|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Species | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
So? You said there were modern fish with X, Y and Z, (the descendants of B) and also that all rabits had X, Y and Z (The descendants of C). This means that if they have a common ancestor, which they do, it should also have genes X, Y and Z. in your example this would be A and in your example it has those genes.
We know that some modern fish have X,Y,Z. These will have mated with fish which don't have X,Y,Z. (As in B or C's mate.) Most common ancestors therefore are unlikely to have X,Y,Z. We cannot therefore use X,Y,Z to determine lineage.
Of course we can, the common ancestor should have those genes. And in your example (A) was the common ancestor and has those genes. Or have you forgotten your own example?
Hence you can't apply this to rabbits.
In your example you clearly can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
But how would you determine that with DNA? It's not like there's gonna be a clear point at which you can say: "Aha! if it has these genes, it must be a different species!". That is arbitrarily determined by men, if it is determined at all.
If the DNA barcoding was defined such that two African elephants ended up being different species I think we can rest assured that our system needs adjusting. Now if our system showed that African elephants were a different species to an Asian elephant then that would be a matter for debate
Why? Since they are already accepted as different species.
If you are saying that experts in the field are actively advocating that Ugandan elephants are distinguished from Zambian elephants and they want them classified as different species I don't have any objection with that as such. Once the system is established and in place we can stick with it.
But we already have a system in place, why change it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Ten seconds on Google Scholar brought up 22.800 articles. Don't know much indeed.
It's true we don't know much about TRex. 5 minutes on google will tell you that. If species boundaries are arbitrary they are arbitrary....what misconstrual?
You tried to pass it off as if DNA would make an end to the arbitrary nature of species boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
No they don't, which you would know, if you had read but a single one of them.
Yeah...and they all contradict each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
It does effect that.
How can the variable nature of the environment affect some parts of the DNA but not the important information storing parts which spell out that we should have arms, legs, torso, head etc. I am guessing you are going to tell me now that some people are born with three legs?
Well, there is this person:
But then again, examples abound in nature of six legged sheep and all other sorts of "deformed" creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Big_Al35 writes:
I claim that I see diversity of species today. Eye witness accounts still constitute evidence (especially in court) from what I understand. Furthermore, I refer to "On The Origin Of Species", a text which must have had an author. This also is valid evidence (even if you disagree with its contents). I have therefore supplied evidence to counter Robert's claims. Robert claims that he sees diversity of species today. Eye witness accounts still constitute evidence (especially in court) from what I understand. Furthermore, Robert refers to the bible, an ancient text which must have had an author. This also is valid evidence (even if you disagree with its contents). Robert has therefore supplied his evidence but Taq isn't offering any evidence to counter Robert's claims. Edited by Huntard, : spellings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Big_Al35 writes:
Hate to burst your bubble, but neither Robert nor I posted anything coming even remotely close to what would be considered evidence. I had hoped that my silly little attempt at sarcasm would make that clear, but apparently it hasn't. My apologies to you for not telling you in a clear and easy to understand fashion.
Ok, so Robert has supplied evidence and Huntard has countered with evidence too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024