Criticizing neo-Darwinism

Good grief.Clearly if a species exists there is in fact a niche for it.Is there anything else totally obvious that you're having trouble understanding?

quote:

---

Is there anything else totally obvious that you're having trouble understanding?

---

You obviously didn't follow discussion of mammalian evolution. The point is that no mammalian order arose after Eocene - evolution is finished. Darwinists here tried to explain the curious phenomenon by adaptive radiation after K/T extinction of dinosaurus. Considering my previous post such radiation occured before K/T and consequently such explanation is probably only another darwinian fancy. Let me quote some of them: and this one is of interest - obviously reverse happened in reality: According the research I have given above there were no emptied niches when mammalian orders arouse. Quoting again Robert Broom about mammals:

quote:

---

There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders.

---

Actually it doesn't say that. It says that it wasn't niches being emptied of dinosaurs by the K/T extinction which allowed the proliferation of mammalian orders. It doesn't say there were no empty niches which the mammals then filled.TTFN,WK

I can't believe you're playing Martin's game again. What is the difference between the "no new orders since the KT extinction" and the highly specious "no new phyla since the Cambrian" arguments? Regardless of whether or not there are any new orders appearing in the Eocene (we're talking at the level of Monotremata etc., after all), it is quite clear that there has been a huge increase in the number of mammalian families, to say nothing of mammalian species. Therefore Martin's conclusion that "evolution has stopped" is utterly spurious and without foundation.

quote:

---

You obviously didn't follow discussion of mammalian evolution. The point is that no mammalian order arose after Eocene - evolution is finished. Darwinists here tried to explain the curious phenomenon by adaptive radiation after K/T extinction of dinosaurus. Considering my previous post such radiation occured before K/T and consequently such explanation is probably only another darwinian fancy.

---

You have missed - again - the nature of taxonomy. The origins of the orders are only a part of the story. We also need a significant degree of diversification for these groups to reach the level of orders. And you haven't dealt with that at all.Indeed - as Quetzal points out - evolution did NOT end there - the paper shows that evolution continued. So we clearly see who is relying on fancies.

Probably you are wrong in this point either. In my introducing post I quoted and addressed the point of mammalian familes too (Eutheria btw). The best preserved fossils records John Day formation show this:

quote:

---

The periodof 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Forma-tion) seems to harbor the greatest diversity inknown fossils of families and genera. Current diversity of families and genera of the basin assess-ment area does not match that of this period...

​

Qutation and other interesting graphs is at:

​

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_410/pg069-79.pdf

---

http://EvC Forum: Is evolution of mammals finished? -->EvC Forum: Is evolution of mammals finished?I addressed there also number of primate families, perissodactyls etc. - now we are witnessing only shadow of their former glory. Yet the issue is Mammalian Orders not Families. If the research is correct, no mammalin Order arose after long before K/T - strange enough Robert Broom's observation is subsequently more accurate - evolution seems to be over. Emptied niches has nothing to do with adaptive radiation of mammals.

That is a pretty cool link Martin. I can't for the life of me see how you think it in anyway supports your argument however.While the diversity at the 39-20 MYA is the highest that period is after the K/T extinction and indeed shows the very trend you are denying with all the taxonomic levels showing an increasing trend. While it is true that that period is the highest the next highest is the modern period following a dip in numbers at all taxonomic levels in the intervening periods (Fig.43). As Quetzal pointed out, the two things are totally distinct. The lack of any new order arising has no relevance to whether evolution was ocurring or not. Secondly the source you just provided shows about 10 more orders present in the mid tertiary than in the periods closer to the K/T event. Again this is neither supported by the paper you initially referenced nor in any way suggested by the other research you have brought up.TTFN,WK

I don't think so:

quote:

---

The origin of most mammalian orders seems not to be tied to the filling of niches left vacant by dinosaurs, but is more likely to be related to events in Earth history 12.

---

http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf

Just saying the same thing over and over again isn't an argument. The fact that they don't attribute it to niches being emptied by dinosaurs becoming extinct doesn't mean that the diversification was not into newly available niches.Perhaps it is important to make a distinction between emptied niches, which had previous occupants, and empty niches, newly derived from changes in the environment.The problem is that continental fragmentation and similar events are going to have radical and diverse effects on niche availability which may cover both emptied and empty niches.Of course if you actually addressed the points raised rather than simply saying 'I don't think so' you could help raise the level of debate above that of primary school.TTFN,WK

And yet it obviously doesn't mean that diversification was into newly available niches. Evolution is guided by some unknown internal forces and so emptied niches play no role in diversification. That no mammalian order arose more than 65 mil years (according the research) means that evolution is dramatically slowing down. It his hardly imaginable (if the reserach is correct) that after mass extinction of dinosaurs after K/T boundary there were no emptied niches. It was btw. the main argument of folks here why adative radiation of mammals occured. If you believe that there were enough emptied niches during dinosars dominion on the earth that mammals evolved into all nowadays known orders its your opinion.

Care to actually try and make an argument now. Once again you throw a sting of assertions into the mix with nothing to back them up. None of the references you provide mention any 'unknown internal forces', instead they posit changes in the Earth's geography such as continental fragmentation as key elements.So in what way does this mean that there were no newly available niches. No it doesn't, it just means that you still don't understand how taxonomic classification works. Can you present any reason why we should expect a steady rate of new order production? Or give any instance where it has been claimed that we should? Indeed not, but that is irrelevant. The paper doesn't say that mammals did not fill niches emptied by dinosaurs. It says that it was not radiation to fill such niches that coincided with the origins of most orders of mammals. You should really try reading and understanding these papers rather than skimming them and twisting them to fit your preconcieved notions. Time and time again you put up some prefectly good piece of work and drastically misrepresent its conclusions and implications. How many times does this need to be brought to your attention before you make thoroughly reading and understanding the papers your first step? Indeed, and one consistent with known facts. Since it seems to be your belief that they are the result of 'unknown internal forces' why don't you try and find some evidence or some method of discerning their exstence?TTFN,WK

Evolution if anything would predict that IF we kept the classical taxonomic classification system intact (rather than switching to the more appropriate cladistics system), that the general increase in diversity over time would mean NOT new "orders" but more subclassifications between family and what we call species. THAT is where evolution is occurring: it is occurring today and CANNOT - by definition - occur today within past classifications. The only other options for dealing with diversity is to (a) just keep increasing the number of species within each family or (b) invoke a total reclassification of all species into a NEW taxonomy.Cladistics avoids this "problem" of dealing with increased new diversity by avoiding classifications into multiple levels. This is WHY cladistics is overtaking classical taxonomy as the system of choice.MartinV is looking for whole new and complete limbs to grow on old trees - something he will never see. This is also why Davidson is wrong - it is just a reformulation of the old canard about species appearing suddenly fully formed, just in different sack-cloth.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

And has never been observed to happen in time past.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If you think of life on earth as a {tree\bush}, with the leaves at the ends of the twigs being all the individual organisms, you will perceive a structure to the whole when you trace the common ancestry of each leaf back to the trunk.If you think of time as the layer of earth around the trunk, and the passage of time adds layers that bury old trunks, limbs, etc. You can still trace the common ancestry below ground, but all you have above ground are the existing organisms and their recent common ancestors.You won't see a new leaf grow underground, and that is how all new limbs are started.You won't see a new branch grow underground = in the past today that was not there yesterday.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

The doctrine of common ancestry or tree isn’t visualized by just thinking, it must be imagined. To believe it is a matter of faith. http://www.fcefaith.org