Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

Hi, ICANT. I'm completely surprised that you're still saying this stuff, ICANT.This argument is literally nothing but words. Literally, all you are saying is, "Since you scientists call all of these things 'forams,' that proves that no 'transmutation' has happened in their lineage."We call all these organisms ‘forams’ because they are all descended from things called ‘forams.’ That’s how we name things. And, the way our naming system works, anything that evolves from them will also be united under that same pedigree. So, the fact that we still call them ‘forams’ does literally nothing for your argument.Furthermore, below is a picture of several forams. What you are saying is that evolutionary changes large enough to the bridge the gap between any two of these organisms are within the bounds of a single kind. The only reason you think it’s still a foram is a good argument for creationism is because you don’t really understand what a foram is. If changes of the magnitude allowed by your foram argument had happened among organisms with which you are more familiar (for example, mammals), you would have had trouble convincing even your most devout parishioners that it was not transmutation.So, please don’t fling the word foram around anymore.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT. Anteaters are xenarthrans.Pangolins are not xenarthrans. They are more like carnivorans (cats, dogs, bears, seals and weasels), so if you want to group them anywhere, that's where you should group them.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT Why? What is the following insect: a june bug, a love bug or a boxelder bug? It depends on who you ask. However, all three of those names refer to multiple types of insects. The "june bug" is actually a species of beetle. The "love bug" is a species of fly. The above is a boxelder bug.However, some people still call it a "love bug" or a "june bug." So, if I started talking about june bugs, I would be referring to a beetle, but my wife would think I was talking about a boxelder bug. A systematic naming system, such as is used by scientists, alleviates this problem.-----Here is a picture of not a blue jay: This is a scrub jay. The real blue jay is not native to the western United States. Westerners all think I was named after the blue bird pictured above, when in fact, I was named after the real blue jay, which they have never seen before.That's why you don't use common names in classification: it's imprecise. So, you soon find yourself not recognizing certain distinctions (e.g. between pangolins and anteaters), and you don't work hard to put things exactly.Edited by Bluejay, : My boxelder bug picture didn't show.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. So, what's the difference between genetically-caused reproductive isolation and speciation?Just in case you didn't know, "genetically-caused reproductive isolation" is probably one of the most commonly-used definitions of the word "speciation" in scientific circles.----- Peg, the example of ring species is not a matter of definitions or semantics. It's an actual, natural phenomenon: these are real animals that show gradients of interfertility between populations, not words or viewpoints or interpretations of data!Do you understand that?Reproductive isolation is not a clean, clearly-defined thing! herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls cannot interbreed with one another. But, each can interbreed with a series of other species that are not reproductively isolated from one another.We can't figure out how to distinguish one species of these gulls from another, because, any definition we use will either include some that cannot interbreed, or exclude some that can interbreed, both of which kind of violate our definition of "species" and your definition of "kind."It has nothing to do with definitions!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg.Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. I know it can't be easy with so many people on your case. You already said that. However, you have never said it immediately after saying this: I think it's safe to say that "it has to do with genetics" is not really an alternative to "evolution/speciation."Perhaps you would benefit from a brief primer on what's called the "Modern Synthesis" of Darwin's ToE. Basically, it's a redescription of Darwin's original ToE in terms of genetic mechanisms. So, basically, it's the idea that the mechanism behind ToE "has to do with genetics."So, please either clarify for me what you mean by "it has to do with genetics," or stop repeating it.----- Earlier in this thread, you drew the line at reproductive compatibility. Do you remember that part? For example: Message 141: that was just yesterday! Now, you are backing off from that statement and saying that members of a kind need not be interfertile.----- But, you're just focusing on the words we use to describe it, and not on the concept it embodies. The fundamental concept is reproductive isolation. The arguments from the beginning have been tailored specifically toward the criteria on which you define "kind."Using your interfertility criterion, what could we possibly conclude about a group of varieties that shows a mix of interfertility and non-interfertility? You cannot divide a ring into two kinds, because, anywhere you draw the line, you will be dividing things that are interfertile, and you will have some animals that can breed outside of their "kind." But, you cannot call the entire ting one kind, because they do not all meet the interfertility criterion.A ring species is thus a grey area in your "kinds" classification, because, no matter how you choose to classify it, you have to violate the fundamental criteria of your classification schema!Therefore, there is a flaw in the reasoning behind your classification schema!But, don't worry: yours isn't the only schema that fails. That same flaw is common to literally ALL other classification schemas that any scientist, religious leader or lay person has ever invented. So, no, Peg, it is most emphatically NOT about definitions: it is about a real-life phenomenon that defies all definition.Biodiversity is NOT a conglomeration of categories, but a continuous spectrum. And, all indications are that literally ALL organisms can be positioned somewhere on this one spectrum. That's why scientists generally agree with common descent: because there are no really meaningful, clear breaks between literally any two organisms on the planet that could be reasonably interpreted as evidence for separate origins.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. In Darwin’s time, genetics was not known to science. Gregor Mendel discovered the principles of genetics during Darwin’s lifetime, but his work wasn’t well-known until 1900, after both Mendel and Darwin had died.The Modern Synthesis is the union of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Mendel’s Theory of Genetics. It’s what modern scientists are referring to when we say Evolution or Theory of Evolution.----- I really wish you would at least acknowledge my point that this is exactly what the Theory of Evolution is. The process by which populations of insects become immune to pesticides over generations (which you explained beautifully, by the way ) is the fundamental mechanism behind the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution. We call it, natural selection (perhaps you’ve heard of it?).So, like I am now saying for the third time, your it has to do with genetics is evolution.----- We’re not talking about infertility: we’re talking about incompatibility, or reproductive isolation.Infertility means you can’t breed with anyone or anything else.
Reproductive isolation means you can breed with somethings, but not others.The seagulls in the example are not infertile: some of them are simply incompatible with others. And, incompatibility is the standard by which you differentiate kinds.----- And what would cause the descendants of one pair of organisms to have chromosomes that are not compatible?----- Why should we expect that?Increases in chromosome number are not always "good": Down syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, and hybrid infertility are all related to increases in chromosome number.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. No, it doesn't. "Random mutations" did not play a role in Darwin’s original theory. The only thing that Darwin theorized was natural selection. The concept of mutation was the contribution of Hugo de Vries in the 1890’s, and was not fully combined with Darwin’s natural selection until the Modern Synthesis in the 1930’s.----- The first part of your sentence is a beautiful description of Mendel’s discoveries. The part after the ellipses (...) is complete bullcrap that you just threw in there without any evidentiary backing.There is absolutely no reason to think that Mendelian genetics cannot create new species.----- Peg, I’m sorry if this offends you, but it needs to be said. Stupidity of this magnitude takes a lot of effort. Stop trying so hard to dislike evolution and make an honest effort to at least understand it.First, neither one of those theories says that traits are the result of random mutations.The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis says that new traits are the result of random mutations. Did you catch that? NEW traits---traits that were not present in one’s parents---are the result of random mutations. Furthermore, traits---even ones resulting from random mutations---can be inherited by offspring.It’s such a blisteringly simple concept that your misunderstanding of it can only be caused by a wilfull attempt to misunderstand it. You don’t have to agree with it, but you at least have to acknowledge that it isn’t as difficult as you’re trying to make it.----- I believe that humans evolved from apes. In fact, I believe that humans are apes.----- This is completely irrelevant to the comment you attached it to, and to the broader topic.Dog breeds are not the example we’re discussing, and are not relevant to our discussion about ring species, which are a major problem for Genesis kinds as you perceive them.Gradients in reproductive isolation translate into gradients between kinds as you define them. This means that the lines between kinds are blurred, which you state as an impossibility.So, either interbreeding is not the basis for defining kinds, or one kind can evolve into another. Something’s got to give, Peg.----- The answer is mutations, Peg: new phenotypic variation produced by alterations to the genome.What you are saying is that reproductive isolation between two members of a single kind is possible. So, since reproductive isolation is a primary criterion used by scientists to define the term species, you believe that it’s possible for a lineage of organisms to experience enough genetic change to become a new species. And yet, you’ve been adamantly arguing that this cannot happen throughout this entire thread.Edited by Bluejay, : Added the word "only" in "...your misunderstanding of it can only be caused by..."

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. Because people like you, who should be coming up with those reasons, think it's incredibly clever of them to instead try to shift the burden of proof onto an evolutionist, who's obviously perfectly content to continue to labor under the null hypothesis until someone like you comes up with a reason to doubt the null hypothesis.----- Perhaps this entire subtopic would have made more sense in the "Grand Theory of Life" thread. I hope, by running you through some of the history of evolutionary biology, I can help you appreciate the notion that "evolution" isn't just one, simple idea, but a grand amalgamation of many ideas.Speciation is just one of those many ideas, often inseparable from the idea of reproduction isolation. But, in different circles, they use different criteria to distinguish "species": reproductive isolation isn't always the gold standard. But, the most important purpose in even attempting to classify things as "species" is simply to aid in communication of information among scientists.----- First of all, no two dog breeds that I am aware of are incompatible for genetic reasons: the only reason I've ever heard for incompatibility is size.Second, why should they be considered the same "kind" if they can't interbreed? Isn't the inability to interbreed the standard by which we both decide to differentiate our species/kinds?----- Because you set your standard for differentiating "kinds," and the standard you chose was ability to interbreed.You can't weasel your way out of living up to your own standard by pointing out examples of other people who don't live up to your standard.So, just because they don't call reproductively-isolated dogs different "species," doesn't mean you are justified in not calling reproductively-isolated sea gulls different "kinds."For your information, evolutionists don't really have a say in the division of dogs into breeds or varieties: dog-show people have claimed that right. And, as far as I'm aware, they do not work under a paradigm of classification in which reproductive isolation is a meaningful characteristic.And, finally, evolutionists do not suffer from the illusion that our categorization systems will ever neatly or perfectly describe the complex patterns of speciation and biodiversity that we see in nature.In contrast, creationists do think their system should be able to neatly categorize organisms. And, they may perhaps find some way to do so in the future (I doubt it), but the example of ring species shows that reproductive isolation is not going to be a valid means for neatly categorizing organisms.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. No.You forgot the part where you know ahead of time what the bacteria's genotype is, and you know that that genotype is not resistant to the phage. Since bacteria only reproduce by cloning, all bacteria in the lawn will be of the exact same genotype, unless some of them mutate.Thus, the appearance of resistant bacteria in that lawn can only be the result of mutation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. Not only that, I've actually witnessed it!----- Okay, but you started the experiment with a colony that was not resistant. Did you miss that part?Look, if you doubt this, start with just one non-resistant bacterium (or maybe a handful). If you grow a huge lawn of bacteria from that one bacterium, you will still get some that are resistant. That is, you will end up with some bacteria that are genetically distinct from their parents, even though they are literally clones!Do you understand this?----- This is due to dominance/recessivity, which is a side effect of having two sets of chromosomes, allowing a dominant allele to mask a recessive allele.Bacteria do not have two sets of chromosomes, so this does not happen in bacteria.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. First, your use of "genetics" as a buzzword is starting to get annoying. Mutation is part of "genetics."Second, you're just wrong. Try the experiment in reverse, as has been done. Kill off all the non-immune bacteria by exposing the entire colony to phage, and, within a few generations, you'll still see non-immune bacteria in the population. The only possible cause of this is an alteration to the genome (i.e. a mutation).----- But, bacteria aren't supposed to be able to do this! They only reproduce by making copies of themselves! And, since they don't have two sets of chromosomes, they can't have traits that disappear and reappear between generations unless the disappearance and reappearance is caused by mutation!So, "because even the immune bacteria continued to produce offspring that were NOT immune" is NOT a reason to conclude that mutation was not involved! In fact, it is exactly the opposite!That's the entire point of the experiment!Edited by Bluejay, : "the," not "to"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. But, we're not talking about the same experiment! You can't just take that one experiment and assume that all changes in all bacteria everywhere are identical to the changes in that one experiment.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg.I'd like to try to tackle this genetics issue from another standpoint.The following quote contains several keywords that I want to focus on: Variety: In your view, where does this variety come from? Was it always there? Can new variety be created? What happens to variety over time? Does it decrease? Increase?Genetics: In your view, what is "genetics"? Is it just heredity and dominant/recessive mechanics? What do genes actually do, in your mind?Change: In your view, what is changing? Are actual gene sequences changing? Or, are genes just being mixed together in different ways? For a specific example, if one bacterium divides into two, will the two resulting bacteria be identical?-----I don't intend to overwhelm you with questions, but, I think, if you seriously consider those questions, you may come to realize the simple reality that underlies the Theory of Evolution: Do you disagree with any of these points?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Answer the question, ICANT.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. That’s a great question.And, the answer is, No. And nobody says that evolutionary change does or even can ‘cross phylogenetic boundaries’.You might think of evolution as a theory about where phylogenetic boundaries come from. In the evolutionary model, nothing ever crosses a phylogenetic boundary, because the boundaries don’t develop until after speciation has occurred.There is plenty of evidence that unrelated things can become similar to one another (e.g. sugar gliders and flying squirrels; anteaters and pangolins). This is about as close as ToE gets to crossing phylogenetic boundaries.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.