Lions and tigers and dinosaurs, oh my!


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

My son told me some very interesting stuff last week. He recently got his degree in something called bioinformatics, which is the intersection of biology and computer science. At BYU, bioinformatics is actually a College of Life Sciences degree, not a part of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (which houses the Department of Computer Science). So my son took quite a few biology classes, and he loved them, especially the genetics classes. We've had many hours of conversation about the stuff he learned, about histones and such. All very fascinating. The field has certainly moved along in the last 30 years since I was actively studying it.

Anyway, we got to talking about taxonomy, which is how organisms are classified. For example, dogs are a type of wolf, so dogs and wolves are closely related. Dogs and coyotes are more distantly related, dogs and foxes more distantly still. Dogs and cats are related, but there's a long, long distance between them*.

*So the taxonomy goes something like this: Among hunting mammals with claws and teeth for killing and eating other animals (Carnivora), there are two general types, cat-like (Feliformia) and dog-like (Caniformia). Dogs and cats split at this point. In the dog-like part, which includes wolves, bears, skunks, raccoons, walruses, and seals, among many others, there is a classification specifically for animals that are, let's say, very dog-like (Canidae). Two of the most common types of these animals include the fox-like (Vulpes) and the wolf-like or very very dog-like (Canis). This is where dogs and foxes split. Among the wolf-like, all the members there can interbreed to some extent, so they're all closely related. Coyotes are more distantly related to dogs than are wolves; in fact, dogs are today considered a type of wolf. When I was a boy, I learned that dogs were of the species Canis familiaris, which means "familiar dog", while wolves were of the species Canis lupus, or "wolf dog". These days, domestic dogs are classified as Canis lupus familiaris, which I suppose means "familiar wolf dog". The point is that the scientific community has recognized that there is no good point in dividing wolves and dogs, at least as far as genetic diversification goes. Dogs are truly just a subtype of wolves, a subtype that is much friendlier and more tractable and trainable.

The asterisked comment above describes a taxonomy that was originally based on, basically, what animals looked like. These days, we're actually much more concerned with an animal's genetic ancestry than with the shape of its claws. This has resulted in many changes to the so-called evolutionary tree, some subtle, some earth-shaking.

(By the way, counterintuitive and even ironic though it may seem, BYU has a very strong and respected evoutionary genetics program. You will find Saints of many stripes among the faculty of the Life Sciences college, including some of the most Christ-like individuals and Church leaders you are likely to find anywhere. But you won't find any evolution deniers.)

So anyway, my son was telling me about recent (to me) changes in taxonomy among reptiles. Turns out that it was recognized many years ago that birds should be classified as a type of reptile, and that in fact (for instance) crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards or snakes. (So take that, @MormonGator!) Fascinating reading on e.g. Wikipedia, if you're interested in this type of thing. Crocodilians and birds are the modern descendants of the prehistoric, meat-eating, terrifying dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus Rex. Absolutely amazing to think about, but actually quite believable when you look at a chicken's foot and realize that it's a one-twentieth scale model of the gigantic, terrifying feet you see in the dinosaur bones at the Museum of Natural History.

Every Thanksgiving, I am wont to laugh maniacally at the cooked turkey on the table and say something like, "You ruled the world while we cowered underground! What do you have to say NOW? Oh, how the tables have turned!" But there is a deeper underlying point here. Taxonomy was originally developed just to try to sort out animals into different types that were somehow functionally "related" to each other. But we've known for a long time that different types of animals really are related to each other, literally. So taxonomy has naturally segued into not merely a differential description of what animals look and act like, but a family tree describing the ancestral relationship of animals to each other. If I were of a mind to do so, I could dwell on ideas of how taxonomic reclassifications are an example of the spirit of Elijah.

Anyway, I find it fascinating. As a child, I learned of I guess it was six types of backboned animals: Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, bony fish, and cartilaginous fish. Turns out that's not really a very good description of things. I look forward to see what tomorrow will bring in such areas of study.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, Vort said:

So anyway, my son was telling me about recent (to me) changes in taxonomy among reptiles. Turns out that it was recognized many years ago that birds should be classified as a type of reptile, and that in fact (for instance) crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards or snakes. (So take that, @MormonGator!) Fascinating reading on

Everything I know about dinosaurs I learned from reading Jurassic Park. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Vort said:

(By the way, counterintuitive and even ironic though it may seem, BYU has a very strong and respected evoutionary genetics program. You will find Saints of many stripes among the faculty of the Life Sciences college, including some of the most Christ-like individuals and Church leaders you are likely to find anywhere. But you won't find any evolution deniers.)

There has been a most interesting evolution in the church concerning evolution.  40 years ago I was often approached in church and asked how I could be active in my church attendance and believe in evolution.  It seemed to have changed as some started asking open questions about evolution and responding that it means sense.  Nowadays it seems that anyone with an appreciation (current education) in science strongly believes in evolution.  Some try to separate evolution into what they label as micro versus macro evolution. 

I do not expect everyone to believe in any particular concept.  It is interesting to me that in a forum like this - that there are really good and righteous members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have great difficulty in agreeing on what exactly "agency" is.  It is unlikely that we will all agree on evolution before the Millenium arrives.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share