Phylogenomic Fallacies

Well, of course humans evolved directly from monkeys. Humans are monkeys. I know the fallacy you're attacking here, but that isn't it. I'm not complaining about the principle, in other words, just the specific example you choose. In fact, the common ancestor of humans, guenons, and tamarins would presumably have possessed whatever characteristics are shared between guenons and tamarins. We can't pick out one species and say that it's like the ancestor, but we can examine how traits are shared over the tree. The problem here is that "monkey" as commonly used refers to a paraphyletic group in which humans are embedded.

Excellent post. This misconception goes all the way back to Aristotle and the Scala Naturae. Humans just naturally think in hierarchies. However, this can be a very misleading concept in phylogenetics. And creationists aren't the only ones who get this wrong. Showing the two trees side by side is an excellent way to get the point across. As for the term basal, it does have a specific meaning, even if it is often used incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly. At least the terms basal and derived carry less negative connotations that the terms primitive and advanced.

Creationists usually claim that humans evolved from chimps. This is of course incorrect, as can clearly be seen in either version of the tree. However, to claim that humans evolved from monkeys might be correct, depending on your definition of that term, as correctly pointed out by the previous poster. Perhaps it would just be best to say that humans evolved from other primates.

DS said: Excellent post. This misconception goes all the way back to Aristotle and the Scala Naturae. Humans just naturally think in hierarchies. However, this can be a very misleading concept in phylogenetics. And creationists aren't the only ones who get this wrong. Showing the two trees side by side is an excellent way to get the point across. As for the term basal, it does have a specific meaning, even if it is often used incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly. At least the terms basal and derived carry less negative connotations that the terms primitive and advanced. Creationists usually claim that humans evolved from chimps. This is of course incorrect, as can clearly be seen in either version of the tree. However, to claim that humans evolved from monkeys might be correct, depending on your definition of that term, as correctly pointed out by the previous poster. Perhaps it would just be best to say that humans evolved from other primates.

The entire biosphere is all the product of billions of years of evolution since the origin of cellular life, so the term "more evolved" is meaningless.

In fairness, some anatomic, physiologic, or molecular features are more recent that others. Cell membranes and the citric acid cycle are extremely ancient features of life, for example, whereas internal skeletons in animals is a much more recent feature.

Humans do have some unique recent features, such as our particular bipedal gait (bipedalism itself is fairly ancient but not our type), or particular brain structure, our speech (recent evidence shows that bird speech, which is far more ancient than human speech, may be surprisingly related, but our speech evolved independently from theirs). It's mildly interesting that birds have a form of speech, bipedalism, and specialized forelimbs, just like us.

So humans are clearly not "more evolved" than anything else in the biosphere, but we do have many recent traits.

It's often conjectured that some types of organisms like amoebae have relatively fewer recent traits and have been more similar to distant past ancestors for longer. This is hard to confirm but may not be totally unreasonable.

harold said: The entire biosphere is all the product of billions of years of evolution since the origin of cellular life, so the term "more evolved" is meaningless. In fairness, some anatomic, physiologic, or molecular features are more recent that others. Cell membranes and the citric acid cycle are extremely ancient features of life, for example, whereas internal skeletons in animals is a much more recent feature.

eric said:

harold said: The entire biosphere is all the product of billions of years of evolution since the origin of cellular life, so the term "more evolved" is meaningless. In fairness, some anatomic, physiologic, or molecular features are more recent that others. Cell membranes and the citric acid cycle are extremely ancient features of life, for example, whereas internal skeletons in animals is a much more recent feature.

In principle, yes. In practice, there may be some lineages in which there are very few changes in functional genetic sequences over time (compared to others). Those lineages are interesting, from both a biological and historical point of view. They help us understand what life was like in the past, the sorts of ecologies that existed. And while the term "less evolved" may carry with it all sorts of derogatory and unscientific implied meanings, I think we do have a decent reason to give some label to such lineages, if for no other reason than we are often going to want to talk specifically about them and thus a word or phrase for them is useful. So, what do you (and I'm using the rhetorical 'you' here, to ask the entire biological community) suggest? What's a pithy descriptive term or phrase for such critters?

Yes, I was thinking that when you can recognize a coelacanth in a fish market when only fossil coelacanths were known, coelacanths are really a bit closer, at least in morphology, to ancestral lobe-finned fishes than is a gorilla. Mosses, liverworts, while certainly not unchanged in morphology, remain recognizable, while angiosperms have recognizably changed more. And adaptive radiations seem to be real--Cambrian and all of that.

Rates of evolution aren't all that clear. Is genetic change really a good way to date splits, or do some lineages accumulate change more slowly. But then there's the question of what kind of change is going on. Possibly coelacanths have changed genetically every bit as much as our lineage has, but if coelacanth changes involved largely neutral changes, is that what we mean by "evolved a lot"?

Then there are generational times that might affect evolutionary rates. Mice presumably could evolve much faster than humans, although in morphology our line seems to have changed more, at least recently. Do bacteria and archea that live and reproduce very slowly evolve as fast as, say, E. coli?

It does seem that evolutionary "speeds" are likely to differ, certainly by some measures, such as morphology. If this were not so, how would life bounce back after major extinctions?

Glen Davidson

Of course, the "most evolved" genomes belong to viruses.

Glen Davidson

Interesting that whole genome duplication events occurred in two of the most successful lineages, angiosperms (red star) and vertebrates (which had two).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Rates of evolution aren't all that clear. Is genetic change really a good way to date splits, or do some lineages accumulate change more slowly.

But then there's the question of what kind of change is going on. Possibly coelacanths have changed genetically every bit as much as our lineage has, but if coelacanth changes involved largely neutral changes, is that what we mean by "evolved a lot"?

It does seem that evolutionary “speeds” are likely to differ, certainly by some measures, such as morphology.

DS said: Interesting that whole genome duplication events occurred in two of the most successful lineages, angiosperms (red star) and vertebrates (which had two).

Well other than insects, these are the two most diverse and dominant groups in the terrestrial environment. They have certainly been highly successful in terms of speciation and diversification. Ferns cannot have more common genome duplications, since all angiosperms and vertebrates posses them as a derived character. This is evolutionary polyploidy rather than regular polyploidy. It involves not just duplicate numbers of chromosomes but significant neofunctionalization and diploidization. Of course ferns are also successful in the sense that they still exist and continue to evolve. But they are certainly not as successful as angiosperms or vertebrates by most reasonable measures. My apologies to fern lovers everywhere.

The point is that gene duplication, sometimes through whole genome duplication, provides the raw material for mutation and selection, sometimes making entire lineages highly successful. So Ohno was right when he pointed this out 45 years ago.

Do humans fit on a tree? Is there any bio sci evidence to justify this tree concept beyond mere looks/dna-looks??
People think we are more evolved because we are smarter. Its not about feet.
If evolution is about changes then why not the more changes there are the more one has evolved? not better but more!
is the author against human centered concepts in civilization? just a joke!

NO EVIDENCE , again, was presented from bio sci to demonstrate to a critic, a slight majority etc in North America, as to why peopler/plants are evolved from common descent place.
Its just presumed. Looks is not bio sci evidence.
A creator would also do it this way. Basic plans would easily explain like looks at basic levels.
Man/ape being a special case because we are special. Thats why only us study these things.

DS said: Well other than insects, these are the two most diverse and dominant groups in the terrestrial environment. They have certainly been highly successful in terms of speciation and diversification.

Ferns cannot have more common genome duplications, since all angiosperms and vertebrates posses them as a derived character. This is evolutionary polyploidy rather than regular polyploidy. It involves not just duplicate numbers of chromosomes but significant neofunctionalization and diploidization. Of course ferns are also successful in the sense that they still exist and continue to evolve. But they are certainly not as successful as angiosperms or vertebrates by most reasonable measures. My apologies to fern lovers everywhere.

The point is that gene duplication, sometimes through whole genome duplication, provides the raw material for mutation and selection, sometimes making entire lineages highly successful. So Ohno was right when he pointed this out 45 years ago.

Robert Byers said: Do humans fit on a tree? Is there any bio sci evidence to justify this tree concept beyond mere looks/dna-looks?? People think we are more evolved because we are smarter. Its not about feet. If evolution is about changes then why not the more changes there are the more one has evolved? not better but more! is the author against human centered concepts in civilization? just a joke! NO EVIDENCE , again, was presented from bio sci to demonstrate to a critic, a slight majority etc in North America, as to why peopler/plants are evolved from common descent place. Its just presumed. Looks is not bio sci evidence. A creator would also do it this way. Basic plans would easily explain like looks at basic levels. Man/ape being a special case because we are special. Thats why only us study these things.

harold said: The entire biosphere is all the product of billions of years of evolution since the origin of cellular life, so the term "more evolved" is meaningless. In fairness, some anatomic, physiologic, or molecular features are more recent that others. Cell membranes and the citric acid cycle are extremely ancient features of life, for example, whereas internal skeletons in animals is a much more recent feature. Humans do have some unique recent features, such as our particular bipedal gait (bipedalism itself is fairly ancient but not our type), or particular brain structure, our speech (recent evidence shows that bird speech, which is far more ancient than human speech, may be surprisingly related, but our speech evolved independently from theirs). It's mildly interesting that birds have a form of speech, bipedalism, and specialized forelimbs, just like us. So humans are clearly not "more evolved" than anything else in the biosphere, but we do have many recent traits. It's often conjectured that some types of organisms like amoebae have relatively fewer recent traits and have been more similar to distant past ancestors for longer. This is hard to confirm but may not be totally unreasonable.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkbohD6goiMSfag_XaXq20elmGG7Gs4tas said:

DS said: Well other than insects, these are the two most diverse and dominant groups in the terrestrial environment. They have certainly been highly successful in terms of speciation and diversification.

You are partially right: angiosperms are one of the most diverse groups of organisms. But vertebrates? Barely 30,000 terrestrial species, if that. Nematodes greatly outnumber them. And of course we know more about the numbers of vertebrate species than about other taxa.

Ferns cannot have more common genome duplications, since all angiosperms and vertebrates posses them as a derived character. This is evolutionary polyploidy rather than regular polyploidy. It involves not just duplicate numbers of chromosomes but significant neofunctionalization and diploidization. Of course ferns are also successful in the sense that they still exist and continue to evolve. But they are certainly not as successful as angiosperms or vertebrates by most reasonable measures. My apologies to fern lovers everywhere.

I would like to see you justify the claim that the vertebrate genome duplications were in some way special compared to any ordinary case of polyploidy. They're all followed by neofunctionalization and diploidization, given enough time. Same for the polyploidy at the base of angiosperms.

The point is that gene duplication, sometimes through whole genome duplication, provides the raw material for mutation and selection, sometimes making entire lineages highly successful. So Ohno was right when he pointed this out 45 years ago.

Well, it provides some of the raw material. Whether it's the reason for success of lineages is a question that would be difficult to answer. You certainly can't claim that the success of vertebrates (such as it is) and angiosperms is due to genome duplications, just because there are genome duplications at the relevant nodes. Nor can you claim that these are special genome duplications unlike regular polyploidy. Are you going to claim that teleosts are twice as special as vertebrates in general? My point about the ferns was that polyploidy happens all over the phylogenetic tree. When the barn wall is covered with targets, you can't claim that the fact you hit a particular bullseye means that one is special.

I think that statements like saying 'humans evolved from monkeys' or that 'humans evolved from apes' ignores the detail that the terms 'monkey' and 'ape' is meant to refer to modern species. If one wants to be strictly formal, it is best to say that 'humans and monkeys (or apes) evolved from common ancestors'. For example, the great apes are modern primates that walk around on their knuckles but our lineage likely never did that.
Similarly, to say that 'humans are monkeys (or apes) runs into a similar problem. I know that such constructions are desirable for cladistics, but I think the phrase to use here is that 'humans and apes are both hominids'.
As for the basal group fallacy, I agree entirely with the descriptions above. But I hold out that it is ok to refer the the characters that are prominent in a group to be basal. So the characters of a lung fish are basal to the lungfishes and tetrapods.

DS said: As for the first part, there are at least three times more terrestrial vertebrate species than fern species and probably as many aquatic forms as well. And there are probably 25 times more angiosperms than ferns. As for morphological diversity, that is apparent as well.

As for the second point, when ferns diversify to the extent that the angiosperms have, then you will be justified in your characterization. Until then, not so much.

You are certainly correct about that last part. However, there is very good evidence that diversification of the vertebrate body is directly due to duplications of the hox genes, which were created in part due to two whole genome duplications. The point was not that whole genome duplications are a necessary or sufficient condition for diversification, only that they can sometimes result in diversification and for very good reasons. If you want a counter example, I am don't think that the inset lineage had such a basal whole genome duplication event. That is certainly a better counter example than ferns.

Mark Sturtevant said: I think that statements like saying 'humans evolved from monkeys' or that 'humans evolved from apes' ignores the detail that the terms 'monkey' and 'ape' is meant to refer to modern species.

If one wants to be strictly formal, it is best to say that 'humans and monkeys (or apes) evolved from common ancestors'. For example, the great apes are modern primates that walk around on their knuckles but our lineage likely never did that.

Similarly, to say that 'humans are monkeys (or apes) runs into a similar problem. I know that such constructions are desirable for cladistics, but I think the phrase to use here is that 'humans and apes are both hominids'. As for the basal group fallacy, I agree entirely with the descriptions above. But I hold out that it is ok to refer the the characters that are prominent in a group to be basal. So the characters of a lung fish are basal to the lungfishes and tetrapods.

Are you claiming that chimps, gorillas, and orangutans evolved knuckle-walking convergently? That seems highly unparsimonious to me. The common ancestor of humans, guenons, and howler monkeys was a monkey. How else could you describe it? The common ancestor of all the great apes was a great ape (and of course this is also the common ancestor of humans and great apes). How else could you describe it? It just isn’t the case that these terms describe only extant species.

The "platypus fallacy" comment makes little sense to me. If a human and a platypus are closely examined, it would be obvious that they were related, and it would be easy to deduce some traits of the common ancestor, such as internal skeleton, DNA, four limbs, paired eyes and lungs, et cetera. One would also get a good idea as to how and when the derived characteristics appeared.

4ras wrote

"Again, my claim: there is no particular relationship between whole-genome duplication and diversity."

Again, there is good evidence that this is not true in vertebrates and probably not true in angiosperms. There are also good reasons to suppose that it might be generally true. I suppose the only way to tell if this is a statistically significant relationship is to do a statistical analysis. A few examples and a few counter examples are not sufficient to resolve the matter conclusively.

Here is a recent review article that seems to indicate that there are still many unanswered questions in the area under discussion:

Madlung (2013) Polyploidy and its effect on evolutionary success: old questions revisited with new tools. Heredity (2013) 110, 99–104

Well done! After an early scare, ignoring Byers tantrum has worked, and I can read in peace.

robert van bakel said: Well done! After an early scare, ignoring Byers tantrum has worked, and I can read in peace.

KlausH said: The "platypus fallacy" comment makes little sense to me. If a human and a platypus are closely examined, it would be obvious that they were related, and it would be easy to deduce some traits of the common ancestor, such as internal skeleton, DNA, four limbs, paired eyes and lungs, et cetera. One would also get a good idea as to how and when the derived characteristics appeared.

DS said: 4ras wrote

"Again, my claim: there is no particular relationship between whole-genome duplication and diversity." Again, there is good evidence that this is not true in vertebrates and probably not true in angiosperms. There are also good reasons to suppose that it might be generally true. I suppose the only way to tell if this is a statistically significant relationship is to do a statistical analysis. A few examples and a few counter examples are not sufficient to resolve the matter conclusively.

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits.

Thinking back to Andreas Wagner's recent book, The Arrival of the Fittest, and his discussion of "genotype networks," I suppose this concept is more applicable to large molecules in which a network of genotypes produce essentially the same phenotype; say a number of different genotype molecules that perform essentially the same metabolic processes.

I understand that there are some precedents for such an idea; some of it coming from the fact that, in many organic compounds, it is the shape of the molecule and not necessarily the specific atoms at given locations that determine the reactive properties of the molecule.

It prompts the question about what happens when many layers of complexity are added on top of this as an organism becomes more complex; namely, can the same genotype produce different phenotypes that are reproductively isolated? Alternatively, could different genotypes produce essentially the same phenotype at these higher levels of complexity? I presume the latter case would be related to "convergent evolution."

I guess the more general question would be, "Where along the scale of complexity does speciation occur?" Is is necessarily at the level of the DNA involved in reproduction?

More specifically, if the molecular processes become more susceptible to ambient physical conditions as increasingly complex molecular assemblies start interacting with smaller binding energies (e.g., we already know that temperature during incubation can determine sex in some animals), couldn't mutations and variations lead to sufficiently different phenotypes that speciation can occur above the level of the DNA involved in sexual reproduction? Wouldn't that be genetic isolation?

What is evo-devo telling us?

A Masked Panda (4ts) said: Are they? So you would say that extinct members of, say, Cercopithecidae would not be considered "monkeys"?...

I think that one of the problems about the names for the primates is specific to English: We have the two words, "ape" and "monkey". "Ape" is the older term, and, before Europeans started exploring, the only non-human primates known were what we now call "Old World monkeys" - that is what were called "apes". For example, that is what the King James Version means by "ape". Somebody decided to change the designation after the other primates were discovered and the word "monkey" was introduced to English. It could have been that new word "monkey" was restricted to New World monkeys, and "ape" would have been kept for Old World monkeys and the newly discovered gorillas, etc.

DS said: 4ras wrote "Again, my claim: there is no particular relationship between whole-genome duplication and diversity." Again, there is good evidence that this is not true in vertebrates and probably not true in angiosperms. There are also good reasons to suppose that it might be generally true. I suppose the only way to tell if this is a statistically significant relationship is to do a statistical analysis. A few examples and a few counter examples are not sufficient to resolve the matter conclusively.

Mark Sturtevant said:

A Masked Panda (4ts) said: Are they? So you would say that extinct members of, say, Cercopithecidae would not be considered "monkeys"?...

The terms are informal and have plenty of loose usage in the literature, but to be formal about it neither is applied to humans. To be specific, the Cercopithecoidea and the Platyrrhini are 'monkeys'. That informal term is not extended to the Hominoidea. In the Hominoidea the term 'ape' is applied to the greater and lesser apes, but that informal term is not extended to include the humans. Yes, it would be the case that extinct members of these groups would be called monkeys or apes, so I am wrong there. But so far I will stick to my remaining guns -- humans are not monkeys or apes, but we share common ancestry.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkbohD6goiMSfag_XaXq20elmGG7Gs4tas said:

DS said: 4ras wrote

(Why am I eras rather than John Harshman? As far as I know I didn't do anything different.)

"Again, my claim: there is no particular relationship between whole-genome duplication and diversity." Again, there is good evidence that this is not true in vertebrates and probably not true in angiosperms. There are also good reasons to suppose that it might be generally true. I suppose the only way to tell if this is a statistically significant relationship is to do a statistical analysis. A few examples and a few counter examples are not sufficient to resolve the matter conclusively.

I have asked you previously what this good evidence is. What you have done so far is a posteriori. You have two clades you consider diverse, among all the diverse clades in the tree of life, and have chosen them because they have genome duplications in their pasts. The metaphor of the barn wall of bullseyes is still instructive. It would be nice to do a statistical test, but I doubt the data are available. It takes a lot of work to discover an instance of ancient polyploidy.

I would like to see you justify the claim that the vertebrate genome duplications were in some way special compared to any ordinary case of polyploidy.

From the abstract of the paper that demonstrated the two vertebrate duplication events:

"Our results highlight the potential for these large-scale genomic events to have driven the evolutionary success of the vertebrate lineage."

PLOS Biology (2005) 3(10):e314

So it seems that, at least in this case, the duplications were essential to the success of the lineage.

harold said:

I would like to see you justify the claim that the vertebrate genome duplications were in some way special compared to any ordinary case of polyploidy.

Does the hypothesis that vertebrates had a gene duplication event actually refer to polyploidy? I understand that some fish and amphibians are tetraploid. Many vertebrates are diploid, though, like humans. In humans tetraploidy would be fatal in early development (some few cell lineages like some neurons later become polyploidy). Did vertebrates hypothetically go through a tetraploid ancestor stage?

DS said:

harold said:

I would like to see you justify the claim that the vertebrate genome duplications were in some way special compared to any ordinary case of polyploidy.

Does the hypothesis that vertebrates had a gene duplication event actually refer to polyploidy? I understand that some fish and amphibians are tetraploid. Many vertebrates are diploid, though, like humans. In humans tetraploidy would be fatal in early development (some few cell lineages like some neurons later become polyploidy). Did vertebrates hypothetically go through a tetraploid ancestor stage?

In the paper cited above, the authors conclude that the most likely scenario in the vertebrates was two rounds of closely spaced auto-tetraploid events. So yes, it appears that there was a tetraploid ancestor and that diploidization subsequently occurred. Interestingly enough, there was apparently a third whole-genome duplication at the base of one of the most diverse and successful lineages of vertebrates, the teleost fish.

DS said: From the abstract of the paper that demonstrated the two vertebrate duplication events: "Our results highlight the potential for these large-scale genomic events to have driven the evolutionary success of the vertebrate lineage." PLOS Biology (2005) 3(10):e314 So it seems that, at least in this case, the duplications were essential to the success of the lineage.

OK. Then here is a more direct test off exactly how whole genome duplication has led directly to diversification:

Hoffman et. al. (2012) WHole-genome duplication spurred the functional diversification of the globin gene superfamily in vertebrates. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29(1):404-423.

From the abstract:

"The physiological division of labor between the oxygen transport function of hemoglobin and the oxygen storage function of myoglobin played a pivotal role in the evolution of aerobic energy metabolism, supporting the hypothesis that WGDs helped fuel key innovations in vertebrate evolution."

Now of course this doesn't prove that whole genome duplications always lead to diversification, or that they are required for diversification, It only proves that they can, and for good reason. It would be premature to declare that they don't have anything to do with evolutionary success, since this is a direct test and confirmation of exactly that hypothesis.

This discussion is getting off topic. I will respond further on the bathroom wall if anyone wants to continue.

harold said: Cockroaches have survived many events that led to mass extinction of other lineages. That certainly means that they have a recognizably ancient morphology, but does it mean that they are "less evolved"? They evolved traits that were better adapted to surviving those events even before those events occurred. They were relatively selected for by those events. (I despise cockroaches as much as the next person, just making the point that they are a persistently successful lineage.)

DS said: OK. Then here is a more direct test off exactly how whole genome duplication has led directly to diversification: Hoffman et. al. (2012) WHole-genome duplication spurred the functional diversification of the globin gene superfamily in vertebrates. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29(1):404-423. From the abstract: "The physiological division of labor between the oxygen transport function of hemoglobin and the oxygen storage function of myoglobin played a pivotal role in the evolution of aerobic energy metabolism, supporting the hypothesis that WGDs helped fuel key innovations in vertebrate evolution." Now of course this doesn't prove that whole genome duplications always lead to diversification, or that they are required for diversification, It only proves that they can, and for good reason. It would be premature to declare that they don't have anything to do with evolutionary success, since this is a direct test and confirmation of exactly that hypothesis. This discussion is getting off topic. I will respond further on the bathroom wall if anyone wants to continue.

Agreed.

Well, it's a relief to know that cockroaches have only been plaguing the Earth since the Cretaceous, or at worst, late Jurassic period. Unfortunately that does still make them a persistently successful phenotype that has survived major extinction events.

harold said: Well, it's a relief to know that cockroaches have only been plaguing the Earth since the Cretaceous

Around seven billion years from now

I've noticed that the http://tolweb.org/tree site appears to avoid using clade names that have colloquial meanings different than the evolutionary meaning. That makes sense to me; is it a widespread practice in the field?

Henry J said: I've noticed that the http://tolweb.org/tree site appears to avoid using clade names that have colloquial meanings different than the evolutionary meaning. That makes sense to me; is it a widespread practice in the field?

Specific?

Eukaryotes

Opisthokont

Metazoa

Bilateria

Deuterostomia

Chordata

Craniata

Vertebrat

Gnathostomata

Teleostomi

Osteichthyes

Sarcopterygii

Terrestrial Vertebrates

Tetrapod

Anthracosauria

Amniota

Reptilia

Synapsida

Eupelycosauria

Sphenacodontia

Sphenacodontoidea

Therapsida

Theriodontia

Cynodontia

Mammalia

Eutheria

Primates

Hominidae

Most of those are (AFAIK) technical terms that don't have common usage meanings that are paraphyletic groups. Not quite all of them, though.

(I didn't want to double space that list, but I don't know how to get it to insert a line break without a blank line between items.)

Henry

Henry J said: Specific? ... Most of those are (AFAIK) technical terms that don't have common usage meanings that are paraphyletic groups. Not quite all of them, though.

In reply to Mark Sturtevant and John Harshman:

Another way of addressing the issue of whether we are descended from monkeys is this: If ceboids (New World monkeys) and cercopithecoids (New World monkeys) are both to be called monkeys, what about their common ancestor? If we saw it, would be call it a monkey? It certainly wouldn't look like a hippopotamus! I am pretty sure that we would also call it a monkey. If a layperson were to see it, and we didn't call it a monkey, they would ask why.

Of course, it would be our ancestor too, and an ancestor of all the apes. So yes, we are descended from a "monkey".

Similarly if we saw the common ancestor of all apes (including us), we would certainly call that an ape. It would look like an ape, and people's eyebrows would be raised if we didn't call it that. So we are descended from apes.

I'd go farther and say, even without making a technical taxonomic definition of "ape" and "monkey", that this means that we are apes and that we and all the apes are also monkeys. I can see that other people might not join me in that. They might point out that I probably wouldn't also say that we are worms, even though the common ancestor of all things called worms might look an awful lot like a worm, and it would be our ancestor as well.

The common English word "monkey" does not include humans in ordinary usage, and I can prove it right here with a simple thought experiment. I hope in advance that no-one is dull enough to imagine that I am denying the close evolutionary relationship between humans and our fellow primates, just making a point about language.

I'm going to show you a picture of a spider monkey and a human. The spider monkey is holding a banana and the human is holding an orange.

Now I'm going say "Relying on conventional usage of the English language in conversation, what is the monkey holding"?

If you say "I need more information, there are two monkeys", you're being pedantic.

The word monkey is a word that is informal, but that usefully distinguishes humans (and many other things) from a different group of primate.

And let's say we sought a response with a marmoset, a baboon, a gibbon, and a tarsier. I wonder how many people would treat the marmoset and the baboon as the only two monkeys; and the gibbon as the only ape?

Henry J said:

Around seven billion years from now

7 Billion? The Wiki article I read not too long ago about "Yellow Dwarf Life Cycle" indicated about 5 billion before the planet ceases to be a planet (that's if it's orbit doesn't change significantly before then). But, it also said the planet would cease to be habitable at all in a little over one billion years. But that's with a gradual decline in overall habitability throughout that time (especially in or near the tropics, and possibly excepting the polar regions). (And here too this assumes no significant change in orbit in the meantime, which can't really be guaranteed over that time frame.) Henry

Henry J said: Specific? Eukaryotes Opisthokont Metazoa Bilateria Deuterostomia Chordata Craniata Vertebrat Gnathostomata Teleostomi Osteichthyes Sarcopterygii Terrestrial Vertebrates Tetrapod Anthracosauria Amniota Reptilia Synapsida Eupelycosauria Sphenacodontia Sphenacodontoidea Therapsida Theriodontia Cynodontia Mammalia Eutheria Primates Hominidae Most of those are (AFAIK) technical terms that don't have common usage meanings that are paraphyletic groups. Not quite all of them, though. (I didn't want to double space that list, but I don't know how to get it to insert a line break without a blank line between items.) Henry

Joe Felsenstein said: In reply to Mark Sturtevant and John Harshman: Another way of addressing the issue of whether we are descended from monkeys is this: If ceboids (New World monkeys) and cercopithecoids ([Old] World monkeys) are both to be called monkeys, what about their common ancestor? If we saw it, would be call it a monkey? It certainly wouldn't look like a hippopotamus! I am pretty sure that we would also call it a monkey. If a layperson were to see it, and we didn't call it a monkey, they would ask why. Of course, it would be our ancestor too, and an ancestor of all the apes. So yes, we are descended from a "monkey". Similarly if we saw the common ancestor of all apes (including us), we would certainly call that an ape. It would look like an ape, and people's eyebrows would be raised if we didn't call it that. So we are descended from apes. I'd go farther and say, even without making a technical taxonomic definition of "ape" and "monkey", that this means that we are apes and that we and all the apes are also monkeys. I can see that other people might not join me in that. They might point out that I probably wouldn't also say that we are worms, even though the common ancestor of all things called worms might look an awful lot like a worm, and it would be our ancestor as well.

harold said: Well, it's a relief to know that cockroaches have only been plaguing the Earth since the Cretaceous, or at worst, late Jurassic period. Unfortunately that does still make them a persistently successful phenotype that has survived major extinction events.

I think the sense of the cockroach meme is a philosophical taking-down of the 'humans rule the world' idea, with an ick factor kicker: "Cockroaches have been here since forever and survived stuff that could kill off the dinosaurs. We've only been here since yesterday. Who do you think will be here after our global thermonuclear war/asteroid strike/biowarfare total genocide?"

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Just Bob said: I think the sense of the cockroach meme is a philosophical taking-down of the 'humans rule the world' idea, with an ick factor kicker: "Cockroaches have been here since forever and survived stuff that could kill off the dinosaurs. We've only been here since yesterday. Who do you think will be here after our global thermonuclear war/asteroid strike/biowarfare total genocide?"

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method.

Robert Byers said: Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

Scott F said: That's the major problem that I have with Creationists, and Fundamentalists in general. As far as I'm concerned, they can believe whatever they want. The problem is that the only (or at least the primary) way they seem to want to "justify" their own beliefs is to misrepresent (i.e. to lie about) what scientists actually say. It's the constant lying that gripes me, from those who see themselves as morally superior to those whom they are lying about.

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

Palaeonictis said: You are making the same mistakes...

Robert Byers said: ...

Just Bob, if Paleonictus thinks he has a chance of educating Robert Byers he's sadly mistaken. BUT his efforts are not necessarily in vain. There are those lurking on Panda that may indeed profit from his response to Mr. Byers' foolishness.

That's the value of R. Byers, FL, and their ilk. Their nonsense provides an opportunity to respond to creationist arguments. Besides, they make their own side sound ridiculous. Don't bannish them to the Wall, honor them...

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

I see that Robert is making a couple of common mistakes - the same mistakes pointed out in the main article. He is assuming that "primitive" is equivalent to or implies "inferior", and that "evolved" means "superior". From this mistaken assumption, he draws a mistaken conclusion. Interestingly, he does get one thing correct. Egg laying, marsupial pouches, and mammalian placentas are all just different forms of giving birth. The first mistake he makes is that he believes that since scientists have concluded that placental mammals evolved from egg laying animals, that scientists therefore draw the moral conclusion that the placenta is "more evolved" and "superior" to the egg. In fact, scientists would draw no such moral or qualitative conclusions. Surprisingly, Robert wants to chastise "evolutionists" for holding that position (which they do not hold), even though he believes that he is, in fact, "superior" to all other animals. Can you spell, "projection"? His second mistake is assuming that scientists are saying that placental mammals evolved from today's egg laying animals. He believes that scientists conclude that egg laying is a "leftover". In fact, the modern egg, modern pouch, and placenta are all equally "evolved", and are all equally suited to the job for which they have evolved. Sure, scientists say that placental mammals of today are evolved from egg laying animals of the past. BUT, scientists also say that egg laying animals of today have also evolved from egg laying animals of the past. Robert completely misses that point. He doesn't hear it, because it doesn't fit is misconceptions about science and scientists. That's the major problem that I have with Creationists, and Fundamentalists in general. As far as I'm concerned, they can believe whatever they want. The problem is that the only (or at least the primary) way they seem to want to "justify" their own beliefs is to misrepresent (i.e. to lie about) what scientists actually say. It's the constant lying that gripes me, from those who see themselves as morally superior to those whom they are lying about.

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

You are making the same mistakes as outlined in the article, maybe you should go back and read it. No person with actually any knowledge about evolutionary biology would assume that marsupials (not "matsupials") and monotremes are primitive in comparison to placentals, none whatsoever. Instead, in the case of monotremes the reason why they may have retained several primitive features (although they also have derived features) is because it has been a successful design (no, not ID) for the past 100 million years of monotreme evolution. For the snakes, again, no one assumes that snakes that are viviparous are superior to snakes that are oviparous, no one. That's right, monotremes aren't "left-overs from a universal egg-laying mammaldom", because they're species that probably have only been in existence since the Pliocene epoch.

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

You are making the same mistakes as outlined in the article, maybe you should go back and read it. No person with actually any knowledge about evolutionary biology would assume that marsupials (not "matsupials") and monotremes are primitive in comparison to placentals, none whatsoever. Instead, in the case of monotremes the reason why they may have retained several primitive features (although they also have derived features) is because it has been a successful design (no, not ID) for the past 100 million years of monotreme evolution. For the snakes, again, no one assumes that snakes that are viviparous are superior to snakes that are oviparous, no one. That's right, monotremes aren't "left-overs from a universal egg-laying mammaldom", because they're species that probably have only been in existence since the Pliocene epoch.

Until recent they teached marsupials etc were more primive in birthing . Rese4archers in marsupials had to correct this idea and after research. a great presumption was things evolved up. They do see humans as superior to the fish/reptiles/dumb primates they say we evolved from. Sure they do. If things changed well thats a change.

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

You are making the same mistakes as outlined in the article, maybe you should go back and read it. No person with actually any knowledge about evolutionary biology would assume that marsupials (not "matsupials") and monotremes are primitive in comparison to placentals, none whatsoever. Instead, in the case of monotremes the reason why they may have retained several primitive features (although they also have derived features) is because it has been a successful design (no, not ID) for the past 100 million years of monotreme evolution. For the snakes, again, no one assumes that snakes that are viviparous are superior to snakes that are oviparous, no one. That's right, monotremes aren't "left-overs from a universal egg-laying mammaldom", because they're species that probably have only been in existence since the Pliocene epoch.

Until recent they teached marsupials etc were more primive in birthing . Rese4archers in marsupials had to correct this idea and after research. a great presumption was things evolved up. They do see humans as superior to the fish/reptiles/dumb primates they say we evolved from. Sure they do. If things changed well thats a change.

That is arguably one of the dumbest things I have *ever* heard from a creationist, and yes, marsupials do have a more primitive birthing system in that it constrains them from being as diverse as placental mammals have become. Does that mean that placental mammals are more evolved? No, it does not. Each lineage has had an equal amount of time to evolve, (as outlined in the article, which I presume you haven't read). No, scientists do not argue that humans are superior to other organisms, for example humans are quite anatomically primitive in some respects, such as unlike horses, who have continuously growing molars, humans don't have continuously growing teeth. Humans are anatomically primitive, in that unlike platypi, and some shrews, we aren't venomous, etc. You are also assuming that there is an "evolutionary ladder", which there is not, as I (and the author of this entry) have explained. Anyways, this is my last response to creationist trolls like you here, I will be glad to debate this so-called issue on the Bathroom Wall.

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

You are making the same mistakes as outlined in the article, maybe you should go back and read it. No person with actually any knowledge about evolutionary biology would assume that marsupials (not "matsupials") and monotremes are primitive in comparison to placentals, none whatsoever. Instead, in the case of monotremes the reason why they may have retained several primitive features (although they also have derived features) is because it has been a successful design (no, not ID) for the past 100 million years of monotreme evolution. For the snakes, again, no one assumes that snakes that are viviparous are superior to snakes that are oviparous, no one. That's right, monotremes aren't "left-overs from a universal egg-laying mammaldom", because they're species that probably have only been in existence since the Pliocene epoch.

Until recent they teached marsupials etc were more primive in birthing . Rese4archers in marsupials had to correct this idea and after research. a great presumption was things evolved up. They do see humans as superior to the fish/reptiles/dumb primates they say we evolved from. Sure they do. If things changed well thats a change.

That is arguably one of the dumbest things I have *ever* heard from a creationist, and yes, marsupials do have a more primitive birthing system in that it constrains them from being as diverse as placental mammals have become. Does that mean that placental mammals are more evolved? No, it does not. Each lineage has had an equal amount of time to evolve, (as outlined in the article, which I presume you haven't read). No, scientists do not argue that humans are superior to other organisms, for example humans are quite anatomically primitive in some respects, such as unlike horses, who have continuously growing molars, humans don't have continuously growing teeth. Humans are anatomically primitive, in that unlike platypi, and some shrews, we aren't venomous, etc. You are also assuming that there is an "evolutionary ladder", which there is not, as I (and the author of this entry) have explained. Anyways, this is my last response to creationist trolls like you here, I will be glad to debate this so-called issue on the Bathroom Wall.

Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

DS said:

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

Well here you go Robert: Meredith, R. W. et al. 2011. Impacts of the Cretaceious terrestrial revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification. Science 334:521-524 This paper shows conclusively that marsupials are basal within the Mammalia. So your ark fantasy is disproven and your "speculation" os exposed as the ignorant nonsense that it is. All you have is a faulty line of reasoning and all of the evidence is against you, as usual. If you are so smart booby boy, tell us which of the primate phylogenies shown above is correct. Bet you can't do it. Failure to respond will be taken as evidence of your ignorance, as always.

Yardbird said:

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

Absent technology or supernatural intervention, (show the reference in the Bible if you want to claim either) the most efficient way to spread land animals is through contiguous land masses. Assuming that animals spread from Mt. Ararat, they would have moved across Asia, down the west coast of North America, across Central America, and down the west coast of South America. Following this route, the tip of South America is the furthest land distance from Mt. Ararat. It's just under 30,000 kilometers. That's far shorter than the distance from Mt. Ararat to Tasmania, which is just over 17,000 kilometers following land masses. Why are there no marsupials in Patagonia?

Yardbird said:

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

Absent technology or supernatural intervention, (show the reference in the Bible if you want to claim either) the most efficient way to spread land animals is through contiguous land masses. Assuming that animals spread from Mt. Ararat, they would have moved across Asia, down the west coast of North America, across Central America, and down the west coast of South America. Following this route, the tip of South America is the furthest land distance from Mt. Ararat. It's just under 30,000 kilometers. That's far shorter than the distance from Mt. Ararat to Tasmania, which is just over 17,000 kilometers following land masses. Why are there no marsupials in Patagonia?

gdavidson418 said:

Yardbird said:

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

Absent technology or supernatural intervention, (show the reference in the Bible if you want to claim either) the most efficient way to spread land animals is through contiguous land masses. Assuming that animals spread from Mt. Ararat, they would have moved across Asia, down the west coast of North America, across Central America, and down the west coast of South America. Following this route, the tip of South America is the furthest land distance from Mt. Ararat. It's just under 30,000 kilometers. That's far shorter than the distance from Mt. Ararat to Tasmania, which is just over 17,000 kilometers following land masses. Why are there no marsupials in Patagonia?

Well, it's a good point, except for Lestodelphys halli, the Patagonian Opossum. I mean it really is a good point that kangaroos aren't in Patagonia, for instance, but South America is the place where you'll find the most marsupial species outside of Australia. Pretty clear why--Australia, Antarctica, and South America were all joined at one time, then North and South America hooked up, and most of the marsupials went extinct (with mainly rather small marsupials surviving in S. America), while opossums went north. Can't forget the facts, whatever a dullard Bobby is. DS's comment calls to my mind the old idea that it's better to shut up and be thought a fool rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Only I don't think there's been any doubt about Booby for many years. Glen Davidson

DS said: This paper shows conclusively that marsupials are basal within the Mammalia.

John Harshman said:

DS said: This paper shows conclusively that marsupials are basal within the Mammalia.

Oopsie. Have you completely forgotten the original post?

The paper cited above does indicate that there are times when it is appropriate to use the term "basal". This term does have a definite meaning. However, it also states that it would be more appropriate to describe the relationship as a sister group. So in this case it would be more correct to say that marsupials are the proper sister group to the placentals. That description has the added advantage of also falsifying the hypothesis that modern placentals evolved from modern marsupials, or that they magically poofed into existence after the flood for some reason. Either way, bobby is just plain wrong again.

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Robert Byers said:

Palaeonictis said:

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Emily Thompson said: The fallacy is when people look at traits of modern-day species and make deductions about the evolution of human traits. For example, since humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than platypuses, someone might think that in the course of human evolution we went from laying eggs (like platypuses) to giving live birth (like chimpanzees). While this isn't necessarily incorrect, the reasoning behind it is wrong. It comes back to the misconception that humans are more highly evolved and other modern organisms are primitive. Hopefully that clears things up a little.

Another example of the platypus fallacy is deciding that early mammals must have had rostrums because platypus, which "represent primitive mammals" have rostrums. But platypuses don't actually represent primitive mammals. Some of their features are primitive, others are derived; but this is also true of humans (e.g. we don't have rostrums.) Similarly, if we only had data from mammals, identifying egg laying as primitive would be a platypus fallacy. But because we have outgroups that also lay eggs and fossil evidence, we can confidently say that primitive mammals laid eggs.

Although not all primitive mammals laid eggs, such as the multituberculates. Evidence (i.e. pelvic remains) suggest that they tended to reproduce like that of the modern-day marsupial, giving birth to embryonic-stage young which climb their way to a teat or nipple.* * Only 50% of extant marsupials have a pouch.

Some snakes birth live and some birth eggs. Is one superior to another? There is no evidence one metrhod is superior. Its just another method. The old evolutionists, simply, presumed egg laying or marsupials were primitive relative to other mammals. It made sense to their evolutionary story. Its not true. Matsupialism is simply a faster way to increase production. Thats the point. Egg laying mammals are not a leftover from universal egg laying mammaldom. Its just wrong speculation that seemed like it should be true.

You are making the same mistakes as outlined in the article, maybe you should go back and read it. No person with actually any knowledge about evolutionary biology would assume that marsupials (not "matsupials") and monotremes are primitive in comparison to placentals, none whatsoever. Instead, in the case of monotremes the reason why they may have retained several primitive features (although they also have derived features) is because it has been a successful design (no, not ID) for the past 100 million years of monotreme evolution. For the snakes, again, no one assumes that snakes that are viviparous are superior to snakes that are oviparous, no one. That's right, monotremes aren't "left-overs from a universal egg-laying mammaldom", because they're species that probably have only been in existence since the Pliocene epoch.

Until recent they teached marsupials etc were more primive in birthing . Rese4archers in marsupials had to correct this idea and after research. a great presumption was things evolved up. They do see humans as superior to the fish/reptiles/dumb primates they say we evolved from. Sure they do. If things changed well thats a change.

That is arguably one of the dumbest things I have *ever* heard from a creationist, and yes, marsupials do have a more primitive birthing system in that it constrains them from being as diverse as placental mammals have become. Does that mean that placental mammals are more evolved? No, it does not. Each lineage has had an equal amount of time to evolve, (as outlined in the article, which I presume you haven't read). No, scientists do not argue that humans are superior to other organisms, for example humans are quite anatomically primitive in some respects, such as unlike horses, who have continuously growing molars, humans don't have continuously growing teeth. Humans are anatomically primitive, in that unlike platypi, and some shrews, we aren't venomous, etc. You are also assuming that there is an "evolutionary ladder", which there is not, as I (and the author of this entry) have explained. Anyways, this is my last response to creationist trolls like you here, I will be glad to debate this so-called issue on the Bathroom Wall.

Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

DS said: The paper cited above does indicate that there are times when it is appropriate to use the term "basal". This term does have a definite meaning. However, it also states that it would be more appropriate to describe the relationship as a sister group. So in this case it would be more correct to say that marsupials are the proper sister group to the placentals. That description has the added advantage of also falsifying the hypothesis that modern placentals evolved from modern marsupials, or that they magically poofed into existence after the flood for some reason. Either way, bobby is just plain wrong again.

John Harshman said:

DS said: The paper cited above does indicate that there are times when it is appropriate to use the term "basal". This term does have a definite meaning. However, it also states that it would be more appropriate to describe the relationship as a sister group. So in this case it would be more correct to say that marsupials are the proper sister group to the placentals. That description has the added advantage of also falsifying the hypothesis that modern placentals evolved from modern marsupials, or that they magically poofed into existence after the flood for some reason. Either way, bobby is just plain wrong again.

Thanks for making that correction. Your previous comment actually did suggest that you hadn't read the original post. "Basal", in reference to taxa, is an arbitrary term that relies on a judgment about what is the "main stem" of the tree or on artifacts of taxon sampling. You perpetrated both of these. "Basal" is almost never appropriate to use for taxa, never for extant taxa, and never in reference to marsupials.

John Harshman said:

DS said: The paper cited above does indicate that there are times when it is appropriate to use the term "basal". This term does have a definite meaning. However, it also states that it would be more appropriate to describe the relationship as a sister group. So in this case it would be more correct to say that marsupials are the proper sister group to the placentals. That description has the added advantage of also falsifying the hypothesis that modern placentals evolved from modern marsupials, or that they magically poofed into existence after the flood for some reason. Either way, bobby is just plain wrong again.

Thanks for making that correction. Your previous comment actually did suggest that you hadn't read the original post. "Basal", in reference to taxa, is an arbitrary term that relies on a judgment about what is the "main stem" of the tree or on artifacts of taxon sampling. You perpetrated both of these. "Basal" is almost never appropriate to use for taxa, never for extant taxa, and never in reference to marsupials.

Byers' creationist take on marsupials. Enjoy.

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/marsupial_migration.html

(Feel free to answer my longstanding questions about your "speculation" any time, Robert.)

DS said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: The paper cited above does indicate that there are times when it is appropriate to use the term "basal". This term does have a definite meaning. However, it also states that it would be more appropriate to describe the relationship as a sister group. So in this case it would be more correct to say that marsupials are the proper sister group to the placentals. That description has the added advantage of also falsifying the hypothesis that modern placentals evolved from modern marsupials, or that they magically poofed into existence after the flood for some reason. Either way, bobby is just plain wrong again.

Thanks for making that correction. Your previous comment actually did suggest that you hadn't read the original post. "Basal", in reference to taxa, is an arbitrary term that relies on a judgment about what is the "main stem" of the tree or on artifacts of taxon sampling. You perpetrated both of these. "Basal" is almost never appropriate to use for taxa, never for extant taxa, and never in reference to marsupials.

From the paper cited: "Nodes or branchings near the base are basal nodes or basal branchings. The ‘basal branch’ is the branch between the most basal node (the last common ancestor of the members of the study group) and the root (Kitching et al., 1998: 200). A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa. A ‘basal taxon’ is a (hypothe- tical) ancestral species, a species of the stem line, not a terminal taxon. All other use of the notation ‘basal’ is incorrect and misleading." Systematic Entomology (2004) 29, 279–281 I was using the term in reference to the ancestral marsupials that diverged from the lineage leading to modern placentals, since they diverged before the divergence of any of the modern placental lineages. If this is not the correct usage, I stand corrected. In any event, the term sister taxa is certainly accurate and less confusing when applied to marsupials and placental mammals.

The irony, of course, is that Byers himself assumes that when a reproductive system is termed "primitive," this means something evaluative, and negatively so, rather than just descriptive -- thereby illustrating exactly the sort of misconception this post is supposed to dispel.

But then I wouldn't expect someone whose writing exhibits such a shaky grasp of basic grammar to exhibit a firmer grasp of ideas and reasoning.

mattdance18 said: The irony, of course, is that Byers himself assumes that when a reproductive system is termed "primitive," this means something evaluative, and negatively so, rather than just descriptive -- thereby illustrating exactly the sort of misconception this post is supposed to dispel. But then I wouldn't expect someone whose writing exhibits such a shaky grasp of basic grammar to exhibit a firmer grasp of ideas and reasoning.

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Creationist interpretation of human evolution:

Since Man exists, monkeys must not exist according to evilutionists.

Palaeonictis said: Creationist interpretation of human evolution: Since Man exists, monkeys must not exist according to evilutionists.

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu [sic] say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials.

Thats [sic] just a line of reasoning.

The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically?

In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth.

The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry.

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

Cimolestans and miacoids are not "a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa". That's what I want to know about.

Scott F said:

Palaeonictis said: Creationist interpretation of human evolution: Since Man exists, monkeys must not exist according to evilutionists.

You say that, almost in jest. Yet it's just a version of the classic argument that Creationists constantly use: "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" They appear to think it is withering "gotcha" argument.

Yardbird said:

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials. Thats just a line of reasoning. The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically? In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth. The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry. marsupialism by the way is unrelated to divisions in nature. Marsupials were just placentals with pouches.

Absent technology or supernatural intervention, (show the reference in the Bible if you want to claim either) the most efficient way to spread land animals is through contiguous land masses. Assuming that animals spread from Mt. Ararat, they would have moved across Asia, down the west coast of North America, across Central America, and down the west coast of South America. Following this route, the tip of South America is the furthest land distance from Mt. Ararat. It's just under 30,000 kilometers. That's far shorter than the distance from Mt. Ararat to Tasmania, which is just over 17,000 kilometers following land masses. Why are there no marsupials in Patagonia?

mattdance18 said: The irony, of course, is that Byers himself assumes that when a reproductive system is termed "primitive," this means something evaluative, and negatively so, rather than just descriptive -- thereby illustrating exactly the sort of misconception this post is supposed to dispel. But then I wouldn't expect someone whose writing exhibits such a shaky grasp of basic grammar to exhibit a firmer grasp of ideas and reasoning.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu [sic] say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials.

Well, there you go. Absolutely no one is saying that. Except you. In fact, the original post is saying the exact opposite. You have succinctly demonstrated the exact fallacy that the OP is arguing against. Robert, you really do need to try to read for comprehension.

Thats [sic] just a line of reasoning.

Hold onto that for just a moment.

The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically?

Again, no one is saying it is "more primitive". Except you.

In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth.

Okay. Now remember just 4 "sentences" ago you dismissed what you thought scientists were saying, because it is "just a line of reasoning"? (This being your favorite euphemism for, "something I don't understand, so I'm going to dismiss it without giving it any thought.") But now, you "speculate" about how you think "marsupialism" came about. No evidence, no study, no knowledge, no idea what you're talking about. Just your personal speculation. Meaning, in other words, that you just made it up out of whole cloth. Well, there you go. We can just as easily dismiss your "speculation". It doesn't even rise to the level of a "line of reasoning".

The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry.

Really? In your learned opinion, that's the "whole point" of this method of reproduction? North American Opossums wean their young in about 2.5 months. Mice and rats (both placental mammals) wean their young in about 20 days. Which one is faster?

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Well there you go. yoiu [sic] say marsupialism is a more primitive birthing method because of fewer marsupials.

Well, there you go. Absolutely no one is saying that. Except you. In fact, the original post is saying the exact opposite. You have succinctly demonstrated the exact fallacy that the OP is arguing against. Robert, you really do need to try to read for comprehension.

Thats [sic] just a line of reasoning.

Hold onto that for just a moment.

The diversity of types is not for/against birthing methods being better or worse. Marsupialism is not more primitive in any way. Show why it is scientifically?

Again, no one is saying it is "more primitive". Except you.

In fact, i speculate, it came in order to increase production for creatures having the farthest to go from the ark but with a timeline to refill the earth.

Okay. Now remember just 4 "sentences" ago you dismissed what you thought scientists were saying, because it is "just a line of reasoning"? (This being your favorite euphemism for, "something I don't understand, so I'm going to dismiss it without giving it any thought.") But now, you "speculate" about how you think "marsupialism" came about. No evidence, no study, no knowledge, no idea what you're talking about. Just your personal speculation. Meaning, in other words, that you just made it up out of whole cloth. Well, there you go. We can just as easily dismiss your "speculation". It doesn't even rise to the level of a "line of reasoning".

The whole point of the marsupial is that it gets the fetus out in order to start another one. Hurry hurry.

Really? In your learned opinion, that's the "whole point" of this method of reproduction? North American Opossums wean their young in about 2.5 months. Mice and rats (both placental mammals) wean their young in about 20 days. Which one is faster?

Mice are plenty fast and don't help...

Robert Byers said:

mattdance18 said: The irony, of course, is that Byers himself assumes that when a reproductive system is termed "primitive," this means something evaluative, and negatively so, rather than just descriptive -- thereby illustrating exactly the sort of misconception this post is supposed to dispel. But then I wouldn't expect someone whose writing exhibits such a shaky grasp of basic grammar to exhibit a firmer grasp of ideas and reasoning.

Primitive means primitive relative to something else. in no accurate way is marsupialism primitive/inferior to placentalism. if so prove it! Show the science!

Mice are plenty fast and don't help. However the others did. thats what, I speculate, marsupialism was meant to do rto refill the earth with limited timelines.

I was told marsupialism was more primitive! It ain't.

They just presumed it was more primitive or rather closer to a reptile early stage.

anyways evolutionists did teach placental was a later evolved change from the original ways.

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

Cimolestans and miacoids are not "a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa". That's what I want to know about.

Actually, miacoids are. They're basal carnivorans, well, stem-carnivorans. Just as docodonts are basal to mammals, or stem-mammals, or Purgatorius is basal to both primates and plesiadapiformes.

mattdance18 said:

I was told marsupialism was more primitive! It ain't.

Because it is more primitive.

Robert Byers said:

Yardbird said: Absent technology or supernatural intervention, (show the reference in the Bible if you want to claim either) the most efficient way to spread land animals is through contiguous land masses. Assuming that animals spread from Mt. Ararat, they would have moved across Asia, down the west coast of North America, across Central America, and down the west coast of South America. Following this route, the tip of South America is the furthest land distance from Mt. Ararat. It's just under 30,000 kilometers. That's far shorter than the distance from Mt. Ararat to Tasmania, which is just over 17,000 kilometers following land masses. Why are there no marsupials in Patagonia?

its all off thread, and I get blamed, but you make my case. they were there and only later did the others join.

John Harshman said:

mattdance18 said:

I was told marsupialism was more primitive! It ain't.

Because it is more primitive.

Byers aside, I would be interested in evidence that this is true. What do you have?

mattdance18 said:

John Harshman said:

mattdance18 said:

I was told marsupialism was more primitive! It ain't.

Because it is more primitive.

Byers aside, I would be interested in evidence that this is true. What do you have?

In fairness to Byers, I should probably be more precise. Because the whole usage of the term "primitive" is falling further and further into disfavor among biologists. In part this is because of its historic conflation with "inferior" -- precisely the mistake that Byers is making. So I should probably be saying something like "basal," or simply "ancient" or "archaic," since as far as I know, marsupials enter the fossil record several million years ahead of the placentals. (If I am wrong, then by all means, correct me.) The marsupial reproductive system is likely not primitive in terms of resembling that of the common ancestor any more than does the placental reproductive system. But I've been trying not to muddy the waters too much for Byers' sake. Because he apparently cannot even see the mistake he's making. Whether the term is "primitive," in the above defined sense, or "basal," or "ancient," or whatever: none of it implies "inferior." And this is the sort of mistake the original post was trying to dispel! Meanwhile, even if these terms do not imply inferiority, it does appear to be the case that the marsupial reproductive system is at a competitive disadvantage with respect to the placental in many -- but not all -- ecological contexts. Australian marsupials have been impacted negatively by the arrival of placental competitors. On the other hand, in North America, the Virginia opossum is doing well and even seems to be expanding its range. Marsupials are near and dear to Byers' heart thanks to that loony article he wrote to explain their biogeography in terms of dispersal from Noah's Ark. Therein you will find the insane notion that the separate marsupial "kinds" are not actually related to one another but adaptive variants -- not evolved, of course, but adapted -- fitted to Australia, or fitted to migrating to Australia, by their marsupial reproductive systems. Thylacines were just dogs, bandicoots are just bunnies, etc. -- but marsupialized dogs, marsupialized bunnies.... Crazy. In the face of his blithering idiocy on all matters of biology, I doubt that being more precise about the meaning of "primitive" is helpful. I'll settle for getting him to recognize that in biology, calling something "primitive" carries no evaluative implications of inferiority or superiority at all.

Robert Byers said: speculation , by definition, is not saying its the result of scientific methodology. Nothing wrong with lines of reasoning if its owned up to.

mattdance18 said:

John Harshman said:

mattdance18 said:

I was told marsupialism was more primitive! It ain't.

Because it is more primitive.

Byers aside, I would be interested in evidence that this is true. What do you have?

In fairness to Byers, I should probably be more precise. Because the whole usage of the term "primitive" is falling further and further into disfavor among biologists. In part this is because of its historic conflation with "inferior" -- precisely the mistake that Byers is making. So I should probably be saying something like "basal," or simply "ancient" or "archaic," since as far as I know, marsupials enter the fossil record several million years ahead of the placentals. (If I am wrong, then by all means, correct me.) The marsupial reproductive system is likely not primitive in terms of resembling that of the common ancestor any more than does the placental reproductive system. But I've been trying not to muddy the waters too much for Byers' sake.

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

Cimolestans and miacoids are not "a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa". That's what I want to know about.

Actually, miacoids are. They're basal carnivorans, well, stem-carnivorans. Just as docodonts are basal to mammals, or stem-mammals, or Purgatorius is basal to both primates and plesiadapiformes.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that they're paraphyletic? But even if so, they're composed of terminal taxa, not internal branches. And of course they aren't clades, if so, and that was the definition of a "basal clade". I'm afraid that "basal clade" is self-contradictory.

John Harshman said:

mattdance18 said: So I should probably be saying something like "basal," or simply "ancient" or "archaic," since as far as I know, marsupials enter the fossil record several million years ahead of the placentals. (If I am wrong, then by all means, correct me.) The marsupial reproductive system is likely not primitive in terms of resembling that of the common ancestor any more than does the placental reproductive system. But I've been trying not to muddy the waters too much for Byers' sake.

That was my question. I don't know of any good evidence that marsupiality is primitive compared to the placental system. One might suppose so based on fossil ages, but that's both a really bad inference and one you really can't make from fossils. One might suppose so by assuming Hackelian terminal addition, since a chorio-allantoic placenta adds pieces onto a chorionic placenta, but that too is a pretty bad inference. On balance, we don't know what features of marsupials or placentals are primitive or derived, aside from skeletal features that can be mapped onto a phylogeny that has plenty of fossils.

mattdance18 said:

John Harshman said:

mattdance18 said: So I should probably be saying something like "basal," or simply "ancient" or "archaic," since as far as I know, marsupials enter the fossil record several million years ahead of the placentals. (If I am wrong, then by all means, correct me.) The marsupial reproductive system is likely not primitive in terms of resembling that of the common ancestor any more than does the placental reproductive system. But I've been trying not to muddy the waters too much for Byers' sake.

That was my question. I don't know of any good evidence that marsupiality is primitive compared to the placental system. One might suppose so based on fossil ages, but that's both a really bad inference and one you really can't make from fossils. One might suppose so by assuming Hackelian terminal addition, since a chorio-allantoic placenta adds pieces onto a chorionic placenta, but that too is a pretty bad inference. On balance, we don't know what features of marsupials or placentals are primitive or derived, aside from skeletal features that can be mapped onto a phylogeny that has plenty of fossils.

Agreed. The presence of epipubic bones in marsupials may be evidence that the marsupial reproductive system is "primitive," again in the sense of "continuing to resemble the reproductive system of the common ancestor of marsupials and placentals." For the extinct multituberculates, who preceded both marsupials and placentals, and the basal eutherians, who were on a lineage distinct from marsupials and leading to placentals, both had epipubic bones, too. (Placentals have lost them.) In modern marsupials, the epipubic bones support the pouch. So it is at least plausible that multituberculates and basal eutherians had a reproductive system much like modern marsupials, birthing extremely underdeveloped young who then complete their early development outside the womb. But it would be mistaken to assume that the function of the epipubic bones in modern marsupials must be what its original function was, or that the the epipubic bones of multituberculates and basal eutherians served the same function. And so mammal paleontologists argue over just what that function was. It may have assisted with locomotion, and given how differently monotremes walk in comparison to both marsupials and placentals, this too is plausible. So maybe marsupial reproduction is primitive, and maybe it's not. Either way, though, I doubt that Byers is the one to help us even to clarify the issue, let alone to solve it. Perhaps if Byers would share his thoughts on what happened to the multituberculates and basal eutherians after they disembarked at Mount Ararat?...

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

Cimolestans and miacoids are not "a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa". That's what I want to know about.

Actually, miacoids are. They're basal carnivorans, well, stem-carnivorans. Just as docodonts are basal to mammals, or stem-mammals, or Purgatorius is basal to both primates and plesiadapiformes.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that they're paraphyletic? But even if so, they're composed of terminal taxa, not internal branches. And of course they aren't clades, if so, and that was the definition of a "basal clade". I'm afraid that "basal clade" is self-contradictory.

I mean that, by the definition that DS provided, docodonts are basal to mammals, and Purgatorius is basal to primatomorphs.

In the case of Purgatorius, it would be paraphyletic, because if it is the common ancestor of both plesiadapiformes and primates, it wouldn't include them. Docodonts, their phylogeny is also unstable, given that most of their remains are jaws and teeth, and the only near-complete docodont fossil I`m aware of is Castorocauda.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: speculation , by definition, is not saying its the result of scientific methodology. Nothing wrong with lines of reasoning if its owned up to.

Let me see if I understand. You admit that you are just "speculating", meaning that you're just making stuff up because it feels right to you. You declare this to be a "line of reasoning", which you believe to be "true", because you believe it is "true". We are to accept this "line of reasoning" without, because you admit that you are "speculating". In contrast, scientists go out into the world, collect data, make observations, and conduct experiments. They then analyze this data that they have collected using well tested statistical methods. Based on all this work, they draw some tentative conclusions about what this data is telling them. You then reject all of this work, declaring it to be "false" because it is only a "line of reasoning". So, Robert. Who should we give more credence to? Your "speculative" "line of reasoning" made up out of whole cloth, or the "line of reasoning" supported by experiment, observation, data, and rigorous mathematical evaluation? Using the term "line of reasoning" like this to mean both "speculation" and "rigorous scientific analysis", is about the same as using the term "car" to mean both a crayon drawing done by a 5-year-old, and a Ferrari. The first one is a pretty picture that makes the 5-year-old feel good, even if he can't keep the colors inside the lines. The second one works to actually move people from point A to point B. Robert, using your own definitions of the terms, I dismiss your "speculation" as false, because it is "just a line of reasoning".

mattdance18 said:

John Harshman said:

mattdance18 said: So I should probably be saying something like "basal," or simply "ancient" or "archaic," since as far as I know, marsupials enter the fossil record several million years ahead of the placentals. (If I am wrong, then by all means, correct me.) The marsupial reproductive system is likely not primitive in terms of resembling that of the common ancestor any more than does the placental reproductive system. But I've been trying not to muddy the waters too much for Byers' sake.

That was my question. I don't know of any good evidence that marsupiality is primitive compared to the placental system. One might suppose so based on fossil ages, but that's both a really bad inference and one you really can't make from fossils. One might suppose so by assuming Hackelian terminal addition, since a chorio-allantoic placenta adds pieces onto a chorionic placenta, but that too is a pretty bad inference. On balance, we don't know what features of marsupials or placentals are primitive or derived, aside from skeletal features that can be mapped onto a phylogeny that has plenty of fossils.

Agreed. The presence of epipubic bones in marsupials may be evidence that the marsupial reproductive system is "primitive," again in the sense of "continuing to resemble the reproductive system of the common ancestor of marsupials and placentals." For the extinct multituberculates, who preceded both marsupials and placentals, and the basal eutherians, who were on a lineage distinct from marsupials and leading to placentals, both had epipubic bones, too. (Placentals have lost them.) In modern marsupials, the epipubic bones support the pouch. So it is at least plausible that multituberculates and basal eutherians had a reproductive system much like modern marsupials, birthing extremely underdeveloped young who then complete their early development outside the womb. But it would be mistaken to assume that the function of the epipubic bones in modern marsupials must be what its original function was, or that the the epipubic bones of multituberculates and basal eutherians served the same function. And so mammal paleontologists argue over just what that function was. It may have assisted with locomotion, and given how differently monotremes walk in comparison to both marsupials and placentals, this too is plausible. So maybe marsupial reproduction is primitive, and maybe it's not. Either way, though, I doubt that Byers is the one to help us even to clarify the issue, let alone to solve it. Perhaps if Byers would share his thoughts on what happened to the multituberculates and basal eutherians after they disembarked at Mount Ararat?...

Robert Byers said:

mattdance18 said:

John Harshman said:

mattdance18 said: So I should probably be saying something like "basal," or simply "ancient" or "archaic," since as far as I know, marsupials enter the fossil record several million years ahead of the placentals. (If I am wrong, then by all means, correct me.) The marsupial reproductive system is likely not primitive in terms of resembling that of the common ancestor any more than does the placental reproductive system. But I've been trying not to muddy the waters too much for Byers' sake.

That was my question. I don't know of any good evidence that marsupiality is primitive compared to the placental system. One might suppose so based on fossil ages, but that's both a really bad inference and one you really can't make from fossils. One might suppose so by assuming Hackelian terminal addition, since a chorio-allantoic placenta adds pieces onto a chorionic placenta, but that too is a pretty bad inference. On balance, we don't know what features of marsupials or placentals are primitive or derived, aside from skeletal features that can be mapped onto a phylogeny that has plenty of fossils.

Agreed. The presence of epipubic bones in marsupials may be evidence that the marsupial reproductive system is "primitive," again in the sense of "continuing to resemble the reproductive system of the common ancestor of marsupials and placentals." For the extinct multituberculates, who preceded both marsupials and placentals, and the basal eutherians, who were on a lineage distinct from marsupials and leading to placentals, both had epipubic bones, too. (Placentals have lost them.) In modern marsupials, the epipubic bones support the pouch. So it is at least plausible that multituberculates and basal eutherians had a reproductive system much like modern marsupials, birthing extremely underdeveloped young who then complete their early development outside the womb. But it would be mistaken to assume that the function of the epipubic bones in modern marsupials must be what its original function was, or that the the epipubic bones of multituberculates and basal eutherians served the same function. And so mammal paleontologists argue over just what that function was. It may have assisted with locomotion, and given how differently monotremes walk in comparison to both marsupials and placentals, this too is plausible. So maybe marsupial reproduction is primitive, and maybe it's not. Either way, though, I doubt that Byers is the one to help us even to clarify the issue, let alone to solve it. Perhaps if Byers would share his thoughts on what happened to the multituberculates and basal eutherians after they disembarked at Mount Ararat?...

its off thread and I get blamed. The same equation. Classification has been wrong. These divisions are myths. Marsupials and all the rest are just varieties of KInds from off the ark. Thats why its impossible for any definition segregating or scoring reproductive systems to have a conclusion of primitive/inferiority etc. they are all as complex as each other. Just different for different needs.

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

Cimolestans and miacoids are not "a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa". That's what I want to know about.

Actually, miacoids are. They're basal carnivorans, well, stem-carnivorans. Just as docodonts are basal to mammals, or stem-mammals, or Purgatorius is basal to both primates and plesiadapiformes.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that they're paraphyletic? But even if so, they're composed of terminal taxa, not internal branches. And of course they aren't clades, if so, and that was the definition of a "basal clade". I'm afraid that "basal clade" is self-contradictory.

I mean that, by the definition that DS provided, docodonts are basal to mammals, and Purgatorius is basal to primatomorphs.

Which definition? Not, apparently, the one I was talking about ("basal clade").

In the case of Purgatorius, it would be paraphyletic, because if it is the common ancestor of both plesiadapiformes and primates, it wouldn't include them. Docodonts, their phylogeny is also unstable, given that most of their remains are jaws and teeth, and the only near-complete docodont fossil I`m aware of is Castorocauda.

John Harshman said: How could there be evidence that Purgatorius is ancestral to anything?

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

Cimolestans and miacoids are not "a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa". That's what I want to know about.

Actually, miacoids are. They're basal carnivorans, well, stem-carnivorans. Just as docodonts are basal to mammals, or stem-mammals, or Purgatorius is basal to both primates and plesiadapiformes.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that they're paraphyletic? But even if so, they're composed of terminal taxa, not internal branches. And of course they aren't clades, if so, and that was the definition of a "basal clade". I'm afraid that "basal clade" is self-contradictory.

I mean that, by the definition that DS provided, docodonts are basal to mammals, and Purgatorius is basal to primatomorphs.

Which definition? Not, apparently, the one I was talking about ("basal clade").

Purgatorius is possibly basal to the primatomorpha, because of similarities in the molars. So, if Purgatorius was ancestral to both primates and plesiadapiformes, then it would be a basal clade.

In the case of Purgatorius, it would be paraphyletic, because if it is the common ancestor of both plesiadapiformes and primates, it wouldn't include them. Docodonts, their phylogeny is also unstable, given that most of their remains are jaws and teeth, and the only near-complete docodont fossil I`m aware of is Castorocauda.

John Harshman said: How could there be evidence that Purgatorius is ancestral to anything?

Similarities in dental morphology.

Robert Byers said: Yes I insist using fossils etc etc etc is not bio sci investigation.

using mere data points and drawing trees or relationships is only lines of reasoning. What connects the data points is not bio sci demonstrated.

How can a “basal clade” be a clade at all? If it’s ancestral to some extant taxa, it isn’t a clade.

Robert Byers said: its off thread and I get blamed.

The same equation. Classification has been wrong. These divisions are myths. Marsupials and all the rest are just varieties of KInds from off the ark.

Thats why its impossible for any definition segregating or scoring reproductive systems to have a conclusion of primitive/inferiority etc. they are all as complex as each other. Just different for different needs.

"And what exactly were kangaroos, when they were still on the Ark?"

Ooh! Ooh! Can I answer?

Well, they hop around on two legs... so what else does that? I Know! Birds! So kangaroos are just descendants of the Bird Kind, adapted for Australian conditions. (How'm I doin', Bobby?)

But wait, no... What animal on the Ark had a body most shaped like a kangaroo? Two big hind legs, smaller front legs, a long, heavy tail? The Tyrannosaurus rex! That's who moved to Australia and evolved adapted itself in a couple hundred years to become a marsupial mammal!

Gee, what's so hard about this bio sci stuff? I can do it without no PhD!

mattdance18 said:

Robert Byers said: its off thread and I get blamed.

Oh, cry me a river. Despite your trolling, a couple of us have, against our better judgement, played along this time and are trying to engage you, yet you persist in making the same mistake over and over again, and also in whining about how no one will engage you.

Thats why its impossible for any definition segregating or scoring reproductive systems to have a conclusion of primitive/inferiority etc. they are all as complex as each other. Just different for different needs.

And yet again, you make the same mistake. "Primitive" does not imply "inferiority." (And it also does not imply simplicity.) How many times does this have to be said before you acknowledge it? It's like arguing with a brick. Unless you provide significant substantive responses to some of the above points, I'm done trying to argue with you on a main thread.

(And what exactly were kangaroos, when they were still on the Ark?…)

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

Palaeonictis said:

John Harshman said:

DS said: A ‘basal clade’ is a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that meant, as the definition there does not describe a clade at all. Nor do I know how you would use that term in a sentence.

Here's how you would use it in a sentence: Cimolestans are basal eutherians. Or, miacoids are basal to Carnivora.

Cimolestans and miacoids are not "a part of the tree ending at a node before two or more terminal taxa". That's what I want to know about.

Actually, miacoids are. They're basal carnivorans, well, stem-carnivorans. Just as docodonts are basal to mammals, or stem-mammals, or Purgatorius is basal to both primates and plesiadapiformes.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that they're paraphyletic? But even if so, they're composed of terminal taxa, not internal branches. And of course they aren't clades, if so, and that was the definition of a "basal clade". I'm afraid that "basal clade" is self-contradictory.

I mean that, by the definition that DS provided, docodonts are basal to mammals, and Purgatorius is basal to primatomorphs.

Which definition? Not, apparently, the one I was talking about ("basal clade").

Purgatorius is possibly basal to the primatomorpha, because of similarities in the molars. So, if Purgatorius was ancestral to both primates and plesiadapiformes, then it would be a basal clade.

In the case of Purgatorius, it would be paraphyletic, because if it is the common ancestor of both plesiadapiformes and primates, it wouldn't include them. Docodonts, their phylogeny is also unstable, given that most of their remains are jaws and teeth, and the only near-complete docodont fossil I`m aware of is Castorocauda.

John Harshman said: How could there be evidence that Purgatorius is ancestral to anything?

Similarities in dental morphology.

How can a "basal clade" be a clade at all? If it's ancestral to some extant taxa, it isn't a clade. I suppose it would be possible for Purgatorius to be an internal branch, not a terminal node; after all, there are ancestors. But how would we tell? Similarities in dental morphology to what? How do you distinguish ancestors from cousins?

mattdance18 said:

Robert Byers said: its off thread and I get blamed.

Oh, cry me a river. Despite your trolling, a couple of us have, against our better judgement, played along this time and are trying to engage you, yet you persist in making the same mistake over and over again, and also in whining about how no one will engage you.

The same equation. Classification has been wrong. These divisions are myths. Marsupials and all the rest are just varieties of KInds from off the ark.

These distinctions are hardly myths, Robert. Marsupials are genetically closer to one another than to any non-marsupials. There are also numerous biological features that have nothing to do with their reproductive systems that they share in common with one another, and with no other non-marsupials (e.g. skull structures).

Henry J said:

How can a “basal clade” be a clade at all? If it’s ancestral to some extant taxa, it isn’t a clade.

I thought the term meant a clade that retains a lot of similarity to the ancestral species, or at least a lot more so than the average descendant of that species. Did I misunderstand that?

Palaeonictis said: By "ancestor" means something very close to the original common ancestor. Purgatorius had similarities to primates in their molar morphology after all, as well as plesiadapiformes. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_1.html According to UCMP a "basal group" would be the earliest diverging group within a clade, such as the miacids.

John Harshman said:

Henry J said:

How can a “basal clade” be a clade at all? If it’s ancestral to some extant taxa, it isn’t a clade.

I thought the term meant a clade that retains a lot of similarity to the ancestral species, or at least a lot more so than the average descendant of that species. Did I misunderstand that?

In a word, yes.

Palaeonictis said: By "ancestor" means something very close to the original common ancestor. Purgatorius had similarities to primates in their molar morphology after all, as well as plesiadapiformes. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_1.html According to UCMP a "basal group" would be the earliest diverging group within a clade, such as the miacids.

"Ancestor" means ancestor. Something very floe to the ancestor is close, but not an ancestor. Purgatorius might have a transitional molar morphology, but that hardly means it's an ancestor. Archaeopteryx has a lot of transitional characters too. And that definition on the Berkeley site is the very definition that the original post is railing against. And rightly so. Neither one of two sister groups can be the "basal" one or the "first to diverge". Sister groups are of exactly the same age.

Even the way we name ourselves and the groups we belong to shows our human-centered biases. Like naming ourselves "Homo sapiens" (wise man, do we really deserve to be considered wise?), Primates (prime means first, so the order we are in is the first, right?), or even the calling of the sub-phylum we are in the Vertebrates and referring to all others as "Invertebrates" as if having a backbone makes us more special than insects or mollusks.

Dale said: Even the way we name ourselves and the groups we belong to shows our human-centered biases. Like naming ourselves "Homo sapiens" (wise man, do we really deserve to be considered wise?), Primates (prime means first, so the order we are in is the first, right?), or even the calling of the sub-phylum we are in the Vertebrates and referring to all others as "Invertebrates" as if having a backbone makes us more special than insects or mollusks.

The author seems to address one fallacy by proposing another, namely that "all modern species are evolutionarily equivalent because they have been evolving for the same amount of time." If she had said all modern species are equivalent *in only the sense that* they have evolved the same amount of time, that would have been defensible. The cited reference is only about the fallacy of calling one sister clade "more basal" than another, and does not justify the grand claim that there is only one factor, time, that affects evolution.

Species are NOT evolutionarily equivalent. Lineages experience different conditions. They may have different population sizes. Clades may show different rates of speciation and extinction. Prokaryotic species have evolved under high population sizes for billions of years. We have not. Species show different degrees of cohesion depending on how sexual they are. In molecular analyses, some lineages consistently have higher rates of change. They have literally evolved more.

Furthermore, these asymmetries are not independent of post-hoc tree shape recovered in molecular analyses. If divergence in characters is linked to speciation in any way, then there will be asymmetries in phylogenies. Dealing with characters that affect speciation is an actual area of research (e.g., Maddison, Midford and Otto 2007). This isn't my area so I'm not sure how broad is the literature.

I certainly would not dismiss the possibility that non-equivalent modes of evolution are linked to the asymmetry that one often sees in phylogenetic trees, in which the tree is much more ladder-like than one expects from a model assuming equivalence.