Micro- vis-�-vis Macro-Evolution

[Jorge]

The DNA / genetic evidence is from extant cats and dogs showing a divergence time of approx. 55 MYA.



This matches the fossil Dormaakocyon's age. The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!

Isn't it amazing what unrestrained imagination, artistic license,
assorted brushes, a few gallons of paint, Photoshop, some
graphics software and a lot of cuttin'-n-pastin' can cook up?

It's more of that consilience of evidence that YECs are so afraid of.

Yeah ... oh, yeah ... we's be a'terrified of all that "consilient evidence".

NOT !!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

well I am here to learn

by the way, which DNA is this chart based on, nuclear or mtDNA

It's a new system called bsDNA.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, just ignore. I'm merely getting in a few laughs before calling it a day.

Jorge

[jordanriver]

It's a new system called bsDNA.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, just ignore. I'm merely getting in a few laughs before calling it a day.

Jorge

do I think that's funny.

I admit nothing and I deny everything.

[HMS_Beagle]

Well, we had a whole week of Jorge not acting like a horse's ass.

Looks like now he's back to normal.

[phank]

ok, so what is confusing me the most, why do they think they got this nailed if they don't have any nuclear DNA, but basing it only on the mtDNA.

whats so reliable about that?

They certainly do not think they have anything nailed. The entire latest issue of Scientific American is about this very issue, and interestingly enough the introduction to that issue (written most recently) speaks of a MAJOR find in a cave in South Africa that threatens to rewrite much of what was previously thought most likely. Reconstructing the past is something very hard to do in terms of specifics.

[jordanriver]

They certainly do not think they have anything nailed. The entire latest issue of Scientific American is about this very issue, and interestingly enough the introduction to that issue (written most recently) speaks of a MAJOR find in a cave in South Africa that threatens to rewrite much of what was previously thought most likely. Reconstructing the past is something very hard to do in terms of specifics.

well they science is "self correcting"

ya know what I hate about that,

no, its not that it makes it hard to falsify theories

nope, the deal is,
BIOLOGY TEXTS GET EXPENSIVE if you have to keep updating to maintain a modest library.

[HMS_Beagle]

"The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids"

What reason are there to think that such similar morphological features in an older fossil imply ancestry?

It's called homology and it's a fundamental indicator of common descent. For example, canids and felids have a very similar bone structure that makes up their paws. Generally speaking the closer the overall homology the closer the two species are related by common descent. There are outliers and exceptions of course.

[shunyadragon]

well they science is "self correcting"

ya know what I hate about that,

no, its not that it makes it hard to falsify theories

nope, the deal is,
BIOLOGY TEXTS GET EXPENSIVE if you have to keep updating to maintain a modest library.

Use the internet, it's cheap.

[phank]

well they science is "self correcting"

ya know what I hate about that,

no, its not that it makes it hard to falsify theories

nope, the deal is,
BIOLOGY TEXTS GET EXPENSIVE if you have to keep updating to maintain a modest library.

Generally, textbooks are quite inexpensive compared to subscriptions to the most important journals. Usually these are affordable only by specialized libraries. And this is small potatoes compared to the cost in sheer hours per day trying to keep up with your own field, much less all of biology (which nobody can keep up with). By the time any scientific knowledge is solid enough to reduce to layman terms, it's going to be at least somewhat obsolete.

[HMS_Beagle]

well I am here to learn

by the way, which DNA is this chart based on, nuclear or mtDNA

This paper contains a much more detailed phylogenetic tree of the Carnivora

Dogs, cats, and kin: A molecular species-level phylogeny of Carnivora
Agnarsson et al
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Vol 54 - 3, March 2010, 726–745

Abstract: Phylogenies underpin comparative biology as high-utility tools to test evolutionary and biogeographic hypotheses, inform on conservation strategies, and reveal the age and evolutionary histories of traits and lineages. As tools, most powerful are those phylogenies that contain all, or nearly all, of the taxa of a given group. Despite their obvious utility, such phylogenies, other than summary ‘supertrees’, are currently lacking for most mammalian orders, including the order Carnivora. Carnivora consists of about 270 extant species including most of the world’s large terrestrial predators (e.g., the big cats, wolves, bears), as well as many of man’s favorite wild (panda, cheetah, tiger) and domesticated animals (dog, cat). Distributed globally, carnivores are highly diverse ecologically, having occupied all major habitat types on the planet and being diverse in traits such as sociality, communication, body/brain size, and foraging ecology. Thus, numerous studies continue to address comparative questions within the order, highlighting the need for a detailed species-level phylogeny. Here we present a phylogeny of Carnivora that increases taxon sampling density from 28% in the most detailed primary-data study to date, to 82% containing 243 taxa (222 extant species, 17 subspecies). In addition to extant species, we sampled four extinct species: American cheetah, saber-toothed cat, cave bear and the giant short-faced bear. Bayesian analysis of cytochrome b sequences data-mined from GenBank results in a phylogenetic hypothesis that is largely congruent with prior studies based on fewer taxa but more characters. We find support for the monophyly of Carnivora, its major division into Caniformia and Feliformia, and for all but one family within the order. The only exception is the placement of the kinkajou outside Procyonidae, however, prior studies have already cast doubt on its family placement. In contrast, at the subfamily and genus level, our results indicate numerous problems with current classification. Our results also propose new, controversial hypotheses, such as the possible placement of the red panda (Ailuridae) sister to canids (Canidae). Our results confirm previous findings suggesting that the dog was domesticated from the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus lupus) and are congruent with the Near East domestication of the cat. In sum, this study presents the most detailed species-level phylogeny of Carnivora to date and a much needed tool for comparative studies of carnivoran species. To demonstrate one such use, we perform a phylogenetic analysis of evolutionary distinctiveness (EDGE), which can be used to help establish conservation priorities. According with those criteria, and under one of the many possible sets of parameters, the highest priority Carnivora species for conservation of evolutionary diversity include: monk seals, giant and red panda, giant otter, otter civet, Owston’s palm civet, sea otter, Liberian mongoose, spectacled bear, walrus, binturong, and the fossa.

Never mind the braying ass from Central Florida. Making noise and passing gas is all he knows.

[Kristian Joensen]

It's called homology and it's a fundamental indicator of common descent. For example, canids and felids have a very similar bone structure that makes up their paws. Generally speaking the closer the overall homology the closer the two species are related by common descent. There are outliers and exceptions of course.

Why conclude from the similar bone structure of the paws of felids and canids that they had a common ancestor? Does Old Earth Creationism and/or Young Earth Creationism and/or Intelligent Design predict dissimilar bone structures in their paws?

[HMS_Beagle]

Why conclude from the similar bone structure of the paws of felids and canids that they had a common ancestor? Does Old Earth Creationism and/or Young Earth Creationism and/or Intelligent Design predict dissimilar bone structures in their paws?

Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them. If we found very different paw structures in dogs and cats it would falsify their common ancestry by evolution but to Creationists it would be "God did it that way just because!".

[Kristian Joensen]

Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them. If we found very different paw structures in dogs and cats it would falsify their common ancestry by evolution but to Creationists it would be "God did it that way just because!".

"Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them."

So the presence of homologies is perfectly compatible with Creationism and hence can't be used to adjudicate between Creationism and Evolution or what? Can you use something that Creationists agree with to argue for Evolution?

[klaus54]

"The Dormaakocyon itself has morphological features found in both canids and felids"

What reason are there to think that such similar morphological features in an older fossil imply ancestry?

What reason would there be to think otherwise?

This evidence that has to be explained, and it supports the hypothesis of common (or close to common) ancestry.

Can you think of an alternate hypothesis?

Just a reminder that hypotheses are supported by not proved.

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

"Creationism doesn't make any predictions about homologies at all while common descent absolutely requires them."

So the presence of homologies is perfectly compatible with Creationism and hence can't be used to adjudicate between Creationism and Evolution or what? Can you use something that Creationists agree with to argue for Evolution?

It's a matter of weighted inferences. There are billions of different patterns God could have used in Special Creation and only one possible by evolution. We investigate and find that one. That's pretty strong evidence for evolution. Not proof but strong positive evidence.