Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2019 5:39 PM
28 online now:
celestialGyoud, CosmicChimp, DrJones*, dwise1, Tanypteryx (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,008 Year: 7,044/19,786 Month: 1,585/1,581 Week: 407/393 Day: 41/90 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is evolution of mammals finished?
derwood
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 12 of 213 (383837)
02-09-2007 11:07 AM


For the sake of discussion - let's say that the evolution of mammals has slowed down, maybe even stopped (for the time being, anyway).

We are talking about large-scale, phenotypic altering macroevolution, not speciation so much.

So, granted this, the question is, so what?

Is this 'fact' supposed to prop up Davison's entire thesis, or just the part where he 'agress with Broom'?

Or is it supposed to support ID? Or YECism? I'm not sure what the thrust of the OP is all about.


  
derwood
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 22 of 213 (384381)
02-11-2007 11:21 AM


So, is this thread about Broom's personal beliefs from 50-70 years ago, or is it about the evolution of mammals supposedly stopping and thus propping up one of Davison's supposed claims?
  
derwood
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 73 of 213 (386384)
02-21-2007 12:24 PM


So, back to mammalian evolution
This diagram has been presented as support for the claim that no mammalian order has arisen after the Eocene.

However, Davison's claim is that no new genera have evolved since then.

Correct?

Edited by derwood, : fixed link


Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by MartinV, posted 02-21-2007 1:38 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 77 of 213 (386410)
02-21-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by MartinV
02-21-2007 1:38 PM


Re: So, back to mammalian evolution
Well, it has been a while, I admit, but I do remember 'debating' him here, and that is definitely what he claimed here:

"There is also no evidence that macroevolution is still in progress, a view proposed by Robert Broom who claimed that a new Genus has not appeared in the past two million years. "

The above is taken form:

THE CASE FOR INSTANT EVOLUTION
By
John A. Davison
Professor Emeritus of Biology

[NOTE - Davison is NOT nor was he ever an Emeritus Professor]

But yeah, you got me VMartin - I guess I just don't know Davison's claims at all....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by MartinV, posted 02-21-2007 1:38 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by MartinV, posted 02-24-2007 2:45 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 122 of 213 (388722)
03-07-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by MartinV
02-24-2007 2:36 PM


Re: Marine K-T extinctions and opportunity
quote:
The evolution of human was inevitable - all previous evolution served only as a mean to this outcome. Luck and chance has nothing to do with it. As John Davison observed in his Manifesto - the course of phylogeny might be as inevitable as course of ontogeny.

Evolution now is finished. It's over.


See now this is interesting - I respond directly to one of Davison's claims and it is implied that I am unfamiliar with his arguments, yet here you are quoting/paraphrasing Davison, so clearly you are familiar with Davison's rantings/writings. So, whose claims are you arguing for - Davison's or Broom's? Because they are NOT the same.

quote:
According Robert Broom no new mammalian Order appeared in the past 30 million years and no new Genus appeared in the past two million years.
What contradictionu do you see?

So, which is it? Did Broom claim both? Or did Broom claim no new Orders in 30 million years, and Davison claim no new Genera in 2 million years? I ask because when I referred specificially to Davison's claims, which was purportedly the topic of this thread (or at least the basis for it), I was accused of not knownig his claim.

As a systematist of sorts, I see a big problem with relying on arbitrary concepts like what a group of organisms is classified as as a means of arguing against evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by MartinV, posted 02-24-2007 2:36 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by MartinV, posted 03-09-2007 1:42 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 123 of 213 (388723)
03-07-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by MartinV
03-01-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Mobbing
quote:
Competitors for emptied niches should be bats and birds.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that there were a great deal of nocturnal insectivorous birds and a large number of diurnal seed eating bats such that they would be in competition.

Learn something every day...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by MartinV, posted 03-01-2007 6:40 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 198 of 213 (394783)
04-13-2007 8:05 AM


Whoops...
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019