Re: Poster showing evolution and tree of life

On Nov 13, 8:50 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:49 am, nealOlan...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Nov 11, 10:06 am, nealOlan...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I wanted to purchase a poster showing a high-level tree-of-life, a
cladogram illustrating evolution and cladistics. But I searched and
searched and couldnt find a decent one (the few I did find where too
verbose, or focused on a single Class or Family). So I ended up
drawing my own. Anyone is free to download it (JPEG or PDF) and print
it, it is at:

http://www.tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm

100% of the data came from reputable sources (Science journal, NIH,
etc), but if you find any errors please let me know so I can rectify
them.

Of course, non-evolution people will think the whole poster is an
error ... so I dont need to hear about that :-)

Thanks for all the feedback. I appreciate it! My brief responses:

1) Biased to humans / too anthropomorphic - Guilty. I did that
deliberately since the poster is aimed at children. I've seen some
evolution cladograms that are "non biased" and they are pretty dull to
laymen because they are 95% bacteria and insects. I'll leave it to
the PhDs to builld unbiased tree of life's.

My preference is "non-biased" *especially* because children are so
visual in their learning. I don't think that real learning should be
in the business of supporting and reinforcing our 'natural biases'.
It should be in the business of combating such prejudices. Showing
the full scope of the biological universe we live in without human
bias has important ecological (and not just for those kids who will
become professional biologists), and not just evolutionary,
implications: we are merely one tiny part of nature. Getting students
to go beyond the 'warm, large, and furry (or feathered)' is an
important pedagogical goal of presenting a cladistic picture IMHO.

2) Includes paraphyletic groups - I'll double check that. All the
groups were based on 2003 or more recent data .. if I find an obsolete
group I'll remove it. It looks like you are correct about Porifera.
Thanks for finding that!

3) Viruses should branch - Yes, that was a mistake. I wanted to show
viruses because they are so important ... but I mistakenly had them
branching off from the cellular organisms. That mistake has been
fixed.

I have no idea where one would place branches for viruses. They
simply don't fit, or, rather, they do not present us with enough
evidence for how they arose for us to fit them into *any* branching
scheme with cellular organisms. Some may be rogue cellular elements.
Others may be extremely parsimonious parasites (and parasites,
generally, often are harder to place into the tree precisely because
of their parsimony). It is highly unlikely that viruses are
monophyletic in origin.



4) Time-indicator words can be confusing ("archaean" vs "archaea").
Yes. Ill try to find a way to clarify that.

5) Omits many important extinct organisms. Yes. I'd like to include
more, but Im out of room. Im limiting the poster to 24" x 48", and
using 16 point font (so it can be read from a moderate distance).
Maybe someday I'll do a more detailed poster with smaller font.

Thanks again for all the feedback!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I understand your suggestion for a "non-biased" tree of life. That is
a tough choice. Strangely, when I talk to my kid about cosmology /
astronomy I _do_ emphasize our miniscule place in the universe, and
conversely at the tiny end of the scale: I emphasize atoms and sub-
atomic particles. But for some reason on this tree I thought it was
appropriate to bias it to the larger organisms: Maybe I was so intent
on using pictures, and the pictures were more varied / interesting /
recognizable / engaging at the "large" end of the tree?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poster showing evolution and tree of life
    ... cladogram illustrating evolution and cladistics. ... Is there even such a thing as an "order" in bacteria? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... I ask you how to root the tree, you answer by using directed links. ... prevailing theory of evolution is true, is no good at all for the task ... of how to provide a concise summary of evidence for evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... > I ask you how to root the tree, you answer by using directed links. ... I merely claim that the way scientists refine ... > prevailing theory of evolution is true, is no good at all for the task ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin Was Wrong (Apparently)
    ... Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life ... Read our related editorial: Uprooting Darwin's tree ... time he published On The Origin of Species 22 years later, ... Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Darwin Was Wrong (Apparently)
    ... Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life ... Read our related editorial: Uprooting Darwin's tree ... time he published On The Origin of Species 22 years later, ... Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. ...
    (talk.origins)