Differing Models on the Origin of Higher Taxa

The rest of it is due to the difficulty in thinking in geologic time scales when it comes to animals, and a lack of understanding of how the largest clades first split. Some split very, very early in metazoan evolution, and it’s difficult to identify the exact nature of that split, particularly considering they don’t fossilize and biologists are constrained to a pathetically small sample of living things. The split between clams and squid likely happened well before either evolved a shell (before the ocean chemistry allowed for such shells), for example, and we will likely never find the fossils of the transitional forms.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with Point 1 as you claimed. We're not talking about the origin of taxa as an idea, or the difficulties and problems with taxonomy, but a simple basic concept. ND says ND mechanisms evolved all life from a common ancestor. Even PE proponents generally do not advocate saltationism, for example.
 
randman said:
That was true since it predates Darwinism but whether you want to talk about phylogenies or whatever, point 1 is much more basic than that.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. You are misapplying your criteria, as I've explained at length and which the book I referenced clearly demonstrates.

To say ND does not predict or explain this is to say ND does not explain how organisms arrived here.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example. "How organisms arrived here" is abiogenesis, NOT evolution.

This should not be a controversial statement on my part. It's not an argument for or against anything except to say ND claims all life, which includes organisms that cannot reproduce, evolved through sequential speciation instead of, for example, saltation, which is an entirely different mechanism for evolution that was rejected by Neodarwinists.
Click to expand...
Please re-read my post; you appear to have missed most of it. My point was that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS. Therefore you are not in a possition to comment on the validity of the theory of evolution. Read the books I've referenced, in this thread and others, and then get back to us once you've cleared up your basic misunderstandings.

At the very least I've demonstrated that your attempt to summarize the modern view of taxonomy is hopelessly incomplete. Mine is an order of magnitude longer than yours and I consider mine an incomplete mess. Dr. Valentine's work is three orders of magnitude longer than mine and he considers HIS incomplete. You're attempting to discuss one of the most complex concepts in biology in two paragraphs. It cannot be done.

As for how larger clades arose, I've explained that in my post. Please read it again.

Not really relevant to Point 1 in the OP at all, but still, how does mass extinction relate to not seeing ancestral humanoid species in a smooth transition?
Click to expand...
I never said that mass extinctions relate to not seeing ancestrial humanoid species in a smooth transition. I said that the reason we see apes and humans as being as different as we do is because the species between us all died out, leaving us with a biased view of biology. When you prune 99% or more of the branches on the tree of life, what you're left with is a very few, very widely scattered branches that appear to be very different. When you actually look at the tree as a whole, those differences disapear.

ETA:

randman said:
That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with Point 1 as you claimed.
Click to expand...
Look, if you're unwilliing to even pay attention to what I write, why should I take you seriously? The quote you quoted SPECIFICALLY discusses the origin of large clades, both in terms of the actual events and in terms of taxonomic theory.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not. You are misapplying your criteria, as I've explained at length and which the book I referenced clearly demonstrates.
Click to expand...

What criteria? I was agreeing with you on Linnean taxonomy and then you say "it's not right"?

Unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
This is a perfect example. "How organisms arrived here" is abiogenesis, NOT evolution.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you so dense not to recognize that how "organisms" in the sense of all of the species "arrived" here refers to organisms in the plural. ND is an attempt to explain how organisms arrived here via evolution rather than special creation.

Abiogenesis is an evo concept to say how the first life form arrived here.

Is that so difficult a concept for you?
 
Last edited:
What criteria? I was agreeing with, right, on Linnean taxonomy and then you say "it's not right"?
Click to expand...
Applying evolutionary concepts to Linnaean taxonomy is inapprorpiate. While the Linnaean taxonomic system typically correlates with evolutionary groupings the system was not built on evolutionary concepts and therefore the groupings do not assume evolutionary relationships. If you want to discuss evolutionary relationships you need to do so using a taxonomic system which was built upon evolutionary theory. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
 
Dinwar said:
Applying evolutionary concepts to Linnaean taxonomy is inapprorpiate. While the Linnaean taxonomic system typically correlates with evolutionary groupings the system was not built on evolutionary concepts and therefore the groupings do not assume evolutionary relationships. If you want to discuss evolutionary relationships you need to do so using a taxonomic system which was built upon evolutionary theory. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Click to expand...


I am not. I am simply saying how ND posits the creatures in the higher taxa got here, and as far as your other claims: Read some peer-reviewed literature for once. Their use of taxa, species, speciation is quite ample. I suppose you think it is quackery?

No, of course not. Those are evos using those concepts. It's Ok when an evo says something but it's wrong when someone else says the same thing!

You might want to write to this journal and blast them for publishing an article discussing taxa within the concept of evolution. They obviously don't understand evo theory as well as you do....

Taxa of high rank tend to originate at earlier times in the fossil record than do taxa of lower rank. Statistical analysis of published stratigraphic ranges shows that the early origin or higher taxa is a secondary consequence of taxonomic structure. For instance, the probability that the origination of an order also begins a new class is a decreasing function of the number of orders that have already originated in the same phylum.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...aa1cc3cc8114e610e885b9674edcf759&searchtype=a
 
Last edited:
Please re-read my post; you appear to have missed most of it. My point was that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS. Therefore you are not in a possition to comment on the validity of the theory of evolution. Read the books I've referenced,
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Your comments are so absurd it makes me laugh.

This was even better.

At the very least I've demonstrated that your attempt to summarize the modern view of taxonomy is hopelessly incomplete. Mine is an order of magnitude longer than yours
Click to expand...

I think you should have all-capped that part on "Mine is an order of magnitude longer than yours" for more effect.

It's kind of pathetic though. You never realized I did not attempt to "summarize the modern view of taxonomy" in the first place. Point 1 is not a discussion of the difficulties of taxonomy.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
Applying evolutionary concepts to Linnaean taxonomy is inapprorpiate. While the Linnaean taxonomic system typically correlates with evolutionary groupings the system was not built on evolutionary concepts and therefore the groupings do not assume evolutionary relationships. If you want to discuss evolutionary relationships you need to do so using a taxonomic system which was built upon evolutionary theory. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Click to expand...

Where do you see "Linnean" in front of "higher taxa" in the OP in Point 1. My only reference to Linnaean taxonomy was to agree with you, and yet you immediately said I was wrong to do so!
:covereyes
 
ehcks said:
But that's not exactly true. A species can create one or more daughter species without itself going extinct.

A species itself doesn't evolve, a population of that species evolves.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there is still sequential speciation that occurs for the origin of the higher taxa.

By the way, I agree with your bolded part and is exactly my point on the other thread about what evos typically envision occurs.


Of course, since I said it, evos said it cannot be true?

At some point you'd some of you guys contesting ideas so much would at least take the time to when someone agrees with you, it's not such a bright idea to say they are wrong and still have credibilty among reasonable people.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Darat, do you agree or disagree that ND posits all of life evolves from a common ancestor producting different populations or organisms with all the groupings of higher taxa, not the label but those actual organisms, being reproductively isolated from one another.

There's no hidden gotcha here guys. Either ND is a theory for the origin of life which includes groupings reproductively isolated or not.

Why is this a point of contention with you?

Do you honestly believe ND is not a theory explaining common descent?
Click to expand...

As Soapy Sam put it - how we decide to organise and categorise creatures is nothing more than that, it does not effect reality and since it is a human construct it is likely to be erroeneous at least in some areas.
 
Darat said:
As Soapy Sam put it - how we decide to organise and categorise creatures is nothing more than that, it does not effect reality and since it is a human construct it is likely to be erroeneous at least in some areas.
Click to expand...
So what? How does that in any way related to how the creatures themselves evolved?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Taxonomy is a human filing system.

It is important to remember that it is an attempt to map reality.
It is not reality itself.

"Higher taxa", like "lower taxa" are labels which are convenient for biological research.
They originate and evolve only in libraries and laboratories.
Click to expand...

Bravo!
 
randman said:
Species evolve into new species evolve into new species, etc, etc,.....some lines go extinct but every living organism evolved this way with a direct line of sequential speciation back to a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Except sometimes as pointed out you can have breeding between populations that are classed as seperate taxa.

And as i will try to point out in the other thread you have made a blanket statement about a complex subject and so it does not apply due to overgeneralization.

You can have radiation within a species which can lead to deivergent lines with intermediate sequential speciation.
 
randman said:
That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with Point 1 as you claimed. We're not talking about the origin of taxa as an idea, or the difficulties and problems with taxonomy, but a simple basic concept. ND says ND mechanisms evolved all life from a common ancestor. Even PE proponents generally do not advocate saltationism, for example.
Click to expand...

I think that the common ancestor is a matter of reseach and debate actually. Archaebacteria were proposed at a building I used to frequent, he had the gene sequence posted on a long sheet of computer paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom