Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   intelligent design, right and wrong
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 91 of 126 (41631)
05-28-2003 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by NosyNed
05-28-2003 11:30 AM


The simple answer is that taxonomy is not cut-and-dried and there is eternal warfare between the "lumpers" and the "splitters".
So while dogs could be considered a non-geographical "ring species" by the "rules" (which in reality are treated more like guidelines if you ask me) it isn't very likely that anyone will propose that the dog species is split, let alone getting it past the committees that decide such things.
To point to just one example working the other way, the European White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocophala - mainly found in Spain) and the North Americal Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis - introduced into Britain), are considered different species. That hasn't stopped the British Ruddies hopping over to Spain and having their wicked way with the Senoritas, to the point where it is considered a significant threat to the already-endangered White-headed duck species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 05-28-2003 11:30 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
biglfty
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 126 (41647)
05-28-2003 6:24 PM


Is there some reason you are ignoring my posts and restating the same error you made initially?
my apologies, i actually wanted crashfrog to answer becuase is was his argument that wasnt making sense.
[This message has been edited by biglfty, 05-28-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2003 4:09 AM biglfty has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 126 (41667)
05-29-2003 2:51 AM


It is certainly true that our species is almost certainly not descended from any present-day ape species. However, the common ancestor would have been very simian, and very worthy of the title "ape".
And fossil hominids show show lots of intermediate features.
So this is a bit like quibbling over whether dogs are really descended from wolves.
And on the subject of dogs, the sequencing of their genome will get started in a few months, according to this article. Boxer dogs are the first to be sequenced, because they are relatively inbred, resulting in smaller amounts of confusion from polymorphisms. And when they are done, about a year from now, then 10 - 20 other breeds of dogs will have their genomes probed. It will be interesting to locate the genes that make a Great Dane so much bigger than a Chihuahua -- which are likely to be a very tiny fraction of the genome.

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 126 (41670)
05-29-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by mark24
05-28-2003 12:49 PM


This is getting interesting.
You're not incorrect when you state that gene flow connects all the breeds of dogs. My guess would be that this is one of the key reasons why nobody's bothered to try and split dogs into separate species. That and the fact that the various kennel clubs would be up in arms immediately. You're not entirely correct, however, either.
Let me try and clarify. If we look at the various breeds of dogs as distinct populations, and the generic "dog" as a metapopulation, it's pretty easy to tell that the extremes (great dane and chihuahua) are clearly connected by a chain of intermediate populations. If we lined up all these dog populations in order from smallest to largest, there is no question that adjacent populations would be able to freely interbreed (all other things being equal). Hence, there is gene flow from one end of the chain to the other. IOW great danes have chihuahua genes and vice versa, even though they likely couldn't mate directly. To borrow a creationist expression, "they're all still dogs".
However, and here's where it gets a bit sticky, when the degree of gene flow between two populations becomes "insignificant", they can justifiably be claimed to represent distinct species if the divergence between them is great enough. The trick, of course, is to determine when "significant" becomes "insignificant" (i.e., where to draw the line). As with so much of nature, the problem really defies crystal clear definition. If all our populations of the metapopulation "dog" were bent around in a huge circle where the great danes ended up standing next to chihuahuas, and given the rather obvious pre-zygotic barrier between them, any "splitter" taxonomist encountering them would be justified in claiming they were distinct species. Even if our taxonomist could trace the relationship through all our intermediate dog populations, s/he could still argue the case that the degree of gene flow between our extreme populations was "insignificant", and hence still claim distinct species. A purist "lumper", OTOH, would counter that unless there was a break in the chain (i.e., a disruption of the gene flow between the populations through extinction of an intermediate form or population or whatever), there would be no justification for proclaiming great danes and chihuahuas different species. A hypothetical paleontologist from the far future comparing the fossils of both would definitely conclude that s/he had related but "no doubt" distinct species (or possibly even genera).
Just to make things even more complicated, there are examples where interruption of gene flow ISN'T required for speciation.
Irwin, DE, 2002 "Phylogeographic breaks without geographic barriers to gene flow", Evolution, 56(12):2383—2394
quote:
The spatial distribution of genetic markers can be useful both in estimating patterns of gene flow and in reconstructing biogeographic history, particularly when gene genealogies can be estimated. Genealogies based on nonrecombining genetic units such as mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA often consist of geographically separated clades that come into contact in narrow regions. Such phylogeographic breaks are usually assumed to be the result of long-term barriers to gene flow. Here I show that deep phylogeographic breaks can form within a continuously distributed species even when there are no barriers to gene flow. The likelihood of observing phylogeographic breaks increases as the average individual dispersal distance and population size decrease. Those molecular markers that are most likely to show evidence of real geographic barriers are also most likely to show phylogeographic breaks that formed without any barrier to gene flow. These results might provide an explanation as to why some species, such as the greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), have phylogeographic breaks in mitochondrial or chloroplast DNA that do not coincide with sudden changes in other traits.
Irwin has another article, on-line, that explains in great detail the issue of gene flow and ring species: Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation.
Let me know if the above actually made any sense to anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mark24, posted 05-28-2003 12:49 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by mark24, posted 05-29-2003 8:53 AM Quetzal has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 126 (41671)
05-29-2003 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by biglfty
05-28-2003 6:24 PM


i actually wanted crashfrog to answer becuase is was his argument that wasnt making sense.
Sorry about that; let me try again.
The reason there's no "ape-men" is because there's nothing that could be between humans and apes. Apes end where humans begin, but we're all still primates.
Another way to look at it could be, imagine future humans some 10,000 years in the future - to them, we're the ape-men, because we're between primates and what they consider "human".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by biglfty, posted 05-28-2003 6:24 PM biglfty has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 96 of 126 (41682)
05-29-2003 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Silent H
05-28-2003 12:21 PM


I opened a thread on intelligence behind design,
where I suggested that the output of an evolutionary
process would look like a 'designed system'.
Partly the idea stems from genetic algorithms used to
design electrical circuits.
If design does not require 'intelligence' nor a 'designer'
then evidence of design cannot be used to infer anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2003 12:21 PM Silent H has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 97 of 126 (41691)
05-29-2003 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Quetzal
05-29-2003 4:04 AM


Quetzal,
quote:
Let me know if the above actually made any sense to anyone.
It did, but for clarification, are we saying that the phylogeographical breaks were once actually indicative of an actual geographical barrier to gene flow, now no longer present? ie one species expands its geographical range around both sides of a mountain range, by the time the two populations meet at the other side they are different enough to either have actually speciated, or differ enough that mate selection reduces gene flow across the zone?
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2003 4:04 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2003 9:31 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 98 of 126 (41694)
05-29-2003 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by mark24
05-29-2003 8:53 AM


Not always. This was Mayr's (and others, although Mayr called it something else) original definition, and it's a pretty good one. However, the point of Irwin's article, for example, was that reproductive isolation (phylogeographical breaks - a really stupid term IMO) between populations can arise that AREN'T relatable to interrupted gene flow - i.e., no physical geographic separation. We also see this in species flocks, and some of the other examples of what amounts to sympatric speciation. OTOH, the Ensatina complex DOES appear to have been caused by just that mechanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by mark24, posted 05-29-2003 8:53 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-29-2003 10:31 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 99 of 126 (41697)
05-29-2003 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Quetzal
05-29-2003 9:31 AM


Species and Speciation
Once again we have that clumsy situation of a (IMO) very nice, but off-topic discussion happening (this is in the "Intelligent Design" forum). As such, it is subject to getting lost, as far a future reference.
I think we need to continue the speciation line of discussion at either Species emergence ... or Definition of Species, and leave this topic string to the intended subject.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2003 9:31 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by mark24, posted 05-29-2003 12:10 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 101 by Quetzal, posted 05-30-2003 3:26 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 100 of 126 (41707)
05-29-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Adminnemooseus
05-29-2003 10:31 AM


Re: Species and Speciation
Quetzal,
I've replied here here.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-29-2003 10:31 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 126 (41765)
05-30-2003 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Adminnemooseus
05-29-2003 10:31 AM


Re: Species and Speciation
Sorry, moose. Won't happen again (yeah, right. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-29-2003 10:31 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 102 of 126 (45040)
07-04-2003 4:56 AM


Is this thread kinda off-track and dead ... or is it
just me?

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 10:41 AM Peter has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 103 of 126 (45274)
07-07-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Peter
07-04-2003 4:56 AM


I think things were getting interesting when people were trying to compare and contrast creationism and IDC.
I'm very suspicious of attempts to separate IDC from standard creationism, and I'm even reluctant to refer to "Intelligent Design" without adding "Creationism," although I'm sure that's not a designation that proponents of IDC prefer. Dembski himself objected to the way Robert Pennock consistently uses the 'IDC' tag. Needless to say, that's a good enough reason for me to adopt it as well.
However, the IDC'ers should be careful to what extent they declare IDC has diverged from the original creationist population. After all, the main thrust of IDC is identical to standard creationism: casting doubt upon the Darwinist scientific orthodoxy. The end result of this strategy is supposed to be the downfall of naturalist, materialist, reductionist science. Here's the problem: what replaces it?
IDC's insistence that it is a different philosophical entity from standard creationism is a double-edged sword, it seems. Though it would allow IDC to distance itself from religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, it would also make explicit the fact that no one philosophy could claim to replace Darwinism by default.
This would force IDC to create a more positive account of its methodology, something that does not seem forthcoming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Peter, posted 07-04-2003 4:56 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Peter, posted 07-07-2003 12:32 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 104 of 126 (45301)
07-07-2003 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by MrHambre
07-07-2003 10:41 AM


The OP suggested that without 'Intelligent Design' there
could be no right and wrong and we may as well kill someone
as eat an icecream.
That's what I meant by off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 10:41 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 12:46 PM Peter has replied
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 07-07-2003 1:33 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 105 of 126 (45305)
07-07-2003 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Peter
07-07-2003 12:32 PM


I'd rather eat an ice cream.
Are we back on topic now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Peter, posted 07-07-2003 12:32 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Peter, posted 07-07-2003 12:58 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024