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?
It’s only incompatible from your finite temporal perspective. From God’s perspective it is perfectly compatible.
Everything does not have to be about you
peace
Yes the forms were only abandoned when we attempted to incorporate evolution and the idea that like produces like into our taxonomy.
I’m saying that abandoning the Forms was a mistake
peace
Ever heard of low and high tide?
Way…… way too much work.
I offered a definition in response to a direct question from you. I did not initiate this discussion
I’m willing to defend my definition if need be. If you have clarifying questions just ask
but I’m not willing to jump through an every increasing number of hoops to entertain someone who is not really interested in hearing what I have to say anyway
peace
high and low tide that directly lead to the Exodus. Just coincidence of course. Nothing to see here move along.
peace
Are you saying humanity is just a population?
As I have said repeatedly taxonomists generally classify species phenotypicly.
This would not change if my definition was accepted. All that would change is that we would assume that the taxonomist’s work is not in vain and that there is a real species there somewhere.
In the meantime I am not a taxonomist and I will not presume to do their work for them
peace
I got no evidence that the Exodus happened as reported by an unknown author, but I’ve seen ”
It’s just water, sometimes it’s deep and sometimes it’s shallow.No sign of intelligent agency at all
No I’m saying that humanity is a population not “just” a population but a population none the less.
No species is just a population that is why you can’t say that a species is nothing more than the composite of the genotypes of it’s members.
Allen Miller is very mistaken on that point IMO.
peace
So you are unable to understand an illustration unless you are convinced that it actually happened?
peace
Well good luck with your taxonomy project. I suggest you write to Behe and Dembski. It’s the very thing needed to ressurect their moribund ideas. Perhaps write them a long letter, every day.
With copies to Casey Luskin.
an answer to a question on an obscure website does not a “project” make.
peace
Whatever would include “drift” and any other mechanisms that are added to the RM plus NS algorithm. I used the term whatever so as not to leave anything out
peace
see above.
I’m not a taxonomist I would not presume to tell them how to do their job. All my understanding would do is solve the species problem and allow us to assume that that taxonomy has real meaning.
It would not put folks who do it out of business
peace
I think it’s every bit as interesting as your string analysis program.
I do smell the sarcasm. Thank you very much though.
But I do think that this understanding of species and my tool are in fact closely related.
With the tool you are attempting to recognize the “form” that is present in the designed string. When you do you have a point of contact with the designer who put it there.
That is exactly what happens when we differentiate a particular species from the background noise. That goes for species of geometric shapes like “circle” or a organic groupings like “homo sapiens”
peace
I have a question. if reproduction viability , if, is the boundary for what a species is or relevant at all THEN right now in the classificvation system HOW MAN species would not qualify as species. ?? I recently found on lions and tigers can breed fine but are called diffeent species.
Just windering about the competence in science classification rules.
Obviously, they mutate within the limit.
It means scientists have not yet found a combination that requires the microbes to effect 3 mutations.
Make no mistake, if Behe is wrong then humanity is shit out of luck.
My money is on human intelligence outflanking microbe intelligence.
And we give thanks to The Edge for that.
Steve: “Behe’s edge is the only thing that gives Man ..ehem…an edge against disease. It is what allows us to make vaccines that work.”
Acartia: “Then how do you explain things like the cold and flu viruses that often “evolve” too quickly to develop effective vaccines?”
Don’t be obtuse Rummy.
Micro-evolution only results in variation. There is not speciation happening.
Why? Because speciation can mean whatever the f345 you want it to mean. That’s why there are 26 definitions. How wonderful a tool speciation is. More plastic then genomes themselves. Go figure.
So speciation does not mean what you want it to mean.
You want speciation to mean new organisms (except when you don’t; again how wonderful it is). Yet, we have not seen new organisms in what….eons.
Just ask my grandmother. She was there!!
Put THAT in your bowl and toke on it…..slowly, and hold it for a few seconds…then let the smoke out very slowly….the buzz is awesome.
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Oh, and talk about making shit up.
WTF is this??
So there it is folk, it may not look like speciation BUT it really still is speciation.
What I wanna know Rummy is, are you gonna keep your prize or exchange it for what’s behind door #3?
It’s not about me, it’s about the progression of knowledge. It’s not my loss if you can’t be bothered to do the work required to turn an idea into a useful process.
Because that’s what the word micro-evolution means. It refers to evolution below the species level by definition.
Microevolution CANNOT lead to speciation because then it’d fail to qualify as microevolution, by definition.
Steve, you need to look up what the words mean.
That makes no sense. What prevents microevolution from leading to speciation is not “because speciation can mean whatever the fuck I want it to mean”. What prevents microevolution from leading to speciation is the definition of microevolution. This doesn’t mean speciation can’t happen, it just means that in so far as it happens, it is by definition not micro-evolution.
No, the reason there are 26 definitions is because coming up with a concept of a species that fits all cases is very difficult, because the concept of a species is in the first place a human construct. It is a term we use to delineate organisms into categories so we can understand each other when we try to communicate about them. It is exactly because evolution happens and that no species is immutable that these concepts eventually fail.
I don’t want speciation to mean anything, I just know what the terms micro and macro-evolution actually mean, because I read and understood their definitions. This has nothing to do with wanting something, it is entirely about appropriate use of correct technical terminology. A subject in which you are, demonstrably as we can see from our exchange, laughably inept.
Again, define: new.
What does it mean to be new? How different must one be from another to be “new”?
Have you been around for an Eon?
An Eon is equal to or over half a billion years. Yet another word you don’t know what means.
The rest of your comment was irrelevant blather.
You have chosen this obscure website to reveal your idea. And you have also chosen this obscure website to make it clear you have no actual interest in progressing your idea apart from to tell others they are wrong.
Just like that.
You’ve done that analysis then have you? Please show your notes, or restate that along the lines of “I imagine…”
If nothing changes, why make the change at all?
Odd that. How come? Has the Intelligent Designer got some holiday booked?
fifthmonarchyman,
I’d already said that evolution was more than selection. Your ‘whatever’ comment was simply a sneer, which you are now attempting to revise into a “what-me-guv” attempt to be comprehensive.
Out of interest, how many “other” mechanisms of variation would you hazard a guess have been postulated to exist?
fifthmonarchyman,
You have no idea what God’s perspective is. You have a perspective and call it God’s, presumptuous human.
The key point is ‘gradual change’. You can’t have ‘gradual change’ (or any other kind) without a temporal perspective. If you propose front-loading followed by a succession leading to modern forms, passing through intermediates … how have you dispensed with time? Other than by saying “I have dispensed with time” and pretending that settles the matter. Jeez, the clue is in the name. Front loading. What does that suggest to you, finite time-bound human?
Nor you, O random generator of redundant points.
fifthmonarchyman,
Says the person who has spent a good few pages telling them they’re doing it wrong.
If your understanding would solve the species problem, you would be able to say whether Spotted and Common Sandpipers definitively and objectively form one species or two, or at least provide a better methodology. Something other than telling them the species problem disappears if you squint hard enough.
fifthmonarchyman,
Not any more. Sequence and morphologically invisible structure data is a rich source of fine-scale resolution.
By the way, who was it that wrote that M&M genetic drift simulator, originally? Anyone have a link to it?
Edit: Nevermind, I fount it. OMagain, do you have an email or something? I have some questions and suggestions for your simulation, if you have the time 🙂
I said ‘a population’, not ‘humanity’. It’s not all about you, you know! 😉 E coli, octopuses, sandpipers …
But yes, I can see that my statement was incomplete. Obviously, you have a population of phenotypes as well, and emergent effects such as culture, hopes and dreams … nonetheless, an individual added to or removed from the population involves the addition or removal of its genotype. If it has offspring, what it passes on is its genotype. As far as a succession of populations is concerned, it is a succession of genotypes.
If one is looking at ‘typical’ members of species, and one changes genotypes wholesale, one inevitably changes what it takes to be ‘typical’, and in a much broader and more fundamental sense than any visible difference in morphology. Some sandpipers have spotty breasts because they have differences in genotype. That is inherited, not the spotty breast itself.
It’s like the parameters for the ellipse, not the ellipse itself. There is an infinite number of possible parameters in that particular instance, and no ‘archetypal’ ellipse among ’em. Are ellipses variant circles, or is a circle a specific ellipse?
I would invite fmm to actually try what he proposes, set-wise. Draw a big circle and start filling it with organisms. Start with ‘front-loaded’ LUCA, then start adding its descendants, one by one, ‘ignoring’ the temporal realm. These descendants depart from type according to their ‘front-loaded’ programming. But they remain archetypal LUCAs, so they belong in the set, until they don’t. Any time he feels it appropriate, start a new circle, on ‘objective’ and atemporal grounds – an offspring that does not belong in the set, then all its descendants after their kind.
If done honestly, according to the entailments of a truly ‘front-loading’ proposal, I would suggest that he would end up with just one mahoosive circle containing every organism that ever existed. Hardly the most useful classification system. But no species problem I guess.
Ever hear of revelation. It’s the only way we can have any idea about anything. If God chooses to reveal something to us we can know it if not we are forever in the dark
quote:
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
(1Co 2:10-12)
end quote:
I never said nothing changes. The change is that scientists treat species as real things and not useful fictions
from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenetics
quote:
Many systematists continue to use phenetic methods, particularly in addressing species-level questions. While a major goal of taxonomy remains describing the ‘tree of life’ – the evolutionary path connecting all species – in fieldwork one needs to be able to separate one taxon from another. Classifying diverse groups of closely related organisms that differ by very subtle differences is difficult using a cladistic approach. Phenetics provides numerical tools for examining overall patterns of variation, allowing researchers to identify discrete groups that can be classified as species.
end quote:
peace
I would say that morphology encompasses much more than just genotype. environmental factors are also ever important. There is a reason that cloning an individual does not yield an exact copy.
That is also why I would classify modern humans as a different species than archaic homo sapien. That would be the case even if it was determined that we share the same genotype
peace
Like I said, it makes no difference.
Point to something that would change, or accept the fact it would make no difference.
If you can’t be specific, perhaps you would reconsider your whole idea?
So, God has revealed the perspective it views reality from to you?
Then why is it impossible for you to give specific answers to specific questions?
Well fmm?
Sure, I’ll work something out.
Your solution simply seems to be “species are real, OK?”
Show a problem, show how your “idea” resolves that problem. Or accept you don’t really understand “the species problem”.
I have made it clear that I believe that species are centered sets. Why do you continue to attack a bounded set straw man?
A centered set approach would start with the archetype and then connect every organism that exemplifies that archetype regardless of how far it is away from the center.
There are no dark circle boundaries in a centered set just an archetype and the organisms that are connected to it.
A descendant organism may or may not be a part of the same set as it’s parent depending only on whether they exemplify the same archetype.
peace
Here is one that I am familiar with off the top of my head.
Where I live there are two “types” of large wild canine one is very coyote like it is small brown short haired and hunts small game alone. The other is much larger hunts large prey in packs locally it’s known as the brush wolf.
The present system would classify the two canines as one species because they can interbreed. My approach would probably classify them as two species because of their different morphology and habits.
Here is another example of what I’m talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quagga
here is one more; as I said before a creature with all the characteristics of a woolly mammoth would be woolly mammoth even if it contained DNA from the Asian elephant.
I hope that helps
peace
did you miss this?
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933
and this
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 it’s name
end quote:
peace
“Let’s call cows ‘cows,’ OK?”
“I’m cool with that.”
And so it was from that day forward that cows were cows.
Seriously, it’s interesting to me how anti-essentialist/scholastic your approach is here, Fifth. Early 20th century conventionalism in a pail.
Probably? Try harder. Actually use your proposed system and come up with a structured argument as to why you’d classify them as two rather then one. You know, science it up a bit?
Can’t see the word “God” in there. So no, not much use to you is it?
Whatever.
How are you deciding what the archetype actually is? How do you pick it out specifically from the innumerable other similar forms?
Robert Byers: I have a question. if reproduction viability , if, is the boundary for what a species is or relevant at all THEN right now in the classificvation system HOW MAN species would not qualify as species. ?? I recently found on lions and tigers can breed fine but are called diffeent species.
Are you asking about human races? If so, humans have significant gene flow between populations, and readily interbreed throughout their range. They weren’t separated nearly long enough or completely enough to form separate sub-species, much less separate species. There is only one extant subspecies of human; Homo sapiens sapiens.
fifthmonarchyman: A centered set approach would start with the archetype and then connect every organism that exemplifies that archetype regardless of how far it is away from the center.
How do you determine the center?
It’s rather easy to see why Steve and Fifth confine their drivel to obscure websites.
Seems the site has a PM system built in. I’ve just sent you a msg.