types of organization

Prof. Dov Por dovpor at NETVISION.NET.IL
Mon Feb 7 17:17:22 CST 2000


John,
It is clear what are our very disagreeing positions. We cannot carry-out
this discussion on  taxacom  and at the expense of the patience of
everybody.I am ready to continue it in a more discrete form!
Still I wonder  how flat is you idea of evolution. Are we specialised
descendants of a  generalized flatworm?
Haeckel transposed into ontogeny the  "Scala Naturae" of Aristo and of
Lamarck. Evolution was linear, head-to- tail: in our ontogeny we pass the
unicell stage followed by the coelenterate(the gastrula) , the amphioxus (th
neurula) the fish the amphibian, the reptile , etc. Haeckelian ontogenesis
repeats  a linear phylogenesis.
I mentioned the irreversibility of the metazoan level in order to show that
evolution to higher levels of organization is irreversible , a truly
qualitative process.
Be well,
Dov Por
-----Original Message-----
From: John Grehan <jrg13 at PSU.EDU>
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Date: 07 February 2000 15:17
Subject: types of organization


>>By the same logic we could say that we are just another way of packing the
>>nucleotides, or different expressions of the  atom carbon.
>
>Yes.
>
> Evolution , in
>>the very literally sense means  a qualitative change.
>
>By the recombination there has been a change from (relatively) generalized
>ancestor
>to specialized descendants.
>
>>By the way, old Haeckel would be very happy  to see you considering us  a
>>kind of fish,amphibian, reptile, etc. Do I sense here a "ladder of life"?
>
>What do you mean by "ladder of life"?
>
>
>>Just as mitochondria are not comparable to free-living bacteria anymore,
so
>>are our cells.
>
>Not the same Iwould agree, but they are comparable to some.
>
> Even the single cell, our mother ovule, or even the legions
>>of spermatozoans, are unable to live independently.
>
>True. Again, by the concept of types of organization they are not identical
>with free-living single cells, but they share these qualities with many
>so-called
>parasitic single cells (i.e. disease organisms).
>
>By the way, I don't know
>>of any metazoan which "returned" to protozoan life.
>
>What is being compared here? I do not recall making an assertion of this
>kind.
>
>John Grehan
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list