National Academies book on evolution

[Sideline]

Why is there no consensus from the scientists on why we have 350,000 species of beetles?

Why would there be? They don’t have all the data, and it’s any incredibly complex question with many variables.

Just because scientists don’t know everything there is to know about black holes, would you consider trashing all the theories that we have now?

Isn’t the answer always just: “they evolved that way”?

When the question is “Why or how did they evolve that way?” The answer will usually involve the word evolution, yes.

What is your opinion on that question and why is your opinion disputed by other scientists who have “not reached a consensus”?

How should I know? You think I’m the head of a research lab? You think because some guy who calls himself “Sideline” and posts on Catholic Internet Forums hasn’t tracked the exact course of Beetle evolution that it is improbable to say that evolution adequately explains it?

Why don’t you read the hundreds of peer-viewed articles and formulate your own opinion? I don’t have time to do hundreds of hours of research because you have a bee in your bonnet about evolution and the scientific community. The difference between you and I is that I don’t think that because I haven’t taken the time to research it, I assume that the people who have are so blinded by their own ideology that they won’t consider the facts.

 

[Sideline]

Sorry if my answers are a bit biting today. I’ve had a really hard night. My computer (my less than 24 hour old computer) is crashing everytime I open Word. Yesterday, my parents moved to another city. I’m waiting to here how I did on a job interview. My girlfriend is having a horrible time at work, and four Christmas cards that I sent out have been returned to sender, and I don’t know why. (I’m hoping that I just had a run of bad addressing, but it’s a little worrisome.)

I’m a little stressed out.

 

[ricmat]

Sorry if my answers are a bit biting today. I’ve had a really hard night. My computer (my less than 24 hour old computer) is crashing everytime I open Word.

I had something similar happen after I installed additional memory. As it turned out, only certain programs caused the malfunction but when I removed the extra memory everything worked fine. Turns out the mother board only supported one memory slot even though two were installed…

 

[wildleafblower]

As the news story states (read any of the many links), there is “no consensus from scientists” on how this could have happened (that we have 350,000 species).

Why is there no consensus from the scientists on why we have 350,000 species of beetles?

Isn’t the answer always just: “they evolved that way”?

What is your opinion on that question and why is your opinion disputed by other scientists who have “not reached a consensus”?

There is A** comprehensive phylogeny of beetles reveals the evolutionary origins of a super-radiation** by Toby Hunt, Johannes Bergsten, Zuzana Levkanicova, Anna Papadopoulou, Oliver St John, Ruth Wild, Peter M. Hammond, Dirk Ahrens, Michael Balke, Michael S. Caterino, Jesús Gómez-Zurita, Ignacio Ribera, Timothy G. Barraclough, Milada Bocakova, Ladislav Bocak, and Alfried P. Vogler* published 21 December 2007, Science 318, 1913 (2007) which includes the following information:
A) Materials and Methods
B) Supporting Figures and Legends
Figure S1: Majority-rule consensus tree from Bayesian analysis.
Figure S2: Terrestrial-to-aquatic transitions in the evolution of Coleoptera.
Figure S3: The evolution of feeding strategies in Coleoptera.
Figure S4: Most parsimonious tree from 1880 taxon matrix (separate file).
Figure S5: Stationarity of the Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo analyses.
C) Supporting Tables
Table S1: GenBank accession numbers (separate file).
Table S2: Taxonomic retention index.
Table S3: Stability to outgroup rooting.
Table S4: Angiosperm vs non-angiosperm feeding clades.
Table S5: Shifts in diversification rates.
Table S6: Fossil calibration points.
Table S7: Beetle diversification rates.
Table S8: Number of described species, feeding types and habitat.
D) Alignment Files
Become a member then you can have it all! I can’t give you the PDF in it’s entirity.

Here is this that I can share with you from 1: Science. 2007 Dec 21;318(5858):1913-6 :A comprehensive phylogeny of beetles reveals the evolutionary origins of a superradiation.Hunt T, Bergsten J, Levkanicova Z, Papadopoulou A, John OS, Wild R, Hammond PM, Ahrens D, Balke M, Caterino MS, Gómez-Zurita J, Ribera I, Barraclough TG, Bocakova M, Bocak L, Vogler AP. Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.

Beetles represent almost one-fourth of all described species, and knowledge about their relationships and evolution adds to our understanding of biodiversity. We performed a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Coleoptera inferred from three genes and nearly 1900 species, representing more than 80% of the world’s recognized beetle families. We defined basal relationships in the Polyphaga supergroup, which contains over 300,000 species, and established five families as the earliest branching lineages. By dating the phylogeny, we found that the success of beetles is explained neither by exceptional net diversification rates nor by a predominant role of herbivory and the Cretaceous rise of angiosperms. Instead, the pre-Cretaceous origin of more than 100 present-day lineages suggests that beetle species richness is due to high survival of lineages and sustained diversification in a variety of niches.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096805?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

A comprehensive phylogeny of beetles reveals the evolutionary origins of a superradiation - PubMed

Beetles represent almost one-fourth of all described species, and knowledge about their relationships and evolution adds to our understanding of biodiversity. We performed a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Coleoptera inferred from three genes and nearly 1900 species, representing more...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[reggieM]

Beetles represent almost one-fourth of all described species, and knowledge about their relationships and evolution adds to our understanding of biodiversity. We performed a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Coleoptera inferred from three genes and nearly 1900 species, representing more than 80% of the world’s recognized beetle families. We defined basal relationships in the Polyphaga supergroup, which contains over 300,000 species, and established five families as the earliest branching lineages. By dating the phylogeny, we found that the success of beetles is explained neither by exceptional net diversification rates nor by a predominant role of herbivory and the Cretaceous rise of angiosperms. Instead, the pre-Cretaceous origin of more than 100 present-day lineages suggests that beetle species richness is due to high survival of lineages and sustained diversification in a variety of niches.

Thanks for the quote from the text. The news stories represented this article accurately.

Beetles “evolved early” – in the pre-Cretaceous era. This was 300 million years ago. This article specifies that “present day lineages” are traced back to that era.

This is the same as what is found with jellyfish evolution. Sudden appearance is followed by long periods of little or no change.

scienceandevolution.blogspot.com/2007/11/500-million-year-old-jellyfish.html

500 million year old Jellyfish

Using “fossil snapshots” found in rocks more than 500 million years old, three University of Kansas researchers have described the oldest definitive jellyfish ever found. This is significant because the fossil record is biased against soft-bodied life forms such as jellyfish, because they leave little behind when they die. That means that scientists are still working to solve the evolutionary development of many soft-bodied animals. But now they have a clear picture of what the soft-body form looked like when it comes to Jelly-Fish.

 

[hecd2]

Thanks for the quote from the text. The news stories represented this article accurately.

How on earth can you say that if you haven’t read the paper? Have you read it? Well, I know you haven’t. I have, and you are either through ignorance or malice misrepresenting it. It does NOT claim that extant species evolved 300 million years ago. I repeat what I said before which still stands:

The paper is a phylogenetic molecular study of beetles, seeking to understand why beetles are so diverse. If you were to read the paper, you would find the answer - that beetles diverged early and that (unlike, say mammals) early lineages did not become extinct but continued to diverge (ie they have continued to evolve). You only have to look at the phylogenetic trees in the paper to understand this clearly. For the hard of understanding, this does not claim, and the authors of the paper do not in any way claim that extant species have been unchanged over hundreds of millions or even millions of years. No-one who has read and understood the paper could possibly honestly claim that.

Those who have an axe to grind egregiously misinterpret the paper to claim that species of beetle have been unchanged for 300 million years. Note that this is a misinterpretation of the paper, either through ignorance (didn’t read it), stupidity (read it, but failed to understand it) or dishonesty (read it, understood it and deliberately misrepresented it). And you have swallowed the nonsense produced by these people hook line and sinker, because you are not interested in truth, but in supporting your preconceived ideas.

Let me ask you a simple question - do you understand the difference between lineage and species? Don’t bother to answer. It is glaringly obvious that the answer is that you do not.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

Those who have an axe to grind egregiously misinterpret the paper to claim that species of beetle have been unchanged for 300 million years

I guess 100 international news sources have an axe to grind against evolution.

Modern Beetles Predate Dinosaurs
news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071226/sc_livescience/modernbeetlespredatedinosaurs

New research hints that **modern-day versions **of the insects are far older than any tyrannosaur that trod the Earth.

Today’s plethora of beetle species were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants.

An “atheist evolutionist’s” site:

shalinisehkar.com/2007/12/according-to-new-study-modern-beetles.html

Orthodox Christian site:
orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2007/12/26/modern-beetles-predate-dinosaurs/

Evidence of more problems with the universal “macro-evolutionary” theory. It seems beetles are also exempt from evolution. They join the mighty cockroach, horseshoe crab, and many other species who stopped progressing millions of years ago.

*Science Now *-- gives more details than the standard news wire story:

sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1220/2

the biggest group of beetles, including all major plant-feeding groups, extend back to the Paleozoic era (270 million years ago). By the time the first modern flowering plants were blossoming about 140 million years ago, more than 100 modern groups of beetles were already thriving

*Live Science *offers a photo with this caption:

An endangered tiger beetle from North America’s east coast. Scientists believe it and most modern beetles appeared about 300 million years ago.

livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=071226-beetle-adephaga-02.jpg

http://www.livescience.com/php/mult...display.php?pic=071226-beetle-adephaga-02.jpg

 

[reggieM]

livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=071226-beetle-adephaga-02.jpg&cap=An+endangered+tiger+beetle+from+North+America%27s+east+coast.+Scientists+believe+it+and+most+modern+beetles+appeared+about+300+million+years+ago.+Credit%3A+%C2%A9+Science&title=Modern+Beetles+Predate+Dinosaurs&title=Modern%20Beetles%20Predate%20Dinosaurs

That’s the photo with the caption I posted.

 

[wildleafblower]

How on earth can you [reggieM] say that if you haven’t read the paper? Have you read it? Well, I know you haven’t. I have, and you are either through ignorance or malice misrepresenting it. It does NOT claim that extant species evolved 300 million years ago. I repeat what I said before which still stands:

The paper is a phylogenetic molecular study of beetles, seeking to understand why beetles are so diverse. If you were to read the paper, you would find the answer - that beetles diverged early and that (unlike, say mammals) early lineages did not become extinct but continued to diverge (ie they have continued to evolve). You only have to look at the phylogenetic trees in the paper to understand this clearly. For the hard of understanding, this does not claim, and the authors of the paper do not in any way claim that extant species have been unchanged over hundreds of millions or even millions of years. No-one who has read and understood the paper could possibly honestly claim that.

It is glaringly obvious that the answer is that you do not.

[snip]

Alec
evolutionpages.com

ReggieM doesn’t understand Alec. I read the paper (ref. my message 104) and do comprehend it.

For ReggieM and those who don’t understand the findings from the peer-reviewed Science journal or PubMed, I thought it best to go to the Natural History Museum where Toby Hunt and Alfried P. Vogler of the Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London, UK work and share the information about the latest findings from the Natural History Museum’s website. A kid should be able to understand this:
Endurance of the beetles
21 December 2007

*What accounts for 25% of all living things on Earth? Beetles. They are some of the most successful creatures to have lived and new research published in the journal Science today suggests that they may also be the most enduring.

Scientists at the Natural History Museum and Imperial College have discovered that most modern-day beetle groups first appeared during the Jurassic Period at the time when the major groups of dinosaurs appeared too.

Six-legged survivors
These beetle groups out-lived the dinosaurs and diversified into the 350,000 species we see today. There are probably several million more species still to be discovered.

‘The large number of beetle species existing today could very well be a direct result of this early evolution of many modern-day lineages,’ says Professor Alfried Vogler, lead scientist on the study. ‘There has been a very high rate of survival and continuous diversification of many lineages since then.’

Evolutionary study
The team studied the DNA of 1,880 species of beetles and was able to produce an evolutionary family tree. This helped them look at the relationship between different species and identify common ancestors.

Fossil data was then used to obtain key dates in evolution history. This is the most extensive beetle evolutionary study carried out to date.

Successful adaptors
Beetles are extremely good at adapting to new ecological environments, changing their life styles and feeding habits when acquiring new surroundings. For many years scientists have debated why beetles are such successful survivors.

'Unlike the dinosaurs, which dwindled to extinction, beetles survived because of their ecological diversity and adaptability," Vogler says.

One theory for the beetles’ success has been the fact that they are herbivores (eat plants). It is thought that beetles diversified around the time flowering plants diversified in the Cretaceous era wihch provided a new resource for the beetles. The flowering plants first originated around 140 million years ago and this new research shows beetles had already diversified long before this time.

Understanding evolution

Understanding the evolution of beetles is an important part of understanding the natural world, such as the evolution of other life forms and how diversity evolves.

‘With beetles forming such a large proportion of all known species, learning about their relationships and evolution gives us important new insights into the origin of biodiversity and how beetles have triumphed over the course of nearly 300 million years,’ Vogler concludes.*

nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/december/news_13195.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/december/news_13195.html
Science:thumbsup: for kids above!

Science for adults below!

[read message 104]

 

[reggieM]

Beetles evolved early and have remained the same since then. Modern species of beetles are unchanged from their earliest known fossils. They “evolved early” and then remained static.

One theory for the beetles’ success has been the fact that they are herbivores (eat plants). It is thought that beetles diversified around the time flowering plants diversified in the Cretaceous era wihch provided a new resource for the beetles.

From the paper: “Herbivory has played a role in the diversification of some beetle lineages, but the trait per se does not explain why beetles are so diverse.”

“Fast diversification rates also do not explain beetle diversity.”

— Both theories on diversification were proven wrong.

"Most beetle families have Jurassic roots and they can be described as great survivors. When coupled with their aptitude for occupying a wide variety of ecological niches, beetles display an effective formula for success.

Both the two failed hypotheses have a Darwinian flavour: (a) new environments provided by the evolution of the flowering plants have driven diversification, and (b) fast diversification rates explain the data. These ideas can stimulate very plausible ‘just-so stories’ - but they are wrong.

The research conclusions are not particularly Darwinian at all! Diversification and adaptation are not the exclusive province of Darwinian theory. The key findings are: the Jurassic origin of modern lineages, the survival of these lineages, and the aptitude to occupy different ecological niches. If these factors lead us toward “ultimate meaning”, then **we need **models of diversification which can identify the deep roots of modern lineages, better theories of extinction and survival, and better handles on adaptation potential. Thus far, it would appear that the dominance of Darwinism in evolutionary biology has impeded research in these areas." (Quoted from David Tyler, Access Research Network).

 

[Wolseley]

How on earth can you say that if you haven’t read the paper? Have you read it? Well, I know you haven’t. I have, and you are either through ignorance or malice misrepresenting it.

Those who have an axe to grind egregiously misinterpret the paper to claim that species of beetle have been unchanged for 300 million years. Note that this is a misinterpretation of the paper, either through ignorance (didn’t read it), stupidity (read it, but failed to understand it) or dishonesty (read it, understood it and deliberately misrepresented it). And you have swallowed the nonsense produced by these people hook line and sinker, because you are not interested in truth, but in supporting your preconceived ideas.

Let me ask you a simple question - do you understand the difference between lineage and species? Don’t bother to answer. It is glaringly obvious that the answer is that you do not.

Is it inherent to atheists to be snotty and belligerant, or is this restricted to you, Alec? Your tone in this post was completely uncalled for.

Reggie: God’s blessings to you, my friend, from another fellow Catholic. I, too, have not swallowed the Standard Party Line regarding Darwinian evolution----so this makes me just like you: ignorant, malicious, agendaed, stupid, dishonest, gullible, and incapable of comprehension in basic reading concepts.

Isn’t it nice to know you’re not alone? Let me buy a brew sometime and we’ll toast each other that our very existance disproves evolution: in the view of many of of our Darwinist friends, our brain capacity apparently hasn’t gotten any bigger than Australopithecus afarensis. We are living proof that the whole house of cards is absolute hogwash.



“Good morning, Creation Research Institute; this is Wolseley, how may I direct your call?”

 

[reggieM]

Using “fossil snapshots” found in rocks more than 500 million years old, three University of Kansas researchers have described the oldest definitive jellyfish ever found.

It’s the same thing as with the beetles. The modern jellyfish is exactly the same as what was found in fossils 500 million years old.

 

[reggieM]

That post that brought a smile.

Isn’t it nice to know you’re not alone? Let me buy a brew sometime and we’ll toast each other that our very existance disproves evolution:

Absolutlely!

in the view of amny of of our Darwinist friends, our brain capacity apparently hasn’t gotten any bigger than Australopithecus afarensis. We are living proof that the whole house of cards is absolute hogwash.

Suddenly the incredible increases of brain capacity through “beneficial mutations” just stopped one day … leaving us all waiting for evolution to get started again.

Cheers, Wolseley – until we can toast with a real brew sometime.

 

[wildleafblower]

Beetles evolved early and have remained the same since then. Modern species of beetles are unchanged from their earliest known fossils. They “evolved early” and then remained static.

WRONG. I’ve already provided you evidence for your error.

[snip]

Thus far, it would appear that the dominance of Darwinism in evolutionary biology has impeded research in these areas." (Quoted from David Tyler, Access Research Network).

I Charles Darwin (1) and Pope John Paul too! You know, I should be able to love who I want.

1. The Complete Works of Charles Darwin
   darwin-online.org.uk/
   http://darwin-online.org.uk/

ARN , Discovery Institute isn’t all that grand. They didn’t win any brownie points. I’ll pass on them. I like it here on Catholic.com

 

[Wolseley]

That post that brought a smile.

Good. That’s what it was meant to do.

Suddenly the incredible increases of brain capacity through “beneficial mutations” just stopped one day … leaving us all waiting for evolution to get started again.

Oh, we were just on one of those branches that dead-ended. Our misfortune, although I’m sure Louie Leakey would have loved us, if nobody else—the world’s greatest living fossils since the coelacanth.

Cheers, Wolseley – until we can toast with a real brew sometime.

Back atcha, Reggie----and what is it we drink again? Banana daquiris???

Hoo, hoo, hoo…

 

[Sideline]

Using “fossil snapshots” found in rocks more than 500 million years old, three University of Kansas researchers have described the oldest definitive jellyfish ever found.

It’s the same thing as with the beetles. The modern jellyfish is exactly the same as what was found in fossils 500 million years old.

You’ve had this explained repeatedly and yet you persist in believing something that isn’t true. Why would you possibly want to do that?

 

[Orogeny]

Using “fossil snapshots” found in rocks more than 500 million years old, three University of Kansas researchers have described the oldest definitive jellyfish ever found.

It’s the same thing as with the beetles. The modern jellyfish is exactly the same as what was found in fossils 500 million years old.

The appearance of jelly fish during the Cambrian makes sense. Corals were present then and corals are, in a sense, just sessile jellyfish.

The thing is, reggie, is that while corals and jellyfish were present during the Cambrian, they were not the same as they are today. They have evolved. That is clear in the article that you originally cited.

What Alec is telling you is that modern lineage and species are not synonymous. What is described in the paper you cite is the idea that beetles evolved into their modern lineages very early in their existence. Each of those lineages have had evolution acting on the members and that is why there are so many different types of beetles today. That paper didn’t claim or even hint that species alive today came into existence 300 million years ago and no newspaper article changes that fact.

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You’ve had this explained repeatedly and yet you persist in believing something that isn’t true. Why would you possibly want to do that?

Because people who continue to insist that the bible must be read literalistically do so because they NEED to believe this. This is faith based on sola scriptura essentially, but for some faith is gone should the bible not be as they invision it to be. Sad but fundamentalism is sad generally. It is not Catholic for sure.

 

[inthecloud]

The good thing about the Catholic Church is that produces people like Georges Lemaitre and Teilhard de Chardin.

 

[ricmat]

Because people who continue to insist that the bible must be read literalistically do so because they NEED to believe this. This is faith based on sola scriptura essentially, but for some faith is gone should the bible not be as they invision it to be. Sad but fundamentalism is sad generally. It is not Catholic for sure.

Who on this thread insists that the bible must be read literally?