Micro and Macro in purple



  • I call shenanigans. There is no "first purple word in the block of text" because I deny the existence of "purple".



  • @da-Doctah
    One of the times I'm glad to be color-blind ... now I can just blame that and ignore that :poop:



  • @da-Doctah said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    I call shenanigans. There is no "first purple word in the block of text" because I deny the existence of "purple".

    The first word with the color purple would be colored RGB(255, 0, 255) or some color with the ratio RGB(X, 0, X) by definition. Checkmate, atheists.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Sumireko but there would be a missing link between the last non purple and the first purple. Where is that?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @da-Doctah Alas, genetics doesn't work like that because it's not linear. Some fairly gross changes have almost no effect, and other minuscule changes have a huge effect. Though most time the change (when there's a substantial effect at all) is to either “cancer” or to “totally non-viable organism”…



  • @da-Doctah said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    I call shenanigans. There is no "first purple word in the block of text" because I deny the existence of "purple".

    This person has a misunderstanding of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (as used) is also known as variation within a kind, and every single instance of the so-called "evidence of evolution" is of this type. Macro-evolution (as used) has not ever been shown to exist.

    There's a funny circularly-shaped argument that goes like this:

    1. Biologists cannot reproduce macro-evolution in labs or the "wild", so they point to archaeological "evidence".
    2. Archaeologists admit that there is no apparent system that fits the evolutionary model that can be supported by the fossils themselves, so they point to geologists (via the geologic column).
    3. Geologists must agree that the Column is generated by piecing together layers from multiple regions around the world, but no region contains the layers in the way described, so they have to piece them together by pointing to biological differences.
    4. But biologists cannot explain the exact method of change from such disparate forms as fossils represent.

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    1. Biologists cannot reproduce macro-evolution in labs or the "wild", so they point to archaeological "evidence".

    No longer true, FWIW. Examples have been found. (I think the classic example of this now is somewhere in SE Asia. I forget the details.)



  • @dkf said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    1. Biologists cannot reproduce macro-evolution in labs or the "wild", so they point to archaeological "evidence".

    No longer true, FWIW. Examples have been found. (I think the classic example of this now is somewhere in SE Asia. I forget the details.)

    Can you help me find it? The only thing Google had for me from SE Asia were some pygmies that were classified as homo floresiensis, but they don't appear to be all that different than modern pygmy homo sapiens.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    This person has a misunderstanding of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (as used) is also known as variation within a kind, and every single instance of the so-called "evidence of evolution" is of this type. Macro-evolution (as used) has not ever been shown to exist.

    Macroevolution is, by definition, just a summation of multiple instances of microevolution. That's the point of the image. macroevolution = (microevolution * n) :facepalm:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @da-Doctah said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    I call shenanigans. There is no "first purple word in the block of text" because I deny the existence of "purple".

    That's okay - purple believes in you!

    @dkf said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    Though most time the change (when there's a substantial effect at all) is to either “cancer” or to “totally non-viable organism”…

    I'd say the emphasis shouldn't be on which of the rarer effects of mutation is most common - most of the time the change is neutral, within a negligible range of neutral, or balanced so that it's not meaningfully different from neutral (in a particular environment).

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    This person has a misunderstanding of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (as used) is also known as variation within a kind, and every single instance of the so-called "evidence of evolution" is of this type. Macro-evolution (as used) has not ever been shown to exist.

    I don't think that person's got the misunderstanding. Yes, creationists like to make the distinction the way you're talking about - but that doesn't mean it's correct. The difference between micro- and macro-evolution is not a hard-line thing, and it's similar to the difference between the sum of two small numbers, and the sum of n small numbers. Although the concept itself (of micro- versus macroevolution) isn't terribly great. Not that creationist arguments usually are. Actually, even a lot of pro-evolution simplifications tend to go wrong in ways like that ("survival of the fittest", for example).

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    There's a funny circularly-shaped argument that goes like this:

    Biologists cannot reproduce macro-evolution in labs or the "wild", so they point to archaeological "evidence".
    Archaeologists admit that there is no apparent system that fits the evolutionary model that can be supported by the fossils themselves, so they point to geologists (via the geologic column).
    Geologists must agree that the Column is generated by piecing together layers from multiple regions around the world, but no region contains the layers in the way described, so they have to piece them together by pointing to biological differences.
    But biologists cannot explain the exact method of change from such disparate forms as fossils represent.

    I think you may need to go back and study all that again, because that's wrong in all sorts of ways, but just close enough to right to think you're not completely ignorant of the actual lines of reasoning.


    EDIT:

    Okay, here's microevolution vs. macroevolution from Campbell Biology (10th Edition) (Page 501):

    Speciation also forms a conceptual bridge between microevolution, changes over time in allele frequencies in a population, and macroevolution, the broad pattern of evolution above the species level. An example of macroevolutionary change is the origin of new groups of organisms, such as mammals or flowering plants, through a series of speciation events. We examined microevolutionary mechanisms in Chapter 23, and we’ll turn to macroevolution in Chapter 25. In this chapter, we’ll explore the “bridge” between microevolution and macroevolution—the mechanisms by which new species originate from existing ones.

    Macroevolution is cumulative microevolution. As more traits become 'set' in a lineage, it becomes more distinct in a broadscale view. As typical with scale-based distinctions, the boundary is somewhat arbitrary. Even the definition of species (and therefore speciation) is a bit fuzzy:

    Limitations of the Biological Species Concept

    One strength of the biological species concept is that it directs our attention to a way by which speciation can occur: by the evolution of reproductive isolation. However, the number of species to which this concept can be usefully applied is limited. There is, for example, no way to evaluate the reproductive isolation of fossils. The biological species concept also does not apply to organisms that reproduce asexually all or most of the time, such as prokaryotes. (Many prokaryotes do transfer genes among themselves, as we will discuss in Chapter 27, but this is not part of their reproductive process.) Furthermore, in the biological species concept, species are designated by the absence of gene flow. But there are many pairs of species that are morphologically and ecologically distinct, and yet gene flow occurs between them. An example is the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and polar bear (Ursus maritimus), whose hybrid offspring have been dubbed “grolar bears” (Figure 24.4). As we’ll discuss, natural selection can cause such species to remain distinct even though some gene flow occurs between them. Because of the limitations to the biological species concept, alternative species concepts are useful in certain situations.

    So yes, the color analogy is a good one.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    @dkf said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    1. Biologists cannot reproduce macro-evolution in labs or the "wild", so they point to archaeological "evidence".

    No longer true, FWIW. Examples have been found. (I think the classic example of this now is somewhere in SE Asia. I forget the details.)

    Can you help me find it? The only thing Google had for me from SE Asia were some pygmies that were classified as homo floresiensis, but they don't appear to be all that different than modern pygmy homo sapiens.

    Don't know which one @dkf is referring to, but here's a list of some observed speciation events:



  • @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    This person has a misunderstanding of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (as used) is also known as variation within a kind, and every single instance of the so-called "evidence of evolution" is of this type. Macro-evolution (as used) has not ever been shown to exist.

    In the lab:

    In the wild:
    In both, bacteria evolved a new metabolism to consume a new kind of food. Then again, I've never seen any sort of evolution that was counted as "macro," leading me to believe that any observable evolution is automatically "micro."

    There's a funny circularly-shaped argument that goes like this:

    1. Biologists cannot reproduce macro-evolution in labs or the "wild", so they point to archaeological "evidence".

    See above examples.

    1. Archaeologists admit that there is no apparent system that fits the evolutionary model that can be supported by the fossils themselves, so they point to geologists (via the geologic column).

    What "system" are you referring to? What are they pointing to geologists for?

    1. Geologists must agree that the Column is generated by piecing together layers from multiple regions around the world, but no region contains the layers in the way described, so they have to piece them together by pointing to biological differences.

    Just tried a google search of "geological column" and it's all creationism vs. evolution arguments. Is the geological column even a thing in geology? Oh here we go (on page 5 of google results): https://www.britannica.com/science/dating-geochronology/Correlation#ref584866

    Geologic column and its associated time scale

    The end product of correlation [of separate rock outcroppings] is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world’s individual rock sequences into a single sequence.

    Geologists "must agree" with nothing. The geologic column is defined as a "mental abstraction." Anyway, geologists don't just rely on fossils to date rocks. They also have radiometric dating as an independent measure of age.

    1. But biologists cannot explain the exact method of change from such disparate forms as fossils represent.

    I believe the exact method is called evolution.



  • @MZH said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    Then again, I've never seen any sort of evolution that was counted as "macro," leading me to believe that any observable evolution is automatically "micro."

    My 100% unresearched answer:

    Macro-evolution is what you get when you look at evolutionary history and do what Twitter did with that conversation where Notch said something about ketchup flavored chisps and 400+ tweets later the conversation was about how the Germans were destined to lose the second world war or something.

    You end up with something like a picture of a Jurassic Park dinosaur and a picture of a chicken taped to a piece of paper with a bunch of question marks written on it because you abstracted away all the useful information.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    Geologists must agree that the Column is generated by piecing together layers from multiple regions around the world, but no region contains the layers in the way described, so they have to piece them together by pointing to biological differences.

    From another text book (Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology (11th Edition)):
    0_1475302190849_upload-0bde508a-85ab-4c84-be9b-397a94202320
    0_1475302231669_upload-9d26c93b-4210-4836-9a5e-aefd72845d2b
    0_1475302529777_upload-9de6d94e-177e-45b4-8070-1136042ff2c6

    Notice: temporal reconstructions without using fossils. The geological column abstraction doesn't rely (solely) on fossils.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    Can you help me find it? The only thing Google had for me from SE Asia were some pygmies that were classified as homo floresiensis, but they don't appear to be all that different than modern pygmy homo sapiens.

    Not easy. I've got a memory of a report in New Scientist from a few years back that referred to a paper in some other journal about the first time that speciation had been directly observed in either birds or mammals. If I remember right, it was a place (maybe on New Guinea? or somewhere in the backwoods of SE Asia?) where researchers had visited, documented what was there, and then gone back a few years later and found a new species that had derived from an existing (and still existing) one due to a natural change of habitat opening up. I remember it was notable at the time, but in a rather “well, that's another bit of evidence that everyone expected to find eventually actually found” sort of way.

    I believe that a speciation event is only considered truly “observed” when both the living things before it happened and the living things after it happened are seen by scientists, which is a pretty strict requirement. With things in the fossil record, preservation is so random that it's only really possible to infer that a speciation event must have occurred, but not to nail down the specifics. Also, people are still trying to understand what characterises speciation at the genetic level (or if the hypothesis that such a characterisation exists should be rejected). It might be that changes to HOX genes (or their regulation) would be more likely to have a gross effect, but that's clearly not the whole story; genomes are extremely complicated after all.

    In any case, speciation has been observed even in higher animals. Not in all genera, but why would we expect to be lucky enough to be handed that in the couple of centuries since people started really looking at this, given the length of generation interval in some genera?


  • sockdevs

    @ben_lubar said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    @MZH said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    Then again, I've never seen any sort of evolution that was counted as "macro," leading me to believe that any observable evolution is automatically "micro."

    My 100% unresearched answer:

    See also: almost any large thread on TDWTF



  • @Fox @Dreikin @MZH @dkf
    All this about speciation shows that we're not clear on the meanings being used. I do not in any way deny that speciation occurs or is observable. But the point is that these new species are still the same type of organism as the original. The "kind" that creationists use corresponds roughly to the genus level of classification. All observed changes remain within the range of "parameters" of their genera. All observed changes that would push against or expand those parameters result in a non-viable organism.

    Radiometric dating has many issues. The largest one is that the original composition of the material and its conditions from then until discovery are not known. We can calculate the maximum possible age for something, yes, but that in no way means that the object is that old. The age could easily be much younger, but have either started out in a "partially aged" state, or conditions between then and testing could have accelerated its "aging" to appear much older than it actually is. For example, check out the ages calculated for shells of living mollusks (who make their own shells instead of pilfering others').



  • @Dreikin the geological column in the books is a reconstruction made by piecing together or interleaving layers from geologic columns from around the world. Nowhere in the world does this reconstructed column actually exist, complete, in a single column:

    0_1475340293496_Untitled.png

    The way that they are able to "correlate" these different columns so they can present one unified geological column is not explained in depth, but yes, it sometimes involves fossils.

    The geological column abstraction doesn't rely (solely) on fossils.

    No, it does not rely solely on fossils. In some cases it relies on fossils, but not always.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @anotherusername said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    @Dreikin the geological column in the books is a reconstruction made by piecing together or interleaving layers from geologic columns from around the world. Nowhere in the world does this reconstructed column actually exist, complete, in a single column:

    0_1475340293496_Untitled.png

    The way that they are able to "correlate" these different columns so they can present one unified geological column is not explained in depth, but yes, it sometimes involves fossils.

    The geological column abstraction doesn't rely (solely) on fossils.

    No, it does not rely solely on fossils. In some cases it relies on fossils, but not always.

    I don't think we're in disagreement about anything. Perhaps I just should've written it better.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    But the point is that these new species are still the same type of organism as the original.

    That is the expected normal case, you know? Also, the genus is actually an even less well defined concept than the species. Things get moved between them by a mere wave of a cladistician's pen…

    Well, a flurry of emails is probably more normal now. ;)

    Changes to some genes are more likely to create new species than others, and more likely to create very different species. For example, changes to genes responsible for the overall body plan of an organism (the HOX genes, so far as we know) can have really major changes on phenotype for a very small change in genotype. On the other hand, many other genes can have quite radical changes in them with virtually no effective change in phenotype. Different genetic sequences are very much not equal in terms of importance!

    We don't have the whole story. It might take a long time for that to change (e.g., there are some experiments that would let us learn a lot, but which are utterly unethical and unconscionable) but it will gradually change. We're learning. Current major topics of study are mostly related to the regulation of genes: why does gene 123 switch on in these places and times and not those? This is really very complicated indeed, and encompasses quite a lot of hot topics, research-wise. Much still to be learnt.

    As for the dating of geology, it depends on things such as knowing the general structure of the strata (they're present on really large scales in huge numbers of locations; you can't fake that) and finding clear evidence occasionally for dates. Those can come from things like volcanic inclusions (as those tend to be easier to date, due to being more radioactive initially) and so on. If you're going to argue that they're wrong, you're going to be postulating a conspiracy on a scale where only a god could actually carry it off. People are just not that good at keeping secrets.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    ages calculated for shells of living mollusks (who make their own shells instead of pilfering others')

    More info: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

    The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating.

    The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:

    Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

    In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect.

    Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect. If found with shells in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if shells are locally affected by the reservoir effect and, if so, how much their radiocarbon dates have been skewed by it.

    tl;dr: radiometric dating does depend on the isotope source (well water, atmosphere, etc.) used in the construction of the materials being examined. Accounting for the different isotope proportions of these different sources is an important element of radiometric dating, and scientists know (and do) this.



  • Well... damn. I was sitting in the Bad Ideas Thread wondering where all these posts went...

    It'd be kind of nice if there was a notification when posts are jeffed out of the topic you're currently in.

    Actually... I wonder if there's some socket traffic that would indicate when it happened, so I could userscript something...


  • area_deu

    @anotherusername
    Jeffing seems really broken atm.

    It created THREE threads.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @aliceif Would that make Jeffing something currently be a Bad Idea…?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Dreikin said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    @anotherusername said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    @Dreikin the geological column in the books is a reconstruction made by piecing together or interleaving layers from geologic columns from around the world. Nowhere in the world does this reconstructed column actually exist, complete, in a single column:

    0_1475340293496_Untitled.png

    The way that they are able to "correlate" these different columns so they can present one unified geological column is not explained in depth, but yes, it sometimes involves fossils.

    The geological column abstraction doesn't rely (solely) on fossils.

    No, it does not rely solely on fossils. In some cases it relies on fossils, but not always.

    I don't think we're in disagreement about anything. Perhaps I just should've written it better.

    :doing_it_wrong:
    ITYM You stupid moron, you don't know what you're talking about! Do you even know how to read?



  • @Luhmann said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    now I can just blame that and ignore that :poop:

    Great ... now I can even ignore an entire topic


  • Dupa

    @Fox said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    This person has a misunderstanding of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (as used) is also known as variation within a kind, and every single instance of the so-called "evidence of evolution" is of this type. Macro-evolution (as used) has not ever been shown to exist.

    Macroevolution is, by definition, just a summation of multiple instances of microevolution. That's the point of the image. macroevolution = (microevolution * n) :facepalm:

    Finally your having a PHD in biology has paid off! :trolleybus:



  • @dkf said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    Also, the genus is actually an even less well defined concept than the species. Things get moved between them by a mere wave of a cladistician's pen…

    Which is why I said "roughly" the same, and also why it's :moving_goal_post: for evolutionists to complain that creationists haven't given a concrete definition of "kind".

    As for the dating of geology, it depends on things such as knowing the general structure of the strata (they're present on really large scales in huge numbers of locations; you can't fake that) and finding clear evidence occasionally for dates. Those can come from things like volcanic inclusions (as those tend to be easier to date, due to being more radioactive initially) and so on.

    At best they might be able to make relative claims about ages (i.e. this is older, younger, or about the same age as that). Stratification of rock layers is a really bad point of support, though. Layers of strata are not laid down over eons of time. They are either sedimentary, having settled as a group out of a mass of moving water (aka "flood"), or volcanic, having been put down in one or a few layers by volcanic activity. The sedimentary layers in each single location have organisms in order of best swimming skill/water survivability, which corresponds well with a flood; and organisms in the volcanic layers either were large enough to have part(s) survive the extreme heat or were mixed together and buried under a layer of cooled ash.

    If you're going to argue that they're wrong, you're going to be postulating a conspiracy on a scale where only a god could actually carry it off. People are just not that good at keeping secrets.

    Not necessarily an explicit conspiracy. It's more likely that the mainstream scientists have found a theory that they like (for whatever reason), and are confirming their bias in their research. Some scientists in these fields (who are not creationists, or even anti-evolution) have also noticed some of these concerns that I have brought up, and have tried to point them out, but the mainstream laughs them off.

    @Dreikin said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    radiometric dating does depend on the isotope source (well water, atmosphere, etc.) used in the construction of the materials being examined. Accounting for the different isotope proportions of these different sources is an important element of radiometric dating, and scientists know (and do) this.

    That accounts for the equilibrium point for the material being tested (where it stops "aging"), and possibly for the rate of movement towards equilibrium (how quickly it "ages"), but it does not provide a starting point (when it started "aging").

    @Dreikin said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect.

    Yet various materials in the same layer (from the same source) can be dated to have widely different ages, and the same material can itself be dated to have widely different ages by using different radiometric methods.

    An assumption has to be made in every case about the original composition and isotope ratio. That point itself invalidates most radiometrically calculated dates.



  • @da-Doctah said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    I call shenanigans. There is no "first purple word in the block of text" because I deny the existence of "purple".

    My wife saw this and proposed the non-existence of an author. :trolleybus: Obviously, the relation between the words and the colors must be either just random or must be enforced by the environment. So how could these letters have been ordered to form these words to form these sentences, and still have this sequence of color? Either there was an author who designed all this, or we've got some really non-random "randomness" generator.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @djls45 said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    we've got some really non-random "randomness" generator.

    Oh shoot, they've been discovered!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    But the point is that these new species are still the same type of organism as the original.

    @djls45 said in ‭🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:

    All observed changes remain within the range of "parameters" of their genera.

    Yes? Not sure why you think this disagrees with the theory of evolution?

    • Humans, gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are Hominids (Hominidae).
    • Add lemurs and lorises, and we jump up a bunch of 'kinds' (clades) to all being Primates.
    • Add treeshrews and we're all types of Euarchonta.
    • Add rabbits and rodents, and we're all Supraprimates (Euarchontoglires).
    • Add hedgehogs, whales, bats, horses, cats, and dogs, and we're all types of Boreoeutheria.
    • Add elephants and anteaters, and we're all Placentals (Placentalia, the only remaining descendant clade ("branch") of Eutherians).
    • Add monotremes and marsupials, and we're all Mammals (Mammalia, the only remaining branch of Cynodontia, the only remaining branch of Therapsida, the only remaining branch of Therapsida).
    • Add birds (last remaining branch of dinosaurs) and reptiles, and we're all Amniotes (Amniota).
    • Add amphibians, and we're all Tetrapods (Tetrapoda).
    • Add lungfishes, and we're all types of Rhipidistia.
    • Add coelacanths, and we're all types of Sarcopterygii ("lobe-finned fish" - yep, we're at the level where everything's a fish).
    • Add the ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii) and we're all types of bony fish (Osteichthyes or Euteleostomi, depending on who you ask - the former is sometimes used only to refer to the fishy bony fishes).
    • Add the cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyes) and we're all types of Gnathostomata ("jawed vertebrates").
    • Add lampreys and hagfish and we're all Craniates (Craniata). (This is roughly equal to Vertebrata, except that exact nature of the branching relationship of hagfish and lampreys to the jawed vertebrates differs).
    • Add the tunicates (Tunicata: sea squirts, etc.) and cephalochordates (Cephalochordata: lancelets), and we're all Chordates (Chordata).
    • Add Hemichordata (acorn worms), Echinodermata (echinoderms: sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, etc.), and Xenacoelomorpha (tiny wormy creatures) and we're all Deuterostomes.
    • Add arrow worms and protostomes (Protostomia: arthropods (insects, arachnids, crustaceans, etc), nematodes, molluscs, etc) and we're all types of Nephrozoa (and Bilateria at a slightly higher level).
    • Add jellyfish and sponges, and we're all Animals (Animalia/Metazoa).
    • Add fungi and we're all Opisthokonts (Opisthokont).
    • Add plants and we're all Eukaryotes (Eukaryota/Eukarya - These last two levels also include a bunch of monocellular organisms).
    • And then we add Bacteria and Archaea, and we're at all known life. Well, maybe with viruses, depending on whether you classify them as living or not-living.

    Features can become fixed in a lineage, and when that happens it forms a new clade, that is a descendant of a higher-level clade. To illustrate this fixing mechanism, let's look at the inheritance chain in reverse order (some parts may change based on differences in what is being demonstrated):

    • Eukaryotes differ from Bacteria and Archaea in having membrane-bound organelles.
    • Animal cells differ from other Eukaryote cells by:
      • Not having a rigid cell wall,
      • Being multicellular, and
      • Being heterotrophic.
    • Bilaterians differ from other mammals in having bilateral symmetry.
    • Deuterostomes differ from other bilaterians in the order of a particular aspect of development. In deuterostomes, the first opening is the anus, while in protostomes it is the mouth.
    • Chordates differ from other Deuterostomes in having (at some point in development):
      • A notochord (in humans, develops into a component of the spine),
      • A hollow dorsal nerve cord (in humans, develops into the spinal cord and brain),
      • Pharyngeal slits,
      • An endostyle, and
      • A post-anal tail.
    • Craniates differ from other Chordates in having a distinct hard bone or cartilage skull.
    • Vertebrates differ from other Chordates in having a backbone.
      • The hagfish is weird - it has no backbone, but is more closely related to lampreys than to other craniates. And lampreys do have a backbone, and are thus chordates. Figuring out the proper branching relationship between hagfish, lampreys, and the other vertebrates/craniates is the the crux of the difference between the two groups.
    • Gnathostomata differ from other vertebrates/craniates in having opposing jaws.
    • Osteichthyes/Euteleostomi differ from other Gnathostomata in having skeletons primarily composed of bone, rather than cartilage.
      • "Osteichthyes" can refer to the same clade as Euteleostomi, but it can also refer to the paraphyletic group equal to Euteleostomi minus the tetrapods.
    • Sarcopterygii differ from other Euteleostomi in having "fleshy, lobed, paired fins, which are joined to the body by a single bone" (in humans, we call these "arms" and "legs").
    • Tetrapodomorpha differ from other Sarcopterygii in having:
      • Certain "modifications to the fins, notably a humerus with convex head articulating with the glenoid fossa", and
      • "Internal nostril or choana" (In humans and other tetrapods with a secondary palate, this allows us to breathe with our mouth closed).
    • Tetrapods differ from other tetrapodomorphs in having four limbs derived from the above mentioned fins.
      • …sort of. Some other Tetrapodomorpha had four limbs (or limb-like fins). Tetrapoda is more exactly defined as the subtree up to and including the last living ancestor of all extant tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates).
    • Amniotes differ from other tetrapods in laying eggs on land (or retained in the womb), rather than in water.
    • Synapsids differ from other Amniotes in having one low temporal fenestra (hole in the skull at a certain area. In humans, this has been modified into the hold behind the cheek).
    • Therapsids differ from other Synapsids in having:
      • Legs positioned vertically below the body, instead of spread out like modern reptiles,
      • More symmetrical feet, in line with the dynamics of the leg positioning,
      • Teeth that were closer to the modern-day mammal plan,
      • Evidence of warm-bloodedness, such as turbinates (aspects of the nasal cavity), "highly vascularized bones", and proportions, and
      • Hair
    • Theriodonts differ from other Therapsids in having:
      • Even more mammal-like jaws, including larger teeth, and
      • Migration of some jawbones into the area of the ear.
    • Cynodonts differ from other Theriodonts in having:
      • Fully differentiated mammalian-type teeth,
      • A secondary palate,
      • Fur and whiskers (probably, they may show up earlier in the lineage too), and
      • Epi-pubic bones (later lost in some lineages)
    • Mammaliaforms/Mammals differ from other Cynodonts in having:
      • Lactation (derived from sweat glands),
      • Harderian glands (indicates fur covering), and
      • Unique teeth structure and arrangement (including having only baby and adult sets of teeth (or even just one generation), and prismatic enamel),
      • The bones of the middle-ear
    • Theria differ from other mammals by:
      • "Giv[ing] birth to live young without using a shelled egg".
    • Placentals differ from other therians by:
      • Carrying the fetus in the womb, nourished by/through a placenta,
      • Having a wide pelvic opening, and
      • The absence of epi-pubic bones.
    • Boreoeutheria differ from other placentals in having external testicles (except rhinos and cetaceans)
    • Primates differ from other Boreoeutherians in having:
      • "Large brains relative to other mammals",
      • "An increased reliance on stereoscopic vision at the expense of smell", and
      • "Slower rates of development than other similarly sized mammals and reach[ing] maturity later, but hav[ing] longer lifespans."
    • Haplorhini differ from other primates in having:
      • "Lost the function of the terminal enzyme that manufactures vitamin C",
      • An upper lip that is "not directly connected to the nose or gum",
      • A greater brain-to-body ratio, and
      • A post-orbital plate rather than a postorbital bar.
    • Catarrhini differ from other haplorhines in having (I'm ignoring the Tarsiiformes for this):
      • Nostrils that face downward,
      • No prehensile tails,
      • Flat fingernails and toenails, and
      • 8 premolars.
    • Hominoidea differ from other catarrhines in having "a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation."
    • Homininae is the set of hominoids comprised of humans, gorillas, chimps, and bonobos (not including extinct species).
    • Hominini excludes gorillas.
    • Hominina's only extant species is Homo sapiens.

    I've skipped a lot of stuff, but as you can see it's largely all about small changes appearing and becoming fixed (mostly - see the epipubic bone, for example) in a lineage at some point in its history, creating a new clade defined by that/those difference(s).

    The "kind" that creationists use is a :moving_goal_post:. It's only purpose is to pick a point far enough back in a lineage to say that the differentiation isn't currently going on, so it must not be possible. But it's based on a not-quite correct model of evolution based on the (much) simpler textbook Linnean taxonomy, which is nowhere near as complex and detailed as modern cladistic taxonomy(-ies) (largely because it is more abstract, offering a higher-level view than what I just presented). The 'genus' level you refer to is a fixed point in that system - it's already happened. In reality, the tree keeps deriving new branches from the old ones, and the creationist argument is that because no one saw the old, thick branches being formed, we can't conclude it was by the same process as the new branches, and that the new branches will never becoming so varying and large as the old ones.


    Sources are all wikipedia. Not everything in the <ul>s is properly quoted.
    I think I'm expressing myself pretty poorly in this thread. Hopefully it's not terribly bad.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    They are either sedimentary, having settled as a group out of a mass of moving water (aka "flood"), or volcanic, having been put down in one or a few layers by volcanic activity.

    I think I may have given your prior knowledge too much credit. Sedimentary is not equal to "deposited by a flood" (although that is a sub-type of sedimentary rock). Sedimentary doesn't even require water - sand dunes build sedimentary rock underneath. There are many known, observable processes that slowly build sedimentary rock.

    0_1475361021578_upload-1d671051-9b6e-48e6-820d-f12f10a69a9e

    Btw, you also missed metamorphic rock.



  • The words "purple" and "micro" in the same phrase remind me of something else.



  • @da-Doctah said in Micro and Macro in purple:

    I call shenanigans. There is no "first purple word in the block of text" because I deny the existence of "purple"

    PROTIP: The minute someone ironically uses the term "micro-evolution" and/or "macro-evolution", they are idiots who you can ignore.

    As for the rest of the post :facepalm:



  • If I pee in your soup a bit, you won't notice, because micro-evolution.

    If I keep peeing in your soup, eventually you have more pee than soup (and it isn't even pea soup). That's macro-evolution.

    Also, changing colors is an effect of light spectrum, and has nothing to do with evolution. Also, I took a dump on your dog.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lorne-Kates Remind me not to have “soup” in Canada!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @dkf waiter, waiter, there's a pea in my soup

    Don't worry sir, it's just micro evolution


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.