How to ask a proper question.

[tevans9129]

Some people do not appreciate the way I ask questions so help me out here. I would like to know what specific species was the immediate predecessor of the Equidae and bovine species and what specific species evolved from them so how should this question be phrased?

Using the definition of species as - "A group of organisms having many characteristics in common and ranking below a genus. Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring."

 

[pitabread]

The biological species concept doesn't apply to fossils since there is no way of knowing whether fossil species are capable of inter-fertility. What you want when talking about fossil species is the morphological species concept, where species are defined based on morphology: morphological species concept definition

In addition, looking for exact species-to-species transitions is going to be difficult since again, there is no real way of knowing precisely which species evolved into what, and especially when you're talking about evolutionary change across millions of years. Rather, it's about looking for patterns of evolutionary developing and assembling a sequence of potential transitions based on fossils that are representative of populations of organisms at different times.

It's fine to ask about about predecessors and descendants, but with the caveat that they may or not may be the direct ancestors or descendants species, and in all likely probably aren't. Which doesn't mean they aren't related evolutionary speaking, but rather that perfectly linear descendance isn't how things typically work.

 

[tevans9129]

The biological species concept doesn't apply to fossils since there is no way of knowing whether fossil species are capable of inter-fertility. What you want when talking about fossil species is the morphological species concept, where species are defined based on morphology: morphological species concept definition

In addition, looking for exact species-to-species transitions is going to be difficult since again, there is no real way of knowing precisely which species evolved into what, and especially when you're talking about evolutionary change across millions of years. Rather, it's about looking for patterns of evolutionary developing and assembling a sequence of potential transitions based on fossils that are representative of populations of organisms at different times.

It's fine to ask about about predecessors and descendants, but with the caveat that they may or not may be the direct ancestors or descendants species, and in all likely probably aren't. Which doesn't mean they aren't related evolutionary speaking, but rather that perfectly linear descendance isn't how things typically work.

I think I understand...do not ask the question because the answer is unknown, thanks.

 

[pitabread]

I think I understand...do not ask the question because the answer is unknown, thanks.

It's about asking a question within the context of the availability of the information. Not every single species on the planet is represented by fossils. In fact, the vast, vast majority of species likely never fossilized.

Reconstructing fossil histories of life and evolution is about taking what is available and determining patterns from that.

It's perfectly fine to ask about predecessors or descendants, just with the understanding that precise species-by-species transitions may not be possible.

 

[tevans9129]

It's about asking a question within the context of the availability of the information. Not every single species on the planet is represented by fossils. In fact, the vast, vast majority of species likely never fossilized.

Reconstructing fossil histories of life and evolution is about taking what is available and determining patterns from that.

It's perfectly fine to ask about predecessors or descendants, just with the understanding that precise species-by-species transitions may not be possible.

OK, but why not answer the question that I asked in the OP. If I wanted to ask that question, how should it be phrased?

 

[dgiharris]

OK, but why not answer the question that I asked in the OP. If I wanted to ask that question, how should it be phrased?

He did answer the question to the extent that it is possible to answer the question.

There is no magical phrasing that enables you to get an answer that is unknowable within the means of current data / science

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, but why not answer the question that I asked in the OP. If I wanted to ask that question, how should it be phrased?

The problem is that your question is poorly formed. And worse it is pointless. The phylogeny of horses has been brought back all the way to the common ancestor shared with rhinos. That species is NOT a horse. Do you understand that? If you claim that it is a horse you are also claiming that this:



is a horse.

 

[tevans9129]

There is no magical phrasing that enables you to get an answer that is unknowable within the means of current data / science

IOW, the question is not "ill formed" as some claim, there just is not an answer for it, I understand. So why would the person not just say there is no answer to the question as opposed to claiming it to be "ill formed" etc.? Is that nothing more than a deflection, a diversion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

IOW, the question is not "ill formed" as some claim, there just is not an answer for it, I understand. So why would the person not just say there is no answer to the question as opposed to claiming it to be "ill formed" etc.? Is that nothing more than a deflection, a diversion?

A question that cannot be reasonably answered is ill formed. Your question illustrates your ignorance when it comes to the theory that you do not understand and hate.

 

[Aman777]

The problem is that your question is poorly formed. And worse it is pointless. The phylogeny of horses has been brought back all the way to the common ancestor shared with rhinos. That species is NOT a horse. Do you understand that? If you claim that it is a horse you are also claiming that this:



is a horse.

False. Is a Unicorn. Amen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. Is a Unicorn. Amen?

Nope, it is a creature that shares a common ancestor with a horse. Just as you share a common ancestor with other apes.

 

[tevans9129]

He did answer the question to the extent that it is possible to answer the question.

There is no magical phrasing that enables you to get an answer that is unknowable within the means of current data / science

In that case, why can the answer not be, "it is not known...I have no answer...your question cannot be answered" etc? Why respond with "your question is malformed", you are too ignorant to ask a question, paraphrased, you need to take a course in biology" etc.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In that case, why can the answer not be, "it is not known...I have no answer...your question cannot be answered" etc? Why respond with "your question is malformed", you are too ignorant to ask a question, paraphrased, you need to take a course in biology" etc.?

Because all of those are more complete answers than as mere "your question cannot be answered". Did you not want as complete an answer to your questions as possible?

 

[dgiharris]

IOW, the question is not "ill formed" as some claim, there just is not an answer for it, I understand. So why would the person not just say there is no answer to the question as opposed to claiming it to be "ill formed" etc.? Is that nothing more than a deflection, a diversion?

The question may very well be ill formed. I do not have expertise in this area, my background is math and physics.

Please note, in an intellectual / scholarly discussion, the term "ill formed" may not be an actual slight or insult, but rather an accurate accounting.

The reason it is important to understand that the question is "ill formed" is so you understand WHY it is ill formed instead of just telling you "there is no answer". Telling you "there is no answer" is not as helpful as explaining to you why the question was ill formed and ignorant.

I for one am very ignorant in this area and I found the question and the answers very enlightening.

If you are pursuing an increase in knowledge and understanding then it is vital you learn to take your ego out of the equation. And truth be told, it is very hard to do, and takes a lot of practice.

 

[pitabread]

OK, but why not answer the question that I asked in the OP. If I wanted to ask that question, how should it be phrased?

As I already said, when asking about fossil species evolution and transitions, in most cases there aren't going to be exact species-to-species transitions. So asking for the "specific species [that] was the immediate predecessor" of something else
in most cases isn't going to be answerable. In fact, all phylogenetic reconstructions particularly based on fossil evidence are at best approximations of the relationships of fossil species. There are thousands of species that have never fossilized, so the true evolutionary history of all the species will never be known.

The best we can hope for is that as new fossils are uncovered, paleontologists can use the available to create the best picture possible of evolutionary history of those species. It will never be perfect, but it will be as good as we have based on the available evidence.

Also, in those previous threads I did present you with information related to both the evolution of Equidae and Bovidae, but in both cases you didn't appear overly receptive to it. Which also has me wondering why you're asking these questions in the first place, if you're going to dismiss material you receive out of hand.

 

[Gene2memE]

A good phylogeny programme will answer your question. Or even a basic google search...

 

[AirPo]

Some people do not appreciate the way I ask questions so help me out here. I would like to know what specific species was the immediate predecessor of the Equidae and bovine species and what specific species evolved from them so how should this question be phrased?

Using the definition of species as - "A group of organisms having many characteristics in common and ranking below a genus. Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring."

Gotta ya! questions are not proper.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would like to know what specific species was the immediate predecessor of the Equidae and bovine species and what specific species evolved from them so how should this question be phrased?

No direct ancestor/descendant relationship can be determined for any fossil because morphological comparisons can not tell us about those relationships. Even if you dug up two human fossils you couldn't determine if one was a direct ancestor or descendant of the other just by looking at the features of the fossil itself. Your question is similar to asking how one can determine the weight of a fossil by what color it is. It demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to assessing fossils.

What you should be asking is how we determine if a fossil is transitional, not ancestral. Transitional and ancestral are two different things.

Using the definition of species as - "A group of organisms having many characteristics in common and ranking below a genus. Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring."

How can you determine which fossils mated with each other by looking at them, especially when those fossils are separated by millions of years? Surely you see the problem with this question.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Some people do not appreciate the way I ask questions so help me out here. I would like to know what specific species was the immediate predecessor of the Equidae and bovine species and what specific species evolved from them so how should this question be phrased?

Fossil evidence isn't that specific. Fossils are too rare and DNA decays too quickly to utilize fossils to determine precisely what ancient organisms are ancestors of modern ones. However, utilizing the DNA of modern species, we can mathematically determine how long ago their evolutionary lineages split from each other.

Using the definition of species as - "A group of organisms having many characteristics in common and ranking below a genus. Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring."

When it comes to fossils, precise species labels are much harder to do than for living organisms. This is thanks to the fact that we cannot compare them via DNA to eliminate factors such as sexual dimorphism (there is a fossil species of shark for which all specimens labelled are female. Seeing as it is unlikely that only female fossils would have been found, it is suspected that the males may have a body structure different enough from the females to be mistaken for a different species entirely).

This is also why taxonomy gets pretty heated when it comes to fossils. Do you understand the never-ending back and forth as to whether Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur or a bird?

Plus, your definition of species is... middle school level. What a species is happens to be more complicated than "organisms that reproduce to produce fertile offspring" and adding in the "reproduce sexually part" excludes so many organisms from your definition of "species". Heck, all the exclusions aren't even single celled; there is a species of lizard in which all members are female, which resulted from hybridization of two other species. Yes, species can arise via hybridization. The females of this species produce eggs that don't need to be fertilized, thus they persist.

Consider this situation: 2 birds belong to different species, but they are genetically close enough to produce fertile offspring. They even do it quite frequently. However, both parent species find these hybrids to be exceedingly unattractive, so even though these hybrids are physically capable of producing offspring, they never have the opportunity to do so, and thus they are genetic dead ends just as much as they would be if they were infertile. Thus, the parents retain their status as separate species. Situations like this are rather common in nature. It gets even worse in situations where Species B can reproduce with Species A and Species C, but Species A and C can't reproduce with each other. A common situation in populations that have begun to deviate into different "species", but haven't entirely completed the process.

Bacteria deviate so much from the standard textbook definition of species that the definition of species applied to them is notably distinct.

 

[Resha Caner]

IOW, the question is not "ill formed" as some claim, there just is not an answer for it, I understand. So why would the person not just say there is no answer to the question as opposed to claiming it to be "ill formed" etc.? Is that nothing more than a deflection, a diversion?

The frequent hostility to questions is interesting, but I doubt it can ever be resolved. There are too many possible reasons for the hostility. It could be simply that a person answers in a hostile manner, but it could also be:
* There is some bad blood between 2 people and the question is not the real source of the hostility
* Once someone's pride is pricked, they might refuse to cooperate and go for "burning" the other person
* The question is asked in a leading, condescending, or hostile manner that makes it difficult to answer nicely
* The person asking or answering is too sensitive to something and infers a hostility that isn't there
* The person asking or answering lacks some social sensitivity and doesn't understand that, for example, words like "ignorant" need to be used carefully

There are probably other reasons as well.