about new families
TomS
it seems that the only example of one that has appeared right before
our eyes is HeLa.
Is that so? Hasn't there been any hybridization between different
families? Crosses or whatever between bacteria of different types? I
realize that "family" probably doesn't mean much at all when we're
talking about bacteria.
Of course, it is generally accepted now that eukaryotes (a whole
lot more than a family ... more than a kingdom, actually) arose from
symbiosis, so that would count (except that we didn't manage to get
video of it happening).
And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
"speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
called?
Tom S.
C. Thompson
I would call that "speciation."
Think on this for a moment. Did all the members of, say, the Mustelidae
appear all at once? No, of course not. We like to make the groupings
monophyletic, that is, they came from a common ancestor. So a new family
would evolve at first with the appearance of a single species that was
sufficiently different from its predecessors to warrant being placed into
its own family. This would, of course, be almost impossible to recognize as
it happened.
>
> Tom S.
Chris
Ron Okimoto
TomS wrote:
If HeLa took off and started reproducing in the sewers it wouldn't just
be a new family. We are probably talking about a new phylum. It isn't a
mammal, or even a cordate. It would be most closely similar in lifestyle
to a protist.
It is pretty sad that all we have to discuss are topics brought up by
guys like nameless. We can observe speciation within a human lifespan,
but new species would have to diversify enough to become different genera
and then the different genera would have to diversify enough to become a
different family. Humans and chimps are included within the family
Hominidae (if this hasn't changed). It has taken 4-8 million years to
make chimps and humans as different as they are, and still we have just
made it to subfamily designations. I haven't seen a single creationist
come up with something that could not have evolved by "micro" means
between chimps and humans. Nameless' challenge is just bogus if he wants
to watch family formation he better find a way to freeze himself so that
he can be thawed out every 100,000 years or so to check on things.
He would do better to try and determine if using family excludes the type
of evolution that he wants to claim is impossible. Since he can't do
this I don't know what good his family challenge is. It looks like he is
saying that chimps and humans could have shared a common ancestor, but
monkeys and humans couldn't.
Nameless, newbie, zoe and a few trolls. I wonder if this is a good sign
in terms of creationists giving up. The ones still trying are pretty
much a waste of time. Ohio seems to have taken the stuffing out of most
of the ones that could reason, when it became apparent that their new
spearhead turned out to be a limp noodle.
Ron Okimoto
John Wilkins
...
> And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
> "speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
> called?
>
Generalisation...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by TomS
<TomS_...@newsguy.com>:
<snip>
> And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
>"speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
>called?
"Speciation". Only in retrospect does the new
genus/family/order appear.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
mel turner
>
> In response to the appearance of a new family by natural means,
>it seems that the only example of one that has appeared right before
>our eyes is HeLa.
Cladistically, even that wouldn't be recognized; HeLa if
considered a separate species would be kept in Hominidae.
"Homo petriedishensis"?
> Is that so? Hasn't there been any hybridization between different
>families?
Certainly not where the "families" are truly very widely-separate
groups. Apparently "wide" hybrids may sometimes reflect human
taxonomic "grade inflation" [the parents really are pretty close],
but then there are cases like the many intergeneric hybrid orchids.
>Crosses or whatever between bacteria of different types? I
>realize that "family" probably doesn't mean much at all when we're
>talking about bacteria.
The problem here may be more with what "crosses or whatever" mean
when we're talking about bacteria. Genetic material can get
exchanged in odd ways, between things that aren't at all close,
but it's not sex as we eukaryotes know it.
> Of course, it is generally accepted now that eukaryotes (a whole
>lot more than a family ... more than a kingdom, actually) arose from
>symbiosis, so that would count (except that we didn't manage to get
>video of it happening).
Damn lens cap...
> And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
>"speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
>called?
Speciation, plus microevolutionary changes within unbranched lineages,
plus more speciations, etc., plus occasional extinctions producing the
final appearance of clearly separated higher groups of species.
The point is, there's no "familiation" or "genus-ation" or
"phylumification", just the cumulative results of lots and lots
of changes at the species-level and below. Oh, and lots of those
important extinctions.
[What would an old oak tree look like if no twigs ever died? A
giant ball of wood, perhaps...]
cheers
John Wilkins
> In article <b6a0i...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS_...@newsguy.com wrote...
> >
> > In response to the appearance of a new family by natural means,
> >it seems that the only example of one that has appeared right before
> >our eyes is HeLa.
>
> Cladistically, even that wouldn't be recognized; HeLa if
> considered a separate species would be kept in Hominidae.
Once a hominin, always a hominin...
>
> "Homo petriedishensis"?
But then, it is asexual, so it doesn't actually form a species according
to the vertebrate taxonomist hegemony :-)
>
> > Is that so? Hasn't there been any hybridization between different
> >families?
>
> Certainly not where the "families" are truly very widely-separate
> groups. Apparently "wide" hybrids may sometimes reflect human
> taxonomic "grade inflation" [the parents really are pretty close],
> but then there are cases like the many intergeneric hybrid orchids.
I believe cross-generic hybridisation occurs in eucalypts but not
cross-family. Can't find anything bigger...
>
> >Crosses or whatever between bacteria of different types? I
> >realize that "family" probably doesn't mean much at all when we're
> >talking about bacteria.
>
> The problem here may be more with what "crosses or whatever" mean
> when we're talking about bacteria. Genetic material can get
> exchanged in odd ways, between things that aren't at all close,
> but it's not sex as we eukaryotes know it.
Endosymbiosis? Does that count? ERV insertion? Plasmid capture?
>
> > Of course, it is generally accepted now that eukaryotes (a whole
> >lot more than a family ... more than a kingdom, actually) arose from
> >symbiosis, so that would count (except that we didn't manage to get
> >video of it happening).
>
> Damn lens cap...
And it took 10 million years before the operator even noticed... get got
fired, of course.
>
> > And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
> >"speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
> >called?
>
> Speciation, plus microevolutionary changes within unbranched lineages,
> plus more speciations, etc., plus occasional extinctions producing the
> final appearance of clearly separated higher groups of species.
>
> The point is, there's no "familiation" or "genus-ation" or
> "phylumification", just the cumulative results of lots and lots
> of changes at the species-level and below. Oh, and lots of those
> important extinctions.
>
> [What would an old oak tree look like if no twigs ever died? A
> giant ball of wood, perhaps...]
So Haeckel was right in his iconography?
>
> cheers
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Steven J.
> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
> > "speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
> > called?
> >
> Generalisation...
>
-- Steven J.
R. Baldwin
news:127ccf2e.0303...@posting.google.com...
A familiar natural order, or an ordained naturalist with a familiar?
J McCoy
Why do evolutionists have to point out supposed claims that are
obscure in nature? Who exactly discovered HeLa? What was the
education of the individual? What textbooks did he/she learn from in
Elementary-high school? Have the analysis been subject to creation
scientists for peer-review and challenge?
J McCoy
TomS
<b6arbd$cj1$2...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu stated..."
>
>In article <b6a0i...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS_...@newsguy.com wrote...
>>
>> In response to the appearance of a new family by natural means,
>>it seems that the only example of one that has appeared right before
>>our eyes is HeLa.
>
>Cladistically, even that wouldn't be recognized; HeLa if
>considered a separate species would be kept in Hominidae.
>
>"Homo petriedishensis"?
>
>> Is that so? Hasn't there been any hybridization between different
>>families?
>
>Certainly not where the "families" are truly very widely-separate
>groups. Apparently "wide" hybrids may sometimes reflect human
>taxonomic "grade inflation" [the parents really are pretty close],
My candidate for the best term for "appearance of a new kind":
"grade inflation".
What I was thinking of was getting an example of someone naming
a new family (or whatever), and the obvious response being: "But
you're just giving a new name to something that isn't all that
different."
To which we say, "Yes, now you understand that any group larger
than *species* is simply a name. There is *objectively* nothing
corresponding to a *genus*, *supergenus*, *subtribe*, *family*, or
*infraorder* (not to mention *kind*). These are simply names of
convenience to the taxonomists."
I believe that this is the case with the new genus, Triticale,
formed from the cross between rye and wheat. I was just wondering
whether there was another example where someone decided to give
something a new family name. I don't pretend that this has any
significance at all for biology. Indeed, that is the whole point
of my question.
Tom S.
B. Hawes
> scientists for peer-review and challenge?
>
I heard they were waiting for a peer creation scientist to emerge :)
Roy
TomS wrote:
> And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
> "speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
> called?
There probably isn't a word for it (maybe because it can't be immeiately
recognized?).
But I think 'genuflection', 'familiarity' and 'regime change' are along
the right lines.
Roy
Andy Groves
The thought of being peer-reviewed by "creation scientists" is laughable.
Andy
Floyd
followed by classification and phylosiphying?
-Floyd
Mark Isaak
>In article <b6a0i...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS_...@newsguy.com wrote...
>>
>> In response to the appearance of a new family by natural means,
>>it seems that the only example of one that has appeared right before
>>our eyes is HeLa.
>
>Cladistically, even that wouldn't be recognized; HeLa if
>considered a separate species would be kept in Hominidae.
In the paper proposing it be formally recognized as a species, Van
Valen and Maiorana proposed a new family (Helacytidae) for it.
"Regarding HeLa cells as a spearate sepcies opens several cans of
worms. Most obviously, perhaps, how should this species be
classified? Its way of life has no resemblance to that of, say,
mammals, but is instead convergent on that of amoebas. It obviously
can't be classified with amoebas, however, because of its entirely
different origin. We leave this question open and don't specify taxa
above the family level."
[VV & M, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory
10: 71-74]
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Why do evolutionists have to point out supposed claims that are
>obscure in nature?
HeLa is far from obscure.
>Who exactly discovered HeLa?
Henrietta Lacks. (Though it may be more accurate to say it discovered
her.) I don't remember the names of the doctors who first studied it.
> What was the education of the individual?
As I said, I don't know who was first, but it has been extensively
studied by medical doctors and biochemists.
>What textbooks did he/she learn from in
>Elementary-high school?
Irrelevant. It's what they learn from HeLa itself that matters.
>Have the analysis been subject to creation
>scientists for peer-review and challenge?
They could if they wanted to. They apparently aren't interested.
boikat
"B. Hawes" <bha...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d478259.03040...@posting.google.com...
Well, all they do is see if whatever is being "peer reviewed" is mentioned
in the Bible anywhere, and if it's not, it can't be right. :P
Boikat
>
John Wilkins
> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>...
Okay, I'm convinced. We need an entire new category of Cluelessness
Award for McKoy...
John Wilkins
> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote...
> > wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote...
> > > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is
> > > > called "speciation". What is "the appearance of a new
> > > > genus/family/order" called?
> > > >
> > > Generalisation...
> > >
> > Familiarization, and ordination, naturally.
> >
> > -- Steven J.
>
> followed by classification and phylosiphying?
> -Floyd
That, generically, is cladding...
John Wilkins
Incidentally, on Hennig's own criteria, when HeLa split off from Homo
sapiens, the latter name was extinguished, We are no longer the same
species we were before 1964...
Ooh! Ooh! I get to name us:
Homo nova
- expect something stellar from us in the future.
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
> wrote:
>
> >Why do evolutionists have to point out supposed claims that are
> >obscure in nature?
>
> HeLa is far from obscure.
>
> >Who exactly discovered HeLa?
>
> Henrietta Lacks. (Though it may be more accurate to say it discovered
> her.) I don't remember the names of the doctors who first studied it.
http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/LabWork/lacks/lacks1.htm
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n08/enri01_.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/07.19/04-filmmaker.html
>
> > What was the education of the individual?
>
> As I said, I don't know who was first, but it has been extensively
> studied by medical doctors and biochemists.
>
> >What textbooks did he/she learn from in
> >Elementary-high school?
>
> Irrelevant. It's what they learn from HeLa itself that matters.
>
> >Have the analysis been subject to creation
> >scientists for peer-review and challenge?
>
> They could if they wanted to. They apparently aren't interested.
>
Odd, that. I mean if *you* had spent a dozen years studying a topic, and
working 12 hours days as a grad student and postdoc, wouldn't *you*
subject yourself to review by dilletantes whose knowledge of your field
was grounded on third hand popular misconceptions and the Bible?
mel turner
wrote...
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<b6a0i...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In response to the appearance of a new family by natural means,
>> it seems that the only example of one that has appeared right before
>> our eyes is HeLa.
>>
>> Is that so? Hasn't there been any hybridization between different
>> families? Crosses or whatever between bacteria of different types? I
>> realize that "family" probably doesn't mean much at all when we're
>> talking about bacteria.
>>
>> Of course, it is generally accepted now that eukaryotes (a whole
>> lot more than a family ... more than a kingdom, actually) arose from
>> symbiosis, so that would count (except that we didn't manage to get
>> video of it happening).
>>
>> And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is called
>> "speciation". What is "the appearance of a new genus/family/order"
>> called?
>Why do evolutionists have to point out supposed claims that are
>obscure in nature?
Perhaps you should take a hint: many things are
"obscure in nature" to those who are ill-informed.
>Who exactly discovered HeLa?
We sort of made it, it wasn't exactly "discovered". Do you
know what HeLa is? Look it up, it's an interesting story.
What was the
>education of the individual?
Pretty darn good, no doubt.
What textbooks did he/she learn from in
>Elementary-high school?
Probably not as significant as the ones they used in
college and medical school.
>Have the analysis been subject to creation
>scientists for peer-review and challenge?
Real science is continually challenged [or rather, disputed
or denied] by creation "scientists" [who themselves often
appear a bit challenged], but they generally seem to leave
the first "r" off of "peer review".
cheers
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by gro...@cco.caltech.edu
(Andy Groves):
>mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
>> Why do evolutionists have to point out supposed claims that are
>> obscure in nature? Who exactly discovered HeLa? What was the
>> education of the individual? What textbooks did he/she learn from in
>> Elementary-high school? Have the analysis been subject to creation
>> scientists for peer-review and challenge?
>The thought of being peer-reviewed by "creation scientists" is laughable.
The thought of anyone considering "creation scientists" to
be my peers is, frankly, horrifying.
Bill Hudson
wrote:
Agreed. Especially since a search on "HeLa" turned up an argument at AIG
that the so-called 'immortal' cells proved that humans used to live up to
900 years...
catshark
wrote:
"Smoked Fish Man"?
Oy veh!
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
R. Baldwin
news:1fss7pi.16mk5yjhd8m5xN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
The man doesn't go.
Floyd
Can I write my response in pencil, or do I need to type everything?
I'm not the only one who wants to know; a group of us are worried
about making the grade in this specific class.
-Floyd
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wil...@wehi.edu.au
(John Wilkins):
Shouldn't that be "clading" or "cladeing"? An exoskeleton is
"cladding".
;-)
Bob Casanova
<snip>
>Incidentally, on Hennig's own criteria, when HeLa split off from Homo
>sapiens, the latter name was extinguished, We are no longer the same
>species we were before 1964...
>
>Ooh! Ooh! I get to name us:
>
>Homo nova
Truly an explosive name, destined to light the universe...
>- expect something stellar from us in the future.
....or at least a bit hot under the collar.
I believe I'll go have a Corona...
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 23:49:32 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wil...@wehi.edu.au
> (John Wilkins):
>
> >Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote...
> >> > wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote...
> >> > > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > ...
> >> > > > And, one other thing. "The appearance of a new species" is
> >> > > > called "speciation". What is "the appearance of a new
> >> > > > genus/family/order" called?
> >> > > >
> >> > > Generalisation...
> >> > >
> >> > Familiarization, and ordination, naturally.
> >> >
> >> > -- Steven J.
> >>
> >> followed by classification and phylosiphying?
> >> -Floyd
> >
> >That, generically, is cladding...
>
> Shouldn't that be "clading" or "cladeing"? An exoskeleton is
> "cladding".
>
> ;-)
>
Some cladists I know have exoskeletons - it's necessary in systematics,
I'm told.
Bob Casanova
Well, I won't let it bug me...
Matt Silberstein
(John Wilkins):
I would point out that some of us like to eat a bit of nova in
the morning.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.