|
Author
|
Topic: True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post that begins with Newton you then end it all be insulting me, claiming I'm some sort of undercover creationist. I actually was taking you seriously before you revealed you true thoughts. ... Not what I said. Your posts reek of creationist influenced education, but that is not your fault. Ignorance is curable -- by learning. Being deceived is curable -- by learning. When you rather obviously do not know enough about evolution theory and processes, you are in no position to criticize it. Learning what they actually are (instead of creationist versions) would go a long way. If you think I was insulting, I apologize.
...Review your statements on Newtons Law (not theory) because I think you have misunderstood it and its practical application on earth as it is not superseded by general relativity which I have never seen used in mechanical engineering. ... And you won't because the theory of relativity for near earth solutions devolves to Newton's "law" (actually a theory). It doesn't even affect calculation enough to significantly alter calculating paths for landing craft on Mars. But Newton's "law" (actually a theory) does not explain the anomaly of Mercury's orbit, relativity does. Because Mercury is close to the sun. The scale is entirely different than talking about how combustion engines work.
... You need to also confirm your assumptions on steel quality, strength and testing. They are also incorrect in general but especially in highly critical applications such as a bridge where the material is not just bought from walmart or something. Curiously, I have actually tested steel strength, in a lab, with equipment designed and calibrated to measure the progress of failure under load. No two test results are identical, but they follow similar paths. And it is critical when that steel comes from other countries that don't have the production quality standards of US corporations. You do know that steel is an alloy - with impurities - and not a pure element, and that the alloy fractions (and impurities) have critical effects on strength, brittleness, and elasticity, don't you? That's why there are different grades of carbon steel and stainless steel -- each with different general characteristics. Enjoy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 08-29-2017 5:53 AM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
RAZD didn't even post in this thread. I believe he was talking about Message 182 on the A good summary of so called human evolution. thread where at the end of a detailed thread I replied thusly:
... And this automatic assumption that I'm a preacher really makes u guys seem unbelievably bad and untrustworthy. Everyone here has labelled me a preacher. But is religion a part of my argument... Not at all. I see anyone with any religious arguments gets discriminated against, shamed and outcast. ... Curiously, the evidence is in your words, your phrases, the heavy reliance of creationist drivel and PRATTs, rather than science and your poor, undereducated knowledge of evolution. Playing the victim of discrimination is a typical ploy. If that is insulting then, imho, someone is looking for grounds to claim they are being insulted. Additionally I note that we now have the classic "claim a moral victory and run away from further debate" typical of creationists. Sad.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
searchable database
Assuming from those skulls that man evolved from other primates what next?
What did the primate evolve from and when? An interesting site to explore is Palaeos: Life Through Deep Time although it is undergoing massive update/restructuring of the pages, and some links don't work ... you can use google search to find pages like Palaeos Vertebrates Primates: Primates If the google site search is broken you can do it manually google: site:http://palaeos.com/ "primate" It is searchable as well through the links in the cladograms. Clicking the last line in that page gives Palaeos Vertebrates Primates: Haplorhini or you can go to the bottom of the pages and click the [Page Next] link Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added info
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: searchable database
"Dendrogram The following dendrogram represents a somewhat misleadlingly linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolution. Hopefully this will be corrected in future, as the various other branche son the primate evolutionary tree are fille dout." Its says it's misleading. All the suggestions I've read on that site and elsewhere start with "probably" "perhaps" "maybe" or other words of this nature. You are reading more into this than is there. They are saying that the appearance of the lineage of descent as a "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" is " somewhat misleading" because the various other branches are not filled out yet. That doesn't mean that tracing man's lineage backwards (up the dendrogram) is misleading just that other information is missing from the picture, and that this can be misinterpreted as a "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" instead of a part of a bushy pattern. They are warning you not to be mislead into thinking that.
On message 38 I asked what did the primate evolve from. Quick hint: if you use [msg=38] it becomes Message 38 and links to the message. Now back to the webpage for primates it lists the parent population as Archonta quote:
Beginning to Grasp Things (Euprimateformes) The name Euprimateformes was coined fairly recently by Bloch et al. (2007) for a clade uniting crown-group Primates and the extinct plesiadapoids (the exact definition was "the clade stemming from the most recent common ancestor of Carpolestes simpsoni and Homo sapiens), excluding even more basal stem Primates such as paromomyids. The plesiadapoids include the taxa Plesiadapidae, Carpolestidae, Saxonella and Chronolestes and were found in North America and Eurasia from the late Early Palaeocene to the end of the Early Eocene (a possible plesiadapoid has also been described from Africa). Plesiadapoids would have been not dissimilar to squirrels or modern tree shrews in size and appearance. They possessed large, forward-pointing lower incisors and originally fairly long skulls.
And going back from Archonta takes you to Eutheria which then leads back to Mammalia. The other branch under Mammalia is Metatheria, the marsupials. Before Mammalia there were Mammaliformes quote:
The mammaliforms are, of course, the run-up to mammals. Not that they were "destined" to become us, or anything at all. The whole lineage could quite easily have disappeared during the Mesozoic without a trace. But, from our perspective, they're the group that produced us; so it is natural to wonder how that happened. All of the early mammaliforms looked more or less like rodents and were about the same size as that most successful group of modern mammals. The mammaliform story is about internal, structural developments, many of which we have only begun to be able to study in the last decade. Understanding these changes unavoidably requires us to look at technical anatomical details. ...
Before Mammaliforms there were Cynodontia and before that there were Therapsida. In these groups we see the evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian ear attached to the jaw bone and the development of different forms of teeth. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 8:20 AM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: searchable database
On Message 38 I asked what did the primate evolve from.
Message 39 suggested I search the web for answers. Not sure why I'm being rediculed. I fixed this to show links to the messages. I also note that you have correctly spelled ridicule later in the thread. It is always a little humorous to see someone complain of being ridiculed and spell it wrong over and over.
Anyhow that question remains.
What did the early primate evolve from? See Message 85 and others that have provided detailed answers.
Message 59: ToE has collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence that is very fragmented. You complain about being categorized as a creationist, and yet you continue to present lame creationist arguments like this. My conclusion is that you are either a creationist or you were educated by creationists and have not yet been willing to discard those teachings ... in spite of your claims to discard religion. The Theory of Evolution does not depend on a single fossil. Not. One. Let me review a little evolution science for you:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level. Mutations provide variation and are observed documented facts. Selection and drift are also observed documented facts. These known processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses. If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary. If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations. With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade. The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies. The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. It is tested by every fossil found. It is tested by every genome decoded and compared to other genomes. It is test by comparing the phylogenies from fossils with those from genomes. It has passed all the tests to date. For over 150 years. That is hardly the result of a theory that has "collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence" now is it? Rather it is the result of a robust and dependable theory, one we can use with high confidence in its predictions for future investigations.
In a revealing statement that completely exposed the theory it was admitted that Mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available That is indeed a revealing statement: it shows you did not accurately read/comprehend what was actually said -- as you did before when you claimed the website said it was misleading (see Message 85 again). When you skim websites looking for something to base an argument on and then make inaccurate quote mines of them, you again behave like a creationist, or a least like someone who is not looking to learn, but to twist the information to fit your beliefs.
Message 69: Ridicule... Number 1 defence for the defenceless. Then you need to stop doing it.
I haven't personally attacked anyone ... Your very first posts insulted and ridiculed people. In Message 181 on the Can mutation and selection increase information? thread you said "Biologists cannot call their practice a science." At 6:57 AM In Message 155 on the A good summary of so called human evolution. thread you said "But out of all these one eyed evolutionists ... Wake up evos. This is not science." At 7:33 AM on 08-27-2017. If you are going to complain about being ridiculed I suggest you look at your own arguments first: how you behave to people is in large part how they will respond to you. You cast the first stone ...
Given these statements can man accurately be traced back from 80 million years back to 6.5 billion years to ocean creatures? The way the animations depict it? With every step of evolution for every species? If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't make ridiculous statements and don't repeat errors that have been pointed out previously. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Porkncheese, posted 09-01-2017 10:42 AM | | Porkncheese has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
evidenced based arguments
Your message now reads:
u know what... forget about it The message you have now deleted was
After what I learned from RAZD last post about that misleading text I went back to see who has actually been saying what. RAZD, Tangle, JonF and Percey tune in ok. But firstly to everyone I stand by my statement that i have not PERSONALLY attacked or PERSONALLY ridiculed anybody. If so put it forward now and i will address it. Next I need to affirm that everything I have said about myself (which im not going to go through again) is true but im 19yo. OK people say why don't you look it up or argue the point yourself. I haven't got the time but. This subject is already taking up too much of my time when I should be crunching numbers on homework. All I see is that there is opposition around ToE and it comes from many fronts like age, dna, micro macro. I havent got time to get into all of that ye. Thats why I said I am clueless in the theory. All I know is that ToE claims man evolved from primate and all from the ocean. Ok now. JohF was the first to post a reference. Before I went to the snow I was reading responses and blew up in a rant because in between all that talk JonF was the only one to provide me reference. Returning I looked at his links. The question which then came into my mind next was what did primates evolve from. Again trying to avoid all the unsupported talk, confusion in my question, ridicule and really being pushed into just accepting ToE and not asking questions i felt by then. RAZD gave me something to refer to on message 43. But the first reference I get admittedly claims to be misrepresenting. When I ask about this it is dismissed by Percey who is still trying to explain primate evolution. Im confused at this stage and annoyed. And before that could be explained im presented with further references from Tangle. this basically says that we don't have much on this stage of evolution. At this point the two references I have been provided are admittedly misleading and incomplete. Now read what people are telling me in response. Ok. No one corrects the evidence I have been given by you guys. The basic theme is im a wanker for not believing. Don't question. Have faith. Like wtf. Ur giving me the same faith bs iv heard before. The first 2 references provided by yourselves ok, not me, i didn't push this information. These references are admittedly misleading and incomplete. And im being ridiculed for not accepting them... the constant bs without any new references. Blah blah blah believe me. Im going to pause now for people to think... Put yourselves in my shoes. After all the bs, abuse and lies from religion growing up and the same now from this forum. Out numbered by grown men seeminly unable to provide me any accurate references and ridiculing me for not accepting them. Are you accepting these references as fact? Are you accepting the convoluted babble that was pushed on me at that stage??? (After reading this im nuts searching for some kind of agreement. I hope im wrong but Im expecting more of the same...no reson or rational thinking will evolve here) Most of this is just more ranting about being mistreated and misunderstood.
... All I see is that there is opposition around ToE and it comes from many fronts like age, dna, micro macro. ... Pick any one of those and we can pursue further who is in opposition and what their evidence is. Take age for instance. The earth is over 4.5 billion years old and life has existed for at least 3.5 billion of those years ... at least that is what the objective empirical evidence shows. Those who dispute this do so for religious reasons, they want to believe in a fantasy of a young earth. This fantasy is invalidated by the objective empirical evidence. Don't believe me? Read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and see how the evidence stacks up bit by bit. Science is based on evidence not desire or fantasy.
... All I know is that ToE claims man evolved from primate and all from the ocean. Not really. The objective empirical evidence shows that man evolved from primates and that all life started in the oceans -- because the fossils show that pattern of the natural history of life. The theory of evolution explains that pattern. The fossils are embedded in a temporal-spacial matrix, and proximity in time and location together with homologous features in the skeletons show the most likely probable path of evolution, where each stage is slightly different from the one before and the one after, difference so slight that they could be like the variations seen in dogs. The theory of evolution is based on what we see happening in the world living around us, with breeding populations experiencing mutations and selection -- and the theorizing that the same processes occurred in the past: if so then the patterns of fossils within the temporal-spacial matrix should show similar patterns to what we see in living patterns. Not too surprisingly they do. We see the process of speciation forming nested hierarchies of descent in populations living today. We see fossils falling into similar patterns of nested hierarchies within the temporal-spacial matrix. Follow the evidence. Enjoy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Porkncheese, posted 09-02-2017 4:43 PM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
What point?
have fun picking it all apart and avoiding the point again ok... What point? That you insist on being wrong about evolution and the age of the earth and refuse to accept comments that correct you? That you insist on being wrong about the website saying it is misleading when it says it may appear to mislead you into thinking there is a "great chain of being" instead of the descent pattern we know to be bushy ... because, as it states, there is some information/branches missing? Let me quote it for you and see if comprehension follows:
quote:
Primates: Dendrogram: The following dendrogram represents a somewhat misleadlingly linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolution. Hopefully this will be corrected in future, as the various other branche son the primate evolutionary tree are fille dout. MAK120711
This single line appearance as a linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolutio is what is misleading, not the information, and this linear appearance will be corrected when the other branches are filled out and new information is included. Do you understand the difference between "somewhat misleading" and completely misleading and untrustworthy information (as you appear to choose to interpret it)? Especially when it is explained to you what the misleading appearance is? Here is the dendrogram for reference:
quote:
Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│ ├─Indrioidea MH
│ └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae
└─Hominoidea MH
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae
└─Hominidae
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo
└─Homininae
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
└─┬─Pan
└─Hominini
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│ └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens
Is it precisely correct in every detail? No. Nothing ever is. Is it generally correct? Yes, emphatically, because this is the general arrangement of the fossils within the temporal-spacial matrix. The locations of the fossils in time and space is not subject to change, because they are facts, part of the vast objective empirical evidence of the natural history of life on earth. The order of appearance in the fossil record connected by proximity in time and space is then linked by homologous features to form a most probable - hypothetical - lineage of descent. Is that linkage subject to change? Yes, as more information becomes available. This is the nature of science: hypothesis are constantly tested and altered or rejected when new information shows the hypothesis is incorrect. Each link gives a description of the features that define the species. Each of those species is locked in time and space by the temporal-spacial matrix by the age and location when they were found. The details on the linked pages provide you with way more information than the dendrogram provides. You have been told that the age of the earth is ~4.55 billion years, not 6.5 billion years as you have repeated after being corrected. Telling you when you are wrong is not ridiculing you, it is telling you when you are wrong with the intent of giving you the more correct information. Am I telling you to believe what I am saying, to have faith? Nope. I am telling you that this and this and this information is there, it is available for you to study and learn from. Enjoy
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
What is misleading ... and what is similar
RAZD I asked you about the dendrogram on message 44. Ur explination came much later on message 85. Meanwhile on message 46 Percy also calls it misleading and says that it is wrong. Who do I believe RAZD or Percy? First answer: neither of us. Look at other sources and see how they compare -- is there radical differences between them or do they present the same general picture, differing slightly in the details? Second answer: ask Percy to specify what he thinks is misleading, and see if you can clarify that. Here is another source for human evolution, and what it shows is the bushiness in our past:
quote:
Human Evolution Linked from this page are documents summarizing the hominid fossil record and hypothesized lines of human evolution from 5 million years ago to the present. Under the current taxonomy (based on genetic rather than behavioral criteria), the term "hominid" refers to members of the biological human family Hominidae: living humans, all human ancestors, the many extinct members of Australopithecus, and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla. According to The Tree of Life by Guillaume Lecointre and Herv Le Guyader (Harvard University Press: 2006), the similarly named and easily confused categories of humans and near human apes, in order of increasing inclusiveness, are:
- Hominini - modern humans and all previous human, australopithecine, paranthropine and ardipithecine ancestors
- Homininae - all of the above, plus chimpanzees (Panini), our closest living biological kin (a genetic kinship so close that some scientists have suggested their genus name should be changed from Pan to Homo).
- Hominidae - all of the above, plus gorillas (Gorillinae)
- Hominoidae - all of the above, plus orangutans (Pongidae)
- Hominoidea - all of the above, plus gibbons (Hylobatoidae).
|
| The chart (at right) shows the evolutionary
chronology inputed to these biological branches.
Ardipithecus, the common primate ancestor to
paranthropines, australopithecines and humans,
went extinct about 4 million years ago. | Human evolution is a puzzle made up of thousands of fossil pieces. The Chart of Human Evolution (below) shows the major pieces of that puzzle arranged in a likely solution. The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.
(note: yes the text says "right" and the image is to the left ... in the original) This second chart covers the fossils for the human branch after the split with the chimpanzee branch. To me this is the same basic information presented in a different format. Additionally this image has changed since I first viewed it as more information has been added and some lineages have been adjusted. Another source is Origins of Humankind showing the same basic information in yet another format. What I like about the Palaeos: Life Through Deep Time site is that it is interactive, but the problem is that the site is immense and that leads to problems with links when parts are updated. They also talk in some detail about the Great Chain of Being and From Ladder to Tree. Interesting because this covers the history and how our thinking changed (evolved?) over time. And going back to that dendrogram that has caused so much trouble, clicking on the link to Hominini we get:
quote:
The Hominina Editor's note: the following is copied verbatum, from Wikipedia, for no other reason than that the current editor has so much work to do in Palaeos that it was felt easiest to just copy n paste. At some point this material will be upgraded, updates, and elaborated upon (hopefully) - MAK111128 The more anthropomorphic primates of the Hominini tribe are placed in the Hominina subtribe. Referred to as hominans, they are characterized by the evolution of an increasingly erect bipedal locomotion. The only extant species is Homo sapiens. Fossil records indicate this subtribe branched from the common ancestor with the chimpanzee lineage about 3 to 5 million years ago. Current evidence[citation needed] suggests that, about 2.6 million years ago, Australopithecus began to diverge into two paths. One path produced Paranthropus, more robust, specialized in a plant food that required a stronger jaw and molars and powerful facial muscles that required a cranial crest, much like a modern gorilla has, to unite them. The other track led to Homo, with a relatively larger brain, more delicate teeth and jaw. Both genera existed at the same time for about 1 and a half million years. This subtribe is usually considered to include Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus, and Homo. However, the exact makeup is still under debate, as scientists continue to determine the order of descent in human evolution. - Wikipedia Note on taxonomy By rights, this should be a short section. Even in the hands of the more avid splitters currently working on it, the Hominini has never been an overly large clade, and only a single species is still extant. And yet, because of the minor detail that this species happens to be our own, the Hominini continues to receive a great deal of attention. One side-effect of this high level of interest is that the Hominini have suffered to an extraordinary degree from bad and/or sloppy taxonomy. Almost every species known from more than one fossil individual has accrued a sizeable synonymy, with many available specimens being assigned their own names (both species and genus) at some point, and some single specimens even being assigned multiple names. The tree below attempts some order from the chaos. It presents more of a splitter's perspective on hominin evolution - many species would not be recognised by more conservative workers, some of whom would reduce the genus Homo, for instance, to only three species - Homo habilis, H. erectus and H. sapiens. There is also a considerable degree of debate of how best to treat the paraphyletic series of taxa generally included in the genus Australopithecus (the species between 'Australopithecus' anamensis and Paranthropus robustus in the tree below), with none of the suggested alternatives being really satisfactory.
Note the reference to "splitters" -- this refers to ongoing discussions within taxonomy between "splitters" (those who split the fossils into many species) and "lumpers" (those who lump the fossils into fewer species) -- part of the give and take in science. The diagram following that is quite bushy and it only includes the "type species" (the initial find for each species) and not the several/many other fossils found later of the same species ... as classified by the type species descriptions. That certainly fleshes out the bushiness in the last section of that dendrogram. More ancient sections would have similar fleshing out with more information added, but what I (you) can take from the dendrogram is that it is essentially an index to greater detailed sections. Third answer: so what I say is -- don't just believe what people say, look at the details, see what is similar, what is different, and then ask about those differences. I think those differences will be minor, but you never know. Evolution is a big field, and getting a good understanding of the science means doing more than just cursory reading and certainly not learned from any single source (even college classes can only hit the highlights). One good source that has already been mentioned is Berkeley's Evolution 101: another interactive site, one that is designed for both individual study and as a teachers aid for teaching evolution in different grades from K-2 to undergraduate college courses. Enjoy
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 124 of 154 (818942)
09-04-2017 10:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by Percy
09-04-2017 9:11 AM
|
|
misleading?
I don't know why RAZD is using that misleading diagram. It makes it seem that chimps descended from gorillas and that humans descended from chimps. ... Curiously, I disagree. It appears that you were mislead by the appearance, but not the details. This section
quote:
└─┬─Ponginae
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo
└─Homininae
Shows the same split between Pongo (orangutans) and the Homininae line as your diagram .... This section
quote:
└─Homininae
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
Shows the same split between Gorilla and the Hominini line as your diagram ... This section
quote:
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
└─┬─Pan
└─Hominini
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│ └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens
Shows the continued lineage to Homo sapiens ... with the common ancestor with chimps ( pan) shown in your chart. Note where the branch to hominini comes: not under pan but just before it, just as the other common ancestors are shown before that. What is missing is the links from the pan ancestor to chimps (and bonobos) in your chart. This -- as they say -- needs to be filled in. Including chimp lineage would look like this:
└─┬─Pan
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│ └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominini
Conclusion: not so much misleading, as just not easy to read at a glance. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by Percy, posted 09-04-2017 9:11 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 129 by Percy, posted 09-04-2017 12:45 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: What point?
Ya'll won't admit it but those first 2 references and related arguments were totally crap ok. U can't expect people to jump on board with shit like that. Especially with others telling a different story Total crap? no. Curiously, the devil's in the details. The problem with those first two references is that you jumped to conclusions on both rather than waiting for explanations. Do you agree or not that explanations have been given? Percy has said what he found misleading. I see it as not interpreting the dendrogram correctly - because it does show the same pattern as his diagram. The other, iirc, is that you applied a comment about one part to the whole. I'll check that out. Enjoy
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by Porkncheese, posted 09-04-2017 10:47 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: What point?
Ya'll won't admit it but those first 2 references and related arguments were totally crap ok. U can't expect people to jump on board with shit like that. Especially with others telling a different story Again, details, details, details.
Message 115: Then on Message 51 I'm given a link with a quote clearly saying not much is known on that species. (Point. Increased skepticism) What Tangle said in Message 51 was
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm
quote:
The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates, evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago) at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (from Asia, Europe, North Africa, and especially Western North America) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet adapted for climbing in trees. These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available.
It goes on to explain in a lot more detail. You're going to have to live with the odd 'probably' now and then - when real scientists don't know the answer to total certainty, they say so and say why. Your response was Message 53 I did see that website According to the quote presented "The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence suggests..." "They probably were" "These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available" Sure is alot of conjucture. And from this knowledge these trees are drawn up showing direct links between every species all the way back to the ocean. You seem to apply the "shadowy creatures" to the whole set of fossils and later relationships, rather than just this instance. Tangle followed up in Message 56 with
It's not conjecture it's presenting the facts as we know them. But did you read the whole article? It gives you a readable and easily understood explanation of how primates evolved? Here's the summary of what we know.
quote:
Primates are relative newcomers on our planet. The earliest ones are found in the fossil record dating to 50-55 million years ago. These first prosimians thrived during the Eocene Epoch. There were no monkeys or apes for them to compete with yet. By the time of the transition to the Oligocene Epoch, monkeys had begun to evolve from prosimians and became the dominant primates. Many of the prosimian species became extinct probably as a consequence. By the early Miocene Epoch, apes had evolved from monkeys and displaced them from many environments. In the late Miocene, the evolutionary line leading to hominins finally became distinct. This hominin line included our direct ancestors.
Does that or does that not compare with the evidence and lineages presented in other websites? So is this cleared up yet? Do you still think it is "totally crap?" Enjoy
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 135 of 154 (819020)
09-05-2017 9:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
09-05-2017 9:00 AM
|
|
Re: What point?
I don't think RAZD's diagram is wrong, it's just misleading, and I think it's because the character graphics they use to show descent just don't mean to me what was intended. ... And I agree that the character graphics are difficult, and a bit misleading until you get the hang of it. Possibly a hangover from early limitations on web graphics that can be linked.
But that's obviously wrong, so then I thought it might mean this:
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
Hominini Pan That's the way I read it at each location where this configuration
is used (see elsewhere in the dendrogram)
But looking up Hominini at Wikipedia it seems that it includes Homo, Pan and Australopithecina (extinct), which would be this and would mean RAZD's diagram is wrong or I just have no idea how to interpret it properly: From the other source I provided
quote:
Human Evolution - Hominini - modern humans and all previous human, australopithecine, paranthropine and ardipithecine ancestors
- Homininae - all of the above, plus chimpanzees (Panini), our closest living biological kin (a genetic kinship so close that some scientists have suggested their genus name should be changed from Pan to Homo).
- Hominidae - all of the above, plus gorillas (Gorillinae)
- Hominoidae - all of the above, plus orangutans (Pongidae)
- Hominoidea - all of the above, plus gibbons (Hylobatoidae).
|
| The chart (at right) shows the evolutionary
chronology inputed to these biological branches.
Ardipithecus, the common primate ancestor to
paranthropines, australopithecines and humans,
went extinct about 4 million years ago. |
This too seems to be at odds with wikipedia, which also puts gorillas in Homininae, orangutans in Hominidae and gibbons in Hominoidae ... but it doesn't match entirely with the palaeos.com dendrogram (modified to flesh out the pan branch in orange) to add what was missing:
quote:
Primates: Dendrogram Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│ ├─Indrioidea MH
│ └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidea MH
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae Hominoidae
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae Hominidae
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
└─Homininae
└─┬─Panini
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│ └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominini
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│ └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens
So I have corrected the palaeos diagram to match the handprint.com diagram, and until further notice, I'll take this over wikipedia. and I'll email my suggested corrections to palaeos. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : corrections to dendrogram Edited by RAZD, : .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Percy, posted 09-05-2017 9:00 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 138 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2017 10:05 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 138 of 154 (819088)
09-05-2017 10:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 135 by RAZD
09-05-2017 9:56 AM
|
|
dendrogram corrections
Here's another source
quote:
Berkeley: The emergence of humans The narratives of human evolution are oft-told and highly contentious. There are major disagreements in the field about whether human evolution is more like a branching tree or a crooked stick, depending partly on how many species one recognizes. Interpretations of almost every new find will be sure to find opposition among other experts. Disputes often center on diet and habitat, and whether a given animal could walk bipedally or was fully upright. What can we really tell about human evolution from our current understanding of the phylogenetic relations of hominids and the sequence of evolution of their traits?
We do know that by the time the animals known as Homo evolved, they could make tools, and their hands were well suited for complex manipulations. These features were eventually accompanied by the reduction of the lower face, particularly the jaws and teeth, the recession of the brow, the enlargement of the brain, the evolution of a more erect posture, and the evolution of a limb more adapted for extended walking and running (along with the loss of arboreally oriented features). The evogram shows the hypothesized order of acquisition of these traits. Yet each of the Homo species was unique in its own way, so human evolution should not be seen as a simple linear progression of improvement toward our own present-day form.
They don't give the Hom... names, but they do show some of the detail in the palaeos.com dendrogram, and it looks like I need to adjust my insertion slightly:
quote:
Primates: Dendrogram Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│ ├─Indrioidea MH
│ └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidea MH
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae? Hominoidae?
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae? Hominidae
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─Homininae
└─┬─Panini
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│ └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominini
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
├─Australopithecus garhi X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│ └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens
So I have corrected the palaeos diagram to match the handprint.com diagram and the Berkeley image, and until further notice, I'll take this over wikipedia. With this nomenclature we have a Hom... designation for each of the major common ancestors in the bush path to human, and I believe that was the intent when these labels were (fairly recently) developed.
- Hominoidea - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the baboons (Cercopithecidae)
- Hominoidae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the gibbons (Hylobatidae)
- Hominidae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the orangutans (Ponginae)
- Homininae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the gorillas (Gorillinae)
- Hominini - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the chimpanzees (Panni)
Now I may be wrong, but that arrangement makes sense to me. They are, after all, just labels arbitrarily assigned for clarity of discussion. Hominoidae seems to be missing from all the wiki articles, so the taxonomists may have decided to simplify the names ... I don't know. abe The more I look the confusider I gets ... here's more
quote:
Hominid and hominin — what’s the difference?. The terms ‘hominid’ and ‘hominin’ are frequently used in human evolution. New definitions The most commonly used recent definitions are: Hominid — the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors). Hominin — the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).
That would confirm the Hominini classification similar to the Handprint image, but not much else. While I still have some trouble with using the graphic symbols, using this says to me that Darwinius and Haplorhini have a common ancestor and that common ancestor has a common ancestor with Adapiformes └─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini While this would imply all three share a single common ancestor ├─Adapiformes X
├─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini and that would be misleading. abe2
quote:
New World Encyclopedia: Hominidae Hominidae is a taxonomic family of primates that today is commonly considered to include extant (living) and extinct humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. In this taxonomic scheme, Hominidae is one of two families of apes (superfamily Hominoidea), the other family being Hylobatidae (the gibbons). Members of Hominidae (sometimes exclusive of humans) are known as the "great apes," while members of Hylobatidae are known as the "lesser apes."
Overview The classification of Hominidae has been revised several times in the last few decades. Originally, Hominidae included only humans and their extinct relatives, with all other apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae (Simpson 1945). In the 1960s, utilizing techniques from molecular biology, the lesser apes were moved into their own family (Hylobatidae), with humans remaining in Hominidae, and the non-human great apes remaining in Pongidae.
Eventually, the other great apes (gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees) were placed into the family Hominidae along with humans, by demoting the Pongidae to a subfamily. Subsequently, it was decided that the African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) were more closely related to each other than any of them are related to the organgutans, and the chimpanzees and gorillas were moved into the subfamily Homininae with humans, with orangutans remaining in the subfamily Pongidae. Chimpanzees and humans were further separated into the same tribe, Hominini, and humans and their extinct relatives further separated into the sub-tribe Hominina.
That would appear to confirm the wiki arrangement, but it is dated 29 August 2008, while the handprint.com site was last updated 10.08.2014. I have emailed Bruce and handprint. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : abe Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2017 9:56 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: dendrogram corrections
Thanks herebedragons, that was helpful.
Those names indicate taxonomic rank, not ancestral identification. names ending in "-oidae" are superfamily (or epifamily) names ending in "-idae" are family ending in "-inae" are subfamily ending in "-ini" are tribe So essentially they are the names of the clades and everything after the name are a part of that clade and "Homin" is the base word. Where I get confused is Hominoidea and Hominoidae Is there another taxonomic rank here? above superfamily? I did email Bruce MacEvoy at handprint.com and he replied
quote:
hi paul, primate biological classification is partly dependent on the state of evidence, partly on academic camps of interpretation, partly on the authority of pronouncements, partly on politics, and no small part on the innate human urge to just screw around with stuff. my source was "The Tree of Life" by Lecointre and Le Guyader, but the two attached references indicate that terms between family hominidae and genus homo are potentially partisan. there's no harm to just picking your preference and using it. What is the full taxonomy classification of humans? | Socratic
Object not found! bruce
The first link yields
quote:
If you looking for a very accurate classification.. Domain: Eukaryota
Kindom: Animalia
(Sub-kindom: Eumetazoa)
(''branch'' : Bilateria)
(Superphylum : Deuterostomia)
Phylum Chordata
(Subphylum Vertebrata)
(Infraphylum Gnathostomata)
(Superclass Tetrapoda)
Class Mammalia
(Sub-class Theria)
(Infra-class Eutheria)
(Superorder Euarchontoglires)
(clade Euarchonta)
Order Primates
(Sub-order Haplorrhini)
(Infra-Ordine Simiiformes)
(Para-ordine Catarrhini)
(Super-Family Hominoidea)
Family Hominidae
(Sub-family Homininae)
(Trib Hominini)
(Sub-trib Hominina)
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
Which introduces Hominina to divide homo from pan (panina?) - which is also mentioned in the New World Encyclopedia article - but otherwise appears to match wiki etc. and it seems to say what you said
For example, I think Adapiformes should be a rank under Strepsirrhini with Darwinius under Adapiformes and Haporhini should be under Primates. ... quote:
Order Primates
(Sub-order Haplorrhini)
(Infra-Ordine Simiiformes)
(Para-ordine Catarrhini)
(Super-Family Hominoidea)
Are you saying the top should be Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ ├─Lemuriformes
│ │ ├─Indrioidea MH
│ │ └─Lemuroidea
│ └─Adapiformes X
│ └─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini The other link also says
quote:
Other species of Hominidae:
- The only living species generally considered to belong to the family Hominidae is H. sapiens.
- The Hominidae also include several species of Australopithecus (all extinct) and several fossil species and subspecies of our genus Homo, including H. habilis Leakey and Leakey and H. erectus (Dubois).
- Some zoologists have proposed that species of Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and Gorilla also be put into the family Hominidae, but retain their separate genus names. A few scientists even maintain that chimpanzees and bonobos ought to be members of the genus Homo, since they are so close to us genetically.
Which leads us to personal preferences in the continuing debate of classifications. So at this point I have -- from Haplorhini down: └─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidea MH Hominoidae (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─HomininaeHominini (tribe)
└─┬─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│ └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominina (subtribe)
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
├─Australopithecus garhi X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│ └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens Which should resolve the wiki etc issues Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : ...
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 143 of 154 (819187)
09-07-2017 5:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by caffeine
09-07-2017 2:26 PM
|
|
Re: Homisomethings...
The confusion of the various ranks named after Homo comes from changes in definition. Once upon a time, 'Hominidae' meant only humans and extinct relatives. The other great apes were classified in 'Pongidae'. The two collectively formed the superfamily Hominoidea. Yeah, I got that from several sites. Handprint.com (Bruce MacEvoy) is staying with his reference ("The Tree of Life" by Lecointre and Le Guyader, 2007) so I'm going to the library tomorrow. I also heard from Palaeos.com on facebook (Renato Filipe Vidal Santos):
quote:
So I'm now collecting commentary for further reference. "Possibly a hangover from early limitations on web graphics that can be linked." It's more than that. You can see an earlier example here, Wayback Machine . Consider it took me a few months to update the dendrograms from that earlier ASCII format to UTF-8 with box drawing characters, and that's because I messed up with search and replace and cleared all instances of multiple white space (which among other things formats the trees) or else I wouldn't have done it that early. Then adding to that the toil and travail I had elsewhere with yet other options for displaying phylogenies, DeviantArt: 404... , I can't imagine what it would be to convert all of that to images. Besides the text conveys the same information with generally a smaller data footprint than images (slow internet here) and as said before can be edited more readily. The layout that only includes one letter of a name into the flow of the branches is simply to avoid the dendrogram from getting too wide for the page, or element it's contained in. As you'll note I have a good deal of dendrograms on the content menus at the top of pages. So this method is overall sufficiently compact and not too fiddly. Perhaps HTML5 and CSS3 will bring new capabilities I'll be loathe to not use, but the site still needs to be brought up to speed regarding HTML4 and CSS2. We'll see how things go.
So that is the history behind the dendrogram formats. No feedback on the dendrogram alterations I suggested ... yet. (more to come?) So for now I'm sticking with this: Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│ ├─Indrioidea MH
│ └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidea MH Hominoidae (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─Hominini (tribe)
└─┬─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│ └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─HomininiHominina (subtribe)
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
├─Australopithecus garhi X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│ └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by caffeine, posted 09-07-2017 2:26 PM | | caffeine has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 144 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2017 7:43 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
