Taxonomic discussion

[mtolypetsupply]

I have to compliment everyone on this forum. This seems like a topic that could have sparked arguement, flaming, etc. and, instead, it's been an *Intelligent Disucssion*. Oh, how refreshing, and what a pleasure!

Forgive me for not quoting you all directly, I don't know how to do multiple direct quotes, yet.

It was said we'll either finally decide what is right, or decide it's fruitless to try. I believe that the most valuable thing we can decide is that the nature of our Earth and all facets thereof is fluid, and continuous. We can only recognize that we need a frame of reference on that continuum, and that a consensus on classification is not an absolute and final answer as to what is "right" and what is "wrong".

but the classification is based on groups that have shared derived characteristics that stemmed from one common ancestor.

Just wondering how that fits with Maternal Mitochondrial DNA. Since different humans have different mitochondrial DNA, that "proves" that we came from different ancestors. So where are we in the classification system? At what point would the Taxonomy differ, if we were to acknowledge this as a significant difference, subspecies level? Are we assuming that one human man bred a bunch of different women and *he* would be the common ancestor? (goodness I hope not, as the bad men out there will claim infidelity is genetic!!!! lol)

And if reproduction takes two, how is there ONE common ancestor? Wouldn't there be two? Each offspring, descendant, etc. received DNA from each parent, which either denied or permitted the traits by which we are classifying them, so had the ancestor bred with a different specimen, we may not even see this morphology in the first place, right? Or does "One Common Ancestor" actually mean "one common Ancestral Pairing"?

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Just wondering how that fits with Maternal Mitochondrial DNA. Since different humans have different mitochondrial DNA, that "proves" that we came from different ancestors. So where are we in the classification system? At what point would the Taxonomy differ, if we were to acknowledge this as a significant difference, subspecies level? Are we assuming that one human man bred a bunch of different women and *he* would be the common ancestor? (goodness I hope not, as the bad men out there will claim infidelity is genetic!!!! lol)

And if reproduction takes two, how is there ONE common ancestor? Wouldn't there be two? Each offspring, descendant, etc. received DNA from each parent, which either denied or permitted the traits by which we are classifying them, so had the ancestor bred with a different specimen, we may not even see this morphology in the first place, right? Or does "One Common Ancestor" actually mean "one common Ancestral Pairing"?

In cladistics, when you are referring to a "single common ancestor", you are actually referring to a particular species from which all others within the group derived. Please don't interpret it as evolution spinning around activities like incest or polygamy. Actually, in many cases it does, but that is not the point I am trying to make. Single common ancestor usually doesn't mean SINGLE (individual) ancestor; it's a reference to a species' collective!

Steve