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 :
1 – 200 of 323 Newer› Newest»1. I would argue that they don't imply that variation and natural selection is all there is about evolution, since they mention them after a "such as", which we could still argue about (whether they are among the most important processes behind evolution or not, but I bet that if not among the main mechanisms overall, still among the main for things we care about such as how we got to be different from chimps).
2. I agree that it seems to confuse the facts of evolution with evolutionary theory. I wonder how much better can this be written and still be kept concise and easy to digest for whomever this statement is written for (education policy makers?).
3. I think the statement is wrong at mentioning creationism at all, but maybe that was the point of making this statement (?). Still, it is also a fallacious account of Earth's history to propose that some "intelligent agency" (namely the creationist's believed creator) has been directing evolution, or has been creating proteins, or created life to begin with, or whatever. Yet, I agree they could have been better in this statement to avoid confusion if they did not mean YECs alone.
"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."
This is talking about microevolution, not macroevolution.
Right?
That which "has been repeatedly observed and verified in natural populations and in laboratory experiments" is microevolution.
Has macroevolution ever been repeatedly observed and verified in natural populations and in laboratory experiments? If so, could someone give us reference links for that please? That would be exceptionally helpful.
"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”."
Under this definition of "fact", macroevolution does not qualify.
Macroevolution is a theory, not a fact. Why can't an august body, like the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, make the basic distinction between microevolution and macroevolution?
I think we are justified in thinking they are trying to pull a fast one on us.
If they believe in what they are saying, then why not present it honestly?
And how about meso-evolution (In between macro and micro evolution)? Nobody has proven that either.
I think this Canadian institution is trying to pull the wool over our (intelligently designed) eyes.
All the features of living organisms, including those discovered in the recent advances in molecular biology, are readily explained by the principles of evolution.
Well that is an outright lie.
Let me quote from one recent paper on evolutionary biology:
Evolutionary theory is clueless
the genetic origin of new and complex traits is probably still one of the most pertinent and fundamental unanswered questions in evolution today.
So, the evolution of new features is an "unanswered question."
If that is the case, then what benefit does this theory of evolutionism actually offer?
I intend to write a formal letter of complaint to this Canadian society. They must be condemned.
Anus. The Utmost IDiot is at it again.
Anus. there is no micro and macro evolution. Those are creationist rhetoric to hide the fact that they are trying to put an invisible barrier into a natural process they can't deny.
But tell me, in your deep wisdom, how do you know where that barrier between micro and macroevolution lies? How do you define micro- and macro-evolution for a protein evolving into a new function under an evolutionary experimental setting? How about RNAs evolving functions in a laboratory setting starting with random sequences, then going from barely detectably active to evidently active through rounds of selection, multiplication, random variation, and so on? Where is this barrier and how do we know that these RNAs getting a function did so by micro, rather than by macro-evolution? How does your micro-evolution explain the astounding differences in the kinds of life found at different layers of the geological column, where the more the layers come close to our times, the more life looks like today's life and vice-versa? How can we distinguish micro- from macro-evolution at all IDiot? How? How far should we be allowed to call something micro- rather than macro- or just plain evolution? You should show us honestly all of this, right? You will set an example for those evil Canadians to follow, right?
You are nothing but a wilfully ignorant IDiot.
Here's an essay about Macroevolution that I wrote several years ago. I explain that "macroevolution" is a perfectly valid scientific term that's used by biologists quite frequently. I also explain why population genetics (microevolution) is necessary, but not sufficient, to explain macroevolution.
Larry,
That might be so, and I have seen scientific articles describing changes at short evolutionary scales referring to it as "microevoluton." But Anus.'s microevolution is not a scientific term, but a confusion created for rhetorical purposes. For having something to hold to and thus accept the most obviously undeniable (antibiotic resistance, speciation in flies, et cetera), while still denying the part that makes them uncomfortable. I don't think it is a good idea of you to present that essay allowing Anus. to hold to something that is not what creationist's mean. The problem of defining a frontier on the side of cretins, I mean creationist/IDiots, remains, but Anus. will now feel vindicated. I should not complain though, given that Anus. misquotes scientific literature anyway.
@Negative Entropy,
You said,
Anus. there is no micro and macro evolution. Those are creationist rhetoric to hide the fact that they are trying to put an invisible barrier into a natural process they can't deny.
I think it's important that our side represent scientific facts accurately. Your statement is incorrect.
I understand that you would now like to rephrase it to mean something different and that's fine with me as long as you don't perpetuate the silly myth that it was creationists who invented the terms microevolution and macroevolution.
There is a genuine scientific controversy about whether macroevolution is just lots of microevolution or whether there are mechanisms acting at the level of macroevolution that cannot be explained by population genetics alone. As a proponent of hierarchical theory of evolution, I side with those who deny the sufficiency of microevolution as promoted in the Modern Synthesis.
I'm well aware of the fact that creationists will exploit this genuine scientific controversy but that's no reason to deny that it exists.
Well said, Larry.
Microevolution and Macroevolution are regarded as two separate things - just read the scientific literature.
There has been an attempt to claim that "macroevolution" means speciation whereas microevolution is change within a species.
However, I regard this as specious - if you excuse the pun. I hardly think the emergence of a new species of fruit fly (most likely due to reproductive or geographical isolation) represents a "macroevolutionary" event.
There is a genuine scientific controversy about whether macroevolution is just lots of microevolution or whether there are mechanisms acting at the level of macroevolution that cannot be explained by population genetics alone. As a proponent of hierarchical theory of evolution, I side with those who deny the sufficiency of microevolution as promoted in the Modern Synthesis.
Though as anyone who reads your essay will know, your view of macroevolution does not deny the sufficiency of natural (lower-case) processes.
Dr. Moran posted:
"There is a genuine scientific controversy about whether macroevolution is just lots of microevolution or whether there are mechanisms acting at the level of macroevolution that cannot be explained by population genetics alone. As a proponent of hierarchical theory of evolution, I side with those who deny the sufficiency of microevolution as promoted in the Modern Synthesis."
Can you give a couple of concrete examples of "macroevolution" please?
Macroevolution is "natural". It is the manifestation of the intelligence of NATURE, which of course is "natural".
NATURE operates in a "natural" way.
We do not need "supernatural" forces or explanations.
Atheistoclast posted:
"Microevolution and Macroevolution are regarded as two separate things - just read the scientific literature.
There has been an attempt to claim that "macroevolution" means speciation whereas microevolution is change within a species.
However, I regard this as specious - if you excuse the pun. I hardly think the emergence of a new species of fruit fly (most likely due to reproductive or geographical isolation) represents a "macroevolutionary" event."
I was thinking the same thing.
I noted the following sentence in your article:
"Since speciation is not a direct consequence of changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population, it follows that microevolution is not sufficient to explain all of evolution."
Would it also be correct to say that the origin of a new genus is not a direct consequence of changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population?
Look,
Macroevolution, in the real sense of the word, means something like fins evolving into limbs or reptilian forelimbs becoming wings.
I may be entirely wrong, but such events have not been observed. There is the possibility that some holy person has sprouted wings like those of an angel and flown up to heaven - but it hasn't been put on Youtube...yet.
Atheistoclast said...
Macroevolution, in the real sense of the word, means something like fins evolving into limbs or reptilian forelimbs becoming wings.
Well, that definition is valid and you don't have to include speciation if you don't like it. But please note that this process (anagenesis) truly is nothing but the extrapolation of microevolution to geological time.
And of course you realise that the fact that this has not been observed does not mean we cannot infer that this is what happened, right?
Now tell me, since you seem to accept that species can split, AND that microevolution can produce changes within a lineage, why don't you accept macroevolution as understood by most biologists (species splitting and divergence, which simply follows from those ingredients)? I am just curious.
Corneel I have a question for you. Do you think that the accumulation of micro changes can lead to the origin of a new genus? the origin of a new family?
If so can you give some concrete examples?
There is a genuine scientific controversy about whether macroevolution is just lots of microevolution or whether there are mechanisms acting at the level of macroevolution that cannot be explained by population genetics alone. As a proponent of hierarchical theory of evolution, I side with those who deny the sufficiency of microevolution as promoted in the Modern Synthesis.
Having read your Macroevolution essay with a layperson's "understanding," I'd like to ask a question about the quote above.
- Do you think speciation ever occurs purely through sufficient microevolution?
I am thinking of situations where the barrier between populations is time, rather than, for example, geographic. For instance, let's say initially reproductive cell alleles in a population are in form A. Over time, form B arises, which is interfertile with form A. Form B eventually becomes fixed in the population to the exclusion of form A. Over additional time form C arises, which is interfertile with form B, but not A. If form C goes to fixation, do we have speciation through microevolution at that point?
Jud asks,
Do you think speciation ever occurs purely through sufficient microevolution?
Yes. It's called anagenesis.
I'm sure you knew this because we know that almost everything happens at least once in biology. Was there a point you wanted to make?
Corneel asks Atheistoclast:
Now tell me, since you seem to accept that species can split, AND that microevolution can produce changes within a lineage, why don't you accept macroevolution as understood by most biologists (species splitting and divergence, which simply follows from those ingredients)? I am just curious.
I don't accept macroevolution, as I understand the term, because there is no empirical evidence for it. It is simply not true that lots of microevolution accumulates to the point where something revolutionary happens - like fins turning into limbs or scales becoming feathers.
Speciation and adaptive radiation have indeed been observed but all this means is that a group has split into two reproductively isolated populations.Naturally, they will evolve to be slightly different because of the difference in genetic variation.
Dr. Moran writes:
Yes. It's called anagenesis.
I'm sure you knew this because we know that almost everything happens at least once in biology.
I thought it probably did happen, but wasn't sure. I didn't see it in the Macroevolution essay, I'm assuming because you couldn't mention all the provisos and exceptions or they would have buried your central points. So I figured I'd ask.
Was there a point you wanted to make?
Just wanting to get a better (layperson's) understanding of how the micro- and macro- pieces fit together.
(Lots of people in this and other threads seem sure of their knowledge and positions and have points to make. I thought it was time for someone to admit he has a lot still to learn, and I'm just the guy to do it.:-)
Dr Moran:
I would be grateful if you could put the comments by Anonymous and Atheistoclast into a junk or spam box. Under this comment box, it says: 'comment moderation has been enabled'. Please moderate them out, then. Anonymous has had a good long run for its money, but its undiluted ignorance is detracting from this blog.
Without the presence of A&A or any other of his avatars, it would be possible to have a rational and informed discussion.
Larry,
I think you don't hold to any absolutism about what happens and what not in the longer run of evolutionary events. Just as I. I think this might be Jud's point.
I don't hold to a "belief" that every change we see in the long run is a result of microevolutionary incrementation alone, but we both agree that there is authentic evolution in the long run that results from accumulation. I would not say "macroevolution is just microevolution in the long run," but if I seemed to, then here I clarify that I did not. My contention was that the microevolution that the creationists talk about is something of their invention that contains an imaginary barrier that they can never define, and that their fuzzy definition could be translated as "evolution we can't deny because it happens in real time."
That is very far from any micro and macro-evolutions as defined by scientists. Sometimes they might define it the way you did, but I have read it referred to short evolutionary distances compared to other evolutionary scales, and thus they clearly state that their cutoff is arbitrary. I would certainly not dare think that accumulation of small differences alone does the whole thing. We have had endosymbioses, which are not just accumulations, we have plasmid acquisitions conferring antibiotic resistance, and formation of antibiotic resistance cassettes, which are not just population genetics and happen within [relatively] short periods of time, and so on. But we cannot say that evolution in the long run does not also happen by accumulation of small differences, can we?
So, I just hope you can see that absolutism and false dichotomies are things creationists might hold to, but not me.
Atheistoclast writes:
I don't accept macroevolution, as I understand the term, because there is no empirical evidence for it.
That's right, those leg and foot bones on the whale skeleton that are internal to its body are not evolutionary holdovers from land-dwelling ancestors, they were intelligently poofed into existence right along with the rest of the whale.
And we know that whatever designed the whale has got to be much more intelligent than we are, since I can't for the life of me figure out a single good design reason for whales to require internal leg and foot bones.
Anon:
Corneel I have a question for you. Do you think that the accumulation of micro changes can lead to the origin of a new genus? the origin of a new family?
If so can you give some concrete examples?
Biologists have trouble defining the "species" concept, but they (or most of them) do think that species is not just a taxonomic category of the Linnaean hierarchy, but also a real "thing" of nature. This is not the case for genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and kingdoms. The groups of organisms that make up a clade are real entities of nature, but the higher categories of Linnaean hierarchy are not real categories of nature, but just vacuous labels reflecting the hierarchical organisation. There is no real "genus concept" or "family concept".
Therefore, the process that originates new groups of organisms is simply cladogenesis (linage splitting), there cannot be special processes for the origin of genera or families. The taxonomic categories are designated after the fact. As Michael Ghiselin says, "species speciate, but genera don't generate".
That said, many biologists who should really know better, sometimes use taxonomic categories (most notoriously phylum) as if they were real "things" of nature. But that position is simply untenable considering actual taxonomic practice.
Jud:
Do you think speciation ever occurs purely through sufficient microevolution?
Larry:
Yes. It's called anagenesis.
Larry,
What are your ideas on species concepts?
I favour concepts that require cladogenesis. Anagenesis alone would never be enough.
Dr. Moran, I have a question.
Do you think that the accumulation of micro changes can lead to the origin of a new genus? the origin of a new family?
If so, can you give some concrete examples?
Atheistoclast said...
It is simply not true that lots of microevolution accumulates to the point where something revolutionary happens - like fins turning into limbs or scales becoming feathers.
Thank you for your answer, but I still don't quite understand your position. Do you believe the amount of change is constrained in some way? That limbs are a shape that is not accessible to organisms bearing fins? Surely you know that limbs and fins of lobe-finned fishes are considered homologous structures? What would prevent the gradual transition of one form to another?
anonymous said...
Do you think that the accumulation of micro changes can lead to the origin of a new genus?
I sure hope you are not the same anonymous from that giant comment thread.
Groups of organisms that are sufficiently different from each other are placed in different genera. So I guess the answer is yes. But why did you ask for the "origin" of a new genus or family? Every pair of genera or families must start as two sister species.
If so can you give some concrete examples?
Haha, what did you have in mind? A fossilised sequence of slowly diverging taxa? I suppose you can find examples like that yourself.
Or did you mean examples of incipient speciation?
Atheistoclast said...
like fins turning into limbs
Was this deliberately worded this way to avoid the inverse limbs-to-fins transition in whales?
I posted:
"Do you think that the accumulation of micro changes can lead to the origin of a new genus?
If so can you give some concrete examples?"
Corneel laughed off the question:
"Haha, what did you have in mind? A fossilised sequence of slowly diverging taxa? I suppose you can find examples like that yourself."
Can anyone give some concrete examples?
Geoxus posted:
"Therefore, the process that originates new groups of organisms is simply cladogenesis (linage splitting), there cannot be special processes for the origin of genera or families. The taxonomic categories are designated after the fact. As Michael Ghiselin says, 'species speciate, but genera don't generate'."
Can you give a couple of concrete examples of that process you are talking about please?
anonymous the IDiot asks,
Do you think that the accumulation of micro changes can lead to the origin of a new genus? the origin of a new family?
Nope. This is impossible because the word "genus" is an arbitrary human construct that has to do with classification but very little to do with evolution.
If so, can you give some concrete examples?
Of course not because there's no such thing as the evolution of a new genus in the sense you imply.
Once again, your question reveals a lot about your ignorance of science. You can't even ask a decent question. Am I surprised? No, it's why we call you IDiots.
Perhaps you meant to ask the following question: "Can cladogenesis lead to new species that will eventually, after millions of years, accumulate enough differences to justify classifying them as different genera?"
The answer to that question is "yes." Humans and chimps are a good example. The morphological, fossil, and molecular evidence that they share a common ancestor is overwhemimg.
There are actually many creationists, Michael Behe, for example, who understand the strength of the evidence for common descent and realize that it would be silly to deny it.
Moran has suggested the following:
Cladogenesis can lead to new species that will eventually, after millions of years, accumulate enough differences to justify classifying them as different genera.
And it seems he is saying that this process is nothing more than the accumulation of micro mutations.
But oddly enough his article implies the opposite.
It is easy to look track of the essence of the distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution".
Microevolution is adaptation to the environment.
Macroevolution is the origin of a new type (or kind) of creature.
The simplest example of the origin of a new type of creature, is a new family.
A microevolution makes the existing creature type more successful in its environment. It does not lead to a new type - in fact quite the opposite, because it makes the existing type more successful.
Anonymous, or Atheistoclast, whichever, should look at the genes involved in embryonic development of bat wings. He'll be to lazy to do so, but he might learn something from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
"Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[4]
The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival and reproduction.[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection."
Microevolution is adaptation. It does not lead to a new creature type. Quite the opposite.
Anonymous:
The simplest example of the origin of a new type of creature, is a new family.
Can you briefly explain any concept of "family" that is widely used among taxonomists? How is it different from a "genus concept" or an "order concept"?
What does the word "family" really tell us about nature?
Now I see... the ID Anonymous failed high-school biology. Those definitions are purely of his imagination.
Since he is so fond of wikipedia;
Microevolution is a change in gene frequency within a population over time.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift.
&
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
"Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[4]
The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival and reproduction.[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection."
Notice in the bolded part above, that the existing creature adapts to be better able to deal with the environment. That is microevolution.
It does not lead to a change of type. Why would it? The adaptation allows the existing creature to be more successful in the environment.
Corneel says:
Surely you know that limbs and fins of lobe-finned fishes are considered homologous structures? What would prevent the gradual transition of one form to another?
Look around you: Do you see any lobe-finned fish evolving limbs and crawling onto land like in that episode of the Outer Limits?
The reason you don't is because any hypothetical transitional state is going to be neither a fin nor a limb - it won't be good for any kind of locomotion.
There is no evidence for such an intermediate in the fossil record (Tiktaalik included): all we see are fish with fins and amphibians with limbs.
Let's look at an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
"The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival and reproduction.[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators.
The adaptation mentioned in bold above is an example of microevolution. These adaptations are taking place within the horse family.
So where did the horse family itself come from? The appearance of the horse family would be macroevolution.
@Atheistoclast
So if I understand correctly, you refuse macroevolutionary change, because you believe any hypothesized intermediates will not be functional. The transition from fins to limbs is not impossible in principle, but is prevented because the fin-limb cannot be used for locomotion (or anything else useful). Correct?
Atheistoclast:
The reason you don't is because any hypothetical transitional state is going to be neither a fin nor a limb - it won't be good for any kind of locomotion.
Limbs are good for swimming too, you idiot.
Ahteistoclast:
There is no evidence for such an intermediate in the fossil record (Tiktaalik included)...
Never mind Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, and Acanthostega.
... all we see are fish with fins and amphibians with limbs.
People who have studied Achanthostega concluded that it was mostly or fully aquatic (Clack & Coates 1995). What is your strong evidence supporting an amphibious lifestyle?
Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, and Acanthostega: Anonymous has never heard of these, he has to look them up in Wikipedia.
And Ventasteg,a Elginerpeton, Tulerpeton, Elpistostega, Gogonasus and Osteolepis, when he is at it. And some others.
Moreover, having an actual look at what type of animal Tiktaalik is would do him good. it might even bring sense.
*Acanthostega
Pardon the extra "h". I'll slap myself.
So I have presented the way to understand and differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution.
There is ample evidence for microevolution (adaptation).
But no evidence of the accumulation of micro-evolution changes leading to a new family. But if someone thinks there is evidence, please present it. Give us some example(s) of real creatures.
@Geoxus and Corneel
Limbs are "adapted" for terrestrial locomotion, although of course they can be used for swimming. But I have not seen a fish (extant or extinct) with monstrous half-fins and half-limbs: I can't imagine what this intermediate state would be like, but I suspect it would be physiologically non-viable. The closest possible example is that of the mudksipper: but they just have very strong pectoral fins to drag themselves across the ground.
A much bigger problem is actually finding any genetic evidence in support of this and other assumed macroevolutionary transitions. People ramble on about Hox genes, T-box genes, sonic hedgehog signaling pathways etc but these are almost identical for all vertebrates. It's not that you have a few mutations here and there and you can arrive at a limb instead of a fin. There are clearly natural limits to biological change due to the inadequacy of genetic variation.
Anonymous writes:
But no evidence of the accumulation of micro-evolution changes leading to a new family. But if someone thinks there is evidence, please present it. Give us some example(s) of real creatures.
Hell, I'll do better than a new family, I'll give you a new order. Genetics and the fossil record both show the order Artiodactyla (e.g., hippos) is ancestral to the order Cetacea (whales, dolphins). That's why whales have non-functional internal hind leg bones.
Anonymous should look at the genes involved in embryonic development of bat wings. He'll be to lazy to do so, but he might learn something from it.
And, for the umptieth time, families are not a natural category but a classification construct.
Anonymous wrote (Wednesday, July 20, 2011 5:03:00 PM):
So I have presented the way to understand and differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution
Actually, you've done nothing of the sort, due to your misunderstanding of classification.
Anonymous wrote (Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:58:00 AM):
The appearance of the horse family would be macroevolution.
The horse family did not appear. If you took the trouble to check out articles on fossils you would recognize that the classification of early and extant animals is arbitrary, and the result of our conventions. 'Family' is just one arbitrary level in the classification. I recommend D.J. Froehlich, 1999. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19:140-159, on this particular case.
People here are missing the following point:
It does not matter whether you consider "family" to be a human construct or not. The evidence shows the appearance of creatures that are sufficiently novel that they constitute (or are considered to be) a new "family.
The question remains - where did the new family come from?
The appearance of a novel, new family (whether you consider it a construct or not) is macroevolution.
I am not particularly interested in being distracted on this point. New families appear. That is a fact.
I am interested in the macroevolution process of their appearance.
Atheistoclast writes:
People ramble on about Hox genes, T-box genes, sonic hedgehog signaling pathways etc but these are almost identical for all vertebrates.
You're correct that the genes are near-identical, providing powerful confirmation of common descent. It's the different ways these genes are regulated, particularly during development, that creates the different morphologies we see.
Limbs are "adapted" for terrestrial locomotion
Your limbs are. Any evidence that Acanthostega's limbs were?
But I have not seen a fish (extant or extinct) with monstrous half-fins and half-limbs
Personal ignorance is such a compelling argument... The extinct Pandericthys had a fin with well-developed humerus, radius, and ulna. Isn't that literally a half limb?
Many species of extant frogfish, benthic animals, actually walk, hop, and swim over the sea substrate with limb-like fins. They don't get into land at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcN4nfcletU
I can't imagine what this intermediate state would be like, but I suspect it would be physiologically non-viable.
"Physiologically"? Don't you mean bio-mechanically? Get the right buzzwords.
The closest possible example is that of the mudksipper: but they just have very strong pectoral fins to drag themselves across the ground.
The closest possible examples are those many species of frogfish.
Atheistoclast said:
People ramble on about Hox genes, T-box genes, sonic hedgehog signaling pathways etc but these are almost identical for all vertebrates. It's not that you have a few mutations here and there and you can arrive at a limb instead of a fin
Look in PNAS :
Igor Schneider, Ivy Aneas, Andrew R. Gehrke, Randall D. Dahn, Marcelo A. Nobrega, and Neil H. Shubin
Appendage expression driven by the Hoxd Global Control Region is an ancient gnathostome feature
PNAS 2011 ; published ahead of print July 15, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1109993108
for a few mutations between a limb and a fin.
There are two processes that have been going on in the history of changes.
One process is adaptation through which an existing creature type changes in ways to make it more successful in its habitat. This can be called "microevolution"
The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family. This can be called "macroevolution"
The fossil record clearly shows these two processes.
@ Heleen
You clearly didn't read that PNAS paper. It showed how the controlling region for the HoxD cluster is interchangeable between a mouse and a zebrafish.
@ Geoxus
No. Frogfish, like mudskippers, have 100% pectoral fins. They just look limb-like. But they are still fins and are not transitioning to any limb feature.
There is no such thing as a half-fin/ half-limb organ any more than there is such a thing as a werewolf.
Anonymous writes:
New families appear. That is a fact.
I am interested in the macroevolution process of their appearance.
Good. Now go read the volumes of careful academic work that have been done regarding the genetic and morphological steps whereby artiodactyls evolved into cetaceans.
Atheistoclast said...
A much bigger problem is actually finding any genetic evidence in support of this and other assumed macroevolutionary transitions.
Not nearly as big as constructing an alternative theory. I wonder, if fish with limb-fins stretch your imagination so much, what scenario do you envisage? Whatever it is, it must be much more fantastic than fish with half-limbs, right?
@Atheistoclast
You clearly didn't read that PNAS paper. It showed how the controlling region for the HoxD cluster is interchangeable between a mouse and a zebrafish.
Good evidence for the unity of fins and limbs, isn't it? Small difference in controlling regions are part of the story of continuity.
Anonymous said...
There are two processes that have been going on in the history of changes.
...
The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family. This can be called "macroevolution"
The fossil record clearly shows these two processes.
Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:19:00 PM
No, the fossil record shows no such thing. Macroevolution is not a process, and 'families' do not appear suddenly. Read the work on cetaceae or horses.
One standard delusion is that macroevolution is a process. Macroevolution, if it is anything but a loose word, is a pattern seen in hindsight.
The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family. This can be called "macroevolution"
The fossil record clearly shows these two processes.
We see this dramatically in the Cambrian Explosion and the explosion of creatures in the Eocene.
The macroevolution process is different than the microevolution (adaptation) process.
Adaptation is an (intelligent) response to the environment.
Macroevolution is not simply a response to the environment. Macroevolution takes place within the environment but is not simply a response to the environment. There is more (intelligence) involved. We can see that from the evidence of the fossil record.
Anonymous said... (Friday, July 22, 2011 9:50:00 AM)
The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family. This can be called "macroevolution"
The fossil record clearly shows these two processes.
We see this dramatically in the Cambrian Explosion and the explosion of creatures in the Eocene.
Macroevolution is not a process. A new family does not suddenly appear. The fossil record shows patterns, not processes.
The Cambrian explosion is not dramatic process, neither is the Eocene slow dawning of animals that are reminiscent of present day animals a process. Both are patterns in time, and not sudden. If you think either the Cambrian explosion or the Eocene mammals have anything sudden about them, you need to take a first cause in paleontology.
The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
How well expressed! What process? Macroevolution is the sudden process? What is then macroevolution? The 'sudden appearance of a new family'? What process causes that? Macroevolution?
The other process (i.e. macroevoluton) is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family (i.e. to macroevolution). Beautifully circular.
heleen posted:
"The other process (i.e. macroevoluton) is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family (i.e. to macroevolution). Beautifully circular."
Notice that heleen has put all this in italics, which suggests that I said that.
But I did not say that, so he/she is being dishonest.
I did not include the "ie. macroevolution" parts. heleen added that.
This is the kind of dishonest technique that shows dishonest intent.
The appearance of a new family is the RESULT of macroevolution.
What I have said is not circular.
heleen has been dishonest.
Anonymous writes:
"Adaptation is an (intelligent) response to the environment."
Yes, like when the really educated bacteria read up on mechanisms of drug action so they know what sort of resistance to develop to antibiotics.
Got to admit, you've been good for quite a few laughs around here.
Say, how's that reading about macroevolution of artiodactyls into cetaceans going - you know, that subject you say you're so interested in?
Anonymous said...
The appearance of a new family is the RESULT of macroevolution.
Anonymous has not given any other definition of macroevolution than 'the appeareance of a new family'. Beautifully circular.
Can't Anonymous understand what it itself writes?
Anonymous Friday, July 22, 2011 5:23:00 PM
The appearance of a new family is the RESULT of macroevolution.
Anonymous Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:58:00 AM
The appearance of the horse family would be macroevolution.
Now Anonymous should answer this:
Heleen said:
"(Anonymous said:)The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
How well expressed! What process? Macroevolution is the sudden process? What is then macroevolution? The 'sudden appearance of a new family'? What process causes that? Macroevolution? "
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
heleen said... on Friday, July 22, 2011 3:53:00 PM, in answer to Anonymous Friday, July 22, 2011 9:50:00 AM
The Cambrian explosion is not dramatic process, neither is the Eocene slow dawning of animals that are reminiscent of present day animals a process. Both are patterns in time, and not sudden. If you think either the Cambrian explosion or the Eocene mammals have anything sudden about them, you need to take a first cause in paleontology.
Sorry, first course in paleontology.
Anonymous, can you get to this instead of your usual evasion?
Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
Microevolution (adaptation) is the process that results in an adapted creature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
"Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events [macroevolution] of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous."
This acknowledges that "significant evolutionary change" (eg. the appearance of a new family) is a "geologically rapid event". In fact, if you look at the fossil record objectively, these events are close to instantaneous and of course include a whole new set of traits that are characteristic of the new family.
When evolutionists are confronted with objective evidence for the sudden appearance of new families they overlook the actual evidence and make up some story to try to show that the change actually was not so sudden. What they are doing is twisting the evidence to suit their pre-existing theory rather than basing their theory on the evidence.
"First cause":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens
"Primum movens (Latin), usually referred to as the Prime mover or first cause in English, is a term used in the philosophy of Aristotle, in the theological cosmological argument for the existence of God, and in cosmogony, the source of the cosmos or "all-being"."
I thought heleen was making a metaphysical assertion.
:>
@Heleen
Good evidence for the unity of fins and limbs, isn't it? Small difference in controlling regions are part of the story of continuity.
Er...no...it shows that the importance attributed to DNA is not deserving as far as morphology and physiology is concerned.
Let's face some facts: there are natural limits to evolutionary change. Even if the environment necessitated it, humans or pigs could not sprout wings and fly. There just isn't the kind of natural variation for selection to act upon.
Anonymous writes:
sudden appearance of new families
Let's have some precision. What is the most "sudden," i.e., shortest, time frame that you're aware of in the fossil record for a new family to arise from an ancestral one?
Anonymous said...
Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics.
Clearly, Anonymous does not understand the word 'process'. He/she/it has still not got further than saying 'macroevolution = macroevolution'. What process? how does it wrork?
Atheistoclast said...on Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:09:00 AM
@Heleen:
"Good evidence for the unity of fins and limbs, isn't it? Small difference in controlling regions are part of the story of continuity"
Er...no...it shows that the importance attributed to DNA is not deserving as far as morphology and physiology is concerned.
Atheistoclast needs to get up to date with research on the embryology of forelimbs /forefins. He/she/it might start with reading the cited article. Perhaps after that he/she/it might come back with anything that makes sense (of sit in a corner being ashamed of itself). Learn some biology.
Let's face some facts: there are natural limits to evolutionary change. Even if the environment necessitated it, humans or pigs could not sprout wings and fly. There just isn't the kind of natural variation for selection to act upon.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the above.
Anonymous said...on Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:51:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
".... When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events [macroevolution] of branching speciation called cladogenesis. ...."
The word 'macroevolution' has been added by Anonymous. Please notice what Anonymous said on Friday, July 22, 2011 5:23:00 PM.
Anonymous has not noticed Wikipedia specifies speciation. Punctuated equilibium ONLY REFERS TO speciation.
Anonymous continued:
This acknowledges that "significant evolutionary change" (eg. the appearance of a new family) is a "geologically rapid event".
Anonymous can't even read Wikipedia. The Wikipedia entry is not at all about the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous continued:
In fact, if you look at the fossil record objectively, these events are close to instantaneous and of course include a whole new set of traits that are characteristic of the new family.
This makes it clear that Anonymous has never looked at anything in the fossil record. Take a first course in vertebrate paleontology. Read a book.
heleen said... on Friday, July 22, 2011 3:53:00 PM, in answer to Anonymous Friday, July 22, 2011 9:50:00 AM
“The Cambrian explosion is not dramatic process, neither is the Eocene slow dawning of animals that are reminiscent of present day animals a process. Both are patterns in time, and not sudden. If you think either the Cambrian explosion or the Eocene mammals have anything sudden about them, you need to take a first cause in paleontology. “
Sorry, first course in paleontology.
Anonymous, can you get to this instead of your usual evasion?
Anonymous can’t get out of his usual evasion (see Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:19:00 AM). Show some knowledge of paleontology, , as up to now you’ve not show any.
For those interested, I direct you to such families as the cat-like family, the dog-like family and the horse family.
You will see the lack of knowledge about the origin of these lineages.
In fact, there is almost no information on this, just speculation.
More background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivoramorpha (includes cladogram)
"The first carnivores likely arose from a small insectivorous mammal found in the middle Eocene era, a time of rapid differentiation for mammalian species. The earliest known members of the carnivores are rarely found as fossilized bones; most often they are recovered strictly as tooth samples and partial jaw fragments. These pioneering species are classified in the Miacidae clade, which is morphologically separable into two lineages, the Viverravines and the Miacines. Both members of these lineages display dental features that are typically characteristic of carnivores, shearing teeth known as carnassials along with the presence of a transverse jaw hinge. The main difference in these early Miacidae members is found in their dentition, the Miacines resemble the caniforms while the Viverravines resemble the feliforms."
More background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids
"Miacidae as traditionally conceived is not a monophyletic group; it is a paraphyletic array of stem taxa. Traditionally, Miacidae and Viverravidae had been classified in a third, extinct paraphyletic superfamily, Miacoidea, from which the direct ancestors of both Carnivora and Creodonta were thought to have arisen. Today, Carnivora and Miacoidea are grouped together in the crown-clade Carnivoramorpha, and the Miacoidea are regarded as basal carnivoramorphs. Some species of the genus Miacis evolved into modern day carnivores of the order Carnivora, but only the species Miacis cognitus is a true carnivoran. Thus, Miacis may have given rise to all modern carnivorans."
To be more complete:
In the posts above I have listed some info about the cat-like family and the dog-like family.
I have also made the claim that there is a lack of knowledge about the origin of these lineages - it is just speculation.
So here are a couple of questions for the folks here:
What are the first creatures considered to be in the cat-like family and when did they appear? What were their immediate ancestors?
What are the first creatures considered to be in the dog-like family and when did they appear? What were their immediate ancestors?
@Anonymous
Anonymous copies out Wikipedia on the Carnivoramorpha. Copying is easy, understanding is not.
If Anonymous had taken the trouble to know anything, he would see that the Carnivoramorpha, the Feliforms and the Caniforms, the Felidae and the Canidae, fly directly against the starting thesis of Anonymous. The starting thesis of Anonymous was that macroevolution is instantaneous.
Anonymous said on Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:51:00 AM:
This acknowledges that "significant evolutionary change" (eg. the appearance of a new family) is a "geologically rapid event". In fact, if you look at the fossil record objectively, these events are close to instantaneous and of course include a whole new set of traits that are characteristic of the new family.
Now, if Anonymous had READ Wikipedia, or the original literature on the Carnivoramorpha (as I have), he would have understood the Carnivoramorpha is a classic example of gradual evolution with the gradual appearance of diversifying traits.
Copying Wikipedia does not substitute for knowledge. The copying only shows that lack of understanding of basic biology cannot be compensated by internet googling.
Anonymous said... on Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:56:00 AM.
Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
After that, Anonymous read some paleontology, undoubtedly for the first time in its life (and even only on Wikipedia), and then Anonymous said... on Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:09:00 AM
For those interested, I direct you to such families as the cat-like family, the dog-like family and the horse family.
You will see the lack of knowledge about the origin of these lineages.
In fact, there is almost no information on this, just speculation.
Quite contrary to the earlier pronouncements of Anonymous, those of Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:56:00 AM.
However, Anonymous made many additional assertions, and I would like to get them answered. On Saturday Saturday, July 23, 2011 4:37:00 AM I wrote:
“Now Anonymous should answer this:
“Heleen said:
"(Anonymous said:)The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
How well expressed! What process? Macroevolution is the sudden process? What is then macroevolution? The 'sudden appearance of a new family'? What process causes that? Macroevolution? "
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.””
I’m getting back to this for the second time, it seems
If Anonymous feels that "geologically rapid" is the same as "close to instantaneous," I suggest he wait a "geologically rapid" span of time before posting here again and see how close to instantaneous that feels.
Jud said...
If Anonymous feels that "geologically rapid" is the same as "close to instantaneous," I suggest he wait a "geologically rapid" span of time before posting here again and see how close to instantaneous that feels.
Well said Jud!
So here are a couple of questions for the folks here:
What are the first creatures considered to be in the cat-like family (FELIDAE) and when did they appear? What were their immediate ancestors?
What are the first creatures considered to be in the dog-like family (CANIDAE) and when did they appear? What were their immediate ancestors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae
"Felidae is the biological family of the cats; a member of this family is called a felid. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_family
"Canidae is the biological family of carnivorous and omnivorous mammals that includes wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and domestic dogs."
Anonymous writes:
So here are a couple of questions for the folks here:
What are the first creatures considered to be in the cat-like family (FELIDAE) and when did they appear? What were their immediate ancestors?
* * *
Sorry, we're not the folks who claimed changes from ancestral to descendant families were sudden. You did. So the question is, where's your evidence to back up that statement? Your clumsy attempt to throw the question back indicates that as usual, you have no evidence.
Anonymous said... on Monday, July 25, 2011 10:55:00 AM
So here are a couple of questions for the folks here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_family
Anonymous did not READ the Wikipedia entries, he just found them.
However, Anonymous made many additional assertions, and I would like to get them answered. On Saturday Saturday, July 23, 2011 4:37:00 AM I wrote:
(Anonymous said:) "The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family."
How well expressed! What process? Macroevolution is the sudden process? What is then macroevolution? The 'sudden appearance of a new family'? What process causes that? Macroevolution?
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.””
I’m getting back to this for the third time, it seems.
Additionally, Anonymous should get back to the Wikipedia entries he/she/it has not read, and this time read them.
Anonymous by now has shown ignorance of:
geology
paleontology
principles of systematic classification
population genetics.
Ignorance that has to be remedied before Anonymous can even phrase a worthwhile question. Now Anonymous only demonstrates utter ignorance.
So here are a couple of questions for the folks here:
What are the first creatures considered to be in the cat-like family (FELIDAE) and when did they appear? What were their immediate ancestors?
What are the first creatures considered to be in the dog-like family (CANIDAE) and when did they appear? What were their immediate ancestors?
If people cannot even answer these questions, they certainly cannot say whether the appearance of these families was sudden or not.
But go ahead, post some excuse or distraction. I've heard them all.
Anonymous does not have the faintest clue what he/she/it is talking about.
Anonymous should read the Wikipedia he cites for once. Moreover, he should try to find 'phylogenetic tree' and 'classification' on wikipedia,as that might enlighten him on how silly his question is.
Note that Anonymous still has not presented any evidence for his assertions that macroevolution is a process, that macroevolution is close to instantaneous and involves a whole new set of traits.
The Anonymous entity stated (Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:51:00 AM):
In fact, if you look at the fossil record objectively, these events are close to instantaneous and of course include a whole new set of traits that are characteristic of the new family.
The the Anonymous entity showed it's able to copy from Wikipedia. Now if Anonymous had read Wikipedia, and looked at carnivore traits, it might have grasped that the evidence is nothing like what Anonymous wants or distorts it to be.
Anonymous made many assertions, and I would like to get them answered. On Saturday Saturday, July 23, 2011 4:37:00 AM I wrote:
(Anonymous said:) "The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family."
How well expressed! What process? Macroevolution is the sudden process? What is then macroevolution? The 'sudden appearance of a new family'? What process causes that? Macroevolution?
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
I’m getting back to this for the fourth time, it seems.
Anonymous writes:
If people cannot even answer these questions, they certainly cannot say whether the appearance of these families was sudden or not.
Knew you couldn't prove your claim that the appearance of families was sudden, but nice to see you admit it for once.
Perhaps heleen missed my post that after his/her rudeness it was only common sense for me to stop responding to him/her.
And I have mentioned a few times that there is no point in responding to Jud and his confused posts.
If people cannot even answer the questions I posed about the cat-family and the dog-family, they certainly cannot say whether the appearance of these families was sudden or not.
It looks like this discussion has run its course.
People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Re the cat and dog families.
Paleocene/Eocene --- lots of primitive members of the Carnivoromorpha, basically classified as "miacoids". Some more dog-like, some more cat-like.
Late Eocene --- now start to see some more specialized forms, still have all the characters of the more primitive assemblage, but have added some features (actually details of the skull structure) which enable us to identify them as belonging to a particular modern family (e.g., Hesperocyon, first dog, Pseudailurus, first cat).
Sort of like searching back through your family tree and seeing when your particular surname first appears.
No big transformative leap in either case.
paleobarbie posted:
"Paleocene/Eocene --- lots of primitive members of the Carnivoromorpha, basically classified as "miacoids". Some more dog-like, some more cat-like."
According to Wikipedia, Miacoidea is a superfamily and includes the Miacidae family and the Viverravidae family.
Did the cat-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?
Did the dog-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?
@paleobarbie
yes, like that, but why tell the Anonymous entity anything that it could have found itself if it had wanted to?
Anonymous said...
People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Anonymous should not pretend it is not giving any answer because it is insulted. Anonymous has no answer. Now Anonymous says:
People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
So Anonymous, do you include yourself in 'people'? If not, Anonymous should explain to everyone here how he/she/it thinks new families appear, and how he/she/it is goig to square that with the fossile record on Carnivoramorpha he/she/it still has to read up on Wikipedia.
Anonymous made many assertions, and I would like to get them answered.
On Saturday Saturday, July 23, 2011 4:37:00 AM I wrote:
(Anonymous said:) "The other process is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family."
How well expressed! What process? Macroevolution is the sudden process? What is then macroevolution? The 'sudden appearance of a new family'? What process causes that? Macroevolution?
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
I’m getting back to this for the fifth time, it seems. Anonymous should take the questions seriously: if he/she/it has any answer, that is.
paleobarbie posted:
"Paleocene/Eocene --- lots of primitive members of the Carnivoromorpha, basically classified as "miacoids". Some more dog-like, some more cat-like."
I posted:
"According to Wikipedia, Miacoidea is a superfamily and includes the Miacidae family and the Viverravidae family.
Did the cat-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?
Did the dog-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?"
Can anyone answer these questions?
Anonymous writes:
And I have mentioned a few times that there is no point in responding to Jud and his confused posts.
There's really nothing to be confused about. You stated plainly that families appeared "suddenly," and that this was clearly borne out by the fossil record:
Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
Rather than substantiating your claim, you've now contradicted yourself:
People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
So first you stated the appearance of families was sudden and there were multiple proofs in the fossil record, then you stated the opposite, that "no one knows" whether the appearance of families was sudden or not. There's no confusion at all about the fact that you've contradicted yourself, it's on this very web page in black and white.
Do let us know sometime which of your opposing viewpoints won your argument with yourself, won't you?
Anonymous said... Wednesday, July 27, 2011 6:00:00 PM
"According to Wikipedia, Miacoidea is a superfamily and includes the Miacidae family and the Viverravidae family.
Did the cat-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?
Did the dog-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?"
Can anyone answer these questions?
Actually, the answers are in Wikipedia, so read that until you understand
Miacidae is a paraphyletic array of stem taxa. Now go back to Wikipedia, and look at ‘paraphyletic’ and ‘stemgroup’.
The problem with Anonymous is that it knows so little it is not able to understand what Wikipedia writes. If Anonymous had understood what Wikipedia writes, it should have realized how stupid its unnecessary questions are. So Anonymous, read an introductory book. Carl Zimmer’s ‘The Tangled Bank’ would do nicely.
Anonymous writes:
1 Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
2 People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Nicely contradicting, isn’t it?
Anonymous asserted:
Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
Anonymous has some explanation to do.
paleobarbie you had posted:
"Paleocene/Eocene --- lots of primitive members of the Carnivoromorpha, basically classified as "miacoids". Some more dog-like, some more cat-like."
I posted:
"According to Wikipedia, Miacoidea is a superfamily and includes the Miacidae family and the Viverravidae family.
Did the cat-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?
Did the dog-like family descend from one of these families? Which one?"
paleobarbie, since you were good enough to contribute on this topic, could you answer these questions please?
@Anonymous Thursday, July 28, 2011 11:21:00 AM
Everything Paleobarbie said is on Wikipedia.
Anonymous, when will you start reading Wikipedia? Cannot understand Wikipedia?
@Anonymous (sigh)
Neither the "Miacidae" or the "Viverravidae" are a discrete monophyletic grouping as defined today (although in the Eocene they would have been seen as monophyletic, because that's all there was).
So, the miacids are a group of basal Paleocene/Eocene arctoids. That's the branch of modern carnivores that gives includes dogs, bears, weasels, racoons, skunks, and seals. Do we know exactly which miacids are the closest to each of these groups? Somebody might, this isn't my area of specialty. Try googling it.
The viverravids are a group of basal Paleocene/Eocene ailuroids, the branch of modern carnivores that includes cats, hyaenas, civets, and mongooses. Ditto about the exact closest relative.
Basically we have an Eocene radiation of mammals, where the major predators are now-extinct groups, such as creodonts and mesonychids, plus a few dog-sized miacids like Tapocyon (and don't forget the big birds). Then a series of extinction event in the mid-late Eocene when the climate is getting colder and more seasonal (associated with the initial buildup of the Antarctic ice cap). Out of the remnants of this extinction rise the more modern carnivore families, including initially as the major predators families that are now extinct (e.g. the nimravids, or false sabertooths, and the amphicyonids, or bear dogs). Oh, and also a new subfamily of creodonts, the hyaenodontines. The members of the modern familes (dogs, cats, bears) that are around at this time are small and playing ferret/civet type of ecological roles, and don't become big predators until later (Miocene).
So, do we know an exact ancestral lineage of exactly which scrappy, hard to preserve miacoid gave rise to which scrappy, hard to preserve dog or cat progenitor? This was 45 million years ago, so it's not surprising that some details have been lost. But the details of the anatomy that link these groups together (details of the braincase and the inner ear region) do preserve and can be traced.
PS. What I say might be on Wikipedia but that's not where I get my information. Much too busy to get information from anywhere but my own head. Luckily I know a lot about this stuff (and don't post about stuff that I don't know about).
@Paleobarbie
This actually tallies with Wikipedia.
Why not let Anonymous look it up?
@Paleobarbie,
You'll be interested in the recent work of J.J. Flynn and M. Spaulding.
paleobarbie:
"So, the miacids are a group of basal Paleocene/Eocene arctoids. That's the branch of modern carnivores that gives includes dogs, bears, weasels, racoons, skunks, and seals. Do we know exactly which miacids are the closest to each of these groups? Somebody might, this isn't my area of specialty. Try googling it.
The viverravids are a group of basal Paleocene/Eocene ailuroids, the branch of modern carnivores that includes cats, hyaenas, civets, and mongooses. Ditto about the exact closest relative."
It seems you are saying that the dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the viverravids and the cat-like family (Felidae) from the miacids.
Is that your thinking?
Correction:
paleobarbie:
"So, the miacids are a group of basal Paleocene/Eocene arctoids. That's the branch of modern carnivores that gives includes dogs, bears, weasels, racoons, skunks, and seals. Do we know exactly which miacids are the closest to each of these groups? Somebody might, this isn't my area of specialty. Try googling it.
The viverravids are a group of basal Paleocene/Eocene ailuroids, the branch of modern carnivores that includes cats, hyaenas, civets, and mongooses. Ditto about the exact closest relative."
It seems you are saying that the dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) from the viverravids.
Is that your thinking?
Anonymous writes:
1 Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
2 People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Nicely contradicting, isn’t it?
Anonymous asserted:
Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
Anonymous has some explanation to do.
Anonymous has to explain whatever makes him say 'families appear suddenly with a set of new traits' while refusing to give any detail and evincing a basic lack of knowledge about paleontology.
Remember that the miacids are paraphyletic stemtaxa, before anyone gets the silly idea to claim miacids and canids show a family 'suddenly' arising from another family. That is, actually miacids are not a family in the proper sense of taxonomic usage.
Peter B:
"Remember that the miacids are paraphyletic stemtaxa, before anyone gets the silly idea to claim miacids and canids show a family 'suddenly' arising from another family. That is, actually miacids are not a family in the proper sense of taxonomic usage."
You have referred to "miacids" and "canids". Did you mean to say "felids and canids"?
If not, can you explain why you said "miacids" and "canids"?
Anonymous writes:
You have referred to "miacids" and "canids". Did you mean to say "felids and canids"?
If not, can you explain why you said "miacids" and "canids"?
Don't forget the "antacids," surely one of the most successful families if numbers of current progreny are considered.
Anonymous said...
Did you mean to say "felids and canids"?
No.
If not, can you explain why you said "miacids" and "canids"?
See your post of Friday, July 29, 2011 11:31:00 AM, cf Paleobarbie Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:43:00 PM.
Well I don't understand your cryptic post Peter B. but here is where we seem to stand at the moment:
The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids.
But I am getting the distinct impression that people here do not know the ancestors of the cat-like family and the dog-like family.
It is actually very murky and unknown. That is why people tap dance around it rather than just describing it.
Anonymous said...
... here is where we seem to stand at the moment:
The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids.
But I am getting the distinct impression that people here do not know the ancestors of the cat-like family and the dog-like family.
It is actually very murky and unknown. That is why people tap dance around it rather than just describing it.
Anonymous does not understand things that are plainly explained to it. The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids. That is what has been explained to it, as reasonable length, and what the Wikipedia Anonymous has copied and not read explained too. Nothing sudden about the evolution of the canids from the miacid stem group, or the evolution of the cats either.
Now, Anonymous wrote:
1 Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
2 People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Anonymous has evolved to at least citing that The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids. Perhaps it got as an extra that the appearance of cats or dogs was not sudden and that it did not include a simulateously appearing set of new characteristics.
Anonymous asserted:
Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
Anonymous has some explanation to do.
Anonymous has to explain whatever makes him say 'families appear suddenly with a set of new traits' while refusing to give any detail and evincing a basic lack of knowledge about paleontology. A lack of knowledge that is too deep to even understand explanations given.
Any ideas about cats or dog, Anonymous? None whatsoever? Give your own ideas instead of being a parasite.
Anonymous by now has shown utter ignorance of:
paleontology
principles of classification.
Ignorance that has to be remedied before Anonymous can understand what is explained to him/her/it or can even phrase a worthwhile question.
Let me point out the inconsistency in the thinking of people here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
"Traditionally, some paleontologists considered the viverravids to be ancestral to the aeluroid carnivorans (felids, hyaenids, herpestids and viverrids), but this is now doubted."
This is inconsistent with the idea that is being presented by people here when they say:
"The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids."
Anonymous writes:
Let me point out the inconsistency in the thinking of people here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
"Traditionally, some paleontologists considered the viverravids to be ancestral to the aeluroid carnivorans (felids, hyaenids, herpestids and viverrids), but this is now doubted."
This is inconsistent with the idea that is being presented by people here when they say:
"The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids."
So at long last the purpose of this long apparently purposeless digression becomes clear.
Having been caught in a clear self contradiction (saying both that the appearance of families in evolution was sudden, and that no one can say whether they appeared suddenly or not), Anonymous immediately changed the subject with this apparent non sequitur about cats and dogs. On and on this digression went. And what has turned out to be the upshot?
Something pathetic, really. He accuses "the people here" of "inconsistency," in a transparent attempt to equate what others here have posted with his own self-contradiction. But perhaps Anonymous does not understand English very well, because there is no inconsistency on the part of the people here. There is only disagreement between what some people here have posted (or quoted from one Wikipedia article), and what Anonymous quotes from another Wikipedia article. No equivalence with Anonymous tying himself up in a knot of self-contradictory nonsense.
Here is another reference to the inconsistency/confusion that people here have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 is now inferred to have occurred in the middle-Eocene (ca. 42 million years ago). Traditionally the Viverravidae (viverravids) had been thought to be the earliest carnivorans with fossil records first appearing in the Paleocene of North America about 60 million years ago, but recent cranial morphology evidence now places them outside the order Carnivora.[1]"
Some references claim viverravids to be ancestors of felids and other references (such as that directly above) claim Viverravidae NOT to be ancestors of felids.
Anonymous said...
Let me point out the inconsistency in the thinking of people here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
"Traditionally, some paleontologists considered the viverravids to be ancestral to the aeluroid carnivorans (felids, hyaenids, herpestids and viverrids), but this is now doubted."
This is inconsistent with the idea that is being presented by people here when they say:
"The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids."
Anonymous has progressed to reading the Wikipedia he/she/it cited on Sunday 24 July!! Perhaps Anonymous could do some more reading; he/she/it might even start understanding what it reads.
Note the traditionally. The opinions of paleontologists about the viverravids changed. Paleobarbie held to the traditional view of viverravids as forerunners of the ailuroids, in accordance with Wikipedia on Miacoidea. I pointed Paleobarbie to the latest opinion on viverravids, referring to the work of J.J. Flynn and M. Spaulding.
Anonymous does not grasp that science can change opinion about classification when more data become available.
However, what matters is that Anonymous has stated:
1 Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
2 People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Now that is contradictory.
Anonymous asserted:
Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
Anonymous has some explanation to do.
Anonymous has to explain whatever makes him say 'families appear suddenly with a set of new traits' while refusing to give any detail and evincing a basic lack of knowledge about paleontology. A lack of knowledge that is too deep to even understand explanations given. Copying Wikipedia is no substitute for understanding.
Anonymous wrote:
Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again
Anonymous still has to explain this and show any evidence for this opinion. All Anonymous can do is misunderstand Wikipedia, both about punctuated equilibrium and about carnivores.
The Wikipedia entries Canidae, Carnivora, Feliformia, Felidae are up to date, and represent the actual present day views in the literature.
The Wikipedia entry Carnivoramorpha is correct in the text, but the classification and phylogeny part is inconsistent and out of date.
The Wikipedia entry Caniformia is mostly correct. Caniforms first appeared in the Eocene, not in the Paleocene. Unspecified Miacis is mentioned as an early Caniform: this is not correct if implied that all Miacis are Caniforms. According to recent literature, only Miacis uitensis is an early Caniform, as early as not to belong to any extant family, a stem-Caniform.
The Wikipedia entry Miacids is confused.
The Wikipedia entry Miacoidea is too confused to be of any use.
Viverravidae has no separate Wikipedia entry. Viverravidae are in the recent literature not considered to be related to any living Carnivora.
Sorry, Miacis cognitus is an early Caniform, Miacis uintensis sits just outside the Carnivor.
Paleontology is the study of fossil animals. Next to the description of fossils, it attempts to sort fossils into the best ordering that can be achieved with the available material. This ordering can be viewed as an evolutionary hypothesis, subject to revision whenever more data become available. Paleontology has no preoccupation with ‘ancestors’ or with the label given to groups. For instance, the family level designation Canidae contains both the extinct Borophaginae and the extant Caninae. Those groups might have been considered separate families had the Borophaginae survived into the present, or nomenclature in fossils proceeded more similar to that based on molecular data.
The detailed ordering of fossil Carnivoramorpha according to their morphology produces clear evolutionary hypotheses. Nested groups can be distinguished on very few traits at a time.
The recent literature indicates that the miacids are a paraphyletic stem-group to the extant Carnivores, the recent Carnivores comprising both the Caniformia and the Feliformia (Wesley-Hunt & Flynn 2005). The Canidae are the extant carnivore family with the longest record, if the Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae are included. Prohesperocyon is considered a canid by Telford et al 2009, but a miacid by Wesley-Hunt & Flynn 2005, attesting the gradual evolution between miacids and caniforms . The gradual evolution from early Carnivoramorpha to present day dogs is well documented (Tedford et al 2009). Stem-feliforms are known, but no study reviewing them all and relating them to present day groups exists. Felis attica as stem-feline and Proailurus and Pseudaelurus as stem-felids the usual view. Stenogale might be a stem-felid, Palaeoprionodon and Stenoplectis are morphologically in between the very plesiomorphic Nandinia and Stenogale. Prionodon was not included in the analysis; neither were the Viverridae.
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.
Tedford, RH, Wang, XM, & BE Taylor. 2009. Phylogenetic systematics of the North American fossil Caninae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 325: 1–218.
That was the evolutionary history of dogs and cats. Present day carnivores evolved from the paraphyletic miacids, the carnivore stem-group.
Dogs and cats have been advertised here by Anonymous as showing that a family appears suddenly in the fossil record, with a number of new traits, by a process called macroevolution.
I’m somewhat interested to know what is sudden about the appearance of the dogs or cats, especially as Anonymous said “When evolutionists are confronted with objective evidence for the sudden appearance of new families they overlook the actual evidence and make up some story to try to show that the change actually was not so sudden”. The objective evidence is above, in as much detail as a comment allows, and two pivotal articles are mentioned for reference.
Moreover, Anonymous said: “Macroevolution is the origin of a new type (or kind) of creature. Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.” What type of process might that be
heleen posted previously:
"The dog-like family (Canidae) evolved from the miacids and the cat-like family (Felidae) evolved from the viverravids."
Now he has changed from that.
This is why talking with heleen is a waste of time.
He does not even realize when he changes his position. (Or thinks we won't notice).
So the question now is - what does it mean for the total phylogeny that the viverravids are not in the carnivore lineage?
I will help people to understand that in a later post.
We can begin with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
"Carnivorans apparently evolved in North America out of members of the family Miacidae (miacids) about 42 million years ago. They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia)."
So the viverravids are now seen as not on the line leading to the cat-like family and the dog-like family.
The ancestors of cats and dogs are solely in Miacidae (which does not include viverravids.
So the first oddity to notice is that evolutionists must believe that the cat-like family members must have CONVERGED on the same characteristics as the viverravids and not though homology.
This is the kind of very unlikely oddity that standard evolution theory arrives at frequently, but does not acknowledge. (But I do not expect people here to acknowledge this - in fact the people here will pretend to not even understand what I am saying).
Continuing the analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
"Carnivorans apparently evolved in North America out of members of the family Miacidae (miacids) about 42 million years ago. They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia)."
Note that it says "They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia)."
This cannot be a correct statement since the Miacidae is paraphyletic - so the dog-like creatures were ALREADY distinguished from the cat-like creatures. They did not "split" then.
The "split" stems further back - within the stem taxa of Miacidae*.
This is another fact that evolutionists do not acknowledge.
*And even further back than that as I will show in a later post.
There is an interesting chart here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
It shows three groups:
Cat-like line
Dog-like line
Other line - Viverroidea (for example civets, hyenas, mongoose etc)
The chart is not organized correctly but it does give us the breakdown of the three high order lines of creatures. These three lines are distinct and stem quite far back.
Peter B writes:
Dogs and cats have been advertised here by Anonymous as showing that a family appears suddenly in the fossil record, with a number of new traits, by a process called macroevolution.
I know this is confusing, but Anonymous has actually taken two contradictory positions on the subject of macroevolution in general, and of the evolution of cats and dogs in particular. He first said that all families evolved "suddenly." He then later said in the specific case of cats and dogs that no one could tell whether they evolved gradually or suddenly. And he has now come full (contradictory) circle by claiming the word "soon" in a Wikipedia article proves cat and dog ancestors appeared suddenly. (He laughs at your clearly inadequate counter-citation of peer-reviewed articles. BWAHAHAHA!)
Family Miacidae:
"Chailicyon, Eosictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaenus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon"
AND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
Genus Eosictis
Genus Messelogale
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
Miacidae is paraphyletic.
Some of these miacidae taxa are primitive "cats" and some are primitive "dogs".
Anonymous said...
Family Miacidae:
Miacidae is paraphyletic.
Some of these miacidae taxa are primitive "cats" and some are primitive "dogs".
Clearly Anonymous does not know what paraphyletic means.
And no, some miacid taxa are not 'primitive cats' and some miacid taxa are not 'primitive dogs'. Apart from Miacis cognitus (a Caniform, not a 'dog'), the miacids constitute the lineage towards both towards the cats (and the civets, hyaenas etc) and the dogs (and the bears, seal, weasels etc).
So, Anonymous cannot even read Wikipedia.
Anonymous said...
There is an interesting chart here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
It shows three groups:
Cat-like line
Dog-like line
Other line - Viverroidea (for example civets, hyenas, mongoose etc)
The chart is not organized correctly but it does give us the breakdown of the three high order lines of creatures. These three lines are distinct and stem quite far back.
Monday, August 01, 2011 12:34:00 PM
Anonymous was not able to read the chart correctly.
Anonymous said...
Wikipedia "Carnivorans apparently evolved in North America out of members of the family Miacidae (miacids) about 42 million years ago. They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia)."
Note that it says "They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia)."
This cannot be a correct statement since the Miacidae is paraphyletic - so the dog-like creatures were ALREADY distinguished from the cat-like creatures. They did not "split" then.
The "split" stems further back - within the stem taxa of Miacidae*.
This is another fact that evolutionists do not acknowledge.
Clearly Anonymous does not understand paraphyletic.
However, what matters is that Anonymous has stated:
1 Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
2 People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Now that is contradictory.
What matters too is that Anonymous asserted:
Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
Anonymous has some explanation to do.
Anonymous has to explain whatever makes him say 'families appear suddenly with a set of new traits' while refusing to give any detail and evincing a basic lack of knowledge about paleontology. A lack of knowledge that is too deep to even understand explanations given. Like not understanding 'paraphyletic'.
Copying Wikipedia is no substitute for understanding. Certainly not when Anonymous shows not the slightest idea about what the terms used mean.
I note Anonymous is not willing to talk to the expert that seems to have appeared.
Anonymous is only able to misrepresent Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohesperocyon
"Prohesperocyon ("before Hesperocyon)" is an extinct genus of physically small terrestrial carnivores of the family Miacidae endemic to North America appearing during the Late Eocene around 36.6—36.5 mya (AEO).[2] The time of extinction is unknown.
P. wilsoni was unearthed at the Airstrip (TMM 40504) site, Presidio County, Texas dating between 36.6—36.5 million years ago.[5] This fossil species bears a combination of features that definitively mark it as a Canidae, including teeth that include the loss of the upper third molar (a general trend in canids toward a more shearing bite), and the characteristically enlarged bony bulla (the rounded covering over the middle ear).
This is an example of what I have been talking about.
Prohesperocyon is in the dog-like line and is a taxa WITHIN Miacidae.
The "dog family" and "cat family" lines were ALREADY present.
Overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids
"Traditionally the Viverravidae (viverravids) had been thought to be the earliest carnivorans with fossil records first appearing in the Paleocene of North America about 60 million years ago, but recent cranial morphology evidence now places them outside the order Carnivora.[1]"
There is a line of "other" creatures" (civets, hyenas, mongoose etc) stemming from Viverravidae.
This line is parallel to the "dog" line which is parallel to the "cat" line.
Three parallel lines.
Each line begins with primitive members which develop into advanced members.
Continuing the analysis:
There is a line of "other" creatures" (civets, hyenas, mongoose etc) stemming from Viverravidae.
This line is parallel to the "dog" line which is parallel to the "cat" line.
Three parallel lines.
Each line begins with primitive members which develop into advanced members.
Here are some possible examples:
"Dog" line:
Prohesperocyon (Miacidae) possibly developed into Hesperocyoninae (Canidae).
"Cat" line:
Paroodectes (Miacidae) possibly developed into one or more taxa within Felidae.
"Other" line:
Mustelodon (Viverravidae) possibly developed into Herpestidae (Mongoose).
Anonymous writes:
Wikipedia "Carnivorans apparently evolved in North America out of members of the family Miacidae (miacids) about 42 million years ago. They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia)."
Note that it says "They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia)."
This cannot be a correct statement since the Miacidae is paraphyletic - so the dog-like creatures were ALREADY distinguished from the cat-like creatures.
Can you explain how the conclusion that the statement is incorrect (and specifically that it is incorrect in not agreeing with you that Feliformia and Caniformia pre-existed or came into existence at the same time as the order Carnivora) follows from the fact that Miacidae is a paraphyletic group?
Anonymous writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohesperocyon
"Prohesperocyon ("before Hesperocyon)" is an extinct genus of physically small terrestrial carnivores of the family Miacidae endemic to North America appearing during the Late Eocene around 36.6—36.5 mya (AEO).[2] The time of extinction is unknown.
P. wilsoni was unearthed at the Airstrip (TMM 40504) site, Presidio County, Texas dating between 36.6—36.5 million years ago.[5] This fossil species bears a combination of features that definitively mark it as a Canidae, including teeth that include the loss of the upper third molar (a general trend in canids toward a more shearing bite), and the characteristically enlarged bony bulla (the rounded covering over the middle ear).
This is an example of what I have been talking about.
Prohesperocyon is in the dog-like line and is a taxa WITHIN Miacidae.
http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=displayReference&reference_no=29421
(Apologies for the semi double-post - slip of the finger.)
Anonymous writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohesperocyon
"Prohesperocyon ("before Hesperocyon)" is an extinct genus of physically small terrestrial carnivores of the family Miacidae endemic to North America appearing during the Late Eocene around 36.6—36.5 mya (AEO).[2] The time of extinction is unknown.
P. wilsoni was unearthed at the Airstrip (TMM 40504) site, Presidio County, Texas dating between 36.6—36.5 million years ago.[5] This fossil species bears a combination of features that definitively mark it as a Canidae, including teeth that include the loss of the upper third molar (a general trend in canids toward a more shearing bite), and the characteristically enlarged bony bulla (the rounded covering over the middle ear).
This is an example of what I have been talking about.
Prohesperocyon is in the dog-like line and is a taxa WITHIN Miacidae.
Not according to the most recent classification. See the link below.
This is what happens when you think you are doing scientific research by quote mining Wikipedia.
http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=displayReference&reference_no=29421
Anonymous, you do not understand what "quote mining" means.
I have simply quoted correctly from Wikipedia.
You have quoted from a different reference.
Either way we can see that the opinion on Prohesperocyon has been all over the place.
Which is also what I have been saying.
But there is no point in arguing this. For all we know tomorrow another researcher will suggest Prohesperocyon should be categorized somewhere else.
Anonymous said...Tuesday, August 02, 2011 11:57:00
... the Viverravidae (viverravids)...
There is a line of "other" creatures" (civets, hyenas, mongoose etc) stemming from Viverravidae.
The civet family is formally called the Viverridae, and an extinct family is called the Viverravidae. 'Therefore' they must have something to do with each other. Is that the reasoning, Anonymous? How stupid.
Wasn't Anonymous rooting for Viverravidae as cat ancestors?
@Jud Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:50:00 PM
Because Anonymous does not know what paraphyletic means.
Anonymous mistakes ignorant fantasy for analysis. It start being time it got some schooling in classification, paleontology, and reading and reasoning.
wikipedia on mustelodon:
Mustelodon is an extinct carnivore, which belongs to the family Viverravidae. This genus contains only one species, Mustelodon primerus. Fossils of this mammal were found in the 57 million years old deposits of Lago Nandarajo, near the northern border of Panama in Central America.
Mustelodon had a length of approximately 80 cm (head to tail) and this carnivore superficially resembled the modern mongooses. Mustelodon fed on fruits, insects and smaller mammals like shrews. It is closely related to the more famous Protictis from the Paleocene of the United States (Wannagan Creek - South Dakota, San Juan Basin - New Mexico).
Superficially, see?
Anonymous said...
Wikipedia
Prohesperocyon ...
This fossil species bears a combination of features that definitively mark it as a Canidae, including teeth that include the loss of the upper third molar (a general trend in canids toward a more shearing bite), and the characteristically enlarged bony bulla (the rounded covering over the middle ear). The "dog family" and "cat family" lines were ALREADY present.
The Prohesperocyon entry shows that Miacidae and Canidae are related by gradual evolution.
Peter B above said Prohesperocyon is considered a canid by Telford et al 2009, but a miacid by Wesley-Hunt & Flynn 2005, attesting the gradual evolution between miacids and caniforms
Anonymous started by positing that families appeared suddenly. Now that it finds a clear example of gradual evolution, it shows it does not grasp how classification works.
How does the 'cat family' come in? Nowhere to be seen in this entry.
However, what matters is that Anonymous has stated:
1 Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
2 People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Now that is contradictory.
What matters too is that Anonymous asserted:
Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
Anonymous has some explanation to do.
Anonymous has to explain whatever makes him say 'families appear suddenly with a set of new traits' while refusing to give any detail and evincing a basic lack of knowledge about paleontology. A lack of knowledge that is too deep to even understand explanations given. Like not understanding 'paraphyletic'. Like not being able to understand classification.
Copying Wikipedia is no substitute for understanding. Certainly not when Anonymous shows not the slightest idea about what the terms used mean.
Anonymous said...
"Cat" line:
Paroodectes (Miacidae) possibly developed into one or more taxa within Felidae.
Just because according to Wikipedia Paroodectes is cat-like in appearance, Anonymous dumps on the poor creature as a precursor of the Felidae! Anonymous should check out the Felidae, on Wikipedia, whether it can find Paroodectes there.
Anonymous indulges in fantasy, but has no more knowledge of animals than that Hector of its neighbours is a dog and Mimi of the other neighbours is a cat.
Anonymous said...
Prohesperocyon won't be anywhere else, as its position has not been all over the place, but has been all along just inside or just outside the Canidae - something that does not matter much. Either way, Prohesperocyon shows the gradual emergence of the Canidae.
Anonymous could not make this suggestion if it had any grasp of the matter.
"Prohesperocyon is considered a canid by Telford et al 2009, but a miacid by Wesley-Hunt & Flynn 2005, attesting the gradual evolution between miacids and caniforms."
My point is that Prohesperocyon is already a "cat" (it is already part of the cat lineage). It does not matter what label you put on it.
When I talk about the sudden appearance of "cats", I mean the appearance of the actual first cats which stems very far back. In fact, we need to look further back than Prohesperocyon.
Correction:
"Prohesperocyon is considered a canid by Telford et al 2009, but a miacid by Wesley-Hunt & Flynn 2005, attesting the gradual evolution between miacids and caniforms."
My point is that Prohesperocyon is already a "dog" (it is already part of the dog lineage). It does not matter what label you put on it.
When I talk about the sudden appearance of "dogs", I mean the appearance of the actual first dogs which stems very far back. In fact, we need to look further back than Prohesperocyon.
The same applies to the "cat" lineage.
heleen has incorrectly said:
"Just because according to Wikipedia Paroodectes is cat-like in appearance, Anonymous dumps on the poor creature as a precursor of the Felidae!"
I am not saying that all Felidae developed from Paroodectes. I am saying that SOME taxa labelled Felidae developed from
Paroodectes. Other taxa (labeled Felidae) developed from other taxa currently labelled Miacidae.
"Mustelodon had a length of approximately 80 cm (head to tail) and this carnivore superficially resembled the modern mongooses. Mustelodon fed on fruits, insects and smaller mammals like shrews. It is closely related to the more famous Protictis from the Paleocene of the United States (Wannagan Creek - South Dakota, San Juan Basin - New Mexico)."
It is more than "superficial". It is based on homology.
That is the point I am making.
Anonymous writes:
I have simply quoted correctly from Wikipedia.
You have quoted from a different reference.
It is really laughable that you consider Wikipedia, good as its contributors may sometimes be, equivalent to an academic reference. Yes, you quote-mined Wikipedia accurately, and showed once again that you (1) are too lazy and/or too comfortable in your ignorance to seek out real knowledge beyond a quick Google search or a glance at Wikipedia; and (2) lack any real understanding of the subject. How else could one reach the conclusion that Feliformia and Caniformia pre-dated Carnivora on the basis that Miacidae is a paraphyletic group?
Either way we can see that the opinion on Prohesperocyon has been all over the place.
One might say it has "evolved." :-)
Which is also what I have been saying.
Really? You know, I must have failed to catch that in all this stuff you've thrown out here.
But there is no point in arguing this. For all we know tomorrow another researcher will suggest Prohesperocyon should be categorized somewhere else.
Which is exactly why several people here have told you that your repeated attempts to use such human-made classifications to prove sudden appearance of families in the fossil record (a point on which you've contradicted yourself at least twice) shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
To find the first cats and dogs we need to look at the Ferae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferae
To find the first "other" creatures (civets, hyenas, mongoose etc) we need to look for the ancestors of the Viverravidae.
Anonymous writes:
My point is that Prohesperocyon is already a "dog" (it is already part of the dog lineage).
Oh. My. God. Did you really just say that? Once something is "part of the...lineage" to X, it "is already" X?
Why then, yes, families - in fact, entire phyla and kingdoms - did appear suddenly. Because when the first living thing appeared, since it was "part of the...lineage" to humans, then it "is already" human - and dog, and cat, and whale, and hippo. So according to Anonymous Cladistics, every last species that has ever lived on earth "appeared suddenly" in that time. (Say, that time period didn't happen to last exactly six days, did it?)
Gotta hand it to you, IDiocy has seldom been so thoroughly ridiculous.
Analyzing Ferae, we see Creodonta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creodonta
and within Creodonta we find Oxyaenidae:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
"North American oxyaenids were the first creodonts to appear during the late Paleocene, while smaller radiations of oxyaenids in Europe and Asia occurred during the Eocene.[1] They were cat-like beasts which walked on flat feet, in contrast to today's carnivores which (except for bears and raccoons) walk or run on their toes. Anatomically, characteristic features are a short, broad skull, deep jaws, and teeth designed for crushing rather than shearing, as in the hyaenodonts.(Lambert, 163)"
We are getting close to the first member of the "cat" lineage.
Looking at the other Laurasiatheria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurasiatheria
we see Mesonychia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
"The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance to wolves."
We are getting close to the first member of the "dog" lineage.
I will talk about the biased use of the word "superficial" in a later post.
When evolutionists say "superficial resemblance" it does not mean what we mean in ordinary usage.
It simply means that the evolutionist believes that the resemblance is analogous and not homologous.
It is an assertion that is made in spite of the fact the creatures strongly resemble each other.
It is a belief in theory over physical evidence.
Anonymous said...
To find the first cats and dogs we need to look at the Ferae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferae
The Wikipedia entry Ferae gives the molecular tree of the present-day animals!
To find the first "other" creatures (civets, hyenas, mongoose etc) we need to look for the ancestors of the Viverravidae.
Unfortunately, the civets, hyenas, mongooses are not related to the Viverravidae, as the Viverravidae have no living relatives. Seen Wikipedia.
How wildly imaginative Anonymous is!
Anonymous said...Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:46:00 AM
"Mustelodon ... superficially resembled the modern mongooses. "
It is more than "superficial". It is based on homology.
That is the point I am making.
Then you don't know what homology is, next to not knowing what paraphyletic is.
Moreover, I note that Anonymous disagrees with Wikipedia now that the thesis of Anonymous is contrary to Wikipedia.
Anonymous said... Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:23:00 AM
My point is that Prohesperocyon is already a "dog" (it is already part of the dog lineage).
Prohesperocyon might be considered an early member of the Canidae, what is something else than a "dog"; Prohesperocyon is not a "dog" apart from having a bony auditory bulla. The Borophaginae, for instance, are Canidae, but not "dogs".
It does not matter what label you put on it.
This in contrast to your earlier postings about Prohesperocyon.
When I talk about the sudden appearance of "dogs", I mean the appearance of the actual first dogs which stems very far back. In fact, we need to look further back than Prohesperocyon.
Anonymous seems to think that something like his neighbours Hector can be found earlier than the middle Eocene!
Anonymous, take a course in paleontology and classifcation, to save you from being such an utter idiot.
Anonymous said...Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:29:00 AM
I am not saying that all Felidae developed from Paroodectes. I am saying that SOME taxa labelled Felidae developed from Paroodectes. Other taxa (labeled Felidae) developed from other taxa currently labelled Miacidae.
Why? Because Wikipedia says something about cat-like appearance in the Paroodectes entry?
Look up Felidae in Wikipedia, and try to find Paroodectes.
This is so wildly amusing! I never thought anybody could fantasize so much rubbish together!
However, what matters is that Anonymous has stated:
1 Macroevolution is the process that results in a new family. It is sudden and includes a set of new characteristics. The fossil record clearly shows this. Again and again.
2 People do not know when and how new families appeared. That is the basic point.
Now that is contradictory.
What matters too is that Anonymous asserted:
Macroevolution is the sudden process that leads to the appearance of a new family.
Anonymous, get to grips, and
1 explain why macroevolution is a process, and not a pattern
2 explain what the process of macroevolution is - and it is not the appearance of 'new families', because that is not a process.
Anonymous has some explanation to do.
Anonymous has to explain whatever makes him say 'families appear suddenly with a set of new traits' while refusing to give any detail and evincing a basic lack of knowledge about paleontology. A lack of knowledge that is too deep to even understand explanations given. Like not understanding 'paraphyletic'. Like not being able to understand classification.
Copying Wikipedia is no substitute for understanding. Certainly not when Anonymous shows not the slightest idea about what the terms used mean. By now Anonymous only is amusing. I wonder when I last laughed so much about such a display of ignorance.
Anonymous said...Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:23:00 PM
This line is parallel to the "dog" line which is parallel to the "cat" line.
Three parallel lines.
Anonymous thinks that ‘paraphyletic’ means ‘parallel’!
"Cat" line:
Paroodectes (Miacidae) possibly developed into one or more taxa within Felidae.
Now, be a good boy, Anonymous, and tell which of the Felidae. Tiger? Housecat? Puma?
Primitive cats and dogs - ~65 mya (Part of Eocene Explosion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creodonta
Advanced cats and dogs - ~40 mya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
Anonymous writes:
Advanced cats and dogs - ~40 mya
Were the advanced dogs of 40 mya able to sit up, roll over, etc.? Because otherwise I wouldn't consider them very advanced.
Of course this isn't serious, but then neither are you. Except I'm not trying to be.
Well I have worked out a number of points about the thesis I am presenting.
I see that it is just the same set of guys here who are really not contributing.
I will stop now.
Anonymous said...Wednesday, August 03, 2011 2:18:00 PM
When evolutionists say "superficial resemblance" it does not mean what we mean in ordinary usage.
It simply means that the evolutionist believes that the resemblance is analogous and not homologous.
It is an assertion that is made in spite of the fact the creatures strongly resemble each other.
It is a belief in theory over physical evidence.
Wikipedia accepted only if consitent wih pre-condition stupidity?
Look at whatever is known Mustelodon, and if you have any idea about anatomy, find where your homology is. Moreover, nowhere but in Anonymous' post it is stated that the creatures (Mustelodon and mongooses) strongly resemble each other.
Now, Anomymous, be good boy, and tell me where you got that information. Strongly resembled, eh? In what? How? Give the scientific reference!
Anonymous said...
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:06:00 PM
Primitive cats and dogs - ~65 mya (Part of Eocene Explosion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creodonta
There's nothing cat or dog to the Miacids, for once read Wikipedia. Oxyaenidae are Creodonts, Creodonts are not related to Carnivores but a separate line of meat-eaters, Mesonychids are meat-eating ungulates!
In Creodonts, the carnassials are a different pair of teeth than in the Carnivora; this excludes creodonts from the ancestry of present day cats or dogs.
Making the ungulate Mesonychia a primitive cat or dog is up to now the stupidest - and I already thought yesterday Anonymous could not get studiper!
Advanced cats and dogs - ~40 mya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
Advanced dogs = present day dogs, about 10 million years; advanced cats = present day cats, about 10 million years.
Anonymous said...Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:23:00 PM
"Cat" line:
Paroodectes (Miacidae) possibly developed into one or more taxa within Felidae.
Paroodectes and which taxa of the Felidae?
Now could you comment on the following:
Cats have in their upper jaw 3 incisors, 1 canine, 3 premolars, 1molar, and in their lower jaw 3 incisors, 1 canine, 2 premolars, 1molar. This is characteristic of cats, almost a defining characteristic of cats; the lynx has 2 premolars in the upper jaw, but no cat has more than 30 teeth in total.
Now Paroodectes has in both upper and lower jaws: 3 incisors, 1canine, 4 premolars, 3 molars, to the total of 44.
Explain now how cat-like Paroodectes is. Any anatomical trait of Paroodectes will do.
Anonymous said...Wednesday, August 03, 2011 2:18:00 PM
On superficial:
It simply means that the evolutionist believes that the resemblance is analogous and not homologous.
It is an assertion that is made in spite of the fact the creatures strongly resemble each other.
It is a belief in theory over physical evidence.
Physical evidence such as anatomy?
Anonymous, when will you start to listen?
Take some introductory courses in anatomy, classification, paleontology and reading before you attempt to argue.
Anonymous said...Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:06:00 PM
Primitive cats and dogs - ~65 mya (Part of Eocene Explosion)
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
Eocene started 55 million year agi, 65 million years is Paleocene.
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 cat or dog ancestors.
Anonymous said...Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:55:00 PM
Well I have worked out a number of points about the thesis I am presenting.
Anonymous is not presenting any thesis, as he/she/it 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. Have you by now looked up what paraphyletic means?
I see that it is just the same set of guys here who are really not contributing.
'The guys' here are contributing a lot, it's only that Anonymous is unwilling to listen to guys that know a lot more about paleontology than he/she/it does.
I will stop now.
What a pity! Anonymous has presented me with amusement for quite a number of days.
But, Anonymous on Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:06:00 PM, you said:
Primitive cats and dogs -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
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 cat or 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.
Procynodictis (Miacidae) possibly developed into Hesperocyon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procynodictis
"Procynodictis is an extinct genus of Miacidae. It was first named by Wortman and Matthew in 1899, and contains two species: P. progressus and P. vulpiceps. It was identified as an ancestor of Hesperocyon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperocyon
Summary of possible examples (first draft):
"Dog" lines:
Procynodictis (Miacidae) possibly developed into Hesperocyon.
Prohesperocyon (Miacidae) possibly developed into Hesperocyoninae.
"Cat" lines:
Paroodectes (Miacidae) possibly developed into one or more specific taxa within Felidae.
"Other" lines:
Mustelodon (Viverravidae) possibly developed into Herpestidae (Mongoose).
FOR REFERENCE
Miacidae:
Chailicyon, Eosictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaenus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon
and Procynodictis and Messelogale and Prohesperocyon.
Viverravidae
Bryanictis, Didymictis, Ictidopappus, Mustelodon, Pristinictis, Protictis, Raphictis, Simpsonictis, Viverravus
Anonymous writes:
I will stop now.
This, more than anything else Anonymous has said here, is almost enough to make me believe in a wise and merciful deity.
Expanded first draft:
"Dog" lines:
Procynodictis (Miacidae) possibly developed into families within Hesperocyon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procynodictis
"Procynodictis is an extinct genus of Miacidae. It was first named by Wortman and Matthew in 1899, and contains two species: P. progressus and P. vulpiceps. It was identified as an ancestor of Hesperocyon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperocyon
"The Canidae subfamily Hesperocyoninae probably arose out of Hesperocyon to become the first of the three great dogs groups: Hesperocyoninae (~40-30 Ma), Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the Caninae lineage that led to present-day Canidae, inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and dogs (Canis familiaris). At least twenty eight known species of Hesperocyoninae evolved out of Hesperocyon, including Ectopocynus (32-19 mya), Osbornodon (32-18 mya), Paraenhydrocyon (20-25 mya), and Mesocyon-Enhydrocyon (31-15 mya).[This entry is not quite right}.
Prohesperocyon (Miacidae) possibly developed into families within Hesperocyon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohesperocyon
"Prohesperocyon ("before Hesperocyon)" is an extinct genus of physically small terrestrial carnivores of the family Miacidae endemic to North America appearing during the Late Eocene around 36.6—36.5 mya (AEO).[2] The time of extinction is unknown.
P. wilsoni was unearthed at the Airstrip (TMM 40504) site, Presidio County, Texas dating between 36.6—36.5 million years ago.[5] This fossil species bears a combination of features that definitively mark it as a Canidae, including teeth that include the loss of the upper third molar (a general trend in canids toward a more shearing bite), and the characteristically enlarged bony bulla (the rounded covering over the middle ear)."
"Cat" lines:
Paroodectes (Miacidae) possibly developed into specific taxa within Felidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroodectes
"Paroodectes was a miacid animal that lived during the early Eocene (ca. 50 million years ago) in the rain forests and swamps of the present-day Germany. It was a prehistoric predator that had the size and the appearance of a cat and was well adapted to climbing, as is apparent from its limbs, joints and shoulder bones. Its long tail gave balance for tree climbing and jumping from branch to branch. Paroodectes probably hunted in the tree tops on insects, rodents and small monkeys."
"Other" lines:
Mustelodon (Viverravidae) possibly developed into Herpestidae (Mongoose).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustelodon
"Mustelodon is an extinct carnivore, which belongs to the family Viverravidae. This genus contains only one species, Mustelodon primerus. Fossils of this mammal were found in the 57 million years old deposits of Lago Nandarajo, near the northern border of Panama in Central America.
Mustelodon had a length of approximately 80 cm (head to tail) and this carnivore superficially resembled the modern mongooses. Mustelodon fed on fruits, insects and smaller mammals like shrews. It is closely related to the more famous Protictis from the Paleocene of the United States (Wannagan Creek - South Dakota, San Juan Basin - New Mexico)."
FOR REFERENCE
Miacidae:
Chailicyon, Eosictis, Ictognathus, Miacis, Miocyon, Oodectes, Palaearctonyx, Paramiacis, Paroodectes, Prodaphaenus, Quercygale, Tapocyon, Uintacyon, Vassacyon, Vulpavus, Xinyuictis, Ziphacodon
and Procynodictis and Messelogale and Prohesperocyon.
Viverravidae
Bryanictis, Didymictis, Ictidopappus, Mustelodon, Pristinictis, Protictis, Raphictis, Simpsonictis, Viverravus
Anonymous said...
Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:15:00 PM
481 words, and none of them presenting any argument, or evincing any grasp of paleontology or classification.
"Cat" lines:
Paroodectes (Miacidae) possibly developed into one or more specific taxa within Felidae.
Then indicate which taxa, and explain the difference in dentition between Paroodectes and Felidae. Otherwise the possibly is just another example of abysmal ignorance and a surfeit of conceit.
But, Anonymous on Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:06:00 PM, you said:
Primitive cats and dogs -.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
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 (cat or) 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.
More material to be incorporated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids
"The transition from miacids to Carnivora was a general trend in the middle and late Eocene with taxa from both North America and Eurasia involved.
The divergence [development] of [particular] carnivorans from [particular] miacids is now inferred to have occurred in the middle-Eocene (ca. 42 million years ago)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurasiatheria
we see Mesonychia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
"The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance to wolves."
We are getting close to the first member of the "dog" lineage.
Analyzing Ferae, we see Creodonta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creodonta
and within Creodonta we find Oxyaenidae:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyaenidae
"North American oxyaenids were the first creodonts to appear during the late Paleocene, while smaller radiations of oxyaenids in Europe and Asia occurred during the Eocene.[1] They were cat-like beasts which walked on flat feet, in contrast to today's carnivores which (except for bears and raccoons) walk or run on their toes. Anatomically, characteristic features are a short, broad skull, deep jaws, and teeth designed for crushing rather than shearing, as in the hyaenodonts.(Lambert, 163)"
We are getting close to the first member of the "cat" lineage.
"Dog" line:
Prodaphaenus (Miacidae) may have developed into Daphoenus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphoenus
"Daphoenus is an extinct member of the family Amphicyonidae ("bear dogs") belonging to the class Mammalia, an extinct order of terrestrial carnivores belonging to the suborder Caniformia, which inhabited North America from the Early Eocene subepoch to the Early Miocene subepoch 42—16.3 Mya, existing for approximately 25.7 million years.[1]"
Notice that the primitive members of the lineage begin with the prefix PRO.
We see this with Prodaphaenus, Prohesperocyon etc.
"Dog" line:
Procynodictis (Miacidae) may have developed into Cynodictis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodictis
"Cynodictis had a long muzzle and a low-slung body. It had carnassial scissor teeth for slicing chunks of meat off carcasses. It lived on the grassy plains of North America, but researchers think it may have climbed trees in search of prey. It was about 30 cm at the shoulder - a small, carnivorous, dog-like mammal that could run very fast and dig efficiently. It used its speed to chase down rabbits and small rodents, but may also have been able to dig them out of their burrows. Cynodictis lived on open, semi-arid plains that were crisscrossed by rivers."
General comment:
Wikipedia generally follows the establishment evolution thinking that particular lines went extinct and did not contribute to modern cats and dogs. I am presenting a different idea. These primitive taxa did not go extinct but developed into their corresponding advanced taxa.
Anonymous writes:
These primitive taxa did not go extinct but developed into their corresponding advanced taxa.
Congratulations, Anonymous, you've contradicted yourself again. In comments on other threads you've refused to credit the notion of species being ancestral to others. Now your contentions depend on it.
As with your previous self-contradictions, please do let us know when you've settled this little argument with yourself.
This is leaving aside the cringe-worthy and entirely unsupported nature of your theory, apparently derived from a series of misunderstandings and incomprehensions of varyingly accurate Wikipedia articles. You're well off into crackpot territory now.
The only reason anyone's paying attention anymore (the precious few of us who are) is to poke fun once in awhile. You might consider doing yourself a favor and stopping.
Anonymous said...Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:28:00 PM
These primitive taxa did not go extinct but developed into their corresponding advanced taxa.
Then tell me what taxa of present day Felidae Paroodectes "developed" into. Explain the difference in dentition. Explain the difference in walking style. Explain "Some morphologic features are reminiscent of the Viverridae and some Procyonidae" (cicet, raccoon).
"Developed" in biology means from zygote to adult. The proper word to use is "evolved"
Anonymous said...Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:16:00 PM
Notice that the primitive members of the lineage begin with the prefix PRO.
Yes, the paleontologists who described those fossils evaluated them as possible earlier forms near a known form. That's why the describers put in PRO.
What a discovery by Anonymous!
Anonymous said...Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:06:00 PM
we see Mesonychia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
"The mesonychids bore a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance to wolves."
We are getting close to the first member of the "dog" lineage.
I posted already twice a warning about this:
Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:04:00 AM
Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:47:00 PM,
Now Larry Moran has an irregular time schedule for screening comments, so you might hot have seen these before 2:06 PM on the same day.
Therefore a third time:
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.
MESONYCHIDS ARE UNGULATES!
Anonymous, do you know what ungulates are?
@Jud
About Anonymous:
You're well off into crackpot territory now.
Definitely, what Anonymous says is getting crackpottier and crackpottier.
I've never before seen such a display of ignorance as that of Anonymous.
From time to time, I need to mention that 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.
If anyone dislikes reading what I have posted, please feel free not to read it.
My suggestion that Mesonychidae are ancestors of "dogs" is not original to me.
Consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychidae
"The mesonychids were an unusual group of condylarths with a specialized dentition featuring tri-cuspid upper molars and high-crowned lower molars with shearing surfaces. They were once viewed as primitive carnivores, like the Paleocene family Arctocyonidae, and their diet probably included meat and fish. In contrast to this other family of early mammals, [some of] the mesonychids had only four digits furnished with hooves supported by narrow fissured end phalanges. [2]"
It has been suggested by heleen that Paroodectes has in both upper and lower jaws: 3 incisors, 1 canine, 4 premolars, 3 molars, to the total of 44.
I can find no reference for this.
Can anyone supply a reference link?
That would be great.
Modified and enhanced:
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
Advanced cats and dogs ~40 mya (part of Eocene Explosion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feloidea
Modern cats and dogs ~10 mya?
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).
*For years, I have been amused by the crackpot idea that whales evolved from mesonychids. But we know that evolutionists hold the strangest ideas.
Anon stated-
"My suggestion that Mesonychidae are ancestors of "dogs" is not original to me."
I'm sure the view the earth is flat is not original to you either but that hardly redeems the idea. You might as well group bats into the class Aves with the logic your displaying here. If your only condition to establish evolutionary relatedness is the use of the term x-like on Wikipedia then I suggest you add Pakasuchus to you cat lineage which should push the appearance of primitive cat back another fifty-million years.
Anonymous said...Friday, August 05, 2011 10:37:00 AM
My suggestion that Mesonychidae are ancestors of "dogs" is not original to me.
Consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychidae
".....They were once viewed as primitive carnivores, .... the mesonychids had only four digits furnished with hooves "
Oh yes, the Mesonychidae are ancestors of "dogs" part is original with you.
Note the 'carnivore' lower 'c' and ending in 'e', not 'Carnivora' capital 'C' and ending in 'a'.
Then consult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(disambiguation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
A carnivore is a meat-eating animal; carnivores means meat-eating animals. Carnivorous means 'meat-eating'.
A Carnivoran or perhaps (but not well-expressed) Carnivore is an animal belonging to the present day order Carnivora.
Explanation: Crocodiles eat meat but is not a Carnivoran, the Greater Panda eats plants but is a Carnivoran.
Now look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychid
“Mesonychia ("Middle Claws") are an extinct order of medium to large-sized carnivorous mammals that were closely related to artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates)”.
“Since other carnivores such as the creodonts and condylarths were either rare or absent in these animal communities, mesonychids most likely dominated the large predator niche in the Paleocene of Asia”
The ‘carnivore’ and ‘carnivorous’ redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore, to meat-eating animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychidae
“Mesonychidae ("Middle Claws") is an extinct family of medium to large-sized omnivorous-carnivorous mammals closely related to artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates)”
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonychidae
".....They were once viewed as primitive carnivores, .. , it only says the Mesonychidae were eating meat. Did the reference to ‘hooves’ that Anonymous copied from Wikipedia, not ring a bell?
Even-toes ungulates are deer, camels, cows, giraffes, etc.
Anonymous said... Friday, August 05, 2011 10:58:00 AM
… Paroodectes … 44 (teeth).
I can find no reference for this.
Can anyone supply a reference link?
I didn’t get that from internet but from the original description of the animal as in the reference given on Wikipedia.
Springhorn, R. 1980. "Paroodectes feisti, the first Miacid (Carnivora, Mammalia) from the middle Eocene of Messel". Palaeontologische Zeitschrift 54: 171–198.
I got the bound volume of the journal out of the university library. I’m willing to provide a scan, but that has only use if you are able to read German. Only the title and abstract have an English version. For your information, Springhorn studied Paroodectes in a comparison with the miacid Vulpavus, and the living coati, blotched genet, mongoose and palm civet – all species that are known to be relatively conservative in their anatomy. Paleontologists know such things about animal anatomy, you see. No cat in the article anywhere.
But don’t worry, 3.1.4.3 both upper and lower is a standard teeth formula for a Miacid.
Anonymous said...Friday, August 05, 2011 11:46:00 AM
Primitive cats and dogs ~65 mya (After K/T extinction event)
No:
No indication of anything remotely cattish or feliformish or doggish or caniformish before 42 My.
First animals belonging to Caniformia and Feliformia - and that is not 'cats and dogs' at about 42 My.
Present day families from about 10My.
Showing gradual evolution both in species diversification and in gradual change of charactes all along the line.
Post a Comment