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?
petrushka,
It’s part of the continuum of rank, from immediate parental relation outwards to kingdom. Obviously, it is subject to extensive ‘LGT’.
fifthmonarchyman,
When categorising things that have no genetic relationship, we don’t care about genetic relationship. However, if there were a genetic relationship, we would – see languages, texts. There is a genetic relationship between members of a population. You can see it in the genome, in indels and SNPs and silent sites and copy number variants and transposon sites etc. Who in their right mind is going to ignore this data?
“Race” used to mean subspecies. that was the meaning of the word in Darwin’s time.
The word “racist” refers to the belief ( rather common where I grew up) that humankind contained subspecies.
The genome project put an end to that. Were are learning that humankind used to have subspecies, and we have remnants of their DNA in our genomes.
All of which is consistent with common descent. We are all cousins. All animals, all living things. Animals and plants share common DNA and common ancestors.
What Fifth wishes to deny is that species shade imperceptibly into different species. There is no archetype, no division in the fourth dimension he cites.
Time was the ID crowd made at least a feeble attempt to appear sane.
While affirming that there once existed a species ancestral to both human beings and chimpanzees.
Makes no sense to me.
You can observe the confusion at sites like UD, where it is assumed that at some point a chimp (or non-human ape) would have to give birth to a human.
Hence my question to Fifth (which I will repeat) Is it his contention that new species require a member of the old species giving birth to a member of the new species?
Also why I brought up the idea of transitional fossils. If I understand fmm correctly, transitional forms don’t/can’t exist!
I do appreciate four dimensional thinking about species. I don’t think it implies what he thinks it implies.
Yes that is the point. You can’t be the member of two species at the same time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
I’m not sure of what you are looking for here. It’s hard to look past the mockery.
Are you unaware of the evidence for a single origin of all extant life?
If you mean the color it would be the absence of all color. If you mean the ethnic grouping race unlike species is human construct has no “form”.
list what?
peace
It works like this species are centered sets. A an organism can exemplify a particular form and it’s offspring can exemplify another different form.
Think about a shape that has four equal sides and four equal angles it is a member of the species “square”.
Now mutate the shape by cutting on the diagonal.
The original square has just given birth to two shapes of the species “triangle”.
hope that helps
peace
Transitional forms if you mean what I think you mean are species in their own right that exist between two neighboring squares on the grid that I mentioned.
peace
Do the shapes in my square to triangles example have a genetic relationship?
peace
Possibility 1: A new species comes into existence when a newborn is sufficiently different from its parents.
Possibility 2: A new species come into existence when a biologist gives a definition of that species, and the definition is accepted by the consensus.
I’m going with possibility 2.
That’s cool. To each his own
You are left with the species problem and a “priesthood” of biologists with the power to transform the amorphous continuum into discrete species by saying certain magic words.
quote:
What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
(Ecc 1:9)
end quote:
peace
Once we accept that species are conventional, rather than metaphysical, there really isn’t a problem. And going by conventional knowledge, rather than revealed knowledge, resolves your question of how knowledge is possible.
As for the “priesthood” — as long as they make pragmatic decisions, it isn’t all that important. We already divide a continuum into discrete units using the graduation marks on a ruler. Experience shows that this works well, and a switch from the British system to the metric system doesn’t cause any problems other than political objections.
The priesthood gambit.
Well, one would think that fifthmonarchyman blushes a little to see himself using “priesthood” of biologists as if that were an insult, something to be avoided. I would say he must have meant that ironically, but I get a sense he doesn’t do irony. So that pretty much leaves an embarrassing level of stupidity as the explanation for that infelicitous phrase.
What have the priests of science ever given us, anyway.
Aside from conquering smallpox, I mean.
And perhaps painless dentistry.
And maybe freedom from polio, and measles encephalitis.
And antibiotics.
And insulin.
What have they done to deserve trust?
No, what’s a transitional fossil in your “archetype” classification system? What archetype does it represent?
The evidence that convinced you that there was a common origin for life forms on earth. As I suspect that evidence will be from the same people who are also at the same time wrong, according to you.
Are you saying you deny the biblical truth of the creation story, Adam and Eve and the fludde? As both common descent and Adam and Eve can’t be true at the same time.
List the organisms that exemplifies an archetype. It’s *your* claim!
Therefore everything is an archetype, right? And your scheme fails.
Which you have done nothing to solve, except to talk about squares and circles which is nonsensical given the huge number of real examples you could use and thereby illustrate your point with examples. That you are reduced to talking about circles shows the absolute poverty of your “solution” to the species problem.
By “conventional” you mean not actual. because under your scheme it seems that species and knowledge have no real existence.
Sure sounds like the elements of the Mass to me
peace
Wow I did not know science had a priesthood. It explains a lot to realize you all believe you are defending a holy magistrate. I always thought science was a method and not a private fraternity servicing the laity from on high
peace
Yet it was you that said it in the first place:
So clarify what you meant.
No, that’s the excuse you will tell yourself when your “ideas” fail to take root. Not that the ideas were bad or you were unwilling to do the work required to get them into shape, but they were rejected by the priests of science that will brook no dissent. That way you get to toddle off thinking you were right, and that’s all that matters.
You say that yet cannot demonstrate your ideas in the form science expects.
Under your scheme a circle cut in two creates a new species. Your scheme is nonsensical. You cannot use real examples from biology so use squares and circles instead. Does that not tell you something about the actual applicability of your ideas to biology?
fmm,
It’s an old pattern. Someone get’s their ideas destroyed. They look for a reason other then their ideas were bad for their ideas being rejected. They settle on “darwinian conspiracy” or similar. It’s never the idea, it’s always the conspiracy. You now think that one single person “admitting” the conspiracy is evidence that every single person in the world is in on it, hence your sweeping statement:
You *all*? Even if your interpretation was correct it’s correct only for that single person, not everybody in the world. No, you are now looking for any excuse and you’ve found it.
There are several ex-fundies here. You will be one if you stay. Guaranteed. If you cannot support your claims to your own satisfaction (and let’s face it, your bar must be very low if you think you’ve done that) then you’ll have to accept they are in error at some point.
Next you will be asserting that the lanes on highways have no real existence. For sure, those are conventional.
Yet another embarrassing mistake by fifthmonarchyman.
Red light stop.
Green light go.
Yellow light go very fast.
Does xe think those are archetypes revealed from the “mind of god” ?
what color of skin does that platonic version of man have?
fifthmonarchyman,
I’ll ask again: WTF is a centred set? Define it rigorously, and explain how a centred set of real organisms can be distinguished from a finite bounded set with a certain (generally arbitrary) rule applied. All I see on Google is Christian apologetics mumbo-jumbo sites.
If it involves putting real organisms inside or outside a particular set instance, it’s a bounded set. ‘Distance from centre’ is a setting criterion. If increasing distance is not sharply discontinuous, you have a species problem.
fifthmonarchyman,
Depends how you generate them. But they don’t need to. ergo, exactly as I said: “When categorising things that have no genetic relationship, we don’t care about genetic relationship. However, if there were a genetic relationship, we would”.
Organisms have genetic relationships. They aren’t geometric shapes. Unless your ‘new species’ individual (that can’t mate with anything in the biosphere, which you don’t think is a problem) is supposed to not actually be descended from its parent(s). I’m not even sure if you know yourself whether you truly support front-loading (nothing you propose is consistent with it) or special creation. Just ABE – Anything But Evolution.
You don’t have a new species unless and until the shape exemplifies a different Form/ archetype.
The reason my ideas fail to take root is I suppose generally down to lack of interest on my part. I’m really not that interested in this topic. I’m only answering a direct question from you. If I was interested I’d put a little work into it. My entire time investment to this project boils down to jotting down some comments here.
like I said there is not a lot that would change if we returned to looking at species as Platonic forms, Field biologists already categorize phenotypically. They just don’t often think there is any thing real behind it all.
It really is absolutely no skin off my nose if you wish to continue with the present system. To each his own really
peace
I gave you three examples from biology did you somehow you miss it?
The lines on the highway have real existence you can measure the level of pigment and thickness. I suppose that is what you are trying to say is that the placement of the lines is based on convention.
Except that is not what is going on.
The placement of lines is supported by the power and authority of the government. It’s that authority and power that gives the placement it’s meaning.
When it comes to setting the boundaries of species in the present system there is no authority so the lines are truly just matters of convention.
peace
So apparently not only do you accept common decent you presuppose it.
So you are saying that new species must have genetic relationships? What about the work of Craig Venter? If he succeeds in creating a life form from scratch are you saying that you would be unable to categorize it?
peace
Ok I’ll give it a go.
In this context a centered set is a set of all things that exemplify a particular platonic form. The “center” is the form
Think about the centered set of “circles” it is infinite because it contains not only all existing circles but all possible shapes that exemplify the form circle. The physical circles in the set are never perfect can themselves be quite irregular as long as they exemplify the form they are circles
In the same way the centered set of “homo sapiens” is infinite because it contains not only all existing “homo sapiens” but all possible shapes that exemplify the form “homo sapien”. The physical organisms in the set can vary a lot from the archetype as long as they exemplify the form they are humans
I hope that helps
I happily accept the power and authority of those hard working biologists who define species boundaries.
You’ll never admit you were wrong will you? Despite having the opportunity to engage with some people who actually know what they are talking about that might be able to clarify some of your misunderstandings, you’ll just sniff and say “well, you just carry on with your wrong ideas” without ever considering the possibility that it’s you that’s in the wrong. And how can you be in the wrong with truth directly from god?
And that’s why if the world was only populated with people like you we’d still be sitting in caves.
List them. These ‘platonic forms’.
fifthmonarchyman,
How do you work that out from my answer on your geometric shapes example? There is evidence for common descent. Genetic and morphological evidence. I accept that.
No, I am not saying new species must have genetic relartionships. But if you are arguing the front loading case (as you think you are, but don’t seem to get its entailments) you are arguing that there is a genetic line from ‘front-loaded’ LUCA to modern species, and hence common descent and genetic relation.
If Craig Venter comes up with a new species, it obviously won’t be related to existing ones. This has no bearing on whether existing ones are related or not. They clearly are, at this taxonimoc rank at least.
Would it be an essential form in God’s mind, or Craig’s? Or no-one’s?
fifthmonarchyman,
And yet you’ve been pursuing it for weeks! You can tell the topics I’m not interested in. No comments from me.
fifthmonarchyman,
It is infinite only because there are infinitesimal gradations in radius. That still doesn’t justify the term ‘centred’, though. Which circle is the type?
Anyway, a set of organisms cannot be infinite – there cannot be inifinite gradations in genotype. Once you move a certain distance away from ‘Human’, you end up in Gorilla. The ‘point’ at which this happens is arbitrary.
How do you decide how far away from perfectly circular a circle has to be to stop it being in the ‘circle’ set? And what set is it in then? You are shooting yourself in the foot. Continuous differentials between one ‘form’ and another does not support archetypal thinking.
There is only a finite number of genotypes that would form anything anyone would consider ‘human’. Of course you are trying hard ignore genotype, but there is only so much the environment can do to modify the genotypic form as well. This set is not infinite. We are trying to stick ‘real’ organisms in it. No-one is interested in how to classify non-existent individuals. In fact, if everything that had ever existed was still alive we’d have an even bigger ‘species’ headache. Modern species are discrete because of extinction – because only ‘real’ organisms need classifying.
OMagain,
I love your optimism, but it flies in the face of the observed evidence. That kind of change requires not just intellectual honesty but quite often the courage to reject the beliefs of one’s family and social group. It’s easier to let the knowledge bounce off and cling tighter to faith.
I think that if you are forced to the point where your error is clear then you have to make a deliberate choice then to reject correction and stick with what you now know to be in error.
I think the strongest dam can be broken by the smallest leak, and once it starts it’ll only cascade.
I get the sense that fmm has allowed the first crack already. He wrote a javascript tool to test his ideas about design detection. There’s some scientist in there trying to get out I feel. Hence my offer to get his program hosted and online. If fmm can be shown via something he understands that he’s incorrect about some assumptions, then on what basis can he then reject *those* corrections and retain his integrity?
OMagain,
Based on people I’ve seen who haven’t modified their beliefs in such situations, my opinion is that family and social bonds (that sometimes even include employment) can outweigh integrity. For many fundamentalists, their entire life is centered on their church. That’s a powerful emotional force counteracting reason, logic, and evidence.
I do wish you luck, though. I hope your optimism is warranted.
Alan Fox
I think you might be misinterpreting what is going on here
1) OMagain went to EL’s thread and repeatedly challenged me provide a definition of species on this one
which I did off the top of my head
2) then he immediately and repeatedly challenged me to provide spesific examples.
which I did
3) Then he challenged me to provide a comprehensive argument for “my project” and perhaps a peer reviewed article reassigning species.
I told him I was unwilling to go that sort of trouble but that I would defend my definition and answer any questions he had.
That is how we got to where we are. I Just think it’s impolite to not answer questions when asked
I have not been pursuing anything. Just clarifying as needed and wading through the usual shallow scoffing that often passes as discussion around here
Peace
you will find it here
http://pastebin.com/ZqGRxcjt
This code works in java in the processing software found here https://processing.org/
However when I convert to java script it yields…… nothing, I think it has to do with the float to integer conversion.
In order to make it all work you need 2 associated notepad documents that contain the actual strings these were named fake and real.
Remember this is my first attempt at coding anything so expect a lot of inelegant stuff going on.
Have at it.
If I don’t hear anything from you I will get back to work on the web version of the tool as time and inclination permit.
let me know if you have any questions
peace
The ideal circle. the one with the circumference diameter that equals precisely Pi It does not exit in the phyiscal universe but in the mind of God
No it is no more arbitrary than the transition from polygon to circle.
When a child separates a pile of shapes into polygons and circles we can judge if he accomplished the task or not. Preschool teachers do this all the time. If you can’t do it we assume you have intelligence problems
Now an ignorant outsider who did not know the history of the shapes might have some trouble with some of the shapes in the beginning but the person who cut out the shapes to begin with would know which ones were meant to be circles and which were not
If the “archetype” is in the mind of God then his categorization would not be arbitrary but objective reality.
The correctness of our subjective categorization would depend on how closely we were “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. and would get better with feed back
peace
In the Mendel’s Accountant thread one reason EL objected to the paper was the contention that we could associate human level intelligence with any particular genomic target.
Would you disagree with her?
peace
fixed it for you
Oh, no, you didn’t, honey, you fixed it for YOURSELF only. Which of course means it’s broken for any rational human being, including most modern christians who are not handicapped by your bizarre and irrational beliefs about atheists.
There may be a handful of atheists who feel rebellion against god, but there are not many. And there are zero whose entire life is centered on their rebellion against god. Everyone knows that. IF you really don’t know that, you should. Not our fault if you’re determined to be wrong.
Patrick’s statement was true as written (many fundamentalists cannot leave their church, for social/economic reasons) while your re-statement is both false and mean.
If you have a drop of honesty, you will admit that many christians (and especially fundamentalists, as Patrick says) have their entire lives centered on their church. Which is usually considered to be a GOOD thing by their communities, and not something you should be eager to deny.
fifthmonarchyman,
I dare say (though a circle is actually an infinite-sided polygon). Nonetheless, arbitrary is arbitrary.
You still seem to be arguing that God, who can deal with absolutely anything, needs categories. Maybe he do, maybe he don’t, but it’s us that are trying to find appropriate subdivisions. Referencing the inaccessible subdivisions of an entity that may not even have them is not a particularly fruitful endeavour.
Was that really necessary? I have treated your intellectual capacities with some respect. Don’t pretend it was innocent.
What makes you think God cannot deal with shades of grey? Transitions along a continuum require an arbitrary cutoff, in God’s mind or anyone else’s. One could decide that God does not do anything arbitrarily by definition, but still, if He partitions a continuum into two bins, two infinitesimally-separated neighbours belong in two different bins. For no better reason than any other two infinitesimally-separated neighbours.
You might (for all you know) be closer to God’s thinking if you accepted the apparent continuum as an actual continuum. The evidence certainly points that way.
fifthmonarchyman,
No, I wouldn’t. There is not generally a 1:1 mapping between a stretch of DNA and a phenotypic feature. This has no bearing on whether the subdivision of the space-of-all-genomes that could be labelled ‘human’ is finite or circumscribed vs ‘centred’.