A perennial topic. The organisms we see cluster around specific, distinct types. We can identify an individual as belonging to that type because it has the distinctive characteristics of that type. We know what the characteristics are because we see a lot of such individuals.
To the some Creationists, those types represent essential, immutable forms, perhaps with some post-Ark latitude, and a bit of variation around the ‘norm’. It is as if those forms were cast from a mould, with small manufacturing defects. The mould is eternal, unchanging.
To the Evolutionist, those types are simply the current form of a changing lineage. Lineages can branch and diverge leading to an increase in the total numbers, offset by extinction. The branching process is somewhat extended in time, so species are not only malleable but somewhat blurry around the inception of a bifurcation. Intraspecific variation does not become interspecific variation overnight.
The Creationist demands to know how one type can ‘become’ another – how one unchanging essence can become another unchanging essence. The Evolutionist answers that their conception of ‘species’ is awry – one type becomes another, or two, gradually, changing like minimalist music. The type ‘floats on the breath of the population’, as Dr Johnson said of the unwritten Erse language. The Creationist responds that this is begging the question – defining species in evolutionary terms is an attempt to prove evolution by definition.
Nonetheless, if you are talking of evolution, your species concept needs to take account of it. An essentialist conception is no use in an evolutionary framework. There is, in my opinion, no non-arbitrary means of distinguishing species from other taxonomic ranks while interbreeding (and hence gene flow) is possible. This is the limit of the Biological Species Concept – a biospecies is the set of all the individuals which can create viable fertile offspring with at least one other member of the set. This can frequently be far too broad – maples separated for 20 million years can interbreed, and fertile hybrids between morphologically distinct types, even those assigned to different genera, are common. It is also difficult practically to assess whether the sets are ‘really’ separate yet. At the extreme, a single introgression among billions of incompatible pairings would indicate incomplete speciation, to a BSC pedant.
Creationists claim an objective means (as they do in other arenas …) but take them out in the field and I suspect their hypothetical methodology would fail them. If we base it on ‘morphology’, just how does one rank characters objectively? A wing-bar, beak colour, gregarious, particular mating dance, blue eggs, prefers shrimps … how many characters, which ones are more important, and by how much?
I would take as an example the Spotted sandpiper and Common sandpiper. These are held to be an example of parapatric speciation – they occupy different but contacting ranges, and within those ranges, for reasons unknown, gene flow in a single ancestral species between the ranges gradually diminished. Potential causes include a temporary ‘firebreak’ where no individuals penetrated, dichotomous mate preference, or ecological specialisation. Now, again for reasons not entirely obvious, they do not penetrate each others’ ranges except in narrow contact zones. At these zones, hybrids frequently occur. So on the BSC, speciation is not complete (indeed, the Common also interbreeds with sandpipers of a different genus, so on the BSC they join in too). But they are clear morphological species. Are they Platonic? Were they both on the Ark?
Yes – I think it is importation to distinguish between “species” and “speciation”. Especially as, following a bifurcation, one lineage may remain very similar, with most selection being conservative, while the other finds a new niche.
But we should recognise that the language doesn’t serve us well.
Eminently demonstrated by Vincent Torley’s OP on macro vs micro-evolution at Uncommon Descent.
Mung has learned something! 🙂
Elizabeth,
Aye. For some, though, the language – the map – is primary, underlying concept subordinate. This forms the essence of just about every discussion with IDCs .
lots more than one
I see nothing prohibiting a cell that contained a mechanism to adapt to fill all the available niches on earth plus a stockpile of information that would become necessary in that process.
I think that is probably how we would do it if we chose to Terraform a distant planet. When we later observed our handiwork I expect we would consider each of the resulting forms to be separate species.
peace
If you ever think that what I’m doing is trolling say the word and I’ll move on. I don’t want to intrude where I am not wanted
peace
So in what way is it different?
Not in my online experience.
That’s quite bizarre.
The usual formulation is “orchard, not tree”. So common descent of modern cats from a pair of archetypal non-specific cat of the baramin “cat”, but not common descent of cats and dogs. Or cats and fish anyway. And certainly not humans and chimps.
Yup.
I sometimes wonder if it’s an atavistic echo from the idea of textual authority. The Word is the Truth, and multiple definitions are just relativistic dodging. Hence the “equivocation” accusations.
But mostly what I see is map-territory confusion.
You are wanted 🙂 We are all gadflies to somebody, after all. Or something.
That is true, Allan- YOU have nothing but your willful ignorance.
Wow Allan, undirected evolution doesn’t have any sciency stuff. It can’t even be modeled. No one uses undirected evolution as a research heuristic. The concept is useless.
fifthmonarchyman,
No, not saying that, but shifting/incompatible positions, even unconscious ones, involve your interlocutors in expending energy and intellectual effort which frequently appears to be a waste of time. That effort is, of course, voluntary.
The conflict between front-loading and Platonism is this:
If you argue for a single first cell changing to become a set of 8.7 million modern Platonic forms, you conveniently ignore the intervening 4 billion years or so of change, and the future. If you accept a ‘plastic’ view of evolution, then all populations that exist at any particular moment are sole ‘Platonic’ essences, not simply those that exist today. Essentially, every mutation in any lineage generates a new fine-scale ‘Platonic essence’. You are misusing one concept or the other, take your pick. And if historic organic change involved an actual phylogeny, why ignore systematics for taxonomy? You want to have your cake, eat it, and smear it all over your body.
Frankie,
Your choice – but the blind-eye stance taken by Lizzie is contingent upon your comments staying within the rules.
Frankie,
Hmmm. How would Joe Gallien react if he asked for information and someone said “Google it”? Oh, hang on, why am I asking you?
OK, did as you asked, and it turns out baraminology is horseshit. Why am I not surprised. They pretend to use phylogeny (you deny phylogeny don’t you? Certainly used to), but don’t have a working metric to distinguish Common Descent from …. the other thing.
Baraminology – a scientist writes
“Conclusion
Despite its use of computer software and flashy statistical graphics, the practice of baraminology amounts to little more than a parroting of scientific investigations into phylogenetics. A critical analysis of the results from the one “objective” software program employed by baraminologists suggests that the method does not actually work. The supremacy of the biblical criteria is explicitly admitted to by Wood and others (2003) in their guidebook to baraminology, so all their claims of “objectivity” notwithstanding, the results will never stray very far from a literal reading of biblical texts. I will give the baraminologists credit in one area: they are up-front about their motives and predispositions and true to their biblical criteria and methodology, which is more than can be said about “intelligent design” proponents.”
Frankie,
Wrong on all counts.
Do you think Mendel’s Accountant has anything to teach us about the capacity of evolution, then? Or is this yet another example of methodologies you don’t accept leading to conclusions you fully support?
Please tell us how to model undirected evolution producing a bacterial flagellum or ATP synthase. Please tell us of this undirected evolutionary research.
Hi Alan Miller,
Thanks for an interesting post. I entirely agree with your argument that creationists (and essentialists in general) need to develop an objective criterion for identifying true kinds.
I’m particularly interested in instances of rapid speciation, such as have occurred among sticklebacks and cichlid fish. What I’d like to know is: are there any orphan genes which are found in some species of cichlids (or sticklebacks) but not others? Can anyone tell me?
Moved a couple of Frankie’s comments to guano.
Why? Move the posts I was responding to then.
I am right on all counts. Mendels accountant has nothing to teach us about undirected BIOLOGICAL evolution
If we only had people who agreed with one another, there wouldn’t be any interesting discussion going on.
So stick around. You are part of what makes this an interesting discussion site.
Your position is horseshit- Allan used the word so it should be OK for me to respond with the same word.
Try reading something on baraminology written by a Creationist.
There are books and many articles written about the “species problem”. I suggest people look into that “species problem” to see what it actually entails.
Frankie,
You tell us how directed evolution didit and I’ll try and match your level of detail. We’ll publish jointly in Biocomplexity.
Hi Vincent,
Here’s a study on Amazonian cichlids looking at microsatellite regions
vjtorley,
Try this Copy-number variation is affected by orphan genes. One would need a lot more info about the source of these genes though, and about within-population variation of them. I don’t know whether CNV acts as an isolating mechanism.
Directed evolution can be modeled. Undirected evolution cannot be modeled. And I never said that directed evolution produced ATP synthase or a bacterial flagellum. But if it did it did so like GAs and EAs produce things.
But undirected evolution cannot account for cichlids. So that would be a problem
Frankie,
There is something missing at the end of that sentence. I dunno, a link or something? Is every baraminology paper of the same high quality, such that it does not matter which I read, I will find how the LCA of a clade is determined in every single one?
Frankie,
Better have a word with Sanford then. He’ll be gutted.
Frankie,
It is the context, not just the word. You can call a comment stupid but not the commenter. Address the comment and you’re fine, though I’m keeping a close eye on you!
Frankie,
So you’ll have no problem producing such a model, then. I’ll respond to the challenge when you do.
There is an evolutionary explanation for the rapid appearance of radiating species of cichlids in the African rift valley lakes. Here, for instance. It may not be complete or correct in all details but it is a bit better than the Joe Gallien theory.
Alan Fox,
Alan, you are obviously more “Christian” than I could ever hope to be. And I mean that in the “forgiving nature” sense. Frankie, Joe, Virgil (whatever), has an extremely long record of being incapable of following Elizabeth’s very simple rule. But I hope that he can. If I don’t get the lame “there is no theory of evolution” claim at least once a day, I start going through withrdrawal.
But undirected evolution cannot account for withdrawal. So that would be a problem.
OMagain,
But undirected evolution can’t even account for the existence of problems.
Acartia,
There should always be the opportunity for rehabilitation. 😉
Evolution can’t account for the account sea eaither.
check it out
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704929/
this is a start
peace
From a timeless Gods’ perspective there is no temporal dimension there is only an eternal now. There is no ignoring going on as long we stipulate that the forms exist ultimately in the mind of God.
you might say that we being temporal beings have no access to God’s perspective. But I would say that is where revelation comes in.
Check this out for a little background information
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s just meaningless nonsense. Platonism remains valid because every organism that ever existed and ever will exist in our time-bound realm exists simultaneously in God’s timeless mind? Regardless what course the future takes, free will and all? All of my descendants are already formed in God’s mind, regardless what course anyone’s life takes or who they meet? Pure gobbledegibber, sorry. And utterly useless for taxonomy. Your pseudo-Platonism could as easily relate to individuals, not to species at all. The fine art of Making Stuff Up. What puzzles me is that you think it makes sense.
I don’t think so.
I honestly believe that the Christian God is like a missing puzzle piece that answers all the “problems” and “paradoxes” in philosophy and science.
Things like the problem of species, problem of induction and the problem of the one and the many just disappear when we presuppose the Christian God.
It’s like the Logos is just waiting for us to finally look to him to enlighten us on this stuff
quote:
Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?
(Pro 1:20-22)
end quote:
peace
It’s the neo-platonist thinking that creates those “problems”.
They don’t disappear. They just become an excuse for believing in magic.
It is better to not create those “problems” in the first place.
I’m a Calvinist I think all that stuff was predetermined from God’s perspective from the very beginning.
If you are interested in understanding what I’m talking about I suggest you look into the concept of federalism.
It’s the idea that multiple individuals can also be a single being. It a foundational all important doctrine of Christianity, Touching on everything from the Trinity to marriage and the church.
peace
I don’t think so. Problems like the problem of induction and the problem of the one and the many would still be there if Plato and “the forms” never existed.
Same with the problem of species
peace
Those are pseudo-problems that arise from looking for platonic essences.
Once we recognize that the world is messy, and that we can make pragmatic choices, we realize that they are not real problems.
Not unless you can explain in your own words why that supports your case it’s not.
You don’t understand “the problem of species” as has been demonstrated the last couple of days. So please stop making out there is a problem and you have a solution to it – you’ve already said you are not willing to put the effort in that a real scientist would so enough already with “the species problem”. If it’s a problem it’s a problem you are not going to solve Mr Armchair.
fifthmonarchyman,
I sincerely doubt I will ever understand what you are talking about. To me, you are advocating the antithesis of essentialism as it relates to species. If ‘front-loaded’ genomes change stepwise, and speciate, and form clades in exactly the way an ‘evolutionist’ might understand them, you don’t have anything like a ‘Platonic’ form conventionally understood. There is simply an incremental continuum of individuals, with gradual divergence and clustering through relationship, and a consequent ‘species problem’. So when you sneered earlier about ‘squinting the right way’, that’s pretty much what you have to do. You just think that God will guide your squinting – but there’s nothing Platonic to squint at, if you argue for a front-loaded continuum. The positions are indistinguishable.