Talk:Cladogenesis

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."  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)

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. --Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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