We also have a large amount of genetic evidence for the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial ancestors. Things like the fact cetaceans still retain the unexpressed Tbx4 genes for hind limb development.
1 Like
Please don’t play the ignorance card. I think you know what I mean. Here is your broad base making all appear to be related.
Take a guess as to how those relationships were determined.
What is the source of your picture? I’d like to see the source has citations to the supporting data
I assure you that I don’t. Your picture tells me nothing. What do you mean by “broad base”? I have no idea. What’s wrong with that tree? I have no idea. Are you referring to the displayed length of that basal branch? If so, you should know it’s arbitrary and has no meaning; it’s just a graphic convention. You need to look as the supporting data if you want real information.
Alright, it’s up to you. You can keep up the ignorance facade and I can’t stop you. Your broad base of relatedness is vertebrae here as well. Just because you have found backbones in all these creatures does not signify relatedness or common ancestry. That is my point.
Having backbones is only one small piece of the evidence for the common ancestry of those species.
You must be trying so hard to not get it.
Indeed, and the occasional individual demonstrates exaggerated expression of the genetic heritage in this regard, exhibiting more pronounced hind limb development.
1 Like
Surely you do not think that mainstream biologists just see backbones and say, ah, common ancestry? Of course, they are considering a totality of evidence, which must be taken together. They are not only looking at a broad base; this is a preponderance of detail which goes into these assessments.
2 Likes
What do you mean by “broad base of relatedness”?
Where do sharks fit on your pyramid? Where do fish without four limbs fit on your pyramid?
2 Likes
This is your grouping, not mine. You tell us where they go (according to your paradigm). I may or may not group the above way at all ! I would group according to created kinds. Which will look nothing like yours, or very little like yours.
Not my science.
You’re arguing over methods of graphic display. Tree or pyramid, it’s a nested hierarchy. You ignore the fact that all manner of data could be added to the same hierarchy, data that wouldn’t have to be specially chosen just to fit.
Beyond that, what’s your point about the pyramid?
Two problems with that:
-
Created kinds would produce only a single level of hierarchy, a phylogenetic lawn rather than a tree.
-
You have no method of determining kinds.
1 Like
The pyramid is your grouping, not ours. In our groupings they are on their branches of the phylogeny, but I don’t see them on your pyramid. Why did you leave them out?
We would agree that there is no reason to expect created kinds to fit onto an objective phylogeny. We would also be curious as to which criteria you use to determine if a species belongs in a specific kind.
1 Like
I’m curious as to how you would group the created kind(s) within the Canidae family? How would you validate your grouping?
Maybe it would help if you described your understanding of the technique used by biologists to determine phylogenetic trees. Then the folks here can explain what you are getting wrong.
Also, could you please point me to where I can find a complete taxonomy of “created kinds”? In all my years, I have yet to see it.
1 Like
Thanks John, I will update Wikipedia.
It’s yours. See the broad base at the bottom. That is 7 organisms with backbones. Yours not mine.
How about a simple starter? If cross species can’t breed, then they are not related and are not members of a kind.
No offspring, no kind. That is a simple starter.