Supporting life aboard the ark

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

















It seems we've got not only new genera but also new families.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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.

Coragyps, wj,Well, I've been over frank for quite some time. When he claimed that no grass grew on Wrangel Island and then refused to acknowledge the pictures I referred him to showing a lush landscape filled with scrub as well as the references to the re-introduction of buffalo to the island, I realized there was no point.I'm learning that to debate with frank, you simply do some research, make a copy of the links, and then simply repeat them over and over every time he claims that nobody has ever responded to his assertions. If somebody else also responds, add that to the list of references.Perhaps those who enter the threads can see that frank is as ludicrous as he appears to be.The question I have is how long I can keep myself from banning E-B and herp. Ah well...not really the most on topic discussion here. Apologies to the list for going off on a tangent.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mangetout writes:

quote:

---

What did all of that mean, anybody?

---

Nothing.There is a running bet in Creation vs. Evolution as to whether or not Brad (he goes by "herp" on the MSN group) is a real person or an AI programmed to string together meaningless crap related to biology.In the MSN groups, he has admitted to having a psychiatric disorder for which he supposedly sought treatment at one point.But, this is par for the course when it comes to a post by this person. You can understand why I consider banning him from the MSN group: There is literally nothing there to discuss. One cannot penetrate the cognitive disorder.