Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Another interesting bit of trivia about those ceratopsia is this....
No archaeologist or museum is going to damage the fossils of one of these. There is a guy who has a museum, I cannot remember where, and he does cut into these. What he found that these "different" ceratopsia are not different "links" in a chain of evolution. They are just different ages. As one of these matures it goes through different stages, as any mammal does. By cutting open his specimens he was able to prove, through bone density, that they were in fact the same beast, just different stages of maturity...
We did a test that affected the whole site for a few minutes.Who is this anonymous poster?!?!?!
No, because if they can interbreed - then they are not separate species - merely infraspecific taxa (breeds, variety, formae) within the same species.
Who's arguing they are different species except for evolutionists and ignoring their own definitions? You are the one claiming species can interbreed - when that is the definition of the same species. You are confused if you think I am ignoring the scientific definition in favor of Fairie Dust as are the evolutionist's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction."
So ignore the scientific definitions if you like, just don't expect me to buy the Fairie Dust you are trying to sell. So since Darwin's Finches are reproducing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes - what is your excuse for calling them separate species? What is your excuse for calling any male and female capable of producing fertile offspring a separate species????
EDIT:
I know what "they" say - I want to know why "you" are ignoring the scientific definitions? I already know why they are.
2.3 Million Species Mapped on the current version of the Tree of life.
http://files.opentreeoflife.org/trees/
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/most-comprehensive-tree-life-23-million-species-created
So you want me to change what the link's call it to suit you?Tree of Life is a reserved term.
I would call this one to be Tree of Death. In fact, it is a better fit term.
So you want me to change what the link's call it to suit you?
I'll pass.
The view of heredity that is now emerging is also challenging the tree metaphor, which is based on the assumption that the pattern of evolution is a branching one, with each branch starting from a single common ancestor.
There are strong arguments in favor of the conjecture that in early evolution horizontal gene transfer may have been the rule rather than the exception, and that it may still be of major importance today, especially in the evolution of microorganisms and plants (Arnold, 2006; Goldenfeld and Woese, 2007).
Tree of Life is a reserved term.
I would call this one to be Tree of Death. In fact, it is a better fit term.
there is some speculation that HGT is mainly confined to prokaryotes.
this is turning out to be wrong:
Researchers have also documented countless cases of viruses shuttling their genes into the genomes of animals, including our own.
What has become increasingly clear in the past 10 years is that this liberal genetic exchange is definitely not limited to the DNA of the microscopic world. It likewise happens to genes that belong to animals, fungi and plants, collectively known as eukaryotes because they boast nuclei in their cells. The ancient communion between ferns and hornworts is the latest in a series of newly discovered examples of horizontal gene transfer: when DNA passes from one organism to another generally unrelated one, rather than moving ‘vertically’ from parent to child. In fact, horizontal gene transfer has happened between all kinds of living things throughout the history of life on the planet – not just between species, but also between different kingdoms of life. Bacterial genes end up in plants; fungal genes wind up in animals; snake and frog genes find their way into cows and bats. It seems that the genome of just about every modern species is something of a mosaic constructed with genes borrowed from many different forms of life.
-How horizontal gene transfer shakes up evolution – Ferris Jabr – Aeon.htm
Oh agreed. And is why they do not want to accept the scientific conclusions of HGT.
Not due to any familial relationship, but simply from the action of virus's inserting themselves at that point into the genome.
But what most of the studies fail to take into account is that it is only those that are in the reproductive genomes that get passed on. If one inserts itself into the genome of a cell in your arm - it will not get passed to the next generation - same with claimed mutations, etc.
Another interesting bit of trivia about those ceratopsia is this....
No archaeologist or museum is going to damage the fossils of one of these. There is a guy who has a museum, I cannot remember where, and he does cut into these. What he found that these "different" ceratopsia are not different "links" in a chain of evolution. They are just different ages. As one of these matures it goes through different stages, as any mammal does. By cutting open his specimens he was able to prove, through bone density, that they were in fact the same beast, just different stages of maturity...
We fully accept the widespread occurrence of HGT in prokaryotes. What you refuse to accept is the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes.
"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."--Eugene Koonin and Maureen O'Malley
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32
Viruses do not transport genes from one eukaryote species to another. This is something you have invented from whole cloth.
Which studies fail to account for this? Please be specific.
Yes, am familiar with it: Jack Horner - Where are the Baby Dinosaurs?
More than likely a few of those Ceratopsia - and every other class - is merely a baby or adult of another. Of just the 12 major dinosaur of North America, 5 were found to be classified incorrectly being actually babies or adults. And this does not take into account breeds within a species which widens the gaps even further.
I know, because all you ever search for or read is one out of the 1000's. And then think you understand it all.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0CBsQgQMwAGoVChMIvq_6272QyAIVh36SCh1p3AFa
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=lgt+in+mammals&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&as_vis=1
Show me a single paper that disproves anything I have said.
"What you refuse to accept is the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes."--Loudmouth
Does finding a few rare examples of HGT in complex eukaryotes change the fact that it is nearly absent? Nope.
"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."--Eugene Koonin and Maureen O'Malley
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32
that seems to be the case.Oh agreed. And is why they do not want to accept the scientific conclusions of HGT. It destroys any claims of inter-species relatedness from vertical descent and renders them null and void. It crosses horizontally and is only then passed on vertically. Not due to any familial relationship, but simply from the action of virus's inserting themselves at that point into the genome.
I just showed you as many pages as you care to look up and read - of known examples of HGT or LGT in mammals.
You can call a monkey a complex eukaryote if it makes you feel better - but according to you they are our cousins.
that seems to be the case.
Because of their fixed gene pool and gene loss, however, mitochondria and plastids alone cannot adequately explain the presence of all, or even the majority, of bacterial genes in eukaryotes. Available data indicate that no insurmountable barrier to HGT exists, even in complex multicellular eukaryotes.
Horizontally acquired genes are not only frequent in unicellular eukaryotes 3–5, but also found in various multicellular eukaryotes, including cnidarians 6,7, mites 8, insects 9–12, nematodes 13–15, fish 16, and land plants 17–22. Although reports of HGT in eukaryotes are still frequently met with skepticism, evidence for HGT throughout eukaryotic evolution is abundant and increasing.
We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.
Doesn't change the fact that HGT is exceedingly rare in complex eukaryotes which allows the phylogenetic signal from vertical inheritance to come screaming through.
It's only rare because we are just now getting around to realizing it happens.
You are still trying to live in the past - LGT or HGT is the new forefront of biological research.
Every single animal in which tests are done to look for LGT or HGT - find them in abundance.
The vertical is only noticeable - because you can trace the point at which it was inserted from HGT -
You can only focus on the vertical, while you ignore the point in which those shared genes begin - unable to be gained - if they already share a common ancestor - except from HGT. There is no reason to even accept your claims - when we should already have had those phenotype's if your claims are true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?