Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(5)
Message 129 of 218 (824436)
11-28-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by dwise1
10-26-2017 10:02 PM


In nested hierarchies, the species branching off into their own clades become increasingly reproductively isolated. At first it's because they're geographically isolated from each other or that they have become sexually isolated such that they don't recognize each other as potential mates. The potential for hybrids is there early after the branching off, but eventually they become too different genetically so that they are physically unable to produce offspring. At that point, you simply cannot have clades merging into each other.
This is a rather idealised view of how life works - in many ways it's much more similar to language that you are implying here.
Hybridisation is not just a possibility early after the branching off (though of course you may be using 'early' different to how I would). Populations of animals have a tendency to anastomose - they split off from one another and become distinct due to geographic isolation, but upon being brought back into contact readily hybridise. This happens among populations whose shared ancestry is believed to be very distant; and which are often classified as different genera or even families (the most absurd example a quick internet search could turn up was between echinoderms classed in different orders; with estimated divergences in the Triassic or even Permian!).
These hybrids aren't necessarily odd dead ends, either - there's evidence of consistent gene flow from baboons into geladas, for example, despite the fact that these populations remain distinct (reminiscent of loanwords in language).
To complicate the tree thing further, reproductive isolation is not something that evolves consistently. There's no guarantee that two seperated populations will develop any genetic incompatibility over a specified time span, which can lead to an odd situation known from some ostariophysan fish. Population A splits from population B. Population B splits into B1 and B2. B1 then evolves some genetic incompatibility with the others so they cannot produce fertile hybrids. B2, then, can still freely interbreed with A should they come back into contact, but not with the more closely related B2.
This is all just animals, but of course with other organisms the tree picture is even fuzzier. Plants can hybridise across far greater distances in some circumstances - humans have exploited this a lot in making cultivars. And plants themselves, of course, contain the descendants of at least two distinct endosymbiotic bacteria within their cells - some of whose DNA has been incorporated into the plant genome. It gets even more complicated in other eukaryotes, who have endosymbiotic eukaryotes, which have themselves endosymbiotic eukaryotes. I'm not sure I explained that well, but what I mean is that there's a eukaryotic algae, which is incorporated within another organism, which is itself incorporated within another organism. This means that the parent of all this endosymbiosis gradually winds up incorporated the DNA of 5 different organisms in its genome.
Except that's not all! This tertiary symbiote also has all sorts of other DNA incorporated by endoviruses, some of which have themselves carried DNA from still other organisms. Transfer of genes among bacteria is common, and is what prompted the infamous and misleading 'Darwin was wrong' cover on New Scientist. I remember reading the suggestion somewhere that distinctive layers in bacterial mats, traditionally classified as different taxonomic groups, were in reality the result of persistent gene transfer between bacteria in close contact; which natural selection sorting the most appropriate genes into the different layers. Don't know if this was just idle speculation or not, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by dwise1, posted 10-26-2017 10:02 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 175 of 218 (825316)
12-12-2017 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Taq
12-11-2017 4:13 PM


It isn't much of a stretch to conclude that dragons could have been influenced by 5th hand stories about large snakes or crocodiles.
Just down the road from me you can see the skull of the dragon slain by George. It's in a castle where it has supposedly been displayed as such since the Middle Ages. It looks similar to this:
(although to be fair the skull's provenance is a little unclear, and there's a school of thought that the story of it being displayed as a dragon's skull centuries ago is itself a modern myth).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Taq, posted 12-11-2017 4:13 PM Taq has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 183 of 218 (825350)
12-13-2017 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by CRR
12-13-2017 3:29 AM


Re: Kinds and Nested Hierarchies
As alluded to above; an unambiguous definition of species is an impossible dream as a result of common ancesty. A 'kind' by contrast, as the term is usually used by creationists, has a clear and unambiguous definition. In biology almost the same concept is called a 'clade' - an organism and all its descendants.
The difference between the sense of 'kind' and 'clade' is that a clade can be a subgroup - a part of a larger clade. A creationist kind (a 'holobaramin') cannot be nested within another kind. To biologists, the only 'kind' known to exist is life on earth.
Incidentally, welcome back CRR and Faith! I was getting a bit worried EvC had run out of C.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by CRR, posted 12-13-2017 3:29 AM CRR has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 187 of 218 (825395)
12-14-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
12-14-2017 11:26 AM


Re: lions and tigers and bears, oh my
Personally I think a lot of creatures of mythology were created out of interpretations of fossil finds, such as the possibility that Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus were the basis for trolls, ogres and orcs, living in caves and more primitive socially than Cro-Magnon. Stories of encounters between populations being passed down as verbal history.
This is almost certainly you projecting modern myths and concepts backwards in time. Neanderthals didn't live in caves. Sure, there is evidence of Neanderthals using caves for shelter, and possibly for ritual purposes, but this is more likely to be because caves are a good place to preserve and find evidence.
You know who left a lot more evidence in caves than Neanderthals? Modern humans.
So you don't think finding fossils of creatures with beaks, four clawed legs and long tails wouldn't fuel their imagination?
I'm sure it would have. The problem is we have no particular reason to think the people who first described had ever seen such a fossil.
It's not that the idea is inherently ridiculous. It's just that it seems to be a speculation without any positive evidence, and there doesn't seem to be any particular need to invoke such an explanation. People make stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2017 11:26 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 12-14-2017 2:44 PM caffeine has seen this message but 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