Tree of life

[pgp_protector]

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

 

[SkyWriting]

2.3 Million Species Mapped on the current version of the Tree of life.

It s great resource for people who want to know the all the latest facts about evolution.

" For this reason the whole project is open access, meaning that anyone can go in and edit the data if and when changes are needed. The researchers refer to it as the “Wikipedia” for evolutionary trees."

Even TV doesn't allow that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet they still haven't corrected 90% of their incorrect classifications, imagine that.

Bet they still call Darwin's Finches separate species - even if they finally got around to studying them and found they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

So when do you all think they will get around to actually start classifying things correctly so the real picture of this tree will appear and be shown to be the bushes that they in reality are?

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet they still haven't corrected 90% of their incorrect classifications, imagine that.

You haven't shown us any evidence that 90% are incorrect.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

And yet they still haven't corrected 90% of their incorrect classifications, imagine that.

Bet they still call Darwin's Finches separate species - even if they finally got around to studying them and found they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

So when do you all think they will get around to actually start classifying things correctly so the real picture of this tree will appear and be shown to be the bushes that they in reality are?

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352

There are lots of different species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If you want to argue that the finches are different species, you need more than that.

 

[justlookinla]

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

I enjoy science fiction as much as the next person.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I enjoy science fiction as much as the next person.

Yes we know, you have told us many times how you believe an invisible man created everything.

H G Wells got the idea for his book 'the invisible man' from the bible.

 

[whois]

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. If genetic exchanges, such as hybridization and infection, are common in evolution, the tree metaphor is inappropriate. 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). The idea that the target of selection may be the community of interacting and transmissible genomes rather than a classical individual may also alter our understanding of evolutionary dynamics (Rosenberg et al., 2007).
-Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance challenging the modern synthesis.htm

 

[JacksBratt]

This "tree of life" has an invisible trunk. It is not rooted in the ground. You talk of an "invisible man" while your whole theory cannot even explain, and doesn't even attempt to explain, where it all started.

So this tree must be the incredible hovering tree of life. The hovering tree of life that no body can say where it's seed came from, what ground it grew in or where the soil it hovers above came from.....

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[Anonymous]

There are lots of different species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If you want to argue that the finches are different species, you need more than that.

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This "tree of life" has an invisible trunk. It is not rooted in the ground. You talk of an "invisible man" while your whole theory cannot even explain, and doesn't even attempt to explain, where it all started.

So this tree must be the incredible hovering tree of life. The hovering tree of life that no body can say where it's seed came from, what ground it grew in or where the soil it hovers above came from.....

And on this tree - the point at which species are defined - the link between all the separate ones they have confused together - is always missing. Simply because they will not apply reality to the fossil record. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. There was no evolution involved and no missing links between any of them. Just the natural recombination of genomes that was separated from the start.

So that these:

Are the same relation to each other as are these.

Merely different breeds of the same species. That in the fossil record they have confused as separate species - because they never observed them in life. And refuse to apply what they observe in life to the fossil record.

 

[crjmurray]

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.

Who is this anonymous poster?!?!?!

 

[pgp_protector]

Who is this anonymous poster?!?!?!

Was wondering the same thing, I'm guessing software glitch?

 

[crjmurray]

Was wondering the same thing, I'm guessing software glitch?

Nay! Tis a masked internet vigilante spreading misinformation that other men dare not!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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. If genetic exchanges, such as hybridization and infection, are common in evolution, the tree metaphor is inappropriate. 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). The idea that the target of selection may be the community of interacting and transmissible genomes rather than a classical individual may also alter our understanding of evolutionary dynamics (Rosenberg et al., 2007).
-Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance challenging the modern synthesis.htm

Yes, the tree is turning into bushes as our technology increases. And as you said the image that is emerging is that the horizontal gene transfer which occurs with the ERV's is most likely going to be found to be the sole contributor to those foreign genomes - not inter-species relatedness. Altering host's offspring due to protein production which the host uses to reproduce and is then passed on vertically.

 

[crjmurray]

Nay! Tis a masked internet vigilante spreading misinformation that other men dare not!

Oh its Justa.

 

[whois]

Yes, the tree is turning into bushes as our technology increases. And as you said the image that is emerging is that the horizontal gene transfer which occurs with the ERV's is most likely going to be found to be the sole contributor to those foreign genomes - not inter-species relatedness. Altering host's offspring due to protein production which the host uses to reproduce and is then passed on vertically.

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

 

[whois]

my question is, why suggest HGT is responsible for these "foreign genes"?
the only answer i can think of is . . . genes don't evolve.

 

[JacksBratt]

And on this tree - the point at which species are defined - the link between all the separate ones they have confused together - is always missing. Simply because they will not apply reality to the fossil record. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. There was no evolution involved and no missing links between any of them. Just the natural recombination of genomes that was separated from the start.

So that these:

Are the same relation to each other as are these.

Merely different breeds of the same species. That in the fossil record they have confused as separate species - because they never observed them in life. And refuse to apply what they observe in life to the fossil record.

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...