Tree Of Life Fallacies: Early Branching Must Mean Primitive

Evolutionary trees, or "phylogenies", are a major part of modern evolutionary science. They depict hypotheses regarding the relationships among taxa, and are therefore important in reconstructions of the historical path of evolution (Gregory 2008a,b).

Reconstructing the tree of life is a difficult and complicated process, and one should expect there to be significant refinements and revisions along the way. This is especially true of the deepest branches of the tree, which are often the most difficult to resolve.

[Cash]

Journalists are trying to generate headlines and readers, so I am not surprised they throw out that scientists were 'shocked' that comb jelly was complex even though biologists were probably not shocked - they were likely pretty happy.

It means the Tree of Life may change in appearance but the structure is sound.

[zazenmind]

The roots of the tree have been rotted for a long time now, it was infected with the idea that all they had to do, was continue to trim the tree, when all along it was the roots of the tree that were diseased with ignorance and repitition, which is the blinding belief of faith, that teaches that if you repeat something enough times eventually it will yeild a different fruit, but that is the lie, believed by those whos minds have been self decieved and dulled by a cycle that has produced the herd mentality, which is why the whole tree infected...Even the fish in the sea and the birds in the air have decieved and convinced that the fish must search for the sea and the bird must search for the sky...Yet both are naturally already in it, by nature...

[SMorrison]

"...infected...roots...bl inding belief of faith...", birds gotta fly an' fish gotta swim....

?

[The other white meat]

zazenmind --

Yes, and Arnold the pig was in Green Acres by nature.

When the phylo folks finally tell us that we evolved from amoebas, am I supposed to be wowed?

[Phylogenist]

To Zazenmind:

Trying to be everywhere at once stretches you kind of thin. Currently your thoughts seem to be inspired by the expanding universe; they are flying off in different directions at near light speed.

[James]

Somehow consistently missed in all of this is something that all of the tree models have in common: most, and sometimes all, of the included species are positioned at the lowest level of the hierarchy, i.e. at the ends of the tree branches. If you examine the earliest such trees, going back to Linneaus and further, they all share this trait. Given that most of the biological information we have now (probably 99% or greater by quantity) has been developed in the last 50, or at most 100 years, one should be asking why we still have no convincing candidates at most of the nodes. Do we really believe that there exist in some as-yet unexamined strata large numbers of true intermediates that could convincingly fill all of those unfilled nodes? A true scientist would have to ask if a tree is the best model, or even an appropriate model, to try and categorize these relationships, but dogma in the scientific world is just like dogma anywhere else: facts and reason can be optional when one's beliefs, and perhaps one's livelihood, are at stake.

[Phylogenist]

James wrote:

Somehow consistently missed in all of this is something that all of the tree models have in common: most, and sometimes all, of the included species are positioned at the lowest level of the hierarchy, i.e. at the ends of the tree branches. If you examine the earliest such trees, going back to Linneaus and further, they all share this trait. Given that most of the biological information we have now (probably 99% or greater by quantity) has been developed in the last 50, or at most 100 years, one should be asking why we still have no convincing candidates at most of the nodes. Do we really believe that there exist in some as-yet unexamined strata large numbers of true intermediates that could convincingly fill all of those unfilled nodes? A true scientist would have to ask if a tree is the best model, or even an appropriate model, to try and categorize these relationships, but dogma in the scientific world is just like dogma anywhere else: facts and reason can be optional when one's beliefs, and perhaps one's livelihood, are at stake.

All forms, except forms at the extinction point, are transitional forms. The "missing link" forms are forms at the node where a line branches. We have few obvious candidates for the simple reason that nodal forms exist for a very brief period in contrast to transitional forms. Also, they are likely to belong to small population groups contrasted with a stable successful species. For the most part, we do the best we can with transitional forms. With enough material, the overall picture becomes clear.

[hetrevillion]

Phylogenist wrote:

<quoted text>
All forms, except forms at the extinction point, are transitional forms. The "missing link" forms are forms at the node where a line branches. We have few obvious candidates for the simple reason that nodal forms exist for a very brief period in contrast to transitional forms. Also, they are likely to belong to small population groups contrasted with a stable successful species. For the most part, we do the best we can with transitional forms. With enough material, the overall picture becomes clear.

I could not agree with you more. A light of reason.

[Bobba Louie is not in]

zazenmind wrote:

The roots of the tree have been rotted for a long time now, it was infected with the idea that all they had to do, was continue to trim the tree, when all along it was the roots of the tree that were diseased with ignorance and repitition, which is the blinding belief of faith, that teaches that if you repeat something enough times eventually it will yeild a different fruit, but that is the lie, believed by those whos minds have been self decieved and dulled by a cycle that has produced the herd mentality, which is why the whole tree infected...Even the fish in the sea and the birds in the air have decieved and convinced that the fish must search for the sea and the bird must search for the sky...Yet both are naturally already in it, by nature...

SHAZAMM!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob Burns]

The role of the "spirit" in evolution, due to it's ambiguous, elusive nature, has not been factored in

[Gaelic Skeptic]

Phylogenist wrote:

<quoted text>
All forms, except forms at the extinction point, are transitional forms. The "missing link" forms are forms at the node where a line branches. We have few obvious candidates for the simple reason that nodal forms exist for a very brief period in contrast to transitional forms. Also, they are likely to belong to small population groups contrasted with a stable successful species. For the most part, we do the best we can with transitional forms. With enough material, the overall picture becomes clear.

How convenient that all forms are transitional except for those at an extinction point. Since dinosaurs are extinct, but birds allegedly evolved from them, are dinos nodal or transitiona, or both?

[Rucin]

Gaelic Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
How convenient that all forms are transitional except for those at an extinction point. Since dinosaurs are extinct, but birds allegedly evolved from them, are dinos nodal or transitiona, or both?

The dinosaurs that went extinct are now nodal, since they have a definite frame of existance as they are no longer changing. The "dinosaurs" that became birds were transitional, and already on their way to becoming birds--these transitional "dinos" did not go extinct like the rest, but survived as a different form of creature.

[saiai the gardener]

geez...and just where does all this speculation lead us.... on and on and on and on ad-infintum.
i guess soon with global warming all the speculation might end... untill that cosmic soup gets a good stir once again...

[intellectualhone sty]

"Gaelic Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
How convenient that all forms are transitional except for those at an extinction point. Since dinosaurs are extinct, but birds allegedly evolved from them, are dinos nodal or transitiona, or both?
Exactly my sentiments what empirical law or testable theory allows Phylogenist you to make the assertion that missing links are in existence for far shorter periods of time. I have a problem with a theory that every time the evidence does not match the theory you invent an ad hoc patch.

[Gaelic Skeptic]

Rucin wrote:

<quoted text>
The dinosaurs that went extinct are now nodal, since they have a definite frame of existance as they are no longer changing. The "dinosaurs" that became birds were transitional, and already on their way to becoming birds--these transitional "dinos" did not go extinct like the rest, but survived as a different form of creature.

And you saw all of this happen, correct? Of course not, you believe it happened and you believe the fossil record proves it happened. You also believe that adaptation within a genus/species must, given sufficient time, lead to macroevolution.

[Rucin]

Gaelic Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
And you saw all of this happen, correct? Of course not, you believe it happened and you believe the fossil record proves it happened. You also believe that adaptation within a genus/species must, given sufficient time, lead to macroevolution.

Yes, correct; I saw it happpen.
Additionally, don't tell me what I believe. You clearly do not know.

[Gaelic Skeptic]

Rucin wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, correct; I saw it happpen.
Additionally, don't tell me what I believe. You clearly do not know.

If you saw it happen you must be very old.
Reading your post seemed to clearly indicate what you believe. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.

[Rucin]

I believe primarily in mathematics and the power of thought.
The seeing of it happening does take a long time, especially if you aren't particularly aware that you are supposed to be watching it.

[Zhu Xi]

Phylogenist wrote:

<quoted text>
All forms, except forms at the extinction point, are transitional forms. The "missing link" forms are forms at the node where a line branches. We have few obvious candidates for the simple reason that nodal forms exist for a very brief period in contrast to transitional forms. Also, they are likely to belong to small population groups contrasted with a stable successful species. For the most part, we do the best we can with transitional forms. With enough material, the overall picture becomes clear.

Can you provide a reference for an existing example of an "obvious candidate" of nodal form please?

[Doug]

How do we know that there isn't two different trees??