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.<\/p>\n
To the<\/strike> 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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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? <\/p>\n
I would take as an example the Spotted sandpiper<\/a> and Common sandpiper<\/a>. 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?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … Continue reading