|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Species | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes: We don't even know if TRex was a top predator or just a scavenger. And that is related to species how exactly? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Big Al.
Big_Al35 writes: I am not the one advocating the newer definitions of species. You still haven't convinced me that you even know which definitions of "species" are the newer ones, so I don't yet know how to respond. I sounded to me like you were clearly advocating a molecular definition of "species." -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
BigAl35 writes: 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. So you think that if we were to dig up fossils of lions and tigers that we might assign them to the same species? While I don't think that would happen with lions and tigers (Wikipedia says they can be distinguished from one another: "However, due to the amount of skull variation in the two species, usually, only the structure of the lower jaw can be used as a reliable indicator of species."), there were probably tons of closely related extinct species that could not be distinguished with only fossil remains. Squirrels come to mind. Mistaking two different species for the same species happens with living creatures all the time. I presume you don't think it much of a problem for biology when they discovered that African elephants, once thought to be a single species, may actually be multiple species. There's still a debate about this. Yet scientists have no trouble learning a great deal about African elephants. So why do you perceive it to be a significant problem for learning a lot about, say, T-Rex if we're actually mistaken in thinking our fossils represent a single species? Even if they are multiple species they're still extremely similar. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Big Al.
Big_Al35 writes: 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. They could be defined as a species using the Linnaean and cladistic methodologies.
Linnaean: define by specific characteristics that are regarded as diagnostic.
Cladistic: define by coding a large number of characters, and seeing which organisms cluster into distinct groups on a cladogram. It sounds like you’re suggesting we pick one method, and stick to it. Then, when that method isn’t useful, we should not fall back on some other, less reliable method, but just leave it undefined. This leaves us in the uncomfortable position of not being able to organize our information about things on which we can’t do genetic sequencing or breeding experiments. I don’t see how this could be seen as helpful to science. All indications are that we accomplish more when we initially organize information poorly, and work to improve it over time, than when we refrain from organizing the information at all. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Percy writes: So why do you perceive it to be a significant problem for learning a lot about, say, T-Rex if we're actually mistaken in thinking our fossils represent a single species? Even if they are multiple species they're still extremely similar. Yes, that's right...there maybe multiple TRex species. I don't disagree that a lot can still be gleaned from the fossil evidence. However, a lot cannot be gleaned from the fossil evidence. eg we don't know if the TRex was a predator or a scavenger. With living species it's very easy...we have access to them and can analyse their behaviour. We have already discussed three potential definitions of species;1) genome sequenced definition of species 2) interbreeding definition of species 3) behaviour, diet, appearance, environment based definition. 1 is I believe the newer definition but not yet officially established.TRex fails to achieve species classification by all three definitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Percy writes: Mistaking two different species for the same species happens with living creatures all the time. Yes, and I bet it happens with extinct species even more. When you have two species that are very similar and then discover a third species which is very similar to the other two, it is easy to fall into the trap of suggesting that the new third species is a common ancestor. This may not be true at all. In the case of lions and tigers a new fossil discovery might be a lion, it might be a tiger, it might be a liger or tigon, or it might be a common ancestor. So there is infact more chance of it not being a common ancestor than of it actually being a common ancestor. I hope you can see where I am going with this. Enjoy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia Superorder: Dinosauria Order: Saurischia Suborder: Theropoda (unranked): Coelurosauria Superfamily: Tyrannosauroidea Family: Tyrannosauridae Subfamily: Tyrannosaurinae Genus: Tyrannosaurus Osborn, 1905 Species * T. rex (type)Osborn, 1905 Classifications get increasingly reliable as you move up the ordering while they get more specific (and possibly less reliable) as you move down the ordering. There is absolutely no doubt that T. rex belongs in these groupings. Kingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia Superorder: Dinosauria Order: Saurischia Suborder: Theropoda Now as we get to more detailed classification can there be more mistakes? Certainly. One such example is being discussed right now. Are Torosaurus and Triceratops actually the same critter but seen at different life stages? Right now the question remains undecided but the evidence is pointing towards the two being the same species. BUT... we can say the following with a very high degree of confidence.
Note, that it is ONLY when we get to Genus and species that there is a question. Edited by jar, : trying to get rid of extra space Edited by jar, : fix sub-title and still trying to get rid of blank space Edited by jar, : still working on space Edited by jar, : No reason given. Edited by jar, : got it. Silly restriction. Edited by jar, : still fixin Edited by Admin, : Fix table format. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Big_Al35 writes: We have already discussed three potential definitions of species;1) genome sequenced definition of species 2) interbreeding definition of species 3) behaviour, diet, appearance, environment based definition. 1 is I believe the newer definition but not yet officially established. TRex fails to achieve species classification by all three definitions. We have no DNA for T-Rex, of course, but why do you believe that T-Rex fails 2 and 3? Even if our T-Rex fossils represent a genus instead of a species, all that means is that there were more than one interbreeding populations of T-Rex, each population sharing the same behaviors, diet, appearance and so forth, and the several populations being more similar to each other than to any other creatures. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Percy writes: Mistaking two different species for the same species happens with living creatures all the time. Yes, and I bet it happens with extinct species even more. When you have two species that are very similar and then discover a third species which is very similar to the other two, it is easy to fall into the trap of suggesting that the new third species is a common ancestor. This may not be true at all. In the case of lions and tigers a new fossil discovery might be a lion, it might be a tiger, it might be a liger or tigon, or it might be a common ancestor. So there is, in fact, more chance of it not being a common ancestor than of it actually being a common ancestor. Yes, this is true. Because you cannot distinguish close relations from direct ancestors in the fossil record, scientists will almost never claim that some fossil species represents the common ancester for some later species.
I hope you can see where I am going with this. Enjoy! If you think you're going somewhere other than a dead end, I can only guess that you think our inability to identify specific fossils as common ancestors means that common ancestors don't exist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Big_Al35,
Thanks for staying on topic, even if you are making a number of assertions from an under-informed base (not ignorant, but not fully cognizant either):
...I am not a paleontologist or biologist. And a great way to learn is to ask questions. Hope this isn't too long ... To the issue of "fish" and "shark" and any other commonly used layman's term for organisms, this is necessarily fraught with misconceptions and mistakes. Taxonomists use many multitudes of measured traits to determining homologous (by descent) versus analogous (derived independently) traits in the formation of trees of descent. To your basic issue of species definition, there is no single definition that works. Even with DNA sequencing there will be problems, and as you point out, our knowledge of the DNA of fossils is ... slim to none.
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. But this assumes that DNA knowledge is critical to determining different species: it isn't. It kind of seems that you want to include DNA in the definition of species, so that then you can claim that species cannot be determined without knowing the DNA. This is employing a logical fallacy in your approach. The real question is: what matters? Species labels are useful to human scientists to differentiate bits and pieces of information from the fossil record, from the genetic record, and from the world around us. Let me introduce the concept of "lumpers" vs "splitters" Lumpers put lots of populations of organisms into one lumped group and label that a single species, with a number of varieties (slightly different traits, theoretically able to interbreed. Splitters divide up populations into many small groups and label each one a different species, while the next larger group, genus, incorporates other closely related species that may be able to interbreed but typically don't.
quote: Here we have between two and five species (if you're a splitter) and one species with five varieties (if you're a lumper), based on how much you count gene flow through the (small) hybrid zones. Organisms are generally lumpers compared to humans, relatively unconcerned about what is or isn't a species (it's basically a them kind and us kind approach, although them kind can be broken up into eat this, avoid that, etc). You could call this the "organism definition" of species, and lump a lot of different organisms into big categories. This becomes highly unweildy when populations change from the "eat this" species to the "avoid that" species ... and back. All the definitions we have of species have similar problems, and this leads to long discussions between lumpers and splitters. But the point to keep in focus is that they matter to us as a means of describing groups of organisms, and how they fit into the broad scheme of things. As far as evolution is concerned species is important for two reasons: (1) to define a discrete population (a breeding population) to monitor the process of evolution within the population, and (2) to define when speciation (the division of a breeding population into two or more daughter populations that become reproductively isolated from the others) occurs. Let me introduce you to the concepts of "arbitrary speciation" and "non-arbitrary speciation" so you can see how this works. In essence, "arbitrary speciation" occurs when a descendant population is no longer capable of breeding with an ancestral population, however this can end up with an awful lot of species definitions (especially if you are a splitter eh?) -- virtually every other generation. This would get pretty unwieldy very rapidly. So an arbitrary speciation designation is normally made based on the descendant population at some point becoming as distinguishable from the ancestral population to the same arbitrary approximate difference as exists between two closely related species. The changes accumulated in the descendant population are similar in degree to the differences between closely related species. "Non-arbitrary speciation" occurs when two (or more) daughter populations become reproductively isolated from the parent population (as above) and each other, leading to different evolution in different ecologies, and reaching the point where interbreeding does not occur.
quote: Here we have a number of "arbitrary speciation" events, marked by the different species designations along the general trend from lower left to upper right. We also have a couple of instances when the breeding population divides into two groups with a horizontal gap between them, yet overlapping ancestral populations. These divisions are non-arbitrary speciation events: the two daughter populations after a split are not interbreeding, and this results in the horizontal gap between them. I have accessed the original article and made the following colored lines on the same basic data to emphasize what is going on:
We see the "drunken walk" of evolution within an overall trend, and if we draw a line down from the left end of Pelycodus trigonodus we see that it is outside the range of traits for Pelycodus ralstoni while a line from the right end up to the top is outside the range for Pelycodus jarrovi. The divisions of populations like this is evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events in the fossil record even though we do not have DNA samples from any of these fossils. The staggering along trend that accumulates differences over time, while maintaining overlaps with ancestral and descendant populations shows that arbitrary speciation depends on where you subjectively draw the line, but approximates the same degree of change as occurs between daughter species in non-arbitrary events. The non-arbitrary events only occur in sexual species, as this depends on the (sexual) biological definition of species. Arbitrary speciation events would still occur in asexual species, but where you make the differentiation depends on a subjective analysis of when the accumulated changes are sufficient to justify a new arbitrary label for a bunch of organisms in order to describe things. And whether you are a lumper or a splitter. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I think you will agree that lions and tigers are different species, yet they have almost identical skeletons.
Are you going to transfer this lie to another thread? You have been shown already that this assertion has no basis in fact. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
RAZD writes: But this assumes that DNA knowledge is critical to determining different species: it isn't. It kind of seems that you want to include DNA in the definition of species, so that then you can claim that species cannot be determined without knowing the DNA. This is employing a logical fallacy in your approach. I think it's fair to say that species cannot be determined unless you know their DNA. All the other criteria for determining species can only give best guesses. Maybe DNA is also a best guess.Lions and tigers could be classed as the same species as they can interbreed and produce fertile female offspring. They could be classed as different species as they have different behaviour, appearance and environment. The only way to clearly identify the distinctions is to investigate the DNA. Ofcourse this doesn't mean that we shouldn't analyse the other differences aswell but DNA would spell out those differences. eg there are genes for coat colour, behaviour etc. For extinct species we need a system too. Maybe the existing system is adequate. I don't know the details as I am not a paleontologist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Percy writes: Yes, this is true. Because you cannot distinguish close relations from direct ancestors in the fossil record, scientists will almost never claim that some fossil species represents the common ancester for some later species. So when I hear suggestions that fossils like 'Lucy' and others are potentially common ancestors I can promptly ignore these??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1014 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Yes, that's right...there maybe multiple TRex species. I don't disagree that a lot can still be gleaned from the fossil evidence. However, a lot cannot be gleaned from the fossil evidence. eg we don't know if the TRex was a predator or a scavenger. As I already pointed out upthread, this isn't true. Evidence of both scavenging and predatory behaviour has been found for tyrannosaurids, which makes sense as most carnivores do both. But I'm not sure why you think this is significant for species classification. There are all sorts of unanswered questions about the beahviour of living animals. It's a matter of debate whether honey guides lead honey badgers to bee hives - nobody knows for sure. Does this mean we should be dubious about its species classification?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Percy writes: Yes, this is true. Because you cannot distinguish close relations from direct ancestors in the fossil record, scientists will almost never claim that some fossil species represents the common ancester for some later species. Here is a link to show that others don't share your view.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024