The National (USA) Center for Science Education (NCSE) has just endorsed a four-year-old statement on teaching evolution from the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution [Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution adds its voice for evolution]. Here's the text from the CSEE website [CSEE/SCEE President's Forum].
There is overwhelming evidence that life has evolved over thousands of millions of years. The ancestors of modern organisms, as well as whole groups that are now completely extinct, have been found in great abundance as fossils. The main processes responsible for evolutionary change, such as variation and natural selection, have been repeatedly observed and verified in natural populations and in laboratory experiments. All the features of living organisms, including those discovered in the recent advances in molecular biology, are readily explained by the principles of evolution. Any scientific theory that provides a clear mechanism, offers a broad explanation of natural phenomena, receives strong support from observation and experiment and that is never refuted by careful investigation is usually called a “fact”. The cell theory of organisms, the germ theory of infection, the gene theory of inheritance and the theory of evolution are all facts. Teaching alternative theories as though they had equivalent scientific status is a perversion of education that damages children’s ability to understand the natural world. In particular, creationism is a religious doctrine long since known to be a fallacious account of Earth history that has no scientific standing and cannot be represented as a credible alternative to evolution. Evolution is the single most important principle of modern biology and the foundation of any sound biology curriculum.I don't like this statement because: (1) it implies that the "theory of evolution" is only about variation and natural selection, (2) it confuses evolutionary theory with the facts of evolution, and (3) it confuses creationism with Young Earth Creationism.
Graham Bell
President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution
If you are going to claim that your version of evolutionary theory is correct then you would be well-advised to define it. And if you are going to claim that it's a fact then what's the point of calling it "evolutionary theory"? The "theory" part of evolution is an explanatory model that's used to understand and interpret various facts about the history of life.
With respect to point #3, one of the main threats to science these days comes from Intelligent Design Creationism and there are many IDiots who do not subscribe to an obviously "fallacious account of Earth's history."
323 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 323 of 323Anonymous said...Friday, August 05, 2011 12:31:00 PM
Let's analyze the Late Paleocene "dog" and "cat" explosion
That is not an analysis, but
"a series of misunderstandings and incomprehensions of varyingly accurate Wikipedia articles. You're well off into crackpot territory now."
That is an accurate assessment by Jud.
Anonymous said...Friday, August 05, 2011 12:31:00 PM
I would ask people here where they all came from, but I know that nobody here knows.
The point is that Anonymous does not know, having never read a paleontology book in its life.
I am not responding to heleen after his unacceptable rudeness (calling me "it) and I do not respond to Jud who is so confused that it makes discussion pointless
But clearly you are responding to heleen. Another point where you contradict yourself.
However, it would be more sensible to listen to them. You are not being bawled out without reason. Everything I said about 'abysmal ignorance' is fully true.
But take Larry Moran's advice: 'when you've dug yourself into a deep hole, stop digging' - what means accepting that you're abysmally ignorant about fossil animals, to block-headed to even recognize what evidence looks like, and hung up on opinions you cannot substantiate.
heleen said...
Anonymous, tell me you mean that Mesonychia are predators, and in the ecological role of about the wolves of today. Even you cannot mean Mesonychia are dog ancestors. There are limits to mind boggling stupidity, and something as stupid as making the ungulate Mesonychids ancestors of cats or dogs would be far over these limits.
Anonymous meant that Mesonychia are dog ancestors! Far over the limits of mind boggling stupidity. Mind spinning stupidity, then.
Oxyaenidae and Creodonta too are carnivore but not Carnivora.
Let's analyze the Late Paleocene "dog" and "cat" explosion:
Primitive cats and dogs ~65 mya (After K/T extinction event)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creodonta
Miacidae genera:
Chailicyon, Eosictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaenus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon
and Procynodictis and Messelogale and Prohesperocyon.
Oxyaenidae subfamilies:
Ambloctoninae, Oxyaeninae, Tytthaeninae, ?Machaeroidinae
Mesonychia families:
Hapalodectidae, Mesonychidae, Triisodontidae
Lots of sudden taxa appear.
I would ask people here where they all came from, but I know that nobody here knows. And it would take a large effort on my part to go through all the distractions and evasions that people will try to suggest. So I won't be doing that.
The bottom line is that all these families appeared suddenly. With a HUGE diversity as we can see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
"Most paleontologists now doubt the idea that whales are descended from mesonychids, and instead suggest that whales are either descended from or share a common ancestor with the anthracotheres, the semi-aquatic ancestors of hippos."
Now that establishment evolutionists have moved beyond the absurd idea that whales evolved from mesonychids, perhaps they can open up their minds to the idea that mesonychids may well have been the ancestors of wolves (the "dog" lineage).
The folks here believed that mesonychids evolved into whales.
(And when you believed that mesonychids evolved into whales anyone who said otherwise was "absurd". But now you admit to thinking differently.)
According to you, wolf-like mesonychids could have evolved into whales but not into wolves!
If you do not see how funny that is there is not much help for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
"Early mesonychids had five digits on their feet, which probably rested flat on the ground during walking (plantigrade locomotion), but later mesonychids had four digits that ended in tiny hoofs on all of their toes and were increasingly well adapted to running."
I am not claiming that new families appeared out of the blue. They appeared as saltations from the ancestors in that lineage.
The explosion of new families circa 65 mya was a result of saltations.
Similarly with the explosion that occurred circa 40 mya.
The interesting question is what were the ancestors of the new families (new taxa) that suddenly appeared circa 65 mya.
Anonymous said...Saturday, August 06, 2011 10:22:00 AM
Let's analyze the Late Paleocene "dog" and "cat" explosion
The word "analysis" is highly misplaced for a random sample of animals got from misquoting Wikipedi.
The bottom line is that all these families appeared suddenly. With a HUGE diversity as we can see.
For one thing, not all these animals are families.
For another thing, this is equating 'appearing' with 'suddenly' appearing - as a good number of those mentioned are a set of paraphyletic stem-taxa. As Anonymous has not yet found out (as it has never got the trouble to look up 'paraphyletic') paraphyletic stem taxa is the jargon for gradual change.
Thirdly, where is the HUGE diversity? The only bona fide Carnivoramorpha are the miacid stem taxa - that did not all of them occur at the same time.
Anonymous said...
Saturday, August 06, 2011 10:34:00 AM
According to you, wolf-like mesonychids could have evolved into whales but not into wolves!
If you do not see how funny that is there is not much help for you.
There is not much help for the level of obtuseness of Anonymous: it does not understand that classification - and therefore evolutionary hypotheses about descent - is not based upon aspect but on anatomy.
A bit of a basic misunderstandig. That sort of thing from Anonymous made me so highly amused all week.
Anonymous said...Saturday, August 06, 2011 10:42:00 AM
"Early mesonychids had five digits ... later mesonychids had four digits that ended in tiny hoofs "
Gradual change. What the @&*$ is this meant to imply?
Anonymous: do some high-school biology, read a book, take a course, learn something. Listen to people. They are trying to educate you, next to having an enormous amount of fun at your bloopers. But then, IDiots are usually beyond rescueing.
There is a cladogram somewhere in the Mesonychia wikipedia. If you understood how to read a cladogram, it would show you that the whales are as near to the cats as the Mesonychia are.
It would appear that the ancestors of the "dog" lineage prior to 65 mya were Cynodonts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont
"
Cynodontia or cynodonts ("dog teeth") are a taxon of therapsids which first appeared in the Late Permian (approximately 260 Ma) and were eventually distributed throughout all seven continents by the Early Triassic (256 Ma[1]). This clade includes modern mammals and their extinct close relatives. They were one of the most diverse groups of therapsids. They are named after their dog-like teeth."
Because people will strive to misunderstand, let me refine this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
"Early mesonychids had five digits on their feet, which probably rested flat on the ground during walking (plantigrade locomotion), but later [SOME] mesonychids had four digits that ended in tiny hoofs on all of their toes and were increasingly well adapted to running."
You can't just group animals together because Wikipedia says x-like trait. A Platypus has a duck-like bill but grouping it with the Anatidae would be retarded because the rest of their morphology is so wildly different. Repeating your points over, and over again does not make them any more credible.
Hello Boojum.
I would not say that I am repeating my points over and over again. I would say that I am extending the scope of what I have been analyzing.
As you can see, one of the principles I am using is that I posit that taxa that are claimed to have gone "extinct" actually developed into a later stage of the lineage.
What is your alternative?
For example, can you give us some details of the ancestor(s) of the new taxa that appeared circa 65 mya?
What were the immediate ancestors?
This is a question that evolutionists are never very clear about.
Instead, the people here simply reject and ridicule any attempt by me to clarify that exact issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont
"The mammal-like structure of cynodonts hints that all mammals have descended from a single group of eucynodonts."
Two things to note about this:
1. It would be more conservative to say that may have developed from the cynodonts. (Other mammals may have developed from other non-cynodont therapsids.)
2. The development of the wolf/dog line may have descended from more than just a single group of eucynodonts.
(Perhaps the development of different specific families of wolf/dogs developed from different specific families of cynodonts.)
Anonymous writes:
Early mesonychids had five digits on their feet, which probably rested flat on the ground during walking (plantigrade locomotion), but later [SOME] mesonychids had four digits that ended in tiny hoofs on all of their toes and were increasingly well adapted to running.
Yeah, great, very impressive. We're all lost in admiration at your ability to arrive at an analysis superior to that of generations of intelligent, careful scientists with a few minutes' worth of misreading Wikipedia.
Now, you want to explain why whale skeletons have (internal) back legs and feet with a morphology closest to that of hippos?
Oh, and you might also want to try to explain why your cocked-up theory doesn't account for the biomolecular similarities and differences among the creatures you're discussing. Molecules are physical entities, every bit as much as body parts. Go ahead, Anonymous, plunge into Wikipedia for 5 minutes and come back an expert on molecular biology.
BTW, Anonymous, all you have to do to stop heleen calling you "it," which you pretend to be insulted by, is own up to your name. So how about it, David?
I get such a chuckle out of evolutionists. Take Jud's reference to hippo legs.
Previously he would have said like mesonychids legs.
That is exactly how it goes.
Whatever the current theory of today is, the folks insult those who think differently.
Then the mainstream evolutionists change their thinking and the folks cover over the fact that the story has changed. And then they proceed to insult people who think differently than the new story.
I sometimes wonder if you folks even recognize that you do that.
That is why I don't take your insults seriously.
Correction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont
"The mammal-like structure of cynodonts hints that all mammals have descended from a single group of eucynodonts."
Two things to note about this:
1. It would be more conservative to say that the wolf/dog line may have developed from the cynodonts. (Other mammals may have developed from other non-cynodont therapsids.)
2. The development of the wolf/dog line may have descended from more than just a single group of eucynodonts.
(Perhaps the development of different specific families of wolf/dogs developed from different specific families of cynodonts.)
@Jud
have you any evidence that the somewhat deranged Anonymous entity actually has a name that it wants to hide?
By now I'm thinking it is a random text generator.
Anonymous has missed out on Procyon, literally 'before dog'.
Anonymous writes:
I get such a chuckle out of evolutionists. Take Jud's reference to hippo legs.
Previously he would have said like mesonychids legs.
That is exactly how it goes.
Whatever the current theory of today is, the folks insult those who think differently.
Then the mainstream evolutionists change their thinking and the folks cover over the fact that the story has changed.
Interesting how folks like David(?)/Anonymous think revising conclusions to fit new facts is a weakness of science. And how they believe that somehow science is eager to "cover over" scientific advances.
That might be what your own first reaction would be to new facts, Anonymous, but don't impute the same counterfactual motivations to science or scientists. There is nothing so highly publicized inside the scientific community and out as a discovery or well-constructed theory that overthrows the current paradigm, the older and more well-established the better.
Was there a movement to "cover over" relativity in favor of Newtonian mechanics? To "cover over" population genetics in favor of Darwinian notions of inheritance? Or as in the specific case of whales, to "cover over" better information in the form of new fossils and more exacting biomolecular information about ancestry in favor of fewer fossils and gross morphological comparisons? Have a hard time finding the information about whales where those bad ol' scientists had squirreled it away in Google, Wikipedia, and popular science magazines?
"Ha Ha!" says Anonymous. "Those scientists used to say the sun revolved around the earth, and now they say just the opposite! These fellows contradict themselves, you can't believe a word. I shall take my theories about the solar system from the only 100% reliable source, misquoting Wikipedia!"
heleen writes:
have you any evidence that the somewhat deranged Anonymous entity actually has a name that it wants to hide?
Comments by PZ Myers about the modus operandi of an IDiot named David Buckna (Wikipedia quotes with "incoherent...highlighting") sound to me quite similar to what we've seen of Anonymous.
Anonymous writes:
The bottom line is that all these families appeared suddenly. With a HUGE diversity as we can see.
Anonymous keeps confusing the Wikipedia version of human-made classifications with paleontological reality.
There are approximately 43000 zip codes in the USA. If we treated these as Anonymous does taxonomic classifications, we would fear to cross border streets because of the "sudden" geographic transition from one postal code to another.
This may be another part of the total picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multituberculate
"The multituberculates existed for over 120 million years, and are often considered the most successful, diversified, and long-lasting mammals in natural history.[2] They first appeared in the early Jurassic, or perhaps even the Triassic, survived the mass extinction in the Cretaceous, and became extinct in the early Oligocene epoch, some 35 million years ago. [2]"
I get such a chuckle out of evolutionists. Take Jud's reference to hippo legs.
Previously he would have said like mesonychids legs.
That is exactly how it goes.
Whatever the current theory is, folks insult those who think differently.
Then the mainstream evolutionists change their thinking and the folks cover over the fact that the story has changed. And then they proceed to insult people who think differently than the new story.
I sometimes wonder if you folks even recognize that you do that.
That is why I don't take your insults seriously.
The issue is not that new discoveries cause thinking to change. That is normal and healthy.
The issue is that new ideas are derided and insulted right up to the time they are accepted and then evolutionists begin deriding and insulting anyone who thinks differently than the new story.
You would think that people would see this pattern and stop insulting new ideas. But they never learn.
Just look at the people on this blog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multituberculate
``Multituberculates are usually placed outside either of the two main groups of living mammals—Theria, including placentals and marsupials, and Monotremata[2]—but some cladistic analyses put them closer to Theria than to monotremes.[3][4]``
In line with the principle I have been enunciating, I would look into the idea that the Multituberculate line may have actually been ancestral to some existing mammal groups.
Is there anyone here willing to say that it is impossible for the multituberculate line to have been ancestral to some existing mammal groups.
If you think it is impossible, I would be interested in your reasoning and any references you could give to support your thinking.
If your response is simply insults (as usual) I will of course ignore them.
Perhaps the development of different specific families of wolf/dogs developed from different specific families of cynodonts.
This might be your best entry yet in the nonsense sweepstakes, and that is really saying something considering the high bar you've set.
Would you like to explain how one gets different families of "wolf/dogs," considering wolves and dogs are a single species? And you are proposing various families in the sub-order Cynodontia all evolved into not just a single family, nor even a single genus, but this single species?
Or perhaps what you're proposing is that there was some sort of parallel evolution between families in the pre-mammalian suborder Cynodontia and specific sub-families of the family Canidae? Your notions of phylogeny and evolution are so, umm, piquant. I'd expect better of any reasonably educated grade-schooler.
Here is what I am doing:
I am looking for the ancestral lines that led to various existing taxa (for examples dogs and cats).
I am not saying that new taxa appeared out of the blue.
The new taxa appearing circa 65 mya had ancestors.
But my point is that there was a saltation jump from the pre-65-mya ancestors to the post-65-mya descendants. And these saltations occurred on a number of parallel lines.
http://www.typology.net/quotes/maria.html
"All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, Second it is violently opposed, Third it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, (1788-1860)
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright and critic (1856-1950)
"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it." Charles Darwin
"Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." T.H. Huxley
Anonymous quotes Schopenhauer, G. B. Shaw, Darwin, and T. H. Huxley regarding the reception of new scientific ideas and leaving aside old thinking.
Giving due consideration to Anonynmous' background and expertise in the field, I think this Carl Sagan quote is more appropriate:
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Primitive cats and dogs ~65 mya (After K/T extinction event)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creodonta
Miacidae genera:
Chailicyon, Eosictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaenus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon
and Procynodictis and Messelogale and Prohesperocyon.
Oxyaenidae subfamilies:
Ambloctoninae, Oxyaeninae, Tytthaeninae, ?Machaeroidinae
Mesonychia families:
Hapalodectidae, Mesonychidae, Triisodontidae
The question is - what were the ancestors of these various taxa.
Anonymous said...Sunday, August 07, 2011 10:02:00 AM
At that time you should be in church. Posting on a Sunday is against the fourth commandment.
I would say that I am extending the scope of what I have been analyzing
any attempt by me to clarify that exact issue
No analyisis, nothing exact in whatever the Anonymous random text generator throws up.
Anonymous said...Monday, August 08, 2011 2:17:00 PM
Primitive cats and dogs ~65 mya (After K/T extinction event)
"O frabjous day Cahoo Cahay
he chortled in his joy"
Anonymous writes:
I am looking for the ancestral lines that led to various existing taxa (for examples dogs and cats).
* * *
But my point is that there was a saltation jump from the pre-65-mya ancestors to the post-65-mya descendants.
It just gets better. So you can say with confidence there was a "saltation jump" in the ancestral lines without knowing what the ancestral lines are.
I guess then you can tell me whether the bridge is closed on my usual route home without knowing what that route is.
Anonymous said...Monday, August 08, 2011 10:39:00 AM
Is there anyone here willing to say that it is impossible for the multituberculate line to have been ancestral to some existing mammal groups.
There is not living relative of the Multituberculates.
If you think it is impossible, I would be interested in your reasoning and any references you could give to support your thinking.
On the contrary, I am very interested in any reasoning Anonymous could give to show that a living relative of the multituberculates exists. Anonymous does not understand that it is up to anyone who makes an assertion to substantiate it.
Anonymous has not substantiated any of its assertions:
Not what present-day cat like animals are descended from Paroodectes for instance. Not what doggish animals would be the descendents of the Mesonychia. The Anonymous entity does not have any grasp of how to substantiate claims anyway: it just throws out random phrases.
The original post was on Friday 15 July.
On Friday 15 July an Anonymous entity had never heard of Miacids or Multituberculates, and did not know anything whatsoever on the evolutionary history of cats or dogs.
Note that the Anonymous entity had on Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:06:00 PM
Primitive cats and dogs - ~65 mya Part of Eocene Explosion
Advanced cats and dogs - ~40 mya
and on Friday, August 05, 2011 11:46:00 AM it added:
Modern cats and dogs ~10 mya?
After I pointed out on Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:30:00 AM that the age of the present day families was about 10 mya.
Therefore, Anonymous has not one idea from itself. It knows nothing, only does some random rummaging through Wikipedia.
Jud said...
Comments by PZ Myers about the modus operandi of an IDiot named David Buckna (Wikipedia quotes with "incoherent...highlighting") sound to me quite similar to what we've seen of Anonymous.
A Canadian retired elementary school teacher could fit the bill for the Anomymous entity. No real knowledge. Plenty of time under working hours. Located in Larry Moran's time zone or one time zone to the west.
However, that David Buckna was not shittish enough to be anonymous.
Folks like those here, attack those they disagree with.
And the more details they can get about those they disagree with, the more personal they make their attacks.
It is a shame really. And a shame that is all they have to contribute.
http://www.newanimal.org/meso.htm
``One branch of the ungulate family, called the mesonychids, were predators. These hoofed predators came in diverse forms, from tiny to horse-sized. There were hoofed counterparts to every kind of predator we have today. .Some mesonychids resembled wolves, some resembled bears and some resembled cats, otters, hyenas or other modern predators.``
This is what is labelled èvolutionary relay.
Anonymous said... Monday, August 08, 2011 11:50:00 PM
This is what is labelled èvolutionary relay
Wasn't Anonymous saying Mesonychids were 'dog' ANCESTORS?
Now it has retreated to giving Mesonychids a carnivorous ecological role. The changing over of the same ecological role between animals of different evolutionary lineage is what evolutionary relay means.
With this comment Anonymous proves (again)it does not know the difference between ecology and evolution, between how animals live and what their ancestry is.
Not the only term Anonymous cannot grasp. Anonymous does not know what biological terminology means.
Anonymous does not know the difference between paraphyletic and parallel, between Carnivora and carnivore. Anonymous does not understand homologous, either, nor does it know taxa is plural with taxon singular.
The real question is: how is it that someone (or something, as it does refuse to give a name) gets the wild idea it can argue about biology by scrapping misunderstood internet entries together.
Anonymous said... Monday, August 08, 2011 11:27:00 PM
Folks like those here, attack those they disagree with.
And the more details they can get about those they disagree with, the more personal they make their attacks.
It is a shame really. And a shame that is all they have to contribute.
Actually, Anonymous might have noticed I need not rely on Wikipedia for my info, not upon a random rummage through wikipedia; so far for the contribution.
Anonymous never listens. I’ve given it good and well-meant advice repeatedly.
“Anonymous: learn some high-school biology, read a book, take a course, learn something. Listen to people. They are trying to educate you, next to having an enormous amount of fun at your bloopers. “
“Take some introductory courses in anatomy, classification, paleontology and reading before you attempt to argue.”
The following are facts, not attacks:
“Anonymous is abysmally ignorant, too conceited to concede he/she/it is abysmally ignorant, and too lazy to put real work into removing the abysmal ignorance. “
“Anonymous is abysmally ignorant about fossil animals, to block-headed to even recognize what evidence looks like, and hung up on opinions it cannot substantiate.”
“There is not much help for the level of obtuseness of Anonymous: it does not understand that classification - and therefore evolutionary hypotheses about descent - is not based upon aspect but on anatomy.”
Don’t complain when the only one you have to blame is yourself, for trying to argue way beyond your depth about a subject you’re abysmally ignorant about.
Copying Wikipedia is no substitute for understanding. Certainly not when Anonymous shows not the slightest idea about what the terms used mean.
Anonymous said... Monday, August 08, 2011 11:50:00 PM
http://www.newanimal.org/meso.htm
Some mesonychids resembled wolves, some resembled bears and some resembled cats, otters, hyenas or other modern predators.
Mesonychia resembled (by aspect, not from ancestry) bears, wolves, perhaps hyenas, but the cats and otters is a bit thick. The website does not give sufficient references.
Internet is not a safe source of info, and this one is clearly off.
Anonymous, find a book on ungulate fossils (even if slightly out of date). Read that. Might be old fashioned, but might be more reliable than random internet sources.
Don’t try to substitute internet for knowledge. That does not work out.
heleen overlooked that I said it was "labelled" evolutionary relay.
I am definitely not saying that that is correct.
heleen's posts are becoming as confused as Jud's.
And they have always been childish. But no doubt heleen will simply come back with some further childish, pompous post.
Anonymous said... Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:39:00 AM
I said it was "labelled" evolutionary relay.
I am definitely not saying that that is correct.
In other words, another term that Anonymous does not understand.
Anonymous never listens. I’ve given it good and well-meant advice repeatedly.
“Anonymous: learn some high-school biology, read a book, take a course, learn something. Listen to people. They are trying to educate you, next to having an enormous amount of fun at your bloopers. “
“Take some introductory courses in anatomy, classification, paleontology and reading before you attempt to argue.”
Take that advice. Don't go on proving yourself to be all I ever said.
Anonymous said... Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:39:00 AM
heleen overlooked that I said it was "labelled" evolutionary relay.
I am definitely not saying that that is correct.
The "" are not in the original post by Anonymous. Anonymous might very well not have known evolutionary relay was an ecological phenomenon until I pointed that out. After all, it is called 'evolutionary' realy, isn't it?
But Anonymous, you cannot tell what is correct or not, since you lack any background knowledge.
Let's analyze the following:
http://www.newanimal.org/meso.htm
"One branch of the ungulate family, called the mesonychids, were predators. These hoofed predators came in diverse forms, from tiny to horse-sized. There were hoofed counterparts to every kind of predator we have today. Some mesonychids resembled wolves, some resembled bears and some resembled cats, otters, hyenas or other modern predators."
As I mentioned before the fact that these were "counterparts" to the kinds of predators we have today is labelled as "evolutionary relay".
In other words the creatures are near identical but do not share a common ancestor.
So we are supposed to believe that Nature developed basically the same creature form twice INDEPENDENTLY.
I will let that sink in for a while and then post some more about this very odd idea.
To continue:
http://www.newanimal.org/meso.htm
"One branch of the ungulate family, called the mesonychids, were predators. These hoofed predators came in diverse forms, from tiny to horse-sized. There were hoofed counterparts to every kind of predator we have today. Some mesonychids resembled wolves, some resembled bears and some resembled cats, otters, hyenas or other modern predators."
As I mentioned before, the fact that these were "counterparts" to every kind of predator we have today is labelled as "evolutionary relay".
In other words, the creatures are near identical but do not share a common ancestor.
So we are supposed to believe that Nature developed basically the same creatures, twice INDEPENDENTLY.
Not just wolves, but an array of creatures. TWICE INDEPENDENTLY.
Anonymous writes:
So we are supposed to believe that Nature developed basically the same creature form twice INDEPENDENTLY.
I will let that sink in for a while and then post some more about this very odd idea.
This is called "convergent evolution." In this thread you doubt the idea. Yet in another thread you doubted apes shared common ancestry with humans, and instead insisted it was an example of convergent evolution.
That's at least your third self-contradiction I'm aware of in the course of this thread.
Would you prefer that heleen and I just stay out of the thread so you can continue to argue with yourself uninterrupted?
The alternative is that those mesonychid taxa developed into their corresponding "counterparts".
Anonymous said... Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:42:00 AM
As I mentioned before the fact that these were "counterparts" to the kinds of predators we have today is labelled as "evolutionary relay".
In other words the creatures are near identical but do not share a common ancestor.
Anonymous is contradicting itself again. Earlier, Anonymous stated that:
1 Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:06:00 PM
Primitive cats and dogs - ~65 mya (Part of Eocene Explosion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
2 Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:06:00 PM
we see Mesonychia:
"The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance to wolves."
We are getting close to the first member of the "dog" lineage.
3 Friday, August 05, 2011 10:37:00 AM
My suggestion that Mesonychidae are ancestors of "dogs" is not original to me.
Now Mesonychids, being predators, are only ecologically similar. Anonymous took some time to get as far as that.
Unless, of course, Anonymous is only expressing itself not very clearly, and only intends to say that paleontologists (those people who know …) regard Mesonychids as predators. If so, Anonymous should have omitted to say the fact and in other words.
Well Anonymous, what is it? Mesonychids as ancestors of “dogs” or Mesonychids in the ecological role of “dogs”?
Anonymous said... Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:42:00 AM
In other words the creatures are near identical but do not share a common ancestor.
So we are supposed to believe that Nature developed basically the same creature form twice INDEPENDENTLY
Don’t forget the Parasuchus Boojum mentioned, that very cat-like crocodile.
Meat-eaters have a habit of having similar teeth, you see. Slicing meat perhaps?
Ant-eaters have a habit of having strong claws, tubular faces, few teeth, and a sticky tongue. Echydna, numbat, aardvark, pangolin, anteater – you think that they had an ant-eating ancestor in common?
I will let that sink in for a while and then post some more about this very odd idea.
We are all looking forward to the next installment, although it might get difficult for you to excel yourself. But one never knows.
Who’s Nature?
The issue clearly goes back much further than this, to before the appearance of the first tetrapods.
After all, we have DOGfish and CATfish --- why would they be called that if not for distant ancestry?
The real question is: how is it that someone (or something, as it does refuse to give itself a name, or even an alias) gets the wild idea it can argue about biology by scrapping misunderstood internet entries together.
The alternative is that those mesonychid taxa developed into their corresponding "counterparts".
For reference:
"Cat" and "dog" lineage ~65 mya (After K/T extinction event)
Miacidae genera:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
Chailicyon, Eosictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaenus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon
and Procynodictis and Messelogale and Prohesperocyon.
Oxyaenidae subfamilies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
Ambloctoninae, Oxyaeninae, Tytthaeninae, ?Machaeroidinae
Mesonychia families:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
Hapalodectidae, Mesonychidae, Triisodontidae
If we take the following as the members of the "cat" and "dog" lineages which appeared suddenly circa 65 mya, then we have the question about the ancestors of these taxa and also the descendants of these taxa.
(The descendants of these taxa are called Carnivora and appeared suddenly circa 40 mya.)
"Cat" and "dog" lineage ~65 mya (After K/T extinction event)
Miacidae genera:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
Chailicyon, Eosictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaenus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon
and Procynodictis and Messelogale and Prohesperocyon.
Oxyaenidae subfamilies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
Ambloctoninae, Oxyaeninae, Tytthaeninae, ?Machaeroidinae
Mesonychia families:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
Hapalodectidae, Mesonychidae, Triisodontidae
Anonymous said... Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:17:00 AM
The alternative is that those mesonychid taxa developed into their corresponding "counterparts".
If that is, by any stretch of imagination, something Anonymous pretends to be his hypothesis, Anonymous should tell how. Tell us who the parents were, what the zygote stage was, and what the adult stage, as ‘developed’ means the sequence of events from fertilized egg to adult in biology.
The descendants of these taxa are called Carnivora and appeared suddenly circa 40 mya.
If Carnivora are ‘descendants’, they didn’t appear suddenly: that is what ‘descendants’ never do if you know their ancestors.
Since Anonymous is fantasizing about an ancestor-descendant relationship, tell the exact stages. Please tell where the hooves went, and where the carnassial teeth started. And be very specific about that otter (where your latest find on internet gets into the morass).
Very very impressive, copying lists of names from Wikipedia, without knowing anything.
The real question is: how is it that someone (or something, as it does refuse to give itself a name, or even an alias) gets the wild idea it can argue about biology by scrapping misunderstood internet entries together.
Who’s Nature?
Ant-eaters have a habit of having strong claws, tubular faces, few teeth, and a sticky tongue. Echydna, numbat, aardvark, pangolin, anteater – does Anonymous fantasize that they had an ant-eating ancestor in common?
Concerning the mesonychids, let's look at the two options.
1. Mesonychids developed into their corresponding Carnivora counterparts.
OR
2. The Carnivora developed from some other COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT lineage and it happened that they ended up being almost exactly the same as the mesonychids.
Consider Occam's Razor.
Because the folks here always find some way to misunderstand, let me add:
Carniovorans developed from a set of parallel lineages and not just mesonychids (eg. from Miacidae, Oxyaenidae)
If some has a serious alternative please present it. (Note - I do not respond to insults).
By the way, just saying that what I have said makes Carnivora polyphyletic, is not a sufficient counterargument.
From am analysis of the various taxa, it appears that the establishment evolution opinion at the moment is that all Carnivora taxa evolved from Miacidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
Lists of names are not evidence. Anonymous has not the slightest clue what paleontological evidence looks like. Anonymous has no idea about anatomy or classification, or how to procee. All it has to offer is fantasy.
The real question is: how is it that someone (or something, as it does refuse to give itself a name, or even an alias) gets the wild idea it can argue about biology by scrapping misunderstood internet entries together.
Another word Anonymous does not know the meaning of: argument.
The Carnivora are monophyletic, both by anatomy and DNA.
That is a fact. Anonymous only deals in fantasy.
Here is food for thought:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11975336
Molecular systematics of the Canidae.
"Despite numerous systematic studies, the relationships among many species within the dog family, Canidae, remain unresolved. Two problems of broad evolutionary significance are the origins of the taxonomically rich canidae fauna of South America and the development in three species of the trenchant heel, a unique meat-cutting blade on the lower first molar. The first problem is of interest because the fossil record provides little evidence for the origins of divergent South American species such as the maned wolf and the bush dog. The second issue is problematic because the trenchant heel, although complex in form, may have evolved independently to assist in the processing of meat. We attempted to resolve these two issues and five other specific taxonomic controversies by phylogenetic analysis of 2,001 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence data from 23 canidae species. The mtDNA tree topology, coupled with data from the fossil record, and estimates of rates of DNA sequence divergence suggest at least three and possibly four North American invasions of South America. This result implies that an important chapter in the evolution of modern canids remains to be discovered in the fossil record and that the South American canidae endemism is as much the result of extinction outside of South America as it is due to speciation within South America. The origin of the trenchant heel is not well resolved by our data, although the maximum parsimony tree is weakly consistent with a single origin followed by multiple losses of the character in several extant species. A combined analysis of the mtDNA data and published morphological data provides unexpected support for a monophyletic South American canidae clade. However, the homogeneity partition tests indicate significant heterogeneity between the two data sets."
DNA evidence indicates that there are problems in the current thinking about canidae ancestry. That is because they are trying to shoehorn the evidence into an incorrect model.
I have presented a more parsimonious model.
"Here is food for thought:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11975336
Molecular systematics of the Canidae.
"Despite numerous systematic studies, the relationships among many species within the dog family, Canidae, remain unresolved. Two problems of broad evolutionary significance are the origins of the taxonomically rich canidae fauna of South America and the development in three species of the trenchant heel, a unique meat-cutting blade on the lower first molar. The first problem is of interest because the fossil record provides little evidence for the origins of divergent South American species such as the maned wolf and the bush dog. The second issue is problematic because the trenchant heel, although complex in form, may have evolved independently to assist in the processing of meat. We attempted to resolve these two issues and five other specific taxonomic controversies by phylogenetic analysis of 2,001 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence data from 23 canidae species. The mtDNA tree topology, coupled with data from the fossil record, and estimates of rates of DNA sequence divergence suggest at least three and possibly four North American invasions of South America. This result implies that an important chapter in the evolution of modern canids remains to be discovered in the fossil record and that the South American canidae endemism is as much the result of extinction outside of South America as it is due to speciation within South America. The origin of the trenchant heel is not well resolved by our data, although the maximum parsimony tree is weakly consistent with a single origin followed by multiple losses of the character in several extant species. A combined analysis of the mtDNA data and published morphological data provides unexpected support for a monophyletic South American canidae clade. However, the homogeneity partition tests indicate significant heterogeneity between the two data sets."
DNA evidence indicates that there are problems in the current thinking about canidae ancestry. That is because they are trying to shoehorn the evidence into an incorrect model.
I have presented a more parsimonious model."
Note the sentence:
"The second issue is problematic because the trenchant heel, although complex in form, may have evolved independently to assist in the processing of meat. "
As a general comment, I would be very cautious in accepting any opinions from the people who until very recently were making the ludicrous assertion that whales evolved from mesonychids.
And not only were they making that assertion but they were dismissing any alternate ideas as "nonsense".
More interesting DNA evidence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16213754
A molecular phylogeny of the Canidae based on six nuclear loci.
" In general, these individual gene trees were not well resolved, but several identical groupings were supported by more than one locus. Phylogenetic analysis with a data set combining the six nuclear loci using MP, ML, and Bayesian approaches produced a more resolved tree that agreed with previously published mitochondrial trees in finding three well-defined clades, including the red fox-like canids, the South American foxes, and the wolf-like canids".
Here is the beginning of a recognition of the separate lineages.
Not surprisingly there is a distinction between foxes and wolves. These are a couple of the significant separate lines established circa 65 mya (or even earlier).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11975336
Molecular systematics of the Canidae.
"The second issue is problematic because the trenchant heel, although complex in form, may have evolved independently to assist in the processing of meat.
The origin of the trenchant heel is not well resolved by our data, although the maximum parsimony tree is weakly consistent with a single origin followed by multiple losses of the character in several extant species."
The way to shoehorn conflicting data into a preconceived model is often done by positing an ad hoc explanation like "a single origin followed by multiple losses of the character".
I have presented a more parsimonious model.
From an analysis of the various taxa, it appears that the establishment evolution opinion at the moment is that all Carnivora taxa evolved from Miacidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
Anyone agree with this? If so, why?
Anyone disagree with this? If so, why?
Anonymous said... Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:21:00 PM
...all Carnivora taxa evolved from Miacidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
That is correct. The basic refence is
Wesley-Hunt, GD, & JJ. Flynn. 2005. Phylogeny of the Carnivora: Basal Relationships Among the Carnivoramorphans, and Assessment of the Position of 'Miacoidea' Relative to Carnivora. Journal of Systematic Paleontology, 3: 1-28.
Additionally, one possibility among other is:
M. Spaulding en J.J. Flynn, 2009. Anatomy of the postcranial skeleton of ‘Miacis’ uintensis (Mammalia: Carnivoramorpha). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29:1212–1223
Anonymous said...
Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:56:00 AM
....red fox-like canids, the South American foxes, and the wolf-like canids.
Givedn that those are very well known systematic groups before any DNA phylogenetic analysis came along, all this is saying is that the DNA corresponds to the morphology of the animals.
The split within the Caninae between the red-fox group and the south American ones on the one hand and the wolf-like canids on the other hand is about 12 million years ago, the split between the red foxes and the SA foxes about 10 million years ago. Before that, their common ancestor is known.
Find the relevant literature yourself, but this is what is says.
Not very up to date on Canid DNA: 1997 and 2005. Even then, Canid monophyly is clearly attested.
Anonymous, who never lets an opportunity to change the subject go, has diverted attention from the fact that the Carnivora are monophyletic both by anatomy and DNA.
As to Mesonychids and whales, there was and is nothing absurd about that. Anonymous should get the latest literature on that, it is actually to be found on wikipedia.
Anonymous said...Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:03:00 AM
I have presented a more parsimonious model.
Anonymous has not presented any model at all. Anonymous has presented a list of names, asserting these are cat or dog precursors without presenting any evidence.
Anonymous does not know what an argument is.
Anomymous does not know what evidence is.
And, Anonymous, what is a 'trenchant heel'? Explain, if you know so much.
Anonymous said... Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:05:00 AM
{mesonychids and whales]
And not only were they making that assertion but they were dismissing any alternate ideas as "nonsense".
What alternate ideas? Special creation? Intelligent design? Something brought up ignoramuses?
Anonymous writes:
I have presented a more parsimonious model.
Oh it's more parsimonious, all right. In the same way that the the 6 day Earth creation model is more parsimonious than the 4.5 billion year one: It leaves out any explanation of anything important, and substitutes a fairy tale based on a nearly entire absence of actual data.
"Concerning the mesonychids, let's look at the two options:
1. Mesonychids developed into their corresponding Carnivora counterparts.
OR
2. The Carnivora developed from some other COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT lineage and it happened that they ended up being almost exactly the same as the mesonychids.
Consider Occam's Razor."
It looks like the evolution establishment's opinion at this point in time is option 2 based on the idea of evolution from Miacidae.
This fails the Occam's Razor test. But I know that people will defend it simply because it is the current thinking. They will defend it right up to the time it changes.
To be a bit more specific about Anonymous' "more parsimonious" model:
More parsimonious is easy. It's being careful not to throw out anything important that's difficult. Simple illustration -
Model A: 2+2=4
Model B: 2=4
The second model is indisputably more parsimonious. There are two numbers instead of three, and we've gotten rid of the addition operation. It's also indisputably wrong, because what it left out - the "plus 2" - is important.
Anonymous' model is more parsimonious (to the extent it can be called a model - let's say it is a very bad and inaccurate model, rather than not a model at all), but it leaves out important facts, namely all the DNA data and much of the morphological data. Instead, Anonymous relies on his inaccurate impression of a handful of morphological similarities.
Scientists relied on much more thorough morphological data than Anonymous has when they constructed a model of whales as descending from mesonychids. It was only after additional fossils and DNA data became available that the model was changed, showing whales' ancestors to be artiodactyls. Note that Anonymous has referred several times to the model of mesonychid ancestry as "ludicrous." Since Anonymous has much less morphological data supporting his model than there was to support the mesonychid ancestry model, by Anonymous' own standards his model is much worse than ludicrous.
Anonymous said... Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:21:00 PM
The Carnivora developed from some other COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT lineage and it happened that they ended up being almost exactly the same as the mesonychids.
Consider Occam's Razor."
1 Anonymous’s idea of Occam’s Razor is below Pass level. To quote Anonymous’s favourite source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The principle was often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation.
The scientific view on Carnivora and Mesonychids is the one with more explanatory power: quite easily, as Anonymous has not tried to do any explanation.
2 The Mesonychia and the Carnivora are not almost exactly the same. “The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance to wolves.”, according to Wikipedia. A ‘superficial resemblance to wolves’ is not the same as ‘almost exactly the same as the Carnivora’. Anonymous, as usual, shows a total disdain for anatomy. All Anonymous does is asserting relations between animals, without any attempt to substantiate those relations. Clearly Anonymous has not a clue how to substantiate any of its opinions.
Anonymous started on the cats and dogs on Sunday 24 July.
Since then Anonymous has made a large number of assertions about Carnivore ancestry. These assertions are not checked on internal coherence. Anonymous has not produced any evidence to back up his assertions. Anonymous has not even tried to back up to his pronouncements with relevant data. All Anonymous goes on is lack of biological knowledge.
The following are facts, not attacks:
“Anonymous is abysmally ignorant, too conceited to concede he/she/it is abysmally ignorant, and too lazy to put real work into removing the abysmal ignorance. “
“Anonymous is abysmally ignorant about fossil animals, to block-headed to even recognize what evidence looks like, and hung up on opinions it cannot substantiate.”
“There is not much help for the level of obtuseness of Anonymous: it does not understand that classification - and therefore evolutionary hypotheses about descent - is not based upon aspect but on anatomy.”
“.. the cringe-worthy and entirely unsupported nature of Anonymous’ theory, apparently derived from a series of misunderstandings and incomprehensions of varyingly accurate Wikipedia articles. Anonymous is well off into crackpot territory now.”
“Since Anonymous has much less morphological data supporting his model than there was to support the mesonychid ancestry model, by Anonymous' own standards his model is much worse than ludicrous”.
Here is what current evolution thinking would have us believe:
That Carnivora developed from the Miacidae line and it just happened that they ended up being almost exactly the same as the Mesonychids.
A rational person would not believe this. He/she would look for another explanation. As it turns out, a very parsimonious alternative exists. Mesonychids developed into their Carnivoran counterparts.
Let's look at some facts concerning Miacidae:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacis_cognitus
"Comparison to modern species
The skull of M. cognitus is long and low. Their modern-day relatives have often changed greatly, but there are several species whose osteology still appears much like Oligocene M. cognitus. In skull morphology alone, the African palm civet, Nandinia binotata takes the prize of looking most like its distant relative.Considering the morphology of the entire body, various species of civet, and herpetids are pretty close to what the living animal would have resembled. The most similar in body type would be between Viverridae's binturong (without the shag of hair) and the fossa of Eupleridae."
We see that the Miacis_cognitus (a member of Miacidae) is similar to civets and other than that Miacidae are not particularly similar to other Carnivorans.
What this leads us to conclude is that the Miacidae led to civets and that the other Carnivorans developed from the other genera I mentioned - Mesonychids and Oxyaenidae.
Let's look at some facts concerning Oxyaenidae. They seem related to wolverines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaena
"Oxyaena ("Sharp" or "Drawn-out" + hyena) is an extinct genus of extinct creodont mammal from the latest Paleocene to early Eocene of North America (most specimens being found in Colorado). The species were superficially cat or wolverine-like, with a flexible body 1 metre (3.3 ft) long, and short limbs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeonictis
"Palaeonictis is an extinct hyena-like creodont predator belonging to the family Oxyaenidae, existing from the late Paleocene to the early Eocene times.[1] In life, it would have resembled a large modern wolverine."
So as a very rough summary:
Civet-type creatures developed from
Miacidae.
Wolverine-type creatures developed from Oxyaenidae.
And the other Carnivorans developed from their Mesonychid "counterparts".
This is very rough but at least presents the idea.
Note: It does not include the creatures that developed from the Viverridae line.
There is an important issue in the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacis_cognitus
"The skull of M. cognitus is long and low. Their modern-day relatives have often changed greatly, but there are several species whose osteology still appears much like Oligocene M. cognitus. In skull morphology alone, the African palm civet, Nandinia binotata takes the prize of looking most like its distant relative.Considering the morphology of the entire body, various species of civet, and herpetids are pretty close to what the living animal would have resembled. The most similar in body type would be between Viverridae's binturong (without the shag of hair) and the fossa of Eupleridae."
It says:
"Their modern-day relatives have often changed greatly,.."
That is how they cover over the fact that the creatures that are claimed to be modern day descendants are not similar to what is being claimed as the ancestor.
The passage says that only Civets have the same bone structure
Those who claim that Carnivora taxa evolved from Miacidae do so, not because of the evidence but in spite of it.
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychid
Order: Mesonychia
Families:
Hapalodectidae, Mesonychidae, Triisodontidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapalodectidae
Family: Hapalodectidae
Genera:
Hapalodectes, Hapalorestes, Metahapalodectes, Lohoodon, Honanodon
Family: Mesonychidae
Genera:
Ankalagon, Dissacus, Guilestes, Harpagolestes, Hessolestes, Hukoutherium, Jiangxia, Mesonyx (type genus), Mongolestes, Mongolonyx, Pachyaena, Sinonyx, Synoplotherium, Yangtanglestes
Family: †Triisodontidae
Type genus:
Triisodon
Genera:
†Andrewsarchus, †Eoconodon, †Goniacodon, †Stelocyon, †Triisodon
also
http://www.pbdb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=183499&is_real_user=0
Mesonychia
Subtaxa
Didymoconidae, Hapalodectidae, Mesonychidae, Simidectes (syn. Pleurocyon), Wyolestes
Update including Viverridae line:
Civet and Marten type creatures developed from Miacidae.
Wolverine-type creatures developed from Oxyaenidae.
Some Carnivorans (eg the "dog" line) developed from their Mesonychid "counterparts".
The "cat" line developed from the Viverridae line. (This is the traditional thinking).
This is very rough but at least presents the idea. It shows the parallel lines.
This is a work in progress.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
"Miacids are thought to have evolved into today's modern carnivorous mammals of the order Carnivora. They were small carnivores, superficially marten-like or civet-like with long, little bodies and long tails."
Summary with some references:
1. Civet and Marten type creatures developed from Miacidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
"Miacids are thought to have evolved into today's modern carnivorous mammals of the order Carnivora. They were small carnivores, superficially marten-like or civet-like with long, little bodies and long tails."
2. Wolverine-type creatures developed from Oxyaenidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeonictis
"Palaeonictis is an extinct hyena-like creodont predator belonging to the family Oxyaenidae, existing from the late Paleocene to the early Eocene times.[1] In life, it would have resembled a large modern wolverine."
3. Some Carnivorans (eg the "dog" line) developed from their Mesonychid "counterparts".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychid
"The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance to wolves".
4. The "cat" line developed from the Viverridae line. (This is the traditional thinking).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacoidea
"... while the Viverravidae evolved into the Feliformes (cats, hyaenas and mongooses), both of the order Carnivora."
I understand that this is not the current consensus opinion.
But the idea of "parallel lines" is certainly more parsimonious than the consensus opinion.
OK, so there's a dimension here not considered:
Firstly, why does Anonymous not try to drag in marsupials? Why isn't the thylacine part of the canid lineage, or the Tasmanian devil part of the wolverine lineage? Maybe Anonymous realises that they're distinguished both by anatomy (multiple characters of anatomy, physiology, genomics, etc. distinguishing marsupials from placentals), but also by space (indigenous to Australia). But, hey, independent evolution of canid and wolverine-like carnivores? What happened to Occam's Razor?
Now, Anonymous seems not to realise that various aspects of the bony anatomy of mesonychids and creodonts (hooves, carnassials formed from different teeth, etc.) debar them from carnivoran ancestry, but he has not considered the aspect of TIME. So, late Paleocene: all carnivorans are small miacids, big predators are mesonychids and oxyaenids. Fast forwards to mid Eocene -- tropical forest paradise of the northern latitudes turns temperate when global temperatures plunge --- many animals go extinct,including mesonycids and most creodonts. It's only in the late Eocene that we now see the carnivorans attain larger sizes and take over predatory roles.
Yes, the picture is more complex than this (large miacid Tapocyon in middle Eocene, hyaenodonine hyaenodontids are part of the late Eocene new radiation), but these aspects of time, climatic change, and extinction need to be taken into account in understanding this well-understood pattern of iterative evolution and faunal replacement.
Of course, this doesn't even begin to take into account the absurdity of someone thinking that people don't already know all of this, but that some neophyte trawling through Wikipedia (who apparently conflates "superficial" with "homologous") can discover some new scientific truths. Actually I suspect a Poe. But for anyone else reading, I just wanted to bring up these broader picture aspects.
Paleobarbie posted:
"Now, Anonymous seems not to realise that various aspects of the bony anatomy of mesonychids and creodonts (hooves, carnassials formed from different teeth, etc.) debar them from carnivoran ancestry, but he has not considered the aspect of TIME."
Are you thinking that it is impossible for the mesonychids to evolve into carnivorans? Can you explain why you think that please? Are you saying that the toes and the tooth structure could not evolve into what we see in Carnivorans?
Note that not all mesonhchids have hooves:
"Early mesonychids had five digits on their feet, which probably rested flat on the ground during walking (plantigrade locomotion), but later mesonychids had four digits that ended in tiny hoofs on all of their toes and were increasingly well adapted to running."
Also could someone please detail out for us what the current opinion is about the evolution steps of Carnivorans?
Then we can really compare the two models.
If you believe that the toes and teeth of Mesonychids cannot evolve into Carnivoran toes and teeth, please show us the alternative of exactly how those Carnovoran characteristics did evolve. And specify the precise taxa involved.
That would be great.
@Anon
Let's play a game,one of these limbs is not like the others, all you have to do is guess which one. Then I'll reveal what animals they each belong to.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/8/foot1.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/190/foot2g.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/foot3l.jpg/
Hi Boojum.
The Mesonychid with the little hooves looks different.
But as we know, not all Mesonychids were like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychid
"Early mesonychids had five digits on their feet, which probably rested flat on the ground during walking (plantigrade locomotion), but later mesonychids had four digits that ended in tiny hoofs on all of their toes and were increasingly well adapted to running."
Boojum, if you believe that the toes and teeth of Mesonychids cannot evolve into Carnivoran toes and teeth, please show us the alternative of exactly how those Carnovoran characteristics did evolve. And specify the precise taxa involved.
That would be great.
Well it looks like people are stuck for a counter to what I have posted.
People go quiet when asked to present the alternative.
@Anon
I'm not sure you even bothered to look at the images from your response. Dogs don't have five digits that rest on the ground, they walk on the tips of four digits and have claws, which is nothing like the mesonychid but almost identical to what you'd see if you started cutting up a cat. You seem to be under the misapprehension that mesonychid were morphologically similar to dogs and despite this foolish 'darwinists' absurdly suggest that they arose from groups that were morphologically less similar but this isn't the case at all. These animals were grouped by close attention to anatomical characteristics. The mesonychids are 'dog-like' in the sense that they have fur, four limbs, a tail, an elongated jaw and some of them were about the right size. This isn't surprising at all because these are basic mammalian traits, with the exception of the jaw and size which is related to the niche. You've asked how dogs and could possibly be so similar to mesonychid when there similarities essentially end at being mammalian and having a predatory jaw. More importantly cats and dogs, civet, wolverine etc are still alive! We have DNA evidence for there relatedness which alone totally contradicts your position. My suggestion is that perhaps we group animals based on anatomy and genetics rather then your 'interesting' approach of grouping them by cobbling together a couple of traits derived from two animals having a similar niche.
Anonymous said
"Well it looks like people are stuck for a counter to what I have posted.
People go quiet when asked to present the alternative."
Eechh -- maybe they are just bored.
OK, so here is the real deal that you clearly can't find on Wikipedia.
Ancestry is not traced through anatomical features that are obviously adaptive and that can evolve convergently --- e.g., general form of teeth, claws, etc. In carnivorans, especially, there are various detailed features of the skull --- the basicranium and the bones surrounding the ear region in particular, that are not only unique to carnivorans but also are uniquely modified *within* carnivorans, so that we can trace the phylogeny within the group.
The lack of such features of the skull of mesonychids debars them from being ancestors of carnivorans just as strongly has having a pouch (and other marsupial features) disbars the "Tasmanian wolf" from being a relative of true wolves.
Got it? (I doubt it, as you seem to think that cutting and pasting names of animals from Wikipedia makes you a better scientist than those people who actually study the specimens.)
Boojum, if you believe that the toes and teeth of Mesonychids cannot evolve into Carnivoran toes and teeth, please show us the alternative of exactly how those Carnovoran characteristics did evolve. And specify the precise taxa involved.
That would be great.
paleobarbie, if you believe that the toes and teeth of Mesonychids cannot evolve into Carnivoran toes and teeth, please show us the alternative of exactly how those Carnovoran characteristics did evolve. And specify the precise taxa involved.
That would be great.
Anonymous writes:
...if you believe that the toes and teeth of Mesonychids cannot evolve into Carnivoran toes and teeth....
Comprehension fail once again. Not "cannot evolve" but "did not evolve." This isn't some vague conceptual Wikipedia-based poor excuse for a late-night drunken dorm room BS session. It's actual paleontological and genetic research showing the ancestry of today's taxa. Actual hands-on verification of factual information. Try it sometime, you might enjoy a change.
@Anon
This is why people call you an IDiot. What part of "We have DNA evidence for there relatedness which alone totally contradicts your position", do you not understand? Why should I bother wasting my time explaining things to you, when to show your self dubbed 'model' is in error, I just need to link to a molecular clock study?
http://wsbs-msu.ru/res/DOC185/carnivora.pdf
I asked Boojum, that if he/she believes that the toes and teeth of Mesonychids cannot evolve into Carnivoran toes and teeth, please show us the alternative of exactly how those Carnovoran characteristics did evolve. And specify the precise taxa involved.
He/she has not done that.
I have also asked paleobarbie this same question, so perhaps he/she will answer it.
If anyone else would like to answer this, please do.
Boojum writes:
Why should I bother wasting my time explaining things to you, when to show your self dubbed 'model' is in error, I just need to link to a molecular clock study?
Thanks for the citation, the paper seemed to my amateur eyes to have a lot of good information.
Actually, there is no necessity to cite any outside sources to show Anonymous' model is in error. Just look at what he proposes: Different families within the order Carnivora each developed from a distinct order or paraphyletic group. In other words, Anonymous' model says these animals became more closely related over generations.
Sorry Anonymous, this isn't the way inheritance works. You are saying in effect that our children are related more closely to their cousins than we are to our brothers and sisters. Get it? Through generations genetic relationships grow farther apart, not closer together. This is the most elementary logic, and your model utterly fails to account for it. Sorry, go try again, and this time do think about it a bit more.
People here are in an odd position.
They mindlessly attack what I have presented, but have absolutely no alternative of their own.
None.
All that has been agreed to (after I brought it to your attention) is the vague idea that canids and felids stem back to Miacidae.
How Miacidae evolved into canids and felids is a complete blank.
You really cannot expect anyone to take you seriously if you have nothing to offer yourselves.
But go ahead. Justify yourself and try to distract from that fact.
@Anon
The question is vague and as Jud already pointed out flawed. If you mean what family the carnivora evolved out of you've already been told repeatedly the miacids. You've rubbished this idea based on your own misunderstanding of anatomy and I expect out of a grossly misplaced attachment to 'kinds', completely oblivious to the fact that the anatomical changes reguired by your 'alternative' are several magnitudes larger.
Now would you please be so kind as to answer one of my questions and explain to me how you can with a straight face suggest a 'model' that ignores the fact that carnivora are definitively monophyletic, and when presented with the genetic evidence proceed to waste every-ones time by copying and pasting questions that have already been answered?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacoidea
"Today, Miacidae is recognized as a paraphyletic array of stem taxa that probably resulted in some "miacid" genera ending up just outside the order Carnivora, the crown-group within the Carnivoramorpha."
This implies that all Carnivora descended from one particular genus within Miacidae.
Is that how people see it?
And is that genus the Miacis genus? If not which one was it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
Family Miacidae†
Genus Eosictis
Genus Messelogale[2]
Genus Miacis
Genus Miocyon
Genus Oodectes
Genus Palaearctonyx
Genus Paramiacis
Genus Paroodectes
Genus Procynodictis[3]
Genus Prodaphaenus
Genus Quercygale[4]
Genus Tapocyon
Genus Uintacyon
Genus Vassacyon
Genus Vulpavus
Genus Xinyuictis
Genus Ziphacodon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
"Carnivorans evolved out of members of the paraphyletic family Miacidae (miacids). The transition from Miacidae to Carnivora was a general trend in the middle and late Eocene, with taxa from both North America and Eurasia involved. The divergence of carnivorans from other miacids, as well as the divergence of the two clades within Carnivora, Caniformia and Feliformia, is now inferred to have happened in the middle Eocene, about 42 million years ago (mya)."
Did the "monophyletic" Carnivora evolve from the paraphyletic Miacidae?
Anonymous writes:
They mindlessly attack what I have presented, but have absolutely no alternative of their own.
None.
If (and only if) "mindlessly attack" is synonymous with showing numerous elementary errors in this model you've been hawking for 100-odd comments now, you're correct.
You're quite incorrect about not presenting an alternative. Articles have been presented to you with good scientific work regarding the relevant taxonomy, as well as links that would guide you to more articles, if you were at all interested in ridding yourself of your abysmal ignorance. The recent article cited by Boojum, for example, has a wealth of excellent recent information.
Anonymous said:
'Did the "monophyletic" Carnivora evolve from the paraphyletic Miacidae?'
Yes, that is exactly correct (except it's probably "Miacoids", including both miacids and viverravids --- details of the precise phylogeny remain to be precisely formulated, which does not mean that that will never happen).
The "Carnivoramorpha" is a new-fangled term for the order Carnivora, which has been reformulated in the narrow sense to only include the crown group (living species and those fossils contained within this clade). "Carnivoramorpha" is what used to be called "Carnivora", before people made such a semantic issue of the "crown group" versus "stem group" notion.
However, the miacoids are "carnivorans" in that they have all the necessary features to be included in the larger grouping Carnivoramorpha (and thus can be seen as broadly ancestral to the Carnivora in the restricted sense_: carnassials formed from last upper premolar and first lower molar, plus various details of the basicranium and ear region.
None of these features apply to the creodonts or mesonychids, despite how similar they might appear to certain modern carnivorans in overall gestalt (versus actual detailed anatomy). Convergence to the carnivorans also occurred among the marsupials (in both Australia and, independently, South America), thus putting paid to this "Occam's Razor" maxim you keep raising.
The miacoids are also in the right timeframe to be "ancestral" to later carnivorans. Modern groups of carnivorans do not appear until the late middle Eocene, which is just when miacoids start becoming a bit larger and more carnivoran like. The mesonychids and oxyaenid creodonts that survive into those times (or nearly so) are all large, specialized predators. Those more generalized mesonychids that you're fond of citing are Paleocene forms, too early for carnivoran ancestry. (And, actually, miacoids ---basal members of the Carnivoramorpha that also includes Carnivora, were present at the very start of the Cenozoic, unlike either mesonychids or creodonts).
PS. Why do you imagine any doubt about the gender of someone who calls themselves "Paleobarbie"??
Paleobarbie posted:
"PS. Why do you imagine any doubt about the gender of someone who calls themselves "Paleobarbie"??"
He/she did not say:
PS. Why do you imagine any doubt about the gender of someone who calls herself "Paleobarbie"??"
Confusing all around. But hardly worth worrying about.
paleobarbie posted:
"'Did the "monophyletic" Carnivora evolve from the paraphyletic Miacidae?'
Yes, that is exactly correct (except it's probably "Miacoids", including both miacids and viverravids --- details of the precise phylogeny remain to be precisely formulated, which does not mean that that will never happen)."
If it is miacoids which includes miacids and viverravids, then we are already one step closer to what I have proposed.
For reference, here is what I have suggested (work in progress):
1. Civet and Marten type creatures developed from Miacidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
"Miacids are thought to have evolved into today's modern carnivorous mammals of the order Carnivora. They were small carnivores, superficially marten-like or civet-like with long, little bodies and long tails."
2. Wolverine-type creatures developed from Oxyaenidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeonictis
"Palaeonictis is an extinct hyena-like creodont predator belonging to the family Oxyaenidae, existing from the late Paleocene to the early Eocene times.[1] In life, it would have resembled a large modern wolverine."
3. Some Carnivorans (eg. the "dog" line) developed from their Mesonychid "counterparts".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychid
"The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance to wolves".
4. The "cat" line developed from the Viverravidae line. (This is the traditional thinking).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacoidea
"... while the Viverravidae evolved into the Feliformes (cats, hyaenas and mongooses), both of the order Carnivora."
@Anon
What you have suggested has already been shown to be definitively incorrect. Either address the fact your ridiculous theory is anatomically nonsensical and directly contravened by genetic evidence or we'll be forced to conclude that you are either not acting in good faith or are so out outrageously stupid to not understand basic concepts of reason, evidence and science. Your suggestions require that carnivora is polyphyletic, however there is a huge amount of empirical evidence that this is not the case. From these two facts we must conclude your suggested evolutionary relationships are incorrect. Please actually address this issue and explain how you've come to a different conclusion.
Boojum, what do you think of paleobarbie's idea that Carnivora evolved from Miacoids (including both miacids and viverravids), rather than Miacidae?
Well it looks like Boojum will not be contributing to this discussion.
I think that paleobarbie is on the right track in saying that [some] Carnivorans evolved from Miacoids (including both miacids and viverravids.)
Here is how paleobarbie put it:
"Yes, that is exactly correct (except it's probably "Miacoids", including both miacids and viverravids --- details of the precise phylogeny remain to be precisely formulated, which does not mean that that will never happen)."
paleobarbie also posted:
"However, the miacoids are "carnivorans" in that they have all the necessary features to be included in the larger grouping Carnivoramorpha (and thus can be seen as broadly ancestral to the Carnivora in the restricted sense_: carnassials formed from last upper premolar and first lower molar, plus various details of the basicranium and ear region."
So miacoids (miacids and viverravids) are Carnivorans. This is in line with the wikipedia articles.
I have proposed following the traditional thinking) that Viverravids led to Felidae
and also that
Miacids led to civet and marten type creatures.
This is all straightforward and in line with all the evidence.
We have yet to analyze where the "dog line came from. I have proposed they came from mesonychids.
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
"Based on dental features and braincase sizes, it is now known that Carnivora must have evolved from a form even more primitive than Creodonta .."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creodonta
"Creodonts were traditionally considered ancestors to Carnivora, but are now considered to have shared a common ancestor further back - possibly a Cimolesta such as Cimolestes. They share with the Carnivora the carnassial shear, a modification of teeth that evolved to slice meat in a manner like scissors and gave both orders the tools to dominate the niche."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychid
"Mesonychians were once long considered to be creodonts but have now been removed from that order and placed in three families (Mesonychidae, Hapalodectidae, Triisodontidae), either within their own order, Mesonychia (or in older text, "Acreodi"), or within the order Condylarthra as part of the cohort or superorder Laurasiatheria. "
Let's begin with an analysis of the traditional thinking.
It suggests that:
"Creodonts were traditionally considered ancestors to Carnivora"
AND
"Mesonychians were once long considered to be creodonts"
From this it follows that mesonychids were ancestors of at least some of the Carnivora.
This is supported by the evidence that creodonts "share with the Carnivora the carnassial shear, a modification of teeth that evolved to slice meat in a manner like scissors and gave both orders the tools to dominate the niche."
Given this evidence and the fact that mesonychids bore a strong resemblance to wolves it is a reasonable conclusion that mesonychids were the ancestors to the "dog" family.
This is a much stronger conclusion supported by much stronger evidence than the previous ludicrous idea that mesonychids were ancestral to whales.
Summary:
Viverravids led to Felidae
and
Mesonychids led to Canidae.
Let's analyze the details.
The most commonly fallacious claim of evolutionists is that variation of any kind constitutes evolution, and that population genetics, acted upon by natural selection, is the mechanism. This claim fails for the following reasons.
1. variation in life forms is never morphological. It constitutes variation in size, color, shape, or pattern, but such variation cannot produce new kinds by producing new structural designs or transforming extant structures into ones with new bio-machanical function. You cannot get an amphibian tetrapod from fish by changing the size, color, shape, or pattern of the animal any number of times. Evolution would require an absolutely astonishing number of morphological changes to produce new genus. There is no evidence in biology that this is possible or has ever taken place.
2. Genetics does not support evolution, but refutes it instead. 90 years of genetic experimentation and observation have produced only evidence that there is no mechanism for evolution to be had from random mutation or gene expression. Nature cannot produce information. Genetics demonstrates that there are severe limitations to variation based upon the information presently in the genus. Without new information evolution could not take place.
3. The fossil record DOES NOT support morphological transition into new genus as evolutionists claim. In fact, a great many scientists who firmly believe in evolution, even many who are or have been prominant paleontologists, had admitted in their own books and papers that the fossils do not show clear evidence of transition, but stasis instead.
3. Biochemical variation, such as gaining immunities, novel protiens and the like do not constitute evolutionary change. They have no potential to change the morphology of an organism, and morphological change is a requirement for one genus to transition into an new one. Speciation (see Species Problem) produces cosmetic variation, but has never been known to cause morphological change -- no structural design change whatsoever.
4. Natural selection does not select for individual mutations. It selects entire mutants, with any or all mutations they have experienced, with the exception of grossly deforming or weakening mutations whereby the indivual is unfit for survival.
5. Life forms, including man, have long been experiencing random mutation at a rate which tells us life cannot have been evolving for hundreds of MY. Humans are experiencing 100 random mutations per person per generation. At this rate, man cannot be even 10's of thousands of yrs old because the degratory effect of such accruing mutation would cause extinction.
Evolutionism is not science nor is it even scientific. It is an endless series of assumptions and speculations conjectured as fact with no evidence, and all evidence refuting it. Evolution is a philosophical concept which attempts to prove relatedness and has provided no knowledge of how anything biological functions. No physician in the world uses it to treat patients or understand their bodily functions.... because evolution tells them nothing about how anything biological operates. It is a burdening hinderance to science, and a tremendous waste of money and student time and resources.
NephilimFree
Post a Comment