@ sizemilk You wrote:
"Even in the context of the link you provided this is not at all true. It may be an accurate description of the stratigraphic status quo at any given time within the parameters a particular taxonomical range, but genera, like species and other classifications in the taxonomic hierarchy, are all part of evolutionary progression. Variegation of genera is every bit as valid as variegation of species. It is simply further up the taxonomic heirarchy and therefore expressed over far greater periods of time than say species variegation. Time has the effect of greater variegal seperation of genera, through the more protracted extinction of common genetic ancestry. It's important to remember that extinction results from geological and cosmological cataclysm as well as gradual environmental change and natural selection. Evolution shows us that over time, the opposite is true . . . that new and distinct Genera emerge in the same way as new and distinct species. It's simply that the boundaries, through time, have now achieved a wider gulf of seperation.
To illustrate . . . it's like trying to positively identify the structure and shape of the branches and trunk of a tree by observing the new shoots of spring growth only . . . the abundance of the current growth show the tree must be there . . . but it is only from the evidence remaining that any semblance of the reality can be discerned. In terms of evolution, some smaller outer branches can be observed through the fossil record, but harmonious synchronicity is not assured, let alone an accurate picture of the whole "tree".
Interestingly, Nickolas's well cited points (in this and previous threads) on the incomprehensible vastness of the dimensions of time and space involved, lend ever increasing weight to the probability, even strong likelihood in terms of statistical probability, of this gradual, but very extensive progression IMHO."
I think I get what you are saying here. That the further we go up the Taxonomic web the more correlation there is between the species. I would accept this as accurate IF there were fossils backing up this claim. I have been looking and so far the only examples I can find are in the Hominid species, including Homo Sapiens and the groups preceding us. I have one problem with this. Humans do not look the same all over the world. We have differing facial features, jawbone structures, etc. Yet we are shown but one or two examples of Hominids from the past and are told those are our Human ancestors. How do we know that this isn't simply a variation in the species we call Homo Sapiens? Now I understand that there is a 98.4% shared genetic ancestry with Apes which would logically suggest we are descended from them, except the fact that they are in a different species than we are meaning among other things we cannot cross breed. Not that I would want to but it begs the question why not if we have only a 1.6% difference in our genetic code that is mostly made up of deletions, insertions and duplications? This genome seems to make all the difference in the world as far as disntinguishing us from Apes and yet it has developed very quickly as opposed to the gradual process of natural selection in an evolutionary model.