Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why heirarchical taxonomy? Linnean system vs. Phylocode?
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 31 of 33 (199573)
04-15-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
04-14-2005 10:12 PM


Re: no macroevolution???
isn't that what evolutionary biologists always say on this board? macroevolution=microevolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2005 10:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 7:41 PM mick has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 33 (199654)
04-15-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mick
04-15-2005 12:02 PM


Re: no macroevolution???
more like macroevolution=n*microevolution
same process, just more of it. and looking at genetics that would be born out: the only difference at a genetic level is more change between more diverse species than between closely related species in a consistent patter that also matches the pattern of division in time.
now if we reduce taxonomy to only the differences between species this would be like discussing the leaves of a tree and ignoring the brances. there are many cases where neighboring leaves come from fundamentally different brances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mick, posted 04-15-2005 12:02 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mick, posted 04-25-2005 12:37 PM RAZD has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 33 of 33 (202202)
04-25-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
04-15-2005 7:41 PM


Re: no macroevolution???
now if we reduce taxonomy to only the differences between species this would be like discussing the leaves of a tree and ignoring the brances. there are many cases where neighboring leaves come from fundamentally different brances.
Well, yes, but that's why we have phylogenetics.
Phylogenetics has proven to be the best way of inferring the existence of the branches. Taxonomy, on the other hand, is notoriously unreliable as an indicator of genuine branch positions in the tree of life.
the taxonomy of mammals, for example, is now being forced to change because it faces the challenge of molecular phylogenetic insights that conflict with the traditional classification. Taxonomy of mammals prior to molecular phylogeny was simply incorrect. (for example see Page Not Found | California Academy of Sciences). That is why taxonomy isn't very useful when it comes to inferring deep branches of the tree of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 7:41 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024