Do we need a better concept than species?

An answer simply is that what matters IS the level of organization that is part of the continuum of common descent.I would guess in the differences between fields of biology is likely due to different levels in the hierarchy being constiutative of the monophyletic contiuum that connects in a paraphyletic subject disagreeement among experts. Thus I see no reason to discount the species. I easily was able to ID a "new speices" of salamander that was subsequently objectified by DNA analysis.The hierarchicalization of biology is not canalized much as of yet so it is hard to say how much of the subjectivity will reveal to what extent the word "species" works as an avearge but if you are of a Dawkins' ilk YOU will have to wait a very long time (longer than a couple of carrer lifetimes) to see if the genetics remains to explain what is rather objectively disagreed on among specialists.My guess is that species selection is very rare overall, if it exists at all.

So in other words, you choose to advocate an abandonment of somewhat objectively verifiable observable reality in favor of making the argument for evolution even stronger in your mind, eh? Actually, nature in terms of reproduction does indeed work within a somewhat discrete classification. Creatures can either reproduce new creatures by sexual reproduction, or they cannot, and they can either reproduce fertile offspring or not.If they cannot produce either, nature has no means to "work" in producing a new creature.Your post is nonsensical and devoid of a sense of adherence to observable facts.This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 08:42 PM

Yes, I agree that in most cases the populations that we call species are indeed genetically isolated from any other, be it through true genetic incompatibility or behavioral barriers (mate choice etc), so the separate species exist in reality. However, I did read something the other day in Steve Jones's excellent 'Almost like a whale' (a rewrite of Darwin's 'Origin of species') in which he mentioned the case of populations of cichlids in Lake Victoria separated for thousands of generations by the female's choices of mates with different coloured markings. These would, I assume, constitute separate species by most definitions. However, more recently run-off following the introduction of agriculture has turned the once clear water rather murkey, and now the separation of the species has broken down. So it would seem that a speciation event is not necessarily final.The other thing I am uncomfortable with "species categories....imposed by any species that mates sexually.." is that most organisms on this planet are asexual (bacteria etc). Of course, most people have no need to distinguish bacterial populations on a day-to-day basis.Oops! I have to go! Bye for now.Cheers,SteveN

Isn't it true that the most important thing from an evolutionary perspective is the degree of isolation of gene pools.We seem to want to label "very" isolated gene pools as a species.The difficulty is that only sometimes are gene pools very sharply divided. Sometimes the barrier is very leaky, sometimes it s low while it is forming in the case of recent isolation, sometimes it is thrown up and then falls and sometimes it may be very, hard to find the boundaries of (e.g., bacteria that share genes).We have recent articles about little red fire ants for example: the male line and the female lines seem to not share a gene pool at all. They are then, perhaps, from an evoluionary view separate species.

I'll tag this one as innocent ignorance. If you have been here long enough you may have been privy to many of the discussions about how the species lines are far to blurry for you to make such sweeping accusations about my ability to contend with reality. Because of your previous posting behavior I don't feel like digging up all those references simply so you can disregard them like you basically disregard everything anyone else says to you in this forum.Needless to say, you are terribly wrong sir and if you care to be given any credence to the contrary you will need to support it. Show us how all instances of biological reproduction in nature follow the discrete concept of species.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Hi NosyNedI don't know how many hundreds of your posts I've read in the last year or two, so it's interesting to be communicating directly at last. Anyway, you said... Yes. This is the bit about the definition of species that I feel unconfortable about. As a research scientist I'm always trying to find holes in my own arguments, because I know that if I don't, somebody else surely will and will probably make me look foolish, possibly in public. I would therefore have a hard time trying to argue that 'situation X' is a true example of speciation or macroevolution, because at these fuzzy borders it can become a matter of definition or even opinion. If a particular speciation event results in a total inability of members from two populations mating successfully, then I would be happy defending that. However, if the event is one in which members of the two populations simply prefer not to interbreed or cannot do so because of geographical or temporal separation, I would be loathe to have to defend that as a true speciation event, because a future reunification of the gene pools cannot be ruled out. As usual, these problems seem to arise from our compulsion to pigeonhole components of a continuous system (how tall is tall?).As we know, the evidence for common descent is overwhelming enough for evolution to be considered a fact and no creationist hand waving can change this. I just think that by pointing out examples of observed speciation that are not convincing to the layperson (or even to the scientists), we're providing ammunition to those looking for any possible holes in the ToE - hence my OP. Yes, I downloaded and read the original paper a few weeks ago (Science or Nature, IIRC), probably after having been given the heads-up by one or your posts. Quite fascinating. Once again, biology refuses to conform to our nice orderly classification systems.Cheers,SteveN

quote:

---

I just think that by pointing out examples of observed speciation that are not convincing to the layperson (or even to the scientists), we're providing ammunition to those looking for any possible holes in the ToE - hence my OP.

---

Well, considering that the creationists consider all big cats as one cat "kind" that hyper-micro-evolved from an original pair of cats on Noah's ark, no speciation event is going to convince them, no matter how definite the concept of species is.What they are demanding is the observation of splitting into different orders (or maybe even classes). Unfortunately, their attention spans are so short that they are not willing to hang around and wait for several tens of millions of years.Edited to fix the quote.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 30-Jul-2005 05:22 PM

How very impatient of them!Seriously though, I realise that the average YEC is totally immune to any form of evidence that doesn't fit into their 'if-it-wasn't-so-dangerous-it-would-be-funny' view of reality. I was thinking more of the effect such perceived 'victories' by creationists could have on those with the ability to think rationally but without the background to appreciate that the species concept tends to break down under certain situations.In my particular field of research (AIDS), we refer to HIV as a 'quasispecies' (coined by Eigen, IIRC) because even within each infected individual there is a 'swarm' of genetic variants each evolved from (probably) a single infecting virus particle. Of course, being humans with a need to categorise everything that exists in the universe, HIV is subdivided into different clades according to their sequence homologies, but even here, nature throws a spanner in the works. For example, one long-time accepted clade was subsequently shown to be a recombinant form of two others: HIV can mix-and-match and has no respect for our carefully defined pigeonholes. I guess the whole of life on earth can be viewed as a quasispecies with great chunks now conveniently (for the taxonimist) extinct.Bye for now!SteveN

No one said there wasn't a blurriness, but to pretend the concept has no relevance, as you have, is indicative of a thought process tainted by the pseudo-ideology of evolutionism. You stated: The truth is sexual reproduction does indeed work with a discrete classification. The attempts to narrow species down more narrowly has indeed created blurriness, but that blurriness has to not removed the reality that nature dictates creatures can only sexually reproduce within a fairly discrete group.Too bad you wish to throw out such a fundamental reality in favor of evolutionist gobblygook.This message has been edited by randman, 07-30-2005 02:19 PM

At least it's refreshing to hear an evolutionist admit to the basic approach they take with evolution, not that it could possibly be wrong, but that it is a fact, which is the attitde evolutionists have had since near it's inception despite the evidence often being wrong.

Well, you obviously misunderstand the word 'fact' when applied to science as much as you, as a creationist, probably misunderstand the word 'theory'. Here is a reasonable definition of 'fact' The evidence for common descent (and therefore evolution) more than fulfills this definition and is accepted by anyone with the ability to think rationally and objectively. The precise mechanisms of evolution (the theory) are still open to debate, but natural selection, genetic drift etc are pretty good candidates indeed. You really, really have absolutely no idea how science operates, do you?Damn! I actually promised myself before delurking that I wouldn't waste my time arguing with people with your sort of mind set. Nevertheless, here I am in my first ever thread responding to the usual drivel. Oh well. Edited to correct grammer This message has been edited by SteveN, Sat, 30-07-2005 10:02 PM

Yawn. To think you actually believe insults are a sound argument and yet call me of a soft mindset.LOL

I wouldn't pay too much attention - Randman is a nonsense poster unable to back even the most basic assumptions.however, you could win 100 for charity http://EvC Forum: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated -->EvC Forum: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary IndoctrinatedThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 04:37 PM

OK Charles, are you ready to fork over some money?Just tell me how much, please?Btw, to not take advantage of you, you might want to read the following: Articles Front | TASC

Remember that there may be poor innocents lurking who don't recognize that the drivel is drivel.It seems that my main function around here is drivel removal (which is why I wind up crossing swords with randman a lot ). We appreciate all the help we can get in that department.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.