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”.
I’ve heard that promise before. But in the post just preceding the one I complained about I asked questions, to which you gave dismissive “answers”. Go back and read it.
Yeah, Systematics and the Origin of Species is supposed to be part of the modern synthesis, but the fact is that the modern synthesis is population genetics, and Mayr’s book isn’t population genetics. His views on allopatric speciation aren’t popular these days either. Origin of Species, oddly enough, doesn’t have much to do with species. And evolutionary biology does not equal the modern synthesis, which mostly involves change of allele frequencies within populations. Species and speciation are really another field. If you’re interested, try Speciation, by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr.
O’RLY?
Evolution: The Modern Synthesis
784 pages of population genetics. Right John?
John Harshman and Salvador Cordova must be twins.
That’s right. And John is just plain wrong.
LoL. Let’s follow the logic. If we can. The modern synthesis is population genetics. Mayr’s book is not population genetics. Therefore, Mayr’s book is not part of the modern synthesis. Even though John admits that “Yeah, Systematics and the Origin of Species is supposed to be part of the modern synthesis.”
Even Mayr claims it’s part of the modern synthesis. This Is Biology, p. 193.
Mayr then goes on to include other things as part of the modern synthesis that are not just population genetics.
FFM is right, and John is just not believable. Credibility in tatters. Again. Like a bird trying to fly with two functioning ovaries.
No need to be jealous
In an alternate universe he may have
Going extinct is transitioning too. You seem to have a problem with that concept
I suggest a decrease in the dosage
…
Everyone needs a hobby,even if it is a bit creepy
Speechless I expect ,did they also slowly back away?
Whales have beautiful voices
No need to be jealous
fifth:
keiths:
Mung,
The outpouring of love came from people, Mung. Meanwhile, God sent more rain. Thanks, God! That’s just what they needed.
To believe in a loving God is beyond stupid.
Cue phoodoo to tell us that complaining about a little extra rain in Texas is like complaining about dandruff or mosquito bites.
We should send phoodoo into the shelters in Houston to preach his “stop whining” message. He won’t come out in one piece.
We should also send fifth, who writes:
You lost your home and all your possessions to the floodwaters? Your husband or wife drowned? Shut up, whiner. You’re still breathing, aren’t you?
Useful is good
Right you are. I’m sure as I continue to age I too will become equally irascible and thus equally deserving. Patience.
Precisely. And that’s also what God did in Jesus Christ, a person.
I don’t know why you think Christians would think hurricanes are evidence against God. That’s just silly.
The answers I gave were not dismissive. I thought they answered your questions as accurately and succinctly as possible.
If you need more clarification all you have to do is ask. I would be happy to provide it.
A little less rain in Texas could mean that the summer heat in the gulf of Mexico is not dissipated and the entire environment of eastern America is damaged perhaps irreparably.
Perhaps the rain in Texas is the absolute minimum to facilitate a healthy atmosphere for our planet
I don’t know about you but I’d like to know the long term effects before I propose monkeying with the global climate dials.
peace
OT: Maybe God should prevent all hurricanes. He could prevent all flooding too by just getting rid of rain. Or designing a better drainage system for the earth. He should make everyone live on mountain tops. Or in the sky.
No need to shut up, complain away.
Job went on for about 40 chapters with his complaining and God did not mind
The difference was he started with a more accurate understanding of his entitlement or lack thereof .
quote:
Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”
Job 1:20-21
end quote:
peace
Nice point. John Dupre (in The Disorder of Things) argues that the question, “are species kinds?” depends on whether we’re doing evolutionary theory or ecology.
He points out that if we’re doing evolutionary theory, then it makes sense to treat species as spatio-temporarily extended individuals, as Ghiselin argues. But if we’re doing ecology, then it makes sense to treat species as kinds.
On this basis Dupre argues that there’s no single correct answer to the question. He takes this to be a point in favor of what he calls “promiscuous realism”: we can certainly be realists about the objects of our inquiry, but we shouldn’t expect a single comprehensive metaphysics to fall out of our scientific theories.
I think that’s right. The main reason why I’m not a ‘materialist’ or ‘physicalist’ is because I don’t see how one can justify materialism without assuming that everything is reducible to fundamental physics, and I don’t see how one can do that in a way that isn’t question-begging.
(My ‘naturalism’ at this point is pretty much just the idea that we should look to the cognitive sciences for empirical confirmation of the causal structures that implement or realize the transcendental structures that we posit to account for our epistemic abilities and inabilities.)
Kantian Naturalist,
That’s an interesting point, though I would resist separating out evolution from ecology. I would argue that evolution is the interface of ecology and genetics – natural selection is an expression of differential resource utilisation.
Within an evolutionary succession, there is a requirement to determine at what point it is useful to change the name you are applying to the individuals one is looking at. But at one moment in time, all that actually counts is gene flow (in sexual species, at least). That’s the practical species concept! The one applied by organisms.
Does Dupre really say this? Then he is another guy who has things upside down. Metaphysics does not fall out of science. Metaphysics is the set of premises that scientists must presuppose in order to do science. Premises such as that there’s a reality out there and by observing it we can collect data about it, by analyzing the data we can inform ourselves, there are right and wrong ways to go about this analysis, and so on.
In order to defend the idea of a loving God, fifth brings up the story of Job, of all things. Brilliant move, fifth.
God shits all over Job, even killing his children, all for the sake of a stupid bar bet with Satan.
Now that’s love. And fifth is first in line to worship this repulsive creep.
I’ll make another plea for converts to Allanism. There’s still punishment for bizarre transgressions, but my Heaven is nicely soundproofed.
What sort of punishments, anything I might enjoy? I do have some eccentricities that some might interpret as transgressions.
Mung,
In order to adhere to religious tradition (a gentleman’s agreement among deities, if you will) I’m afraid you don’t get to find out until it’s too late.
Here’s a hint, Mung: The Allanian afterlife is unlikely to be pleasant for word-lawyering doofuses.
If your evolutionary theory does harm to your ecology. Maybe it’s time to rethink.
“Promiscuous realism” sounds to me like the sort of weasel word gymnastics that Bill Clinton would employ. It certainly leads to confusion and equivocation.
FMM: Is the red wolf a species?
Promiscuous realest? That depends on what I’m doing at the time.
FMM: are you kidding me?
I would argue that instead of using whatever conflicting definition that suits us at the present moment a better approach would be to look for a definition that actually delineates the concept that we are discussing.
If the common understanding of species that we use in every other endeavorer does not work for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theorists should coin a new term instead of redefining the word. I recommend the word “berflunkal”
FMM: is the red wolf a species?
Evolutionary theorist: yes of course, but it is not a berflinkal
FMM: OK cool have a good day
peace
I would never defend the idea of a loving God to someone with your limited knowledge of him.
It would be like trying to defend the loving compassion of Norman Schwarzkopf while talking to Uday Hussein
On the other hand it would be easy to defend it to his wife Brenda
peace
The difference, of course, is that God supposedly loves the inhabitants of southeast Texas.
You’re flailing, fifth.
Maybe He just has a new design for a mosquito that he needs to test
So you’ve had visions of it? Do share more.
But Houston is in the Upper Gulf Coast region of Texas.
ETA; Go ahead. Impress us less with your lack of knowledge of Texas geography.
Mung is just as helpless as fifth when it comes to defending his supposedly loving God.
ETA: But worse at geography, at least for the moment.
fifth:
So you believe that God is so weak, and the world he created such a mess, that he has to drown people and destroy their property in order to “facilitate a healthy atmosphere for our planet”?
And as if that weren’t bad enough, it has never occurred to you that a loving God would at minimum warn people well ahead of time so they could prepare and evacuate?
To believe in a powerful, loving God, as you, Mung and phoodoo do, is beyond stupid.
So besides the lame arguments for a powerful, loving God, we have:
1) Mung arguing that Houston isn’t in southeast Texas;
2) fifth telling us that
3) and fifth confidently pronouncing that
That last one still makes me laugh.
Augustine was clearly thinking of guys like fifth and Mung when he wrote:
Judge Jones’ phrase “breathtaking inanity” comes to mind.
Just imagine. Mung is connected to the internet, where maps of Texas abound, and he still manages to post an idiotic comment disputing Houston’s location.
Who told you God loved the inhabitants of southeast Texas? How do you know they were telling the truth?
peace
You’re just making it worse, fifth.
keiths,
Good questions!
Who do you think caused this disaster?
Job 1:18
“While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, 19and behold, a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people and they died, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”
How about this?
Matt 8:24-25
“Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was engulfed by the waves; but Jesus was sleeping.The disciples went and woke Him, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!”
worse for who?
peace
and love!
No, I think that God can do what ever he likes.
I on the other hand would rather live in the world I do than in one where God monkeyed with the climate knobs.
peace
God is just like Trump, only more so.
I’m not arguing about it. It’s stupid to argue about it. You’re simply wrong. I’m just acquainting you with the facts. You’re a good example why Texans don’t much care for Californians. 🙂
LoL. This is just silly. I know where Houston is located. Just like I know where Huntsville is located. And Austin. And Dallas. And many other places in Texas. Having actually been there. 🙂
Duh
For keiths:
FYI
“However, Houston is most accurately classified as being within Southeast Texas, a subregion of East Texas.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas
Christ. The things we have to explain to Mung.
Keep going, Mung. You’re doing exactly what Augustine warned against.
That’s keiths logic. It’s not in South Texas. It’s not East Texas. Therefore it’s in South East Texas.
The good people of Texas say otherwise.
map of SE Texas:
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Overview/SE_Texas.htm
Southeast Texas is a subregion of East Texas located in the southeast corner of the U.S. state of Texas. The subregion is geographically centered on the Houston–Sugar Land–The Woodlands and Beaumont–Port Arthur metropolitan areas. Parts of Southeast Texas overlap with Central Texas, and the region borders Acadiana and the Sabine River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Texas
So not only is Houston obviously in southeast Texas (note the lowercase ‘s’), as I said. It’s also in Southeast Texas, the named region. Mung is wrong either way.
Augustine again:
We’re laughing, Mung.
keiths:
fifth:
Then ask yourself the obvious question: Why doesn’t he do the loving thing, which would be to “facilitate a healthy atmosphere for our planet” without drowning people and destroying their property?
Try thinking for a change instead of blindly believing, fifth.
keiths,
Augustine on Evil
“…There’s a sound reason why God has allowed evil. It doesn’t conflict with His goodness. God is neither the author of evil, nor its helpless victim. Rather, precisely because of His goodness He chooses to co-exist with evil for a time…”
https://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on-evil#.Watjz9SGNdg