• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Macro evolution as domonstrable fact.

Skwim

Veteran Member
No it wouldn't.
But to stay in keeping with your "'dog' would be considered a class of it's own' it could no longer remain a member of the class mammalia.

No body said clades are ranks.Seriously listen to what people are posted
  ↓ ↓  ↓
AndromedaRXJ said:
"the mammalian clade would lose it's rank"

I'll leave you with the last word here if you want it. I'm done.
 

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
But to stay in keeping with your "'dog' would be considered a class of it's own' it could no longer remain a member of the class mammalia.

At this point, mammals would no longer have a rank, or they'd probably get a different rank. But dogs would still be mammals. Just like mammals today are still therapsids.

A taxonomist living in the time of early basal mammals wouldn't rank mammals as a class either. Perhaps instead, mammalia would be a small genus in the class of therapsids.


I'll leave you with the last word here if you want it. I'm done.

Yes. Mammalia, the clade, currently has a rank. In such a scenario with the dog diversification, the mammalian clade would lose it's rank(which is currently "class").

Where do I say that clades are ranks? I don't. But some clades have ranks. Some don't. What's so hard to understand about that?

You're taking what I say way out of context.
 
Last edited:
Top