|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Species | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Bluejay writes: I argue that the only reason to use the methodology you espouse is because it satisfyingly parcels things into convenient packages of information that sound nice to you. But, it isn’t any more accurate or correct than any other proposed methodology, and it severely restricts the number of people who can do it. I am not the one advocating the newer definitions of species. Scientists working in the field are actively doing this as it gives significant advantages. And yes I do like convenient parcels and packages. Why not. As regards the expensive equipment and the restrictions on people, I am happy for them to continue to use the older or existing definitions of species. For the vast majority of people these older models work perfectly adequately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: "Fish" is not a species. "Fish" is not even a genus, a family, an order, a class or a phylum. (And "Fish" is certainly not a clade!) If you reject the word fish, I am guessing you will reject the word shark (also not a species). Here is a link showing that we cannot establish the species of shark in the fossil records in most cases due to lack of information ->Earliest Sharks If I can't use the word fish...and I can't use the word shark...there are no other words to use as we don't have enough data. These creatures date back 400 million years. I think it's safe to assume that the modern sharks came from these ancient sharks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I don't reject the word "fish", I pointed out it isn't a species! It's also not terribly biologically useful because it's paraphyletic.
Shark is better (if you're willing to include the rays as well) because the Elasmobranch group appears to be a monophyletic clade. It's still not a species though so, again, I find myself wondering what it's relevance to our current discussion is?
These creatures date back 400 million years. I think it's safe to assume that the modern sharks came from these ancient sharks. No, it isn't. It's safe to assume that modern sharks descended from them or similar creatures living at the same time but it is not safe to assume that those ancient sharks in particular were ancestral. Any more than it's safe to assume an arbitrarily picked Englishman from the 16th century is my ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
I don't reject the word "fish", I pointed out it isn't a species! It's also not terribly biologically useful because it's paraphyletic. Shark is better (if you're willing to include the rays as well) because the Elasmobranch group appears to be a monophyletic clade. It's still not a species though so, again, I find myself wondering what it's relevance to our current discussion is? The point I am making is that any definition of species must be based on a snapshot in time and that snapshot in time must be now. We don't have enough data for any other period of time. We then have no choice but to apply today's snapshot in time to the ancient fossil records. We must classify the ancient species against known species of today. Anything else does not make sense. eg..if we found a fossil and then declared it a missing link between the bears and cats...and then further established it as a new species this would be absurd. We simply don't have enough data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
There is no missing link between bears and cats. They share a common ancestor though.
eg..if we found a fossil and then declared it a missing link between the bears and cats and then further established it as a new species this would be absurd.
Well, if it isn't around today, it sure as hell is a different species, wouldn't you say?
We simply don't have enough data.
If it's not around today, it's a different species. What more data do you need? Edited by Huntard, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
So, according to you, we should shoe-horn any, and all, extinct animal into a currently extant species? Really?
Where would you put this fella? Or any of these cute little tykes? The fossil record drips with organisms which are clearly, and indisputably, not a member of any current species. To talk about them as if they are is to hugely distort reality. The classification of extinct organisms is always going to be more tentative than living organisms, since we have much less data to go on but to suggest we should simply abandon the effort makes no sense to me. How would you suggest paleontologists discuss extinct organisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
So, according to you, we should shoe-horn any, and all, extinct animal into a currently extant species? Really? No...your putting words into my mouth. I never said this. The best we can do is to identify living species and the known extinct species (like the dodo). Fossils that don't fall into the known categories/species would need another system. I don't know what this system would be...I am not a paleontologist or biologist. But we can't just make up ad hoc species and lump these fossils under that category. It couldn't be defined as a species under any of our definitions anyway. We don't have access to the DNA, we don't know their behaviour and we can never know if they could interbreed. It has become an exercise in futility. Paleontologists must discuss extinct organisms using some new criterion but they should never evangelise this new methodology to the proletariat as their new system has no basis in fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
The "known extinct species" include every fossil ever found.
The best we can do is to identify living species and the known extinct species (like the dodo). Fossils that don't fall into the known categories/species would need another system.
Well, so far, there aren't any. And why would they require a new system anyway? Why not use the current one we used for all the "extinct species"?
But we can't just make up ad hoc species and lump these fossils under that category.
Why not?
We don't have access to the DNA, we don't know their behaviour and we can never know if they could interbreed. It has become an exercise in futility.
That's the problem with life. Everything is related to everything else. "Species" serve merely as an easy box to put everything in for us humans.
Paleontologists must discuss extinct organisms using some new criterion but they should never evangelise this new methodology to the proletariat as their new system has no basis in fact.
But why? What is wrong with the current system, that you advocate using on "all known extinct species", which include all fosills?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
No...your putting words into my mouth. I never said this. The best we can do is to identify living species and the known extinct species (like the dodo). Fossils that don't fall into the known categories/species would need another system. I don't know what this system would be...I am not a paleontologist or biologist. Ah, okay. I understand now I don't see why you think our existing methods of assigning fossils to species is so flawed? After all the majority of living organisms that would leave fossils could be correctly assigned to a species by their fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Huntard writes: The "known extinct species" include every fossil ever found. I see a huge difference between the dodo and the TRex in terms of our knowledge of the creatures. The dodo was known to man. TRex never was. I think we even have stuffed dodos in museums. Also the behaviour of dodos has been documented extensively. We can safely say that that was a species. TRex is a mystery. All we have are movie images and directors imaginations to go on. If you found two TRex half skeletons I think you would be hard pushed to even show that it was the same animal. You would have no idea if they could interbreed and their behaviour is unknown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
We can also safely say that T. Rex was a species.
I see a huge difference between the dodo and the TRex in terms of our knowledge of the creatures. The dodo was known to man. TRex never was. I think we even have stuffed dodos in museums. Also the behaviour of dodos has been documented extensively. We can safely say that that was a species. TRex is a mystery. All we have are movie images and directors imaginations to go on. If you found two TRex half skeletons I think you would be hard pushed to even show that it was the same animal.
I would be, the experts, not really, no. With half a skeleton I predict a 100% sure identification.
You would have no idea if they could interbreed and their behaviour is unknown.
So? Also, there is quite a lot known about the behaviour of T. Rex. Edited by Huntard, : added a bit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Huntard writes: I would be, the experts, not really, no. With half a skeleton I predict a 100% sure identification. Again I must refer you to a link that I already supplied in another debate about the differences between lions and tigers. Ok here is one link from potentially many that supports my claim that the differences are hard to distinguish. I think you will agree that lions and tigers are different species, yet they have almost identical skeletons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Why? We're not talking about lions and tigers.
Again I must refer you to a link that I already supplied in another debate about the differences between lions and tigers. Ok here is one link from potentially many that supports my claim that the differences are hard to distinguish.
That says nothing about T. Rexes, and Wounded King supplied two (if I recall correctly, but at least one) link that showed that there are several very different things about lions and tigers.
I think you will agree that lions and tigers are different species, yet they have almost identical skeletons.
Yes, almost identical, but enough to distinguish the two. What this has to do with T. Rex identification however, is beyond me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Huntard writes: So? Also, there is quite a lot known about the behaviour of T. Rex. We don't even know if TRex was a top predator or just a scavenger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
quote: We can be fairly confident about it. We know that T Rex was not 'just' a scavenger, because fossils of prey animals have been found with wounds inflicted by Tyrannousarus teeth, which have since partially healed, suggesting an unsuccessful hunt. I read an interesting article about this recently, which I've since lost. Get back to you when I find it. ABE: Here we go - it was on Dave Hone's blog. Clear evidence has been found of both predation and scavenging in tyrannosaurs. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024