Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process

Hi again hawkes nightmare, You are welcome to your opinion, however opinion is curiously incapable of altering reality to match. 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

---

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.

---

Coyote is waiting for you here Message 1.Edited by RAZD, : sbtitle

Just to be clear, hawkes nightmare, 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 GuidelinesEnjoy.

---

Still grasping at hope, Kaichos Man? 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. 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. 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): So I'm still not finding any evidence that begins to support your position. 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 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

---

Hi Percy, It's worse than that: when you google ecophenotype foraminifera, and this thread on EvC is the second hit. The first hit is Helen Tappan's 1978 paper.ecophenotype foraminifera - Google SearchConclusion: your forum is one of the leading experts on ecophenotype foraminifera ... or it just is not that big an issue.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : link

---

Hi again, Kaichos Man, let's see if we can clear some things up. So classificiations of the forams at the genus level is valid regardless of whether we have ecophenotype variants or subspecies population variants.Consider this the fall back and punt position for the tree of life as determined by Parker and Arnold, and this should make the next point easier. The first branch in on the tree of life for any species is to their genus category, so if the genus classifications are all valid, then the arrangement from genus down to the first foram population would be valid.Note references in [brackets] below are to abstracts and quotes provided in Message 58.We may see some additional classification of species within morphospecies to account for the ("underestimated") genetic species diversity that is being discovered through genetic analysis: this adds branches to the tree of life (to incorporate the "cryptic genetic types" [Kucera and Darling, 2002]), with the morpospecies as a likely common ancestor (an example of why classical taxonomy gets messy compared to cladogenetic classification).We may see some additional subdivision of species into subspecies or variety classifications ("Uvigerina peregrina parva is most likely a subspecies of Uvigerina peregrina and not an ecophenotype" [Schnfeld, 2006]): these would be stable subpopulations with varietal traits fixed in their genes, but still be part of the biological species in question (like the varieties of asian greenish warblers or the varieties of peppered moths).We may see some confirmation of ecophenotypic variants within some species ("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." [Tappan, 1978]). Such variation may well be due to aspects of the water column ("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." [Healy-Williams, 2007]).Note that my impression from reading all these articles is that the known ecophenotypic variation is relatively small and apparently more a matter of maturation than different development, of overall complexity rather than markedly different pattern/s in the tests, ie - variation between single chamber and multichamber, but not to different multichamber patterns. The proposed ecological causes are pressure, salinity and levels of nutrition are plausible for such changes.With the advent of genetic analysis, it is possible that some species will be reclassified from one genus to another, but this will not be due to their being ecophenotypes, it will be due to evidence of genetic heredity and cladistic analysis.It is highly unlikely, however, that any substantive change to current arrangement of the tree of life for planktonic (or benthic) foraminifera will be made, as the classification of the various genera has not (yet) been challenged by any new findings since Parker and Arnold's work. What we are likely to see is refinement of it through additional information. And yet neither you nor any article yet found has shown how a single aspect of Parker and Arnold's morphological analysis is invalid, even at the species level.(Note - I kept wanting to type Palmer too, btw, so I reversed the order to make it easier to remember properly).enjoy.

---

Hi again Kaichos Man No, sorry. If you think their conclusion is false you need to show evidence that invalidates it, not just wish that it is invalid. Science works by invalidation of false concepts, not by proofs. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand either logic or science. First off, I'll take this as a tacit admission that your first issue with ecophenotypic variation does not have the traction you need to disrupt Parker and Arnold's work, as now you are changing horses in typical creationist manner.Again, you did not provide a link to your reference, but I've found it anyway.

quote:

---

http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2007_A04/index.html
Morphological variability of Globorotalia menardii (planktonic foraminifera) in two DSDP cores from the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Equatorial Pacific

​

Abstract Variability in the test of Globorotalia menardii during the past 8 million years has been investigated at DSDP Site 502A (Caribbean Sea) and DSDP Site 503A (Eastern Equatorial Pacific). Measurements were made of spire height (∂x), maximum diameter (∂y), the tangent angles of the upper and lower peripheral keels (Φ1, Φ2, respectively), the number of chambers in the final whorl, and the area of the silhouette in keel view. Four morphotypes alpha, beta, gamma, and delta were distinguished. Morphotype alpha was found in strata ranging in age from the Late Miocene through the Holocene. It shows a continuous increase in ∂x and ∂y until the Late Pleistocene. During and after the final closure of the ancient Central American Seaway (between 2.4 Ma and 1.8 Ma) there was a rapid increase in the area of the test in keel view. At the Caribbean Sea site, morphotype beta evolved during the past 0.22 Ma. It is less inflated than alpha and has a more delicate test. In the morphospace of ∂x vs. ∂y, morphotypes alpha and beta can be distinguished by a separation line ∂y = 3.2 * ∂x - 160 (∂x and ∂y in m). Plots of morphotype alpha are below that line, those of beta are above it. Morphotype alpha is taken to be Globorotalia menardii menardii Parker, Jones & Brady (1865) and includes G. menardii 'A' Bolli (1970). Morphotype beta is identified as G. menardii cultrata (d'Orbigny). Morphotypes gamma and delta are extinct Upper Miocene to Pliocene forms which evolved from morphotype alpha. They have a narrower Φ1 angle and more chambers (≥7) than morphotype alpha commonly with 5 to 6 chambers (7 in transitional forms). In contemporaneous samples morphotype delta can be distinguished from gamma by a smaller value of Φ1 and 8 or more chambers in the final whorl. Morphotype gamma is taken to be G. limbata (Fornasini, 1902) and includes the junior synonym G. menardii 'B' Bolli (1970). Morphotype delta is G. multicamerata Cushman & Jarvis (1930). With the exception of the Late Pleistocene development of G. menardii cultrataonly in the Caribbean the morphological changes of G. menardii at DSDP Sites 502A and 503A are similar. The development from the ancestral G. menardii menardii of the G. limbata - G. multicamerata lineage during the Pliocene and of G. menardii cultrata during the Late Pleistocene suggests responses at the two sites to a changing palaeoceanography during and after the formation of the Isthmus of Panama.

---

Note (1) that all four of these varieties are within the genus Globorotalia and that all are direct descendants from the Globorotalia menardii species:

• "... alpha is taken to be Globorotalia menardii menardii Parker, Jones & Brady (1865) and includes G. menardii 'A' Bolli (1970)." -- classified (by Parker yet) as variety of the Globorotalia menardii species.
• "... beta is identified as G. menardii cultrata (d'Orbigny)." -- also classified as variety of the Globorotalia menardii species.
• "... gamma is taken to be G. limbata (Fornasini, 1902) and includes the junior synonym G. menardii 'B' Bolli (1970)." -- (note that a "junior synonym" in taxonomy means more recent name) recently classified as another variety of the Globorotalia menardii species, and the
• "... delta is G. multicamerata Cushman & Jarvis (1930).
• "... development from the ancestral G. menardii menardii of the G. limbata - G. multicamerata lineage during the Pliocene and of G. menardii cultrata during the Late Pleistocene ..." -- or in other words, beta (G. menardii cultrata), gamma (G. limbata) and delta (G. multicamerata) are all classified as descendants of alpha (G. menardii menardii)

... so as noted in Message 62:

quote:

---

So classificiations of the forams at the genus level is valid regardless of whether we have ecophenotype variants or subspecies population variants.
...
The first branch in on the tree of life for any species is to their genus category, so if the genus classifications are all valid, then the arrangement from genus down to the first foram population would be valid.

---

So this still does not challenge the work of Parker and Arnold in any way.Note (2) that the variations noted are variations on a theme displayed during the development of the forams with minor variation in complexity: ... and as such show even less variation than I said (Message 62) may be expected:

quote:

---

Note that my impression from reading all these articles is that the known ecophenotypic variation is relatively small and apparently more a matter of maturation than different development, of overall complexity rather than markedly different pattern/s in the tests, ie - variation between single chamber and multichamber, but not to different multichamber patterns.

---

So nothing here challenges Parker and Arnold.The whole paper is available at this link, rather than just the abstract, so we can look at it in greater depth, rather than just extract a tid-bit or two that fits your confirmation bias and ill/uninformed opinion: Now let's read the preceding paragraph:

quote:

---

Because of the extremely long time (tens to hundred thousands of years) required for speciation, its direct observation is impossible in nature. Overcoming this difficulty requires a careful selection of organisms with large populations and exceptionally fast reproduction, along with high rates of genetic change (bacteria, fruit flies), and exposure to mutagenic conditions. But such experiments are artificial and do not reflect natural situations. Microfossils provide a powerful means of studying speciation in the geological past. Under the assumption that fossil species are recognizable by their morphologies, ancestor—to—descendent relationships can be reconstructed from the sedimentary record. This approach requires that the full range of morphological variability through time and geography be quantified. The literature on such studies is still limited.

---

One such study was the one by Parker and Arnold eh? We also saw reference in Message 58 to similar work done by Healy-Williams (2007).Note that this is a "powerful means of studying speciation in the geological past," and not one that is being criticized, discarded, or found wanting.Your three quotes come in the next paragraph:

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 alii (1996), De Vargas et alii (1997), Darling et alii (1997), Stewart et alii (2001), Darling et alii (1999), Darling et alii (2000), Kucera & Darling (2002), and Darling et alii (2004). Obviously, in extinct species this approach is not possible. ...

---

But it doesn't stop there: now let's look at what he says after your quoted tid-bit:

quote:

---

... Under some circumstances solutions can be found using stable isotope chemistry to reconstruct preferences in the depth habitat (Norris et alii, 1996; Huber et alii, 1997; Pearson, 1998). A third solution is the careful monitoring of morphological changes through time in a selected microfossil lineage in discrete geographic areas where the paleoceanographic history is known a priori. This is the strategy used here.

---

In other words, this "major difficulty" can be overcome by three different methodologies. Let's see what his conclusions are:

quote:

---

Conclusions

​

Taxonomic implications

​

1). Four menardiform globorotalid morphotypes alpha, beta, gamma and delta are proposed, that can be distinguished morphometrically using spiral height (∂x), axial diameter (∂y), keel angle (Φ1), and the number of chambers in the final whorl.

​

2). In the ∂x versus ∂y space, a line with the equation ∂y = 3.2 * ∂x -160 separates morphotype alpha (located below the line) from morphotype beta (above the line).

​

3). The extant morphotype alpha is ancestral to morphotypes beta, gamma and delta. Morphotype alpha corresponds morphologically with forms described in the literature as G. menardii menardii and includes the junior synonym of G. menardii 'A' Bolli (1970). The extant morphotype beta is the equivalent of forms described as G. menardii cultrata (without peripheral spines) and G. fimbriata (with peripheral spines). The existence of the two morphotypes is explained by two ecological models, i.e. ontogenetic variation of test calcification (Model I) or depth parapatry (Model II). Whether these morphotypes are but ecophenotypes or are discrete species cannot be determined definitively at this moment, for further investigation is mandatory.

​

4). At DSDP Sites 502A and 503A two extinct morphotypes gamma and delta evolved from G. menardii menardii between 4.62 Ma and 3.76 Ma. They are the equivalents of the extinct morphospecies G. limbata Fornasini (1902) and G. multicamerata Cushman & Jarvis (1930), respectively. They can be distinguished from G. menardii menardii by a greater number of chambers in the final whorl (6 to 7, the "7's" predominate in G. limbata; ≥ 8 in G. multicamerata) and by a smaller keel angle (Φ1). G. menardii 'B' (Bolli, 1970) is a later synonym of the transitional forms between G. menardii menardiiand G. limbata.

​

Influence of the Isthmus of Panama

​

5). G. menardii menardii increased in size considerably in the past 8 million years along with a superimposed progressive flattening of the test. There is an asymmetry in the morphological development of the forms seen in the Caribbean and Pacific cores: The menardiform globorotalids from the Caribbean Sea show an accelerated increase in size after 2.58 Ma (i.e. during and after final closure of the Central American Seaway). A flattening of the tests occurred repeatedly, first during the Pliocene (development of the morphotypes alpha-gamma-delta [G. menardii menardii-G. limbata-G. multicamerata] lineage) and, again during the Late Pleistocene, after the ancient sea-connection had been closed (divergence of morphotypes alpha and beta). The development of morphotype beta is more pronounced on the Caribbean side than on the Pacific side, reflecting an asymmetry in watermass development in the two oceans in the course of the formation of the isthmus. On the Pacific side for 8 Ma all menardiform globorotalids show a more gradual increase in size than those in the Caribbean. The differences in test size pre- and post- isthmian closure are smaller in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific than on the Atlantic side. During the Late Pleistocene divergence into morphotypes alpha and beta was quite marked in the Caribbean samples, but on the Pacific site the two morphotypes appear to be more mixed.

​

In general, the superimposed morphological development (shell inflation) analyzed for the morphotypes gamma — delta lineage during the Pliocene and for the Late Pleistocene morphotypes alpha and beta is interpreted as an ecological response to an increase in the stratification of the water column in the Caribbean Sea (shown by Keller et alii, 1989), that came into existence during the formation of the Isthmus of Panama and remained in place. Returning to the prediction made in the 'Introduction' to this study I conclude from these preliminary data that the emergence of the Isthmus of Panama had a sensible influence on the morphological evolution of menardiform globorotalids.

---

Again, the amount and type of variation exhibited by Globorotalia menardii and its descendants is much less than the differences between the diverse and wonderous forms of the different genera of forams. Here's a few pictures of these four forms:

Plate 1: Figures 1-3. Globorotalia fimbriata (morphotype beta with spines), umbilical, keel, and spire view, sample 502-1H-cc, 0-4cm, specimen 1901. Figures 4-6. Globorotalia menardii cultrata (morphotype beta), sample 502B-1-1, 2.5-4cm, specimen 1101. Figures 7-9. Globorotalia menardii menardii (morphotype alpha), sample 502A-2-3, 61.5cm, specimen 0603. Scale bar represents 400 m and serves all specimens.

Plate 2: Figures 10-12. Globorotalia limbata (morphotype gamma), sample 503A-11-1, 47.5cm, specimen 4201. Figures 13-15. Globorotalia menardii menardii (morphotype alpha), sample 502A-10H-1, 46-47cm, specimen 0505. Figures 16-18. Globorotalia multicamerata (morphotype delta), sample 502A-19H-2, 27-31cm, specimen 0202 (slide a). Figures 19-21. Globorotalia menardii menardii (morphotype alpha), sample 502A-32H-1, 35-39cm, specimen 0406. Figures 22-24. Globorotalia multicamerata (morphotype delta), sample 503A-11-1, 61-75cm, specimen 0602. Scale bar represents 400 m and serves all specimens.

Compare those differences with the amount of difference shown in the Parker and Arnold sequence here: Does that look like earth shattering morphological differences that challenge the classification of foraminifera on the basis of morphological analysis as done by Parker and Arnold?Looks like my comments in Message 62 still stand unchallenged:

quote:

---

Note that my impression from reading all these articles is that the known ecophenotypic variation is relatively small and apparently more a matter of maturation than different development, of overall complexity rather than markedly different pattern/s in the tests, ie - variation between single chamber and multichamber, but not to different multichamber patterns. The proposed ecological causes are pressure, salinity and levels of nutrition are plausible for such changes.

​

It is highly unlikely, however, that any substantive change to current arrangement of the tree of life for planktonic (or benthic) foraminifera will be made, as the classification of the various genera has not (yet) been challenged by any new findings since Parker and Arnold's work. What we are likely to see is refinement of it through additional information.

​

And yet neither you nor any article yet found has shown how a single aspect of Parker and Arnold's morphological analysis is invalid, even at the species level.

---

Indeed, this article is validation that what we are seeing is refinement through additional information that builds on the previous morphological studies rather than invalidate them.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : comparison added

---

It is a typical creationist excuse to claim partisan bias, Kaichos Man, especially when there is none. The problem is that there is no partisan requirement here. A fact Percy noted when he said: You were not asked to do anything I have not done, and you were in violation of the Forum Rules

quote:

---

6. ... If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

​

7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

---

The reason is more than just being able to verify that your quotes are accurate representations of the material, it is basic honesty and part of intellectual integrity.More likely, this is just an excuse you tell yourself to avoid dealing with the issues that show your argument is weak at best, and false at worse, as you have been completely unable to justify your claims in any way.A typical ploy when a creationist loses an argument is to declare victory (usually on some "moral" grounds) and run away.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : 6

---

Hi again Kaichos Man It's rather implicit in rule 6:

quote:

---

6. ... If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

---

There are lots of people that read these threads even thought they don't reply. I often don't reply to threads when other people are saying the things I would say, as that would only clutter up the thread and overload posters with many replies to the same post. I'm sure you've experienced this. Yes. The time scale is different and the type of adaptation is different.Ecotypic variation occurs during the development of individual organisms in response to ecological factors, like pressure, salinity, temperature, average amounts of light, food availability, etc etc etc. In a different ecology they would develop differently.Whereas "clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients" occur over generations and involve genetic adaptation:Cline (biology) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In biology, an ecocline or simply cline (Greek: κλίνω = to possess or exhibit gradient, to lean) describes an ecotone in which a series of biocommunities display continuous gradient.[1] The term was coined by the English evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley in 1938.

​

More technically, clines consist of ecotypes or forms of species that exhibit gradual phenotypic and/or genetic differences over a geographical area, typically as a result of environmental heterogeneity. Genetically, clines result from the change of allele frequencies within the gene pool of the group of taxa in question.[2][3][4] Clines may manifest in time and/or space.[5]

​

In ecology, spatial clines have led to gradient analysis where the abundance and distribution of organisms is rendered by sinusoidal curves on the plane. From these curves can be extracted that populations occupy zones of maximum and minimum presence, according to their special needs and tolerances imposed by their environment.[6]

​

Typically, a well-marked cline does not allow for a delineation of subspecies, as it is then impossible, by definition, to draw any further clear dividing lines between populations. In population genetics, a cline could include a spectrum of subspecies, as allele and haplotype frequencies tend to vary over a larger space; moreover, in evolution, genetic lineage sorting usually lags behind the establishment of locally-differentiated phenotypes. Regardless, in neither case will such a variation yield different species, as long as the populations, though geographically spread, can interbreed one with another.[citation needed]

---

Thus clinal morphological variation is similar to subspecies population variation, except that the populations overlap. In a different ecology they would (and do - hence the overlap) still develop the same. Well, Kaichos Man, you certainly have not provided any information that would show otherwise. You've raised a point you think is a telling blow to the work of Parker and Arnold, but nobody can find evidence that shows more than minor variations within species in your references (when we can find them) or outright lies (like your creationist site). Right, none of which affects the work of Parker and Arnold because it is all about the minor variations within species, with at most a mix up of closely related species (each directly descended from the same parent species). Look again at what defines the "major problem":

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.

---

In otherwords, the difficulty is in distinguishing species differentiation from subpopulation variation in clines from ecophenotype variation in individuals.It seems that the "major difficulty" is sorting out subspecies versus species, a rather common problem in taxonomy (see Asian Greenish Warblers as an example of this problem).This still does not affect the overall lineages of descent from parent populations and the changes in species seen over millions of years as sorted out by Parker and Arnold, as the only effect is whether the ends have one or several twigs at the tips.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : more

---

Hi Foxdog and welcome to the fray. A few quick points on distinguishing the three aspects of evolution:

1. The process: evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. This process leads to different evolution in different ecosystems, and when separation occurs this can result in speciation where the daughter populations become reproductively isolated from each other. Both the process of evolution and speciation have been observed, and are indeed facts.
2. The theory: the theory of evolution (ToE), briefly stated, is that the processes of evolution and speciation are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from life in the world around us, from history, prehistory, archaeology, and paleontology, from the fossil record and the genetic record. This can be tested against the evidence of life, both in the genetic record and in the fossil record, and each and every new find is a test of the theory.
3. The science: the science of evolutionary biology studies the evidence, tests the ToE and other theories of the various mechanisms that cause change (mutation, selection, neutral drift, etc).

Why do creationists keep making this easily falsified assertion? I'm no atheist, and there are more theist evolutionists than atheists. And yet there is very little disagreement on the validity of evolution - how can that be ... unless the disagreements are about minor points rather than the major structure?If you want to discuss these issues further, please start a new thread. None of your points relate to the topic, and are likely to cause topic drift as people nail you for your lack of knowledge about evolution, gratuitous assertions regarding atheists and disregard for the evidence.Please see Message 1 for what the topic of this thread involves.Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

Hi again Foxdog,Any comments on the topic? You know, the issue raised in Message 1

quote:

---

We often see complaints or comments about the absence of fossil evidence for transitions in evolution. This usually comes in two parts:

​

(1) There are no transitional fossils
(2) There should be billions of transitional fossils

​

This thread is intended to discuss and answer this issue.

---

Also see
Message 2
Message 3
Message 4for more details.This forum generally likes people to stick to the topics in each thread, and if you can't find one about a topic you want to discuss, you can start a new topic at Proposed New TopicsThanks for your consideration.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : dbcode

---

Hi Kaichos Man, still at the quote mining and misrepresenting eh? One can never be 100% certain about anything. One can, however be certain enough for practical applications, and even if one is right 90% of the time that would be more than sufficient in my opinion. You need to show that there is less than 90% confidence in the foraminifera classifications, and to date you have been totally incapable of doing that.Again what are we trying to be so certain about? The absolutely correct classification of every single variety and subspecies population all the way back to the first common ancestor population of foraminifera? Hardly a realistic goal, nor do Parker and Arnold claim any such impossible result.Certain enough that the lineages of descent are adequately described to sort most organisms into their respective places? The evidence is that this is, in fact, where we are, with some disagreements about some groups at the outlying tips of classification - whether they are species or subspecies.Certainly there has been no major revision of the taxonomy of foraminifera above the level of family and very very little at the level of genera.You have not posted a single reference that speaks to reclassification of any major level above genera. Your failure to find any such evidence shows again that we can easily have over 90% confidence in the current classifications.You're still fighting the reality here. Curiously, your opinion has little ability to alter reality. The full quote is (italics mine for emphasis): In no way does this imply that this happens across the board to such a level of pervasiveness that all the data is rendered invalid. Interestingly, that would be the kind of evidence that you would need to make your claims, and the evidence still just is not there.The problem you have vis-a-vis Parker and Arnold is that these clinial morphological coadaptations within environmental gradients AND your possible ecophenotypic variations within a species in environmental gradients occur at the same time as the core species as it evolves.That core species remains in the evidence along with the varieties, and this core species allows Parker and Arnold to map their tree of relation without being sidetracked by these varieties into erroneous conclusions about these species. These variations are horizontal to the vertical geological time sequence of evolutionary change over millions of years.For Parker and Arnold to be confused by the ecoclinial variations, the core species would have to be missing from the fossil record, and sadly, for you, they aren't.Thus sorting the foraminifera out by morphology alone, as was done by Parker and Arnold, would result in branches from the main trunk. The main picture of the trunks would not be altered by what are minor variations on the theme of the core species in the overall picture.The result is an analysis with at least 90% confidence of correctly mapping the evolutionary changes over time.Now let's look at your latest misrepresentation: Sounds pretty bad at first glance, but is that really what he is saying? The full quote is:

quote:

---

The standard taxonomic reference for the group, Loeblich and Tappan's 1987 Foraminiferal Genera and Their Classification, while an excellent reference, is nearly 20 years out of date, becoming more so all the time, and classifies only to genus level. One striving for an accurate suprageneric classification must supplement it with numerous updates, revisions, additions, and emendations, ...

---

So the reason that one needs to supplement the standard reference to have a classification above the level of genera is because the standard reference (now 23 years out of date, and preceding Parker and Arnold) only classified forams to the level of genera. You forgot to mention that part, and that means your quote is a false representation, a falsehood, a quotemine.

quote:

---

... including Loeblich and Tappan's 1992 Present status of foraminiferal classification, and Sen Gupta's 1999 Systematics of Modern Foraminifera. ...

---

The first being 18 years out of date and the second being 11 years out of date ...... while we have seen genetic studies since McCloskey's 2005 article that have shown that many apparent subspecies variations are in fact cryptic genetic species, where even minor morphological differences can represent real species differentiation. Certainly these new studies would improve the overall classification of foraminifera if combined on anThese later studies still present a major problem for your assertions, as they have not uncovered a single case of misidentification of a subspecies that should belong to a different family. Fascinatingly, that would be the kind of evidence that you would need to make your claims, and the evidence still just is not there. Instead these studies confirm the morphological sorting down to that level of species detail, with the possibility of extending it to cover the cryptic species within current morphospecies.

quote:

---

... Accurate species-level classification requires a vast and growing, not to mention often conflicting, library of references.

---

So once again we see that it is at the species level that the accuracy becomes a problem

quote:

---

The proposed solution to this taxonomic quagmire is an online database of foraminiferal taxonomy. Such a database would provide the benefits of being hierarchical, easily searchable, widely and easily available, and always up to date. ...

---

In other words, accurate information is available, it is just a matter of sorting it out in the quagmire of numerous different sources into a unified updated and cohesive whole.End result: over 90% validated confidence in classification down to the level of genera and slightly less confidence in classification down to species with a bit more uncertainty down to the level of subspecies variants. Hardly turning the world of foraminifera classification on it's ear.Enjoy.ps - for the record ... I've seen stubborn people who can't admit to being wrong, true, but I've also seen a number of people admit to being wrong, both creationist and evolutionist. I've seen a number of creationists being converted to evolutionists by arguments at this forum (cavediver and Rahvin are two that will tell you that they have changed as a result of this forum convincing them that creationism was wrong), but I have not seen a single evolutionist change to creationist.Perhaps you are projecting your inability to admit to being wrong onto everyone else?Edited by RAZD, : added ps

---

Hi Kaichos Man, Of course you are assuming that it is 90% at each level. Remember that we are dealing with a phylum:Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Rhizaria
Superphylum: Retaria
Phylum: ForaminiferaThis is how the taxonomy stacks up:

        * Kingdom
o Phylum
+ Class
# Order
* Family
o Genus
+ Species

If genus classifications have 90% confidence then what is the confidence levels for family, 100%? order , 111%?, and class, 123???Rather obviously your assumed factor cannot be correct, or your application of a factor at each level is bogus.If we assume, for the sake of argument, 100% confidence for the phylum classification then the factor for each step would have to be (0.90)^{^1/4} or 97.4% confidence per level of classification to end up at 90% for genus:phylum 100%
class 97.4%
order 94.9%
family 92.4%
genus 90.0%Continuing on we now get:species 87.7%
variety 85.4% ... better than 5 out of 6. Note that this is your "major difficulty" in classification in Message 55, your "[i]taxonomic quagmire[/t]" in Message 89, and it appears to be correct 85% of the time? Yes, because you have absolutely failed to show that the progression they developed is completely wrong. You can't even show that it is occasionally wrong. The occasional messed up species classification does not affect the progression in transitional forms.Certainly you have not challenged the idea that transitional fossils exist and that they show transitions from ancestral populations to descendant populations.Even if Parker and Arnold were correct only half the time there would still be a mountain of evidence of transitions and a plenitude of transitional fossils.You are down to playing with fictional numbers and even there you can't show that no transitional fossils exist.Time to review where this thread started: And we are still at those same conclusions, completely unaffected by any of your various arguments ("parrot droppings"). All you have done is waste posts.Enjoy.

---

Hi PercyThis just shows how important this forum is, we have now become the first find: We are now the first pick. Helen is now in second place. Looks like the issue is so rare that the few posts here have been sufficient to alter the results.Enjoy.

---