Zooming into the tree of life

25

OneZoom is committed to heightening awareness about the diversity of life on earth, its evolutionary history and the threats of extinction. This website allows you to explore the tree of life in a completely new way: it’s like a map, everything is on one page, all you have to do is zoom in and out. OneZoom also provides free, open source, data visulation tools for science and education, currently focusing on the tree of life.


View the project and explore over 5000 species of wild mammals and see how they are related at the link below.


continue to source article at onezoom.org

25 COMMENTS

  1. I suppose it is only a matter of time until genetic similarity can be similarly mapped, to see just how similar  species are and how similar  groups are. This reminds me of the fractal craze.

  2. I ponder, philosophical reflect, awe at the facts as they are diligently presented, trace the tree of life; but the one thing that still eludes me, is the seed. I gaze in amazement at an eternal space with no rhyme or reason for its existing at all. With no beginning to trace or end to expect.

    If we are going to trace a tree consider the seed. The very reason for the cycle we observe. And of course the fact that we are destined to spread the seed throughout the universe.When the announcement is made that our sun has started its transformation into a red dwarf, we will call on our innate genetic intellect and do as time bids. Get off this planet! and begin the seeding process all over again.

    Swamp life is way too late in the process to begin this story. How we decide to lay our seeds  on planets we find on our journey out there to begin the story for others just like us, won’t make us any less a God to the diverse ‘intelligent’ species that evolve as a result.

    The cycle is a process that is built in and hard wired. Unfortunately we are too caught up in living it to see what will be obvious when the time comes. Nice to see we are preparing though.Support your space program. Its in your genes to do so ;)

  3. Ever heard of the gene pool and the book of life, that has been put together by our smart ass generation; by-the-way. Stick it in a space capsule and call that an ark and you may begin to open your mind again to a maker and the true origin of our species. Unless of course you choose to skip to the middle of the book, as your start point.

    But I agree that the fairy tale version is a little hard to bite on :))

  4.  
    Gotum
    If we are going to trace a tree consider the seed. The very reason for the cycle we observe.

    The explanation of this is here:

    The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis – Dr. Jack Szostak – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

    This has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Jack Szostak’s LAB. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine for his work on telomerase.

    It’s been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. Don’t be fooled by creationist arguments as even a minimal
    understanding of biology and chemistry is enough to realize they have no clue what they are talking about.

    Abogenesis is a separate hypothesis to the theory of evolution.

    The theory of evolution starts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

  5. Gotum When the announcement is made that our sun has started its transformation into a red dwarf,

    Red giant, as Alan pointed out, but the transformation began with the onset of nuclear fusion, just as our transformation into old wrinklies began at our conception.

  6. It’s nice. But, in recognising how central ‘Wikipedia’ is to the learning and research experience of teenagers, the fact that Wikipedia is so central to the sites functionality bothers me. While I support Wikipedia in principle, unrestrained open editing is not without it’s problems. Take for example , perhaps to a teenage mind the ‘primary’, biological entry: ‘ life’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…. Now I am no scientist but inclusions like;

    “Scientific evidence suggests that life began on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago.[6] The mechanism by which life emerged is unknown and hypotheses are being formulated. Since then, life has evolved into a wide variety of forms, which biologists have classified into a hierarchy of taxa. Life can survive and thrive in a wide range of conditions. The meaning of life—its significance, origin, purpose, and ultimate fate—is a central concept and question in philosophy and religion. Both philosophy and religion have offered interpretations as to how life relates to existence andconsciousness, and on related issues such as life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife. Different cultures throughout history have had widely varying approaches to these issues.”

    strike me as suggesting a teach the controversy approach to science education.

    This is not the only entry where revisionists and evangelisers have come to either dominate and distort particular threads.

    Onezoom, to me, raises some serious issues:

    1) Onezoom links primarily to an unreliable source of information, ‘Wikipedia’; and
    2) without a significant policy change Wikipedia will remain unreliable; and
    3) Wikipedia, in my experience, is central to the gen y (connected since birth) learning experience.

    The answer, I don’t know, it would seem to be either lobbying Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia to adopt an evidence based policy position or lobbying Onezoom to do the same, or mirroring and correcting the Wikipedia model in the secular domain, or reeducating and changing the cultural understanding of ‘facts’ for some ?billions of teenagers who will grow to be adults with Wikipedia, a flawed source, embedded, like Mcdonalds, firmly in their minds.

  7.  

    cjmackay01 – strike me as suggesting a teach the controversy approach to science education.

     

    The paragraph you quote is factually correct, and while I would like to see a better separation of the biology from the separate subject of  philosophy, an encyclopaedia can properly give information on both.  I do not think it suggests “teaching a controversy” in your quote.

    I find Wiki generally a good source in most cases, with links and citations to back up claims.

  8. Alan, how is religion at all relevant to an encyclopedic entry on life? I am glad you find Wikipedia ‘”…generally a good source”. I wonder if in an encyclopedic entry on say the ‘solar system’ which highlighted the geo-centrists position would be equally acceptable?

  9. cjmackay01 
    Alan, how is religion at all relevant to an encyclopedic entry on life? I am glad you find Wikipedia ‘”…generally a good source”. I wonder if in an encyclopedic entry on say the ‘solar system’ which highlighted the geo-centrists position would be equally acceptable?

    You would not give geocentrism “an equivalent status”, but it would be quite proper to give a factual report of its history, although it should be identified as a refuted discarded view.

    The history of science includes many discarded views, while religions tend to cling to their ancient misconceptions.

    There are however many current philosophical debates on life, relationships of living things, and views of various religions on these, on which information should be available. 
    (You will see I have used three Wiki links to science pages recently.)

    As far as the science of your quote  goes, you will note that in my comment here ( http://richarddawkins.net/news… ), I refer to evolution as a scientific theory and abiogenesis as a hypothesis:  – which is their correct current status.

Leave a Reply