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?
fifthmonarchyman,
Right back atcha!
By messy I think you mean incoherent and unordered. What you give up when you abandon the Logos is order and meaning. If you assume that you will never make sense of it all you won’t
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Those are not synonyms. What is it with you people and your inability to see shades of meaning? Black is black, white is white, and never the twain shall meet.
Yet you have the Logos and can’t make sense of species or provide a better way of categorising biology.
Sure, you have certainty that you can but that is as useful as nothing at all as you are unwilling to put the actual effort in to demonstrate that you are correct.
You have order. You have meaning. You cannot provide a better definition of species. You don’t have what you think you have, and are unwilling to accept that.
Presumably you are happy that you’ve “made sense” of what a species is, and you are just wondering what’s taking so long for everyone else to catch up?
That you think this demonstrates why you’ll never understand what science is. Anyone can claim they are right or have a better way. Unlike religion, science needs more then a mere claim, however well stated or charismatic the speaker. And you just don’t get this do you?
Order and meaning come from us, and how we interact with the world. They do not depend on some mythical Logos.
Whence the belief that God has any particular preference for order in the biological world? Of course, we have a reference to ‘each according to its kind’, but that is actually entirely in accord with the evolutionary view. Each organism is indeed produced according to its kind – every individual (bar a rare few) is the same species as its parent(s). There is no conflict between this and gradual phyletic change, with ‘fuzziness’ at incipient species boundaries which resolves to more readily separable types in time. All of which may be just what God has in Mind, for all you know.
After all, God has no apparent need of taxonomy. He can label every individual by its genetic sequence, or some equivalent unique key, if he wants. It’s us that struggle a bit, and require compartments.
Nope, nothing there about UNDIRECTED evolution. Try again, this time without the equivocation, please.
Do tell everyone about DIRECTED evolution ‘Frankie’.
What’s directing it?
How do you know?
Genetic and evolutionary algorithms model directed evolution, Allan. There isn’t any way to model undirected evolution. You lose.
Why don’t YOU tell us about undirected evolution, OM? Why don’t you start posting the positive evidence for it. Tell us what it predicts, Show us the science! Or shut up.
What would you like to know?
How can I when there isn’t any way to model undirected evolution, as you just said! So no models, no evidence.
As there are no models, we cannot provide predictions. You’ve won!
Quaking in fear.
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[6] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.
How many species of bacteria are there Frankie? How do you tell them apart?
How did you determine that was undirected evolution? Please be specific.
Who cares and how is that relevant seeing that your position cannot explain bacteria?
Thank you for admitting your position isn’t science. Have a good day.
You must have a nervous tick.
Tell you what. I’ll tell you that after you explain to me how you know it’s directed!
Deal?
And yet it seems my non-scientific position is the one that’s winning. How strange.
Well, I’d rather be ignorant than be satisfied with an explanation like “Bacteria exist because the intelligent designer wants them to”. Give me ignorance any day over plain wrong! At least ignorance can be cured, pig-headed wrongness cannot!
http://media.hhmi.org/biointeractive/click/Phylogenetic_Trees/17.html
@ Frankie
Accusing other commenters of lying is against the rules here. You are creating unnecessary work for admins. Please adhere to the rules if you wish to continue commenting without restriction.
As far as I can tell the TSZ regulars break the rules and nothing happens to their posts. They aren’t even warned.
Pathetic double-standards. But I wouldn’t expect anything else here.
Your position isn’t winning, It doesn’t have any science.
Similar genetic sequences are evidence for a common design.
Read the rules carefully. Accusing others of lying is rule-breaking whether or not you think they are. Assume your fellow commenters are posting in good faith and they must do the same.
LoL! Evos do not post in good faith. There is no way I would ever assume that they do.
Also the moderation issues thread is the place to discuss moderation issues.
You have a moderation issue. Moderators should be adults.
Oh? I’ve seen no better answer as to the question “why do bacteria exist” then “the designer wants them to”. You’ve certainly never given any explanation better then that!
Do you have a better answer?
That’s why you are reduced to saying the same things over and over again, because you are winning the argument.
But why? A designer could start from scratch every time they design something and reuse nothing. Yet that’s not what we see.
It’s what you were asked on UD but ignored:
Well Joe? Explain that via “design”!
quote:
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
(1Co 14:33a)
end quote
The very first thing that happened after man was created was a taxonomic expedition in which God and man cooperated to define species boundaries.
quote:
Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.
(Gen 2:19-20a)
end quote:
The Logos is precisely the order in the universe. It is the personification of wisdom. Wisdom according to the bible includes taxonomy.
quote:
And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore……………………………..He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall. He spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of reptiles, and of fish.
(1Ki 4:29-33)
end quote:
Taxonomy was also a critical part of the Law of Moses.
quote:
This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground,
(Lev 11:46)
end quote:
hope that helps
peace
Alan, you are far more patient than I could ever be.
As I said before you’ve need to learn about federalism. It’s not that God is unable to identify individuals it’s that he chooses to treat certain groups as cohesive wholes. When it comes to federalism the archetype is considered the equivalent of all the members of the set.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I fail to see the relevance of a human political system, so I probably haven’t. Are states Platonic or something? God has a particular view of what it takes to be Texan?
And he has revealed this preferential quirk to his representative on earth, one ‘fifthmonarchyman’.
With a plastic, morphing series, all forms current at a particular moment in time form the latest ‘archetype’ This ‘archetype’ is subject to continual, gradual change. ie, not an archetype at all. Hence the species problem, which you are desperately squinting to pretend does not ‘really’ exist. In a hypothetical one-base-at-a-time change from LUCA to a giraffe, which of the intermediate forms would be archetypal? If you said ‘all of them’, I would be forced to conclude that you didn’t really know what the term meant. If you said ‘only some’, I would be wondering what the others had done to be left out.
It’s either ‘all’, ‘some’, or ‘none’. Which are you going for?
Frankie,
So you won’t have any trouble rubbing my face in it by modelling directed evolution to produce an ATP synthase, then.
fifthmonarchyman,
Those quotes don’t sound like front loading to me. More cake?
I await your paper that demonstrates this in use and how it generates a more useful map of relatedness then currently exists.
Or you could just quote some more from the bibble and hope that gawd does the rest…..
Federalism in this context is not about a human political system. Although the American system was developed by attempting to mimic the theological concept of federalism.
That is because you are reading your own picture book understanding of creation back into the text.
It’s not a quirk it’s the way the universe is and he did not revel it to just to me.
The intuition that life can be divided into categories and sub categories is universally hardwired into us all.
Your insistence that it’s all just an amorphous continuum goes against the common understanding of human kind.
IMO that is too big a price to pay to just prop up a Darwin.
It’s as if you say your theory can account for all that we see as long as we abandon the most basic impression we have when we look around. That is why there is a species problem.
We can’t help but act as if the universe is not a continuous cloud of being but differentiated into different categorical groupings . Categorizing things into groups is what humans do.
I would argue that categorizing is a big part of what makes us human.
(there is some more categorizing right there) 😉
peace
We have been using the method since humans arrived on the earth it’s the basis behind our taxonomic system and it’s still used by biologists today when categorizing individual species. I’m only suggesting that we don’t abandon it simply to try and shoehorn evolutionary relationships just to prop up Darwin.
Or we could continue to do as he have been doing and shuffle the tree of life every time a new discovery is made.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I am reading the words. The story is a picture-book story. Don’t blame me. It makes no reference, direct or indirect, to front-loading. Front-loading with gradual change and divergence from that front-loaded form are in direct opposition to essentialism. Regardless what is in the Bible.
Like I say, you want your cake and eat it too. Take your pick which you actually favour. You may think you hold both positions simultaneously, but I put it to you that you cannot without misunderstanding one or the other.
Try answering the ‘LUCA-giraffe’ question on archetypal intermediates. ‘Some’, ‘all’ or ‘none’? The answer is not in the Bible.
How do you know? Why would God favour exception-free organic discreteness in the world? And neat labels? If he does, why is it so frequently absent at the fine scale? He certainly wouldn’t have a problem with it. It’s our issue.
The desire to categorise is certainly a common feature. So what? Nature does not have to follow our OCD to the nth degree. Nor God, for that matter. When you are a hunter or primitive agronomist, the difference between Common and Spotted sandpipers is not a pressing concern. Broad categories suffice.
Who insists it is an amorphous continuum? There is clearly clustering, as I noted in my OP. It is simply not universal, as a matter of simple observation. Stop being so black-or-white! It’s either discreteness all the way down or it’s a completely disordered mess? There is a third way, you realise?
Common understanding can be wrong. When we investigate the detail, we find instances where the categories break down. Arguing that the categories CANNOT break down because ‘the common understanding’ is that they don’t is specious reasoning. Common understanding in its turn denied heliocentrism, the nature of light, the germ theory of disease …
Darwin? Fer chrissakes. Evolution is not about Darwin, and the species problem is not an invention of evolutionists to prop up their field. It is an observational fact.
Jeez. What use is a ‘basic impression’? I have the basic impression that light has nothing to do with the integrity of atoms, and no particle can pass through a solid. . Turns out I’m wrong.
If, when we look around, we find a species problem, why are you squinting so hard to pretend you cannot see it? Put the telescope to your good eye.
Sure.
I dare say. I am put in mind of Wall-E’s dilemma when confronted with a spork. Evidently, he was programmed with the capacity for non-dichotomous thinking. You might be too. Try it.
That’s called science. You don’t understand it, but it is what is is. When new data is found, things have to change.
The fact that nothing has changed for you in ~2000 years does not mean everyone has their knowledge pinned in place so it cannot be changed.
Give an example of where that has happened, and how you would better resolve the problem.
If you can’t then I’ll simply conclude you are repeating the words of people like the Discovery Institute without actually understanding them.
Intuitions are often wrong. Does the sun go around the earth?
Yet Lenski has demonstrated exactly that.
The Bible makes no mention whatsoever of how God went about the job of creation. It’s really not important to the narrative. All that is important is that it is God who did the creating. I feel that Front-loading is suggested when we look at the other book God wrote (the book of nature) but I am not dogmatic about it.
That is quite a charge how about some specific evidence to back it up?
Do you think that all revelation is found in the Bible? There is such a thing as general revelation.
I don’t think discreteness is absent at fine scale. I think we have trouble with fine scales because we are finite temporal creatures with a subjective perspective. That is why we need revelation.
Just because we don’t know when water droplets become a cloud does not mean that clouds don’t exist.
We just need move beyond our limited perspective and see the big picture.
I think there is a third way but it’s not what you think. Let me elaborate
1) Species are bounded sets. The borders between species are clearly defined and it is easy to tell if an organism is inside or outside the set
2) Species are fuzzy sets. There are no clear boundaries one species flows into the others. The organisms at the edges are especially difficult to categorize
3) Species are centered sets. Organisms that exemplify the archetype belong to the set regardless of how far they are away from the center.
You like number 2
Apparently number one is the straw-man that you want to tear down,
However I think number three is the way things are. Do you have any evidence that I am incorrect?
peace
I agree but we don’t abandon intuitions with out good reason. There is no reason to abandon the intuition that species exist until you have an answer to the species problem
That is not my intuition.
Do you really think Lenski demonstrated that life is an amorphous continuum?
peace
Lenski added to evidence there is no Edge to evolution.
How so?
peace