The tree of life, what is it and what does it tell us?

[moogoob]

Have fun, I'll be waiting for your posts when you return.

This thread is the most interesting one in a while.

 

[Tomk80]

After having had a wonderful week in France, let's get back to grouping animals.

In our previous post we had grouped all seperate species of foxes in one larger group 'foxes' (Vulpes). So the pale fox (Vulpes pallida), cape fox (Vulpes chama) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) are all species (or if you will, groups of individuals) within the group foxes. If we would make a diagram of this, this could be done in different ways. We could, for example, make a tree.

[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]         Vulpes[/FONT][/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]/             |           \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]vulpes pallida chama[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]

In the above, the species vulpes, pallida and chama are part of the larger group Vulpes. We could also make a notation like this:

which denotes exactly the same.

Of course, these are only a few of the foxes known. But all foxes have general characteristics that make them part of the group Vulpes, of which I denoted a few. For a more complete overview of the number of species in Vulpes, see here.

Now, let's go on to another group, dogs and wolves. If we look at the characteristics of dogs and wolves, we can again draw up a list of them. So if we go from the most basic and then up, we see:
eukaryotic cells
heterotrophs
bilateral build
spine
tetrapod skeleton (four limbs)
suck their young
uterus
skull with large canines
three incisors
molars for eating meat.

Up to here, we see that their characteristics are exactly the same as those of foxes. All of the above were also present in all foxes. How much they are alike also becomes apparent if we look at them.

However, there are also differences. For example, one of the key differences when comparing foxes with wolves, coyotes and dogs is that the latter animals are social hunters, while foxes are strictly solitary hunters. So here the groups split and coyotes, wolves and dogs form their own group, a group that contains all the above characteristics and hunts in groups. This group is called Canis and contains animals like Jackals (amongst others Canis audustus and Canis aureus), wolves like the grey wolf (Canis lupus), dogs (Canis familiaris) and coyotes (Canis latrans). If we put this in a diagram, like we did with foxes, we get the following:

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]                             [I]Canis[/I][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]           /              /       |              \                  \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][I]Audustus     aureus     Lupus     familiaris     latrans[/I][/SIZE][/FONT]

However, there is more to say on this. Since Vulpes and Canis have largely the same characteristics, they also form a group together. Vulpes and Canis are actually groups in a larger group, which contains the following characteristics:
eukaryotic cells
heterotrophs
bilateral build
spine
tetrapod skeleton (four limbs)
suck their young
uterus
skull with large canines
three incisors
molars for eating meat.

All foxes have these characteristics. All dogs, wolves and coyotes have these characteristics. The group with the above characteristics is called canidae, and Vulpes and Canis are subgroups within this larger group. And by the reasoning laid out in the beginning, if we want to be consistent we have to put them together in one group. Because if we put foxes in one group because of all their common characteristics and we put dog-like creatures together in one group because of all their common characteristics, we also have to put foxes and dog-like creatures in one group because of their common characteristics.

So this results in the diagram below:

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]         [I]canidae[/I][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]         /             \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Vulpes              Canis[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

Since vulpes and canis have also separate members in their group, the complete tree then looks like this:

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]                             Canidae[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]               /                                            \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]      Vulpes                                          canis[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]  /         |            \                    /              |             \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]vulpes  pallida   chama        Audustus       lupus       familiaris  [/SIZE][/FONT]

If we create a diagram out of this, it would look like this:

 

[Tomk80]

By the way, I wanted to thank all participants who either responded to this thread or gave me rep . I know these threads are hard to follow as they contain a lot of information, posts are long and time in between posts is relatively long. So thanks for keeping up and reading the posts!

Oh, and to all who did not continue to derail the thread after I asked them, thanks for helping not to derail it. I have noted down all the responses and will try to address all of them later on.

 

[Edial]

After having had a wonderful week in France, let's get back to grouping animals.

In our previous post we had grouped all seperate species of foxes in one larger group 'foxes' (Vulpes). So the pale fox (Vulpes pallida), cape fox (Vulpes chama) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) are all species (or if you will, groups of individuals) within the group foxes. If we would make a diagram of this, this could be done in different ways. We could, for example, make a tree.

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]       Vulpes[/FONT][/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]/             |           \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]vulpes pallida chama[/SIZE][/FONT]

In the above, the species vulpes, pallida and chama are part of the larger group Vulpes. We could also make a notation like this:

which denotes exactly the same.

Of course, these are only a few of the foxes known. But all foxes have general characteristics that make them part of the group Vulpes, of which I denoted a few. For a more complete overview of the number of species in Vulpes, see here.

OK. A tree of foxes. I understand that.

Now, let's go on to another group, dogs and wolves. If we look at the characteristics of dogs and wolves, we can again draw up a list of them. So if we go from the most basic and then up, we see:

eukaryotic cells
heterotrophs
bilateral build
spine
tetrapod skeleton (four limbs)
suck their young
uterus
skull with large canines
three incisors
molars for eating meat..

You are saying that dogs and wolves are of the same group.
You might be correct, but let me think about that also.
But let's get to the next part.

Up to here, we see that their characteristics are exactly the same as those of foxes. All of the above were also present in all foxes. How much they are alike also becomes apparent if we look at them.

However, there are also differences. For example, one of the key differences when comparing foxes with wolves, coyotes and dogs is that the latter animals are social hunters, while foxes are strictly solitary hunters. So here the groups split and coyotes, wolves and dogs form their own group, a group that contains all the above characteristics and hunts in groups. This group is called Canis and contains animals like Jackals (amongst others Canis audustus and Canis aureus), wolves like the grey wolf (Canis lupus), dogs (Canis familiaris) and coyotes (Canis latrans). If we put this in a diagram, like we did with foxes, we get the following:

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]                           [I]Canis[/I][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]         /              /       |              \                  \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][I]Audustus     aureus     Lupus     familiaris     latrans[/I][/SIZE][/FONT]

..

Let's wait a moment.

Why is there a separation between solitary hunters and group hunters?
What is it based upon?

However, there is more to say on this. Since Vulpes and Canis have largely the same characteristics, they also form a group together. Vulpes and Canis are actually groups in a larger group, which contains the following characteristics:

eukaryotic cells
heterotrophs
bilateral build
spine
tetrapod skeleton (four limbs)
suck their young
uterus
skull with large canines
three incisors
molars for eating meat.

All foxes have these characteristics. All dogs, wolves and coyotes have these characteristics. The group with the above characteristics is called canidae, and Vulpes and Canis are subgroups within this larger group. And by the reasoning laid out in the beginning, if we want to be consistent we have to put them together in one group. Because if we put foxes in one group because of all their common characteristics and we put dog-like creatures together in one group because of all their common characteristics, we also have to put foxes and dog-like creatures in one group because of their common characteristics...

Why does this grouping makes sense based on these characteristics ...
eukaryotic cells
heterotrophs
bilateral build
spine
tetrapod skeleton (four limbs)
suck their young
uterus
skull with large canines
three incisors
molars for eating meat.
... and makes no sense in a context of creation that an intelligent design makes various "kinds" with same "interchangeable" "parts, or modules", such as spine, molars for eating meat and even eukaryotic cells?

(Remember, you said that evolution does not drive the reasoning for such grouping, but the grouping derives evolution from a single tree).

If this question is still too early, let me know.

So this results in the diagram below:

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]       [I]canidae[/I][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]       /             \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Vulpes              Canis[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

Since vulpes and canis have also separate members in their group, the complete tree then looks like this:

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]                           Canidae[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]             /                                            \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]    Vulpes                                          canis[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]/         |            \                    /              |             \[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]vulpes  pallida   chama        Audustus       lupus       familiaris  [/SIZE][/FONT]

If we create a diagram out of this, it would look like this:

I understand that, but I have questions above.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Tomk80]

OK. A tree of foxes. I understand that.

Ok.

You are saying that dogs and wolves are of the same group.

You might be correct, but let me think about that also.
But let's get to the next part.

Okay. What would your reservations be against placing dogs and wolves in the same group?

Let's wait a moment.

Why is there a separation between solitary hunters and group hunters?
What is it based upon?

Characteristics of the animal itself, in this case, behavior. All solitary hunters in one group, all group hunters in another.

Why does this grouping makes sense based on these characteristics ...
eukaryotic cells
heterotrophs
bilateral build
spine
tetrapod skeleton (four limbs)
suck their young
uterus
skull with large canines
three incisors
molars for eating meat.
... and makes no sense in a context of creation that an intelligent design makes various "kinds" with same "interchangeable" "parts, or modules", such as spine, molars for eating meat and even eukaryotic cells?

(Remember, you said that evolution does not drive the reasoning for such grouping, but the grouping derives evolution from a single tree).

If this question is still too early, let me know.

It could make sense in that context. It wouldn't matter. Regardless of whether foxes, dogs and wolves are seperate creations or the result of evolution, they still have the same characteristics. Hence, by the reasoning we laid out in the beginning, they should all be in the same group (Canidae). Remember that Linneaus, who created this way of classification, also was a creationist who believed in seperate creations. The two ideas are not necessarily opposed to each other.

Just as a red fox is a fox with a red coat, and a pale fox is a fox that lives in a desert, a fox is a dog-like creature that hunts solitary and dogs and wolves are dog-like creatures that hunt and live in packs.

I understand that, but I have questions above.

Thanks,
Ed

I hope the above has answered them.

 

[Edial]

Okay. What would your reservations be against placing dogs and wolves in the same group?

My reservations are that we are grouping the animals using an insufficient information.

What I am saying is that there is more of a separation in Biblical creation than we are presuming.
There appears to be also a separation by whether it is a livestock, or a wild animal.
(Hebrew language is not that clear about that).

So I am a bit hesitant to separate based on the current criteria.

But there are wild dogs and regular dogs. All wolves are wild. I am just not certain, not sure.

But let's go on.

Characteristics of the animal itself, in this case, behavior. All solitary hunters in one group, all group hunters in another.

Well, I really do not understand why is this a point of separation, unless one presumes that group hunters are more likely to survive, hence a presupposition of evolution.
Do you have another suggestion as to why separate based on this?
If not, let's go on anyway.

It could make sense in that context. It wouldn't matter. Regardless of whether foxes, dogs and wolves are seperate creations or the result of evolution, they still have the same characteristics. Hence, by the reasoning we laid out in the beginning, they should all be in the same group (Canidae). Remember that Linneaus, who created this way of classification, also was a creationist who believed in seperate creations. The two ideas are not necessarily opposed to each other.

Let's go on.
Maybe it will clear up later on.

Just as a red fox is a fox with a red coat, and a pale fox is a fox that lives in a desert, a fox is a dog-like creature that hunts solitary and dogs and wolves are dog-like creatures that hunt and live in packs.

I am uncomfortable with this definition.
To separate these two based on that criteria alone does not appear to make sense outside of specific presuppositions.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Responded to your post above.

Okay. What would your reservations be against placing dogs and wolves in the same group?

My reservations are that we are grouping the animals using an insufficient information.

What I am saying is that there is more of a separation in Biblical creation than we are presuming.
There appears to be also a separation by whether it is a livestock, or a wild animal.
(Hebrew language is not that clear about that).

So I am a bit hesitant to separate based on the current criteria.

But there are wild dogs and regular dogs. All wolves are wild. I am just not certain, not sure.

But let's go on.

Characteristics of the animal itself, in this case, behavior. All solitary hunters in one group, all group hunters in another.

Well, I really do not understand why is this a point of separation, unless one presumes that group hunters are more likely to survive, hence a presupposition of evolution.
Do you have another suggestion as to why separate based on this?
If not, let's go on anyway.

It could make sense in that context. It wouldn't matter. Regardless of whether foxes, dogs and wolves are seperate creations or the result of evolution, they still have the same characteristics. Hence, by the reasoning we laid out in the beginning, they should all be in the same group (Canidae). Remember that Linneaus, who created this way of classification, also was a creationist who believed in seperate creations. The two ideas are not necessarily opposed to each other.

Let's go on.
Maybe it will clear up later on.

Just as a red fox is a fox with a red coat, and a pale fox is a fox that lives in a desert, a fox is a dog-like creature that hunts solitary and dogs and wolves are dog-like creatures that hunt and live in packs.

I am uncomfortable with this definition.
To separate these two based on that criteria alone does not appear to make sense outside of specific presuppositions.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Tomk80]

Responded to your post above.
My reservations are that we are grouping the animals using an insufficient information.

Why insufficient information? What kind of information would you expect?

What I am saying is that there is more of a separation in Biblical creation than we are presuming.
There appears to be also a separation by whether it is a livestock, or a wild animal.
(Hebrew language is not that clear about that).

So I am a bit hesitant to separate based on the current criteria.

So what would you propose as other criteria? We can do this grouping with airplanes, cars and motorcycles also, even though they are definitely created seperately from each other. How we group things has, in it's most basic form, nothing to do with the matter of creation of these things. The pattern we get when grouping can definitely help us reach a conclusion about the design, but that doesn't mean that the process of grouping things will not be influenced by this.

But there are wild dogs and regular dogs. All wolves are wild. I am just not certain, not sure.

But let's go on.

Okay. There is also wild cattle

Well, I really do not understand why is this a point of separation, unless one presumes that group hunters are more likely to survive, hence a presupposition of evolution.
Do you have another suggestion as to why separate based on this?
If not, let's go on anyway.

Why would that be an evolutionary presupposition? All foxes hunt solitary, dogs, wolves, coyotes and dingo's do not, regardless of whether you think evolution is true or not. That's what makes it a good characteristic. Regardless of the presupposition, the grouping is the same. We can both look at the group 'dog-like' and divide it into two groups, solitary hunters or not. Regardless of whether I do it, as an evolutionist, or you do it, as a creationist, our outcome of this division will be the same.

Also, do you realize you have just turned the question around? You are now no longer asking whether we should put foxes in seperate groups as dogs. You are now asking the question why we shouldn't be putting them in the same group. I would agree that the more specific we get, the harder and possibly the more arbitrary the the division in groups is going to be. But I would propose that the problem is not with the single tree of life, the problem is not within the base. The higher we come in the groups, the more members the groups contain, the easier the grouping is going to be. It's on the level of species and subspecies that the real problems arise.

Let's go on.
Maybe it will clear up later on.

I am uncomfortable with this definition.
To separate these two based on that criteria alone does not appear to make sense outside of specific presuppositions.[/quote]
I would agree. I am simplifying things a bit, because the actual details are:
1. not going to make this more insightful.
2. not going to alter the conclusion.
3. not so readily available on the internet (I am still only an interested amateur, my actual field is epidemiology and environmental health)

The division is also for a large part based on genetic evidence.

However, I would stress that in the end, when taking grouping to the extreme, say that we group all the way down through species and subspecies to the individuals, eventually grouping is going to be decided on a single characteristic. Think about how you would group pens, for example. Say you first devided them through form, and now you have four big-pens lying in front of you.

Now, your last step will be grouping them into different colors. You will decide this on a single characteristic. Is it therefore less valid?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Why insufficient information? What kind of information would you expect?


So what would you propose as other criteria? We can do this grouping with airplanes, cars and motorcycles also, even though they are definitely created seperately from each other. How we group things has, in it's most basic form, nothing to do with the matter of creation of these things. The pattern we get when grouping can definitely help us reach a conclusion about the design, but that doesn't mean that the process of grouping things will not be influenced by this.


Okay. There is also wild cattle

Correct. That is why it is not clear, at least to me, to start building a tree.
Kind of complex.

But let's go on.

Why would that be an evolutionary presupposition? All foxes hunt solitary, dogs, wolves, coyotes and dingo's do not, regardless of whether you think evolution is true or not. That's what makes it a good characteristic. Regardless of the presupposition, the grouping is the same. We can both look at the group 'dog-like' and divide it into two groups, solitary hunters or not. Regardless of whether I do it, as an evolutionist, or you do it, as a creationist, our outcome of this division will be the same.

But why separate based on the hunting methodology? Why? If you say "why not", it is not good enough.

I would separate foxes from dogs because they do not look alike.
Why would I separate foxes from dogs because of their hunting habits?
Isn't this based on a presupposition of the survival probabilities?

But let's go on.

Also, do you realize you have just turned the question around? You are now no longer asking whether we should put foxes in seperate groups as dogs. You are now asking the question why we shouldn't be putting them in the same group. I would agree that the more specific we get, the harder and possibly the more arbitrary the the division in groups is going to be. But I would propose that the problem is not with the single tree of life, the problem is not within the base. The higher we come in the groups, the more members the groups contain, the easier the grouping is going to be. It's on the level of species and subspecies that the real problems arise.

But this is illogical.

If there is even one error in the subspecies grouping, the top will contain that error.

And if the top contains it, the top is erroneous.

I think we are building the tree backwards, ... but let's go on.

I am not saying it is impossible to build - it just appears to be way too complex.

But let's go on.

I would agree. I am simplifying things a bit, because the actual details are:
1. not going to make this more insightful.
2. not going to alter the conclusion.
3. not so readily available on the internet (I am still only an interested amateur, my actual field is epidemiology and environmental health)

The division is also for a large part based on genetic evidence.

However, I would stress that in the end, when taking grouping to the extreme, say that we group all the way down through species and subspecies to the individuals, eventually grouping is going to be decided on a single characteristic. Think about how you would group pens, for example. Say you first devided them through form, and now you have four big-pens lying in front of you.

Now, your last step will be grouping them into different colors. You will decide this on a single characteristic. Is it therefore less valid?

Well, as I said above, the way we build reflects on the end product.

To use your illustration, ... the pens that we logically built WILL NOT be as distinctly separate to a view if what we built contains even ONE error in its conception.
If in the end, there is a RED pen that was derived to be logically RED from an erroneous initial separation, then in reality, that RED pen might be BLUE.

To build a tree, ... this is some undertaking.

Let's go on.

Thanks,
Ed