flat footed splayed toed eohippus to the single toed equus also involves standing the foot up on the tip of the toe and using each of the bones between the tip and the heel to effectively make the leg longer for faster running while also making it more flexible than just adding length to the bones of the leg. Probably useful for getting through tight spots and to keep from tripping ... it certainly helps horses jumping in shows from hitting that top bar. Totally different foot structure, coupled with totally different leg structure (with some ex toe bones now effectively used as leg bones). The question again is how much change is enough? Try walking around the house on the tip of one toe, then compare your foot to that of eohippus.
I gave you lots of possible options, can you not find chains for any of those? When you keep denying that the chains are "good enough" then I have trouble with the moving goal post syndrome. As I said you need to make a definition ... and then you need to stand by it. K? btw, if you are interested in elephant trunks you can google on "earliest elephant" (with the quotes) and you should find sufficient information. One source I found with a quick summary of the highlights is Elephant Evolution (click):
Moeritherium, pronounced mee-ri-THEER-ee-um, is the earliest known member of the order Proboscidea. The first fossils were discovered in 1904 at El Faiyum oasis in Egypt. This oasis was known as Lake Moeris in ancient Egypt Moeritherium fossils showed the beginnings of enlarged incisors (tusks) but there is no evidence of a trunk. They lived about 50 million years ago with a hippo-like lifestyle. In fact, they have been described as pygmy hippopotami. They were about the size of a pig standing 70cm at the shoulders with stout elephantine legs and a long body. That's about the same time frame for the evolution of the horse from eohippus btw. Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*08*2005 11:25 PM This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*08*2005 11:26 PM
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 148 by Christian, posted 12-08-2005 6:08 PM | | Christian has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: horse evolution
as noted by Ned, Marsh was one of the early pioneers of paleontology, working before radiometric dating was developed, so all they had was stratiography and relations to other fossils to go from in developing relative dating relationships.
In a paper published in 1874 in American Naturalist, Marsh describes some of the horse fossils he found on an expedition in Wyoming and Utah. One of these skeletons, he named Eohippus, or "the dawn horse." However, instead of using Eohippus in this paper, he used Orohippus, as the former hadn't yet been described. The different skeletons had different numbers of toes and different degrees of variation, which would eventually be Marsh's main proof of development. He believed that the correct line of descent was Orohippus, Miohippus and Anchitherium, Anchippus, Hipparion, Protohippus and Pliohippus, and Equus, the most recent. The way Marsh determined the line of descent was mostly by examining the metacarpal bones of the different horses. Looks like there's a typo on the Miohippus page.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by Christian, posted 12-08-2005 4:46 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Pelycodus ...Horse ...Elephant?
K. Sounds like a plan. 
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
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 152 by Christian, posted 12-12-2005 6:45 PM | | Christian has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 164 of 204 (269497)
12-14-2005 10:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
12-14-2005 7:38 PM
|
|
Re: hoof arted.
Are the proportions correct or artificially made to appear the same size? I would say that (1) the overal size of each leg must have been adjusted to appear the same size to show the actual change in proportions of the different bones (and this is only about the changes in the bones) and (2) they have to be proportional adjustments for each leg shown to be worth using at all: that is the purpose of the diagram eh? After all eohippus was 12 to 14" tall and a horse (equus) is 5-6 ft tall at the shoulder -- essentially 5 times as big based on overall size and not just of the hoof portion -- this would make the bone structure of the eohippus hard to see at the scale of the equus size. And all the other leg bones have changed some in their relative proportions - judging from the skeletons presented - as well: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/hyraco1.htmhttp://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/equus1.htm But what you are really seeing is feature evolution (extension and further development) of the hoof from the eohippus foot while the unused portions become vestigial elements. The fusing of the toe bones in the equus hoof is also significant as it changes the behavior and ability of the bones relative to their function. The hoof also has added elements that are not present in the eohippus foot, as noted above. Enjoy. btw -- (really bad pun arachnophilia. stinks. 
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
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 158 by Faith, posted 12-14-2005 7:38 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 166 of 204 (269504)
12-14-2005 10:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Christian
12-14-2005 5:29 PM
|
|
Re: Pelycodus ...Horse ...Elephant?
arachnophilia has posted a diagram of the bone structure, but you have to adjust the realitive size to the relative size of the different species {eohippus 12-14" compared to horse 5-6ft at the shoulder) But, this doesn't address the soft tissue changes (muscles & tendons can be approximated from bone attachment points and some assumed anatomy correlations), and it doesn't do so well on things like the digital cushion at the base of the hoof and how it develops into a secondary pump mechanism. The whole mechanism of standing on the tip of a toe is substantially different behavior from standing on the toe pads and requires a {modified\changed\evolved} structure to support it.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
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 154 by Christian, posted 12-14-2005 5:29 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Pelycodus ...Horse ...Elephant?
I'm interested in the foot blood pumping mechanism, it is obviously a feature that enables the leg to grow longer and still have adequate blood supply. Perhaps a clue in the relative sizes of the ancestor species (a sudden increase in size?)? foot arrangement? how well hooves fossilize as opposed to bone? how big was merychippus? http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/...ci/vertpaleo/fhc/merychippus.htm ah. found some info: http://www.geocities.com/.../Park/7841/horse_evol/trans.htmlthe drawings are to scale unfortunately the skeletons were not the last seems to be the legs to scale (doesn't say) with the same pictures as yours. looks like merychippus is a big step eh?
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
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.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Pelycodus ...Horse ...Elephant?
Subsequent research has demonstrated a much more complex radiation, with many divergent lineages of browsers and grazers overlapping one another in time. Don't know whether that contradicts your idea of things or not, RAZD, Not really, as this is common in unraveling lineages. It shows we do have to be careful about making conclusions of which animals are in the direct lineage between eohippus and modern horse, but we still know that the general development went from a to b. To make it more confusing still, what we may find is that some fossils represent a "cousin" branch where we don't have a common ancestor sample, and this "cousin" species may have both some features that are from the (missing) common ancestor (and thus relate to the direct line of development) and other features that are unique to the "cousin" species (and thus don't relate to the direct line).
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
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 171 by Christian, posted 12-21-2005 5:27 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: won't be here much for awhile
enjoy your quest.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by Christian, posted 01-04-2006 5:30 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: horse evolution
... Come on. thats not evolution. Welcome back Christian. You ' of course' realize that the above is just an argument from incredulity ... that relies more on wanting you to feel embarassed about the question than about the facts ... ... and that evolution can and does involve increasing and decreasing the numbers of ribs in species as well as between species: look at snakes as an example of adding ribs and vertebrae. All this means is that a genetic sequence that says "build a rib" is duplicated or damaged for such a simple change. There is nothing really disadvantageous about having one or two more or less than a current population, unlike say having an extra leg, or an extra finger or toe (and we see people with these extra digits frequently). If this is the standard of argument of this persons source, then it is rather untrustworthy from the start. I haven't read through the rest here yet, so I'll reserve further comment for later.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
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 180 by Christian, posted 02-03-2006 6:43 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: horse evolution
You can read the table of contents, the first couple of pages and the index on amazon.com: Link to "see inside" the book (click) They often have some "previews" of books on their site (and sometimes have used books for sale).
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
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 193 by Christian, posted 02-08-2006 5:25 PM | | Christian has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 202 of 204 (371259)
12-20-2006 7:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
10-31-2005 8:48 PM
|
|
bump for TheWolf
need help (proving macro-evolution) The main point we're trying to prove is macro-evolution to be true. any help on evidence we could show or ways to prove it wrong would be nice. One of the problems you will encounter is what "macro"evolution is - how is it different (if it is) from "micro"evolution? Think about this as you read through this thread for some points.
Message 21 introduces therapsids and the transition from reptile to mammal -- fairly "macro" as things go, but the individual changes involved were on the "micro" level - speciation. Just basal to mammals since the differentiation. The "macro" part is accumulated changes since that division - more {speciation\"micro"evolution}, a LOT more. There is also a discussion of horse evolution on this thread with the development of a novel feature in the horse hoof, a secondary pump to move blood in the leg. These are the kinds of things creationists ask for in discussing "macro"evolution and then run from discussing when they are brought up. Have fun with your debate (realize that you will NOT change the minds of the religiously convinced, so treat them with respect, and give them information not emotion) Welcome to the fray.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2005 8:48 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 204 of 204 (373068)
12-30-2006 5:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by Equinox
12-29-2006 12:46 PM
|
|
I have several good pictures here, and don't know how to attach them, but you know the kinds of pictures I mean. First, they need to be images that are not covered by copyrights, then they need to be posted (hopefully to an independent website so that original images on other sites are note "deep-linked" here causing bandwidth problems to the original sites), then the coding is: [img]http://.../.../image.jpg[/img] or [thumb=300]http://.../.../image.jpg[/thumb] In the latter one, 300 sets the size of the thumbnail image (I think the default size is 100), and this makes an automatic link to show the full sized image (best for loading time on the threads when any large images are used). There are several people here that can host pictures (have a site that I can use, and admins can host pictures as well)
With such a question, we should have provided a ton of very useful and clear pictures. I think this is an area where the educated community really has some work to do - to make these clear and easy chains available - even if they have footnotes that we avoid in scientific papers, with phrases like “plausible”, “consistent with the fossil record”, and “exact lineages cannot be known for certain”. Perhaps we should start a new thread for this, one not encumbered by the "post after post talking about how we can’t know exact ancestry" and other issues with this thread. Or you could write (or edit a group effort for) an article for the column forum on this topic, so it can serve as a reference for debate on other threads. If you go this route the pictures would be part of the article and could be hosted by the forum (I believe). Thanks.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by Equinox, posted 12-29-2006 12:46 PM | | Equinox has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
