Fractal-inspired Tree of Life

By Richard B. Hoppe on November 14, 2012 2:23 PM | 55 Comments

For mammals. Click on nodes repeatedly to burrow deeper into it and to access Wikipedia links.

Via The Finch & Pea

Categories:

  • Evolution,
  • Resources for Biologists

Tags:

  • Tree of Life,
  • fractal,
  • mammals

55 Comments

  • 1
  • 2
spacer Robert Byers | November 14, 2012 11:09 PM | Reply | Edit

Fractals or not the tree shown in the links is still based on classification systems based on judgements of connecting creatures based on traits! Placental’s and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minior traits of reproductive systems. A tree of life needs to be a real tree and not just some concept of connecting very unlike biological entities.

spacer stevaroni replied to a comment from Robert Byers | November 14, 2012 11:53 PM | Reply | Edit

Robert Byers said: Placental’s and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minor traits of reproductive systems.

Riiight. That would be useful.

After all, it would be far more practical to group animals by general size and shape, and maybe, color, than by something as trivial as entirely different reproductive strategies.

ksplawn | November 15, 2012 12:16 AM | Reply | Edit

Marsupials and placental mammals are placed close together based on physical traits; at least, closer to each other than either are to egg-laying monotremes. But if you’re suggesting that the anatomical traits of marsupials doesn’t justify distinguishing them from placental mammals at all, you’re wrong. You’re also forgetting the genetic evidence which groups marsupials together and placental mammals together (and both in a clade distinct from monotremes, again).

So if you think we can just mix up all the mammals willy-nilly without any kind of nested hierarchy based on common descent and subsequent evolutionary branching, you’re comically wrong.

spacer Karen S. | November 15, 2012 6:51 AM | Reply | Edit

Placental’s and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minor traits of reproductive systems.

Why not classify them by size? Say, teeny, petite, small, medium, large, gigantic. Or by the letter they start with…A is for Aardvark…

spacer DS | November 15, 2012 8:22 AM | Reply | Edit

So according to Robert, bats should be classified with birds and whales should be classified with fish. After all, nothing as trivial as mode of reproduction should be used to judge relationships.

See the thing is that if your classification is based on phylogenetic relationships, it makes sense. It tells you something important about the organisms. It explains the genetic similarities as well as the anatomical similarities. If you refuse to accept that organisms are related, then your classification becomes arbitrary and it tells you nothing about the organisms, only about your own biases.

Keep it up Robert, your are a shining example of the how reality denial affects judgement in all areas. (Yea i made that error on porpoise).

spacer ogremk5 | November 15, 2012 8:31 AM | Reply | Edit

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

spacer DS replied to a comment from ogremk5 | November 15, 2012 8:34 AM | Reply | Edit

ogremk5 said:

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

You are obviously a gentleman of intelligence and discernment, as are all who agree with me. :)

spacer A Masked Panda (7cad) | November 15, 2012 9:28 AM | Reply | Edit

It’s time for Byers to show that his ideas work.

His medications should all be tested on marsupial “mice,” not those supposedly more closely related placental mice.

What difference could it make? It’s probably fair to say that Byers doesn’t know, and never will.

Glen Daivdson

spacer Kevin B replied to a comment from ogremk5 | November 15, 2012 9:53 AM | Reply | Edit

ogremk5 said:

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

They should be grouped with other carnivores that laugh, like Kookaburras. :)

Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

spacer ogremk5 replied to a comment from Kevin B | November 15, 2012 1:41 PM | Reply | Edit

Kevin B said:

ogremk5 said:

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

They should be grouped with other carnivores that laugh, like Kookaburras. :)

Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

So we now having “laughing kind”. I guess and “non-laughing kind”?

Should we have the “intelligent eyes” kind? I see that in specs for show dogs a lot “intelligent eyes”. Hey Byers, you’re the expert, should we group “intelligent eyed” dogs with primates, dolphins, and potatoes?

spacer fnxtr | November 15, 2012 1:55 PM | Reply | Edit

… and squid. Don’t forget squid.

spacer Richard B. Hoppe | November 15, 2012 3:29 PM | Reply | Edit

Man, this whole thread should go to the BW, but I’ll be kind and request that (a) Byers not post in it again, on pain of permanent banishment, and (b) others not feed his fantasies.

Thanks!

spacer Paul Burnett | November 15, 2012 3:59 PM | Reply | Edit

All I get is a black screen of death - no tree. :(

Windows XP strikes again.

spacer Paul Burnett replied to a comment from Paul Burnett | November 15, 2012 4:02 PM | Reply | Edit

Paul Burnett said:

All I get is a black screen of death - no tree. :(

Windows XP strikes again.

It’s because my new Internet Explorer 8 doesn’t have Java - the tree jumps right with Google Chrome.

spacer stevaroni replied to a comment from Kevin B | November 16, 2012 12:16 AM | Reply | Edit

Kevin B said:

Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

Trolls are apparently an ancient group.

All evidence indicates they don’t have the ability to evolve at all.

spacer Joe Felsenstein | November 16, 2012 12:55 AM | Reply | Edit

How about I do the unexpected and actually make a comment about fractal trees?

Fractals are fun but phylogenies are not really fractal. For example, one simple model of speciation and extinction is a Birth-Death process. This has particles (species) that have a constant probability Bdt, of spltting in the next (very) small interval dt of time. And it has a constant probability Ddt of going extinct in the next very small interval dt of time. Work on models for inferring phylogenies makes more and more use of these Birth-Death models.

But they aren’t really fractal. For example, they do not keep on splitting infinitely, and the ratios of lengths of branches do not follow the rules you would see in a fractal.

So fractal diagrams give mesmerizing graphics, but they don’t really look like even simple models of speciating lineages.

There are some good sources on the web of estimates of trees from real data. Two are www.timetree.org and treebase.org. Take a look, and see whether those trees are fractal.

spacer fittest meme | November 16, 2012 2:42 PM | Reply | Edit

These are all just pretty pictures designed to make you’re materialistic beliefs seem more real. It doesn’t matter how much government money is used to create great graphics the diagrams are still based upon atheistically motivated assumptions that can’t be tested empirically.

Impressive pieces of graphic art however … kind of reminds me of the “Illuminated - On the Origin of Species” work that was discussed here several months ago.

spacer fittest meme | November 16, 2012 2:44 PM | Reply | Edit

your not you’re

spacer Richard B. Hoppe | November 16, 2012 2:48 PM | Reply | Edit

Fittest meme, unless you can provide specifics to support your “atheistically motivated assumptions that can’t be tested empirically” claim, so that readers can evaluate your claim against reality, anything else you post here will go to the BW.

spacer fittest meme | November 16, 2012 3:07 PM | Reply | Edit

Every graphically illustrated link between two species that is indicated to be older than man is by definition not empirically observable. These graphic representations are provided to support a theory that claims all life descended through a natural, unguided process from one common ancestor. This is in direct contradiction to God’s stated act of creation and thus atheistic.

I don’t know why you can’t just own up to the fact that you believe what you do because you want to.

spacer Richard B. Hoppe | November 16, 2012 3:22 PM | Reply | Edit

“Not directly observable” and “not empirically observable” are not synonyms. Equating them is mistaken.

Here’s why I don’t “own up to the fact that you believe what you do because you want to”: That claim is false.

gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.