On the thread entitled “Species Kinds”, commenter phoodoo asks:
What’s the definition of a species?
A simple question but hard to answer. Talking of populations of interbreeding individuals immediately creates problems when looking at asexual organisms, especially the prokaryotes: bacteria and archaea. How to delineate a species temporally is also problematic. Allan Miller links to an excellent basic resource on defining a species and the Wikipedia entry does not shy away from the difficulties.
In case phoodoo thought his question was being ignored, I thought I’d open this thread to allow discussion without derailing the thread on “kinds”.
phoodoo,
My honest answer is: ‘it depends’. There are at last count about 29 species concepts. They are not all evolutionary, and the confusion does not arise because people cannot make up their minds, or evolutionists are shysters, but because each one has its strengths and its drawbacks for different applications. The difficulties arise fundamentally through nature’s refusal to play ball with our OCD.
I would actually expect neat species categories to be more a prediction of Creation than evolution. People are grumbling that a process that would be expected to create fuzzy categories can’t come up with the non-fuzzy categories they think ‘ought’ to be the case (even the BSC is a bit fuzzy).
[eta – just seen J-Mac’s petulant answer: “whatever suits evolution”. Wrong.]
What’s the algorithm?
In the usual technical definition, an algorithm has some sort of goal and enters a halt state when it achieves that goal.
Except there are no basis for any predictions of Creation without some knowledge of the Creator’s ability ,goals and whimsy.
Matings are only a threat for the darwinistic paradigm.
In fact under the definition I’m suggesting it might be the interbreeding might be very thing that saves a species.
For example interbreeding between polar bears and grizzly bears might supply Polar bears with the genes necessary to meditate the effects of climate change
What? I don’t understand, Why would that be a problem for my definition?
Two joined chromosomes would certainly seem be a common attribute. If a group of organisms do not share the same karyotype then surely they are not the same species.
peace
But won’t that destroy the species under your definition, since it will now have the characteristics of a different species? And why is the biological species concept being called “darwinian”?
Why not? There are many populations in which karyotypes vary among individuals.
I completely agree. One of the reasons I have not been posting as much lately is because I’m working on that right now in my spare time. I’ll share when I’m done.
It has to do with weather forecasting and my “game”.
I don’t know if you all will consider it evidence for a non-random non-algorithmic process but I believe I can prove the endeavor is empirically useful.
that is something
peace
not Darwinian evolution as far as I can tell
random mutation plus natural selection is not a non-random non-algorithmic process
Random mutation is the random part
plus is the algorithmic part
peace
Yes indeed. I’ve been arguing that Weasel is designed. You’d think it would be obvious and would go without saying. But it’s “The Skeptical Zone.” LoL
It is impossible not to be in need when you are a finite dependent creature.
God chooses every moment to fulfill your desperate need for oxygen and gravity for example.
You would think you could extend a little gratitude for all the many things he has given you instead of complaining when he very rarely from time to time withholds something for some reason.
peace
Dear Jesus. Thank you for keiths. It’s such a little thing, I know. But I want to be grateful for even the little things. Amen.
Mung,
It is obvious and it does go without saying. Weasel is a computer program, and it was designed.
Who are you arguing against, and how desperate must you be to construct such a pitiful strawman?
newton:
Right. So when you labeled me a ‘dick’, it was because you thought I hadn’t put enough effort into an insult.
Are you sticking with that story, newton?
fifth:
Prepare to be underwhelmed, TSZ.
ETA: Weren’t you supposed to be working on a design detection tool, fifth?
No, not at all. The consensus view is that you don’t have to make any effort at all to be a dick.
No as I have been saying all along species exist in minds.
You can’t destroy ideas by altering something in the material realm that is a category error .
What it might do is reveal that your idea of what the species was was slightly mistaken or it might reveal an entirely new species to you.
Because as I understand it it was developed mostly by Ernst Mayr as part of the Modern Synthesis.
You remember the Modern Synthesis right?
It is what reconciled Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution with modern genetics
peace
Mung,
You didn’t put very much effort into that insult. Prepare to be called a ‘dick’ by newton.
Sort of.
This is along that vein.
More of the same but it is not quite as subjective.
peace
I expect you all to be underwhelmed.
My goal as of late is not so much to convince the un-convince-able but to ignore them and focus on doing something practical with the idea.
I do thank those who offered constructive criticism. It was our discussions here that were the genesis of the idea of how to move forward.
peace
I repeat:
Weren’t you supposed to be working on a design detection tool, fifth?
ETA: Sorry. I missed your reply above.
I repeat:
Sort of.
This is along that vein.
More of the same but it is not quite as subjective.
that was easy
peace
ETA: apology accepted.
keiths:
fifth:
So it’s not a design detection tool?
I think that is because you have a messed up ontology that mixes the mental with the physical.
peace
🙂
Flaccid dick?
Depends on what you mean by that
If you think a Turing test is a consciousness detection tool and design is the product of a conscious mind then yes it is a design detection tool
peace
If natural selection is algorithmic, then you should be able to predict precisely which individuals will win the selection race. Have you tested your ability?
In any case, the “non-random non-algorithmic” was being applied to the overall process, not to individual parts. And your argument already fails because of that.
I see a pattern. From earlier this year:
You seem to forget the random element that is added with RM.
If you multiply a Random whole number by 2 you won’t be able to predict your result precisely but you can say it will be an even number.
The process by which you produce the result is algorithmic.
peace
everyone,
can we please save the discussion of my project till I share it.
I promise I will answer all questions at that time till you grow tired of hearing about it, right now I’d like to keep it on topic at hand.
As soon as we exhaust the species thingy I will leave you alone and get back to work
peace
wow just 7 months ago.
That was practically yesterday.
That makes me feel better it seemed like an eternity on my end
Progress has been much faster than i realized
peace
It’s not an argument it’s a proposed definition
peace
i almost missed this in my haste
natural selection is not the algorithmic part of RM plus NS
“Plus” is the algorithmic part
peace
fifth:
Progress toward what? The title of that thread was A Practical Exercise in Design Detection.
You failed then, and from all your hedging, it sounds like you’re still failing.
Your language renders your thoughts opaque. If species exist in minds, and only in minds, then by the usual meanings of the words that would make them imaginary. Yet you think otherwise. Why?
Sounds like a fairly long free-association chain. Shouldn’t that be “mayrian” rather than “darwinian”?
fifth:
LMAO.
I already said, It has to do with weather forecasting and my “game”.
It’s that sort of subjective opinion that caused me to say this—–
quote:
This is along that vein.
More of the same but it is not quite as subjective.
end quote:
peace
Only a blinkard materialist would think that mental equals imaginary.
Because I’m not hindered by a discredited philosophy that thinks that only things you can weigh and measure are real.
nope, the Modern Synthesis that depends on the jacked up definition is not called Mayrianism it’s called Neo-Darwinianism
peace
fifth,
It isn’t a subjective opinion. The title of that thread was A Practical Exercise in Design Detection. You failed to deliver.
If you think the prevention of further losses in the battle of the Atlantic was not a practical exercise I really don’t think I can help you there. I would say it would have practical benefits to the submarine crews at least but who am I to say.
Perhaps improving weather forecasts will be more practical in your opinion but i don’t know.
peace
Easy. The most fit will win.
or
peace
Are you saying that you did not argue against my expressed opinion that evolution fits that definition?
I was really just trying to get you to clarify your argument a bit so I could see If i thought it applied.
Like I said we can argue this Ad nauseam if you like when i’m ready to share.
right now I’d like to stay on the topic at hand if you don’t mind
peace
I predict after we go back and count who won, someone will declare them the fittest.
According to evolutionary guru of copulation genetics,Joe Felsenstein, 10 billion species on earth are all not only evolving, they are in transition to other species…us too…
I have been spending a lot of time in the water lately, so I have a feeling that my hands are gradually evolving into fins… I have been observing the oyster divers of many generations lately and I asked them if they have noticed any evolutionary changes in them…One thing I noticed is that they are mute…
I suspect their speech already evolved to whale… 😉
Dick
Why are you extending the supreme compliment to keiths?
So, first, you have declined all opportunity to explain what you’re talking about in favor of accusing me of being stupid. So we’re back to asking whether you care if anyone understands you.
Second, no, the modern synthesis doesn’t really have much to say about species concepts. That’s more in the vein of systematics.
You’re so full of shit John.
I never once called you stupid. In fact I would bet you have one of the higher IQs here. I did not even think to call you blinkard. The fellow from Harvard came up with that.
If you don’t understand don’t just complain that you don’t understand ask clarifying questions. I promise I will answer every one.
I can’t read your mind
quote:
Ernst Mayr’s key contribution to the [ Modern] synthesis was Systematics and the Origin of Species, published in 1942. Mayr emphasized the importance of allopatric speciation, where geographically isolated sub-populations diverge so far that reproductive isolation occurs. He was skeptical of the reality of sympatric speciation believing that geographical isolation was a prerequisite for building up intrinsic (reproductive) isolating mechanisms. Mayr also introduced the biological species concept that defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that were reproductively isolated from all other populations
end quote
from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
you might also check this out
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl_1/6600.full
quote:
Modern systematics continues to become thoroughly integrated with evolutionary biology, and evolutionary biology has, from its inception, granted a central role to species. This situation should be evident from the fact that the most important book in the history of this field, the one that more or less initiated the field itself, is titled On the Origin of Species
end quote:
peace