Talk:Cladogenesis

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aren't the theoretical processes of Cladogenesis virtually identical to the theoretical processes of Anagenesis, regardless of the varied outcomes due to differences in habitats? Of course, both theories are merely far-fetched hypotheses. But inasmuch as, "Anagenesis is the straw man Creationists like to attack but that is not how it occurs." <David Rosen, PhD Physics & Solid State, City University of New York Graduate Center (1985)> the non-distinct nature of said processes seems curious in tis context!

So I was just considering some information that could be added to this page, such as how scientists possibly go about determining whether something falls under the category of Cladogenesis? Like the use of observations (certain selected physical characteristics of the clade being observed), molecular genetic data, or even fossil records of already extinct organisms, because it can be used to determine when new organisms were introduced to the environment and whether or not they overlapped for a period of time. Maybe the section could be titled "Methods"? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur.181 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Relevance of Clades in Theory

[Should there be a section titled something like this? If so, might it include some of the following material, from the article on the History of evolutionary thought:] One of the tenets of the modern evolutionary synthesis was that macroevolution (the evolution of phylogenic clades at the species level and above) was solely the result of the mechanisms of microevolution (changes in gene frequency within populations) operating over an extended period of time. During the last decades of the 20th century some paleontologists raised questions about whether other factors, such as punctuated equilibrium and group selection operating on the level of entire species and even higher level phylogenic clades, needed to be considered to explain patterns in evolution revealed by statistical analysis of the fossil record. Near the end of the 20th century some researchers in evolutionary developmental biology suggested that interactions between the environment and the developmental process might have been the source of some of the structural innovations seen in macroevolution, but other evo-devo researchers maintained that genetic mechanisms visible at the population level are fully sufficient to explain all macorevolution.^[1]^[2]^[3] --Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? Anyone? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Erwin, Douglas H. (2000). "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution". Evolution & Development. 2 (2): 78–84. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Newman SA, Müller GB (2000). "Epigenetic mechanisms of character origination". J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Develop. Evol. 288 (4): 304–317. doi:10.1002/1097-010X(20001215)288:4<304::AID-JEZ3>3.0.CO;2-G. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Carroll, Sean B. (2001). "The big picture" (PDF). Nature. 409 (6821): 669. doi:10.1038/35055637. PMID 11217840. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

[1] Erwin, Douglas H. (2000). "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution". Evolution & Development. 2 (2): 78–84. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

[2] Newman SA, Müller GB (2000). "Epigenetic mechanisms of character origination". J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Develop. Evol. 288 (4): 304–317. doi:10.1002/1097-010X(20001215)288:4<304::AID-JEZ3>3.0.CO;2-G. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

[3] Carroll, Sean B. (2001). "The big picture" (PDF). Nature. 409 (6821): 669. doi:10.1038/35055637. PMID 11217840. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]