- #1
Fossil Close to Branching of Dinos, Birds, and Crocs
- Thread starter BillTre
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around a newly described fossil that may be close to the evolutionary branching point of dinosaurs, birds, and crocodile-like creatures. Participants explore the implications of this discovery in the context of cladistics, species definitions, and the challenges of estimating the number of species that have existed throughout history.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants highlight the significance of the fossil based on leg and ankle structures, suggesting it could inform our understanding of evolutionary relationships.
- Concerns are raised about the vast number of species that have existed, with estimates suggesting over 1 billion extinct species, complicating the understanding of evolutionary history.
- Cladistics is discussed as a valuable tool for determining species relationships, though some express skepticism about its effectiveness given the changing definitions of species.
- There is mention of a project aimed at sequencing all life, though some participants question the feasibility of such an endeavor.
- The discussion touches on the complexities of defining viruses and prions, with differing opinions on their classification as living or non-living entities.
- Participants share experiences related to genome sequencing, noting advancements that have made it more accessible, yet still express uncertainty about the implications for phylogenetic studies.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views on the effectiveness of cladistics and the challenges of defining species, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain. There is no consensus on the feasibility of sequencing all life or the classification of viruses and prions.
Contextual Notes
Participants acknowledge limitations in current species definitions and the quality of historical data, which complicate discussions about evolutionary relationships and species classification.
- #2
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 5,621
- 1,774
The number of "discoveries" gathering dust in some drawer full of "miscellaneous fragments..."
- #3
jim mcnamara
Mentor
- 4,789
- 3,852
@Bystander - Hmm. Do you have an idea about the admittedly fuzzy estimates on the number of species that have existed? The only way to make any sense of this enormous mountain of data is through cladistics. News reports turn those research papers into 'common ancestor of animal group X'. Otherwise, who in the non-Biologist population would ever read it and then rightfully stuff it into their version of a black hole storage system? 
Got perspective (instead of milk...)?
For Animalia only, 8.7 million extant species as of 2011:
http://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/how-many-species-on-earth
Greater than 99% of all animal species that ever existed are extinct. So we are wading through a mountain of more than 1 billion species. Not trivial.
If you have a better way to deal with this potential mountain of taxonomic data, you can make a real, needed step in Biology. I sure do not. -Note: plants are worse, number-wise.
Got perspective (instead of milk...)?
For Animalia only, 8.7 million extant species as of 2011:
http://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/how-many-species-on-earth
Greater than 99% of all animal species that ever existed are extinct. So we are wading through a mountain of more than 1 billion species. Not trivial.
If you have a better way to deal with this potential mountain of taxonomic data, you can make a real, needed step in Biology. I sure do not. -Note: plants are worse, number-wise.
- #4
- 2,769
- 12,184
@jim mcnamara, Couldn't agree more!
Cladistics is a great advance for determining the relationships between different species.
Numbers of species seem to be always changing though.
Going into the past with its lower quality data just makes it more confusing.
There is not a single well agreed upon species definition (many like the biological species definition but it has problems).
Determining how to tell when a single species evolves into a new species over time in a single non-bifurcating lineage is a real problem.
In recently read about a group that wants to sequence the genomes of all eukaryotes. That's a big undefined job, but would certainly be interesting. Kind of a Darwinian dream project.
Cladistics is a great advance for determining the relationships between different species.
Numbers of species seem to be always changing though.
Going into the past with its lower quality data just makes it more confusing.
There is not a single well agreed upon species definition (many like the biological species definition but it has problems).
Determining how to tell when a single species evolves into a new species over time in a single non-bifurcating lineage is a real problem.
In recently read about a group that wants to sequence the genomes of all eukaryotes. That's a big undefined job, but would certainly be interesting. Kind of a Darwinian dream project.
- #5
jim mcnamara
Mentor
- 4,789
- 3,852
@BillTre
Where did you see that? I don't think we even know all of the eukaryotes. But of course sequencing the human genome in the early 2000's was considered hard to do. I help people write programs to mess with pasta-format files (FASTA/PASTA not food pasta) that have sigificant DNA data in a few dozen files. So maybe we will be into sequencing the species du jour at some point soon.
https://wiki.gacrc.uga.edu/wiki/PASTA
Where did you see that? I don't think we even know all of the eukaryotes. But of course sequencing the human genome in the early 2000's was considered hard to do. I help people write programs to mess with pasta-format files (FASTA/PASTA not food pasta) that have sigificant DNA data in a few dozen files. So maybe we will be into sequencing the species du jour at some point soon.
https://wiki.gacrc.uga.edu/wiki/PASTA
- #6
- 2,769
- 12,184
It took me a while to find it again but it is here, and I was wrong they don't want to sequence all eukaryotes, they want to sequence all life.
Of course those bacterial/archaeal genomes are relatively small, but more are being discovered all the time!
This does not seem very realistic to me, but time may change my opinion.
On the other hand, I was supplying different species of fish to a lab that would get them sequenced for pretty cheap and they could do comparisons between the complete sequences of several different fish species. A different lab gave them a particular species's genome sequence (something like 30x coverage) on a thumbdrive because they got the sequence a few years before but didn't have time to deal with it properly. Genome sequencing seems to be kind of cheap now.
This is where (I feel) building phylogenies is now going.
They could also show hybridization between different species which resulted in genes from one species ending up in another (Fig. 5 in above link).
Of course those bacterial/archaeal genomes are relatively small, but more are being discovered all the time!
This does not seem very realistic to me, but time may change my opinion.
On the other hand, I was supplying different species of fish to a lab that would get them sequenced for pretty cheap and they could do comparisons between the complete sequences of several different fish species. A different lab gave them a particular species's genome sequence (something like 30x coverage) on a thumbdrive because they got the sequence a few years before but didn't have time to deal with it properly. Genome sequencing seems to be kind of cheap now.
This is where (I feel) building phylogenies is now going.
They could also show hybridization between different species which resulted in genes from one species ending up in another (Fig. 5 in above link).
- #7
rootone
- 3,398
- 945
The situation with viruses remains confusing.
Are they degenerate forms of higher life, or are they just more DNA/RNA doing what it does?
Are they degenerate forms of higher life, or are they just more DNA/RNA doing what it does?
- #8
jim mcnamara
Mentor
- 4,789
- 3,852
@rootone
Virus and prions - There is no good answer for when they 'happened'.
They form part of the problem of setting boundary definitions in the case of living and not-so-living things. Most biologists take them as non-living. Computer viruses are a good analogy - a virus that attacks some core element in windows XP does nothing with other versions - high host specificity. And.
Requires a functioning system to do its dirty work. Viruses that attack mammals have the same kinds of behaviors and specificity, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion Also google for: spongiform encephalopathy (like mad cow disease or human CJD)
Virus and prions - There is no good answer for when they 'happened'.
They form part of the problem of setting boundary definitions in the case of living and not-so-living things. Most biologists take them as non-living. Computer viruses are a good analogy - a virus that attacks some core element in windows XP does nothing with other versions - high host specificity. And.
Requires a functioning system to do its dirty work. Viruses that attack mammals have the same kinds of behaviors and specificity, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion Also google for: spongiform encephalopathy (like mad cow disease or human CJD)
- #9
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 5,621
- 1,774
Back of the envelope calculation: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ixth-mass-extinction.12709/page-3#post-150112jim mcnamara said:
Similar threads
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 12 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 8 ·