Evograms

[Mallon]

This is pretty cool:

"Evograms are diagrams that convey information about how a group of organisms and their particular features evolved. Evograms contain a lot of information, so they cannot be easily digested in a few seconds. However, they are worth understanding because they convey information from several different lines of evidence and are particularly useful in showing students the logic, strength, and testability of evolutionary hypotheses."

Understanding macroevolution through evograms

Here's an example:

I can see these coming in handy.

 

[Mr Dave]

Ah nice one

 

[Assyrian]

Is that Charles Darwin and is the Evogram describing him as a living tetrapod?

 

[USincognito]

Thanks for the link Mallon, these are exactly what I need for a discussion on the Hovind Facebook page.

Is that Charles Darwin and is the Evogram describing him as a living tetrapod?

 

[shernren]

Is that Charles Darwin and is the Evogram describing him as a living tetrapod?

I always knew he was the Anti-Christ! Look, they proclaim him to have risen from the dead!

 

[Assyrian]

Not a fatal ahead wound though. The arrow is going through his tummy.

 

[Jazer]

Evograms contain a lot of information, so they cannot be easily digested in a few seconds.

What you have here is that walking fish have two things that other fish do not have. Wrists and a neck. Now I can see where evolutionionists would get very excited about this. But they still tend to get a little wild in the speculation of all the conclusions they try to draw from it.

 

[Mallon]

What you have here is that walking fish have two things that other fish do not have. Wrists and a neck.

Bingo! Which is exactly the type of transitional morphology that evolution predicts. Fiat creationism makes no such prediction. That is the power of the evolutionary theory.

 

[Jazer]

Bingo! Which is exactly the type of transitional morphology that evolution predicts. Fiat creationism makes no such prediction. That is the power of the evolutionary theory.

Perhaps, but evolution also claimed that little horses evolved into big horses and that turned out not to be accurate in light of the evidence. So the Evograms they came up with were not valid. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory. Even though he had a evogram to demonstrate his theory. It is a testimony to how resilient life is that a fish is able to walk to another mud puddle when the one they are in has dried up. Or that they can go down into the mud and somehow survive waiting for it to rain again. It is a real paradox that we have mass extinctions when life is able to adapt as well as it does.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

A part of me was hoping this would be where I could call a service and someone dressed as an apeman would show up at the designated person's place and say, "Congrats, you are an evolved specimen!"

But I guess this is pretty cool too.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mallon]

Perhaps, but evolution also claimed that little horses evolved into big horses and that turned out not to be accurate in light of the evidence. So the Evograms they came up with were not valid. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory. Even though he had a evogram to demonstrate his theory. It is a testimony to how resilient life is that a fish is able to walk to another mud puddle when the one they are in has dried up. Or that they can go down into the mud and somehow survive waiting for it to rain again. It is a real paradox that we have mass extinctions when life is able to adapt as well as it does.

With respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

1) Horse evolution from smaller hyracotheres has not been falsified. What has been falsified is that the evolution of this lineage was linear; it isn't. Rather, the evolution of this lineage followed a branching pattern, like so:

Even neocreationists have come to accept this, although they believe this evolution took place over just a few thousand years, rather than millions.

2) Haeckel did not have "evograms". An "evogram" is basically just a pretty term for "cladogram", and cladograms were not used in Haeckel's day.

3) Even if Haeckel did use evograms, their utility does not depend on Haeckel being right.

4) How do you explain the nested hierarchy pattern just given in the first evogram I posted if not via descent with modification?

 

[Willtor]

This is pretty cool:

"Evograms are diagrams that convey information about how a group of organisms and their particular features evolved. Evograms contain a lot of information, so they cannot be easily digested in a few seconds. However, they are worth understanding because they convey information from several different lines of evidence and are particularly useful in showing students the logic, strength, and testability of evolutionary hypotheses."

Understanding macroevolution through evograms

Here's an example:

I can see these coming in handy.

This is _great_, Mallon! My wife loves whales, so I showed her the evogram for whale evolution. Mighty nifty stuff. Thanks for posting it!

 

[Jazer]

You do not know what your talking about.
4) How do you explain the nested hierarchy pattern just given in the first evogram I posted if not via descent with modification?

Wow that sure is a shame that I do not know what I am talking about because I have studied Evolution more then most the people out there. Where does that leave all the people who have not studied it at all? There are two theorys to evolution. One is that if you were to start all over again from the beginning you would end up with totally different results. The other theory is you could start all over again anywhere in the universe and end up with pretty much the same results. Which school or belief do you subscribe to. While we are at it do you follow Ernst W. Mayr gradualism or Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium?

Getting back to your transitional morphology. Are you trying to say that all joints evolved from the same common ancestor and not independant of each other?

 

[Mallon]

Wow that sure is a shame that I do not know what I am talking about because I have studied Evolution more then most the people out there.

More than someone in the last year of his PhD in evolutionary palaeobiology?

One is that if you were to start all over again from the beginning you would end up with totally different results.

Correct. That theory refers to the contingency of evolution, and was strongly pushed by Gould.

The other theory is you could start all over again anywhere in the universe and end up with pretty much the same results.

Right. This theory stresses the efficacy of evolutionary convergence, and is pushed by Conway Morris.

Which school or belief do you subscribe to. While we are at it do you follow Ernst W. Mayr gradualism or Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium?

None of the above options are mutually exclusive. I accept bits of both. Mayr's work on allopatric speciation formed the foundation of Gould's model of punctuated equilibrium.

BTW, you never offered an explanation for the nested hierarchy of life.