What is a species?

Carl Zimmer, he's the man.

I heartily recommend Zimmer's new book, Microcosm, about our old friend E-Coli. Thank God Coli's little flagella were designed otherwise the little bugger would still be sitting in the Primordial Soup all dressed up and no way to go.

I'm awaiting Zimmer's next book titled "Women Explained."

Nobel Prize material, that.

I'm awaiting Zimmer's next book titled "Women Explained."
Explained as a separate species?

Wilkins: The QLD air has done you good. I see you still have a notion about something called "common descent", but your species look sensible to am amateur such as me.

It's common conduits, not common descent. Look up Signalled Evolution, or Tree of Life Species Origin, on the 'Net.

I take the liberty of attempting a couple of generalizations.
1) Life falls into two categories - which for want of better terms I call plant-grade and animal- grade. Viruses are not life, and Man is animal but much more than animal. Animal grade was the product of information technology much more significant than that which saw the installation of plant grade. Nevertheless it is not inconceivable that animal-grade 'stepped into' plant-grade cellular materials. The divide is presumably somewhere near the sponges. No animal grade life preceeded a point in time corresponding in the geologic column to a surface at or near the base of the Cambrian.
Inference: Plant-grade organisms are of simpler origin, and therefore may well be much easier to genetically engineer, and may go close to being replicable, by Man. Defining species in this category could be a little more "primitive", if you like, than defining them amongst the higher organisms. "The earth brought them forth", whatever that means: but "the waters brought forth" the animal grade; this implies a difference. Nevertheless, life comes in units that "reproduce after their kind".
2) The only way to 'observe' species in the wild over the lifetime of a species is via fossils. These indeed prove the "reproduction after their kind", which by definition rules out blood ancestry and calls in the abovementioned conduit mechanism.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I take the liberty of attempting a couple of generalizations. 1) Life falls into two categories - which for want of better terms I call plant-grade and animal- grade. Viruses are not life, and Man is animal but much more than animal.

I’m awaiting Zimmer’s next book titled “Women Explained.”

plant-grade and animal- grade.

I’m awaiting Zimmer’s next book titled “Women Explained.” Explained as a separate species?

Henry J said:

I’m awaiting Zimmer’s next book titled “Women Explained.”

After he's produced world peace? ;)

What's a species? Good question. All I'm fairly sure of is that there are lower and upper limits. If a population has significant gene flow outside of itself then the group is not a separate species. If a population has significant gene flow across its membership and won't normally have such outside itself even given opportunity, then it is. But there's a bunch of leeway between those two limits, and "significant gene flow" may be a subjective judgment.

Henry

Very true, Henry.
There is no objective measure that would clearly differentiate a species from a subspecies in sympatry. Gene flow is the best we have, and it is meaningless in allopatry.
Some authors advocate a boundary between species and "races" at 1% of hybridization. This sounds arbitrary, but it reflects the continuum of the speciation process.

Jean

Understand neither women nor species. That's right. That's why they're a separate species.

What I wrote above is self explanatory. The fine detail is a long way off being understood. We still don't understand gravity, yet even an ancient Greek postulated heliocentrism.
On that score, Kepler was laughed at because he had no 'hands on' explanation of what held the planets in orbit. But every day, the technicalities behind the unrolling of life through sophisticated I.T. come more into focus.

I can't tell where everything fits, but as I implied, once we get cellular organization with significant internal symmetry and specialization, we are somewhere near the divide. That is not a new concept.

Viruses are a mutation of mineral, they are not a true life form but an agent of death; they have no part in the Tree of Life. And they are not the only feature of the modern biosphere that doesn't fit the picture. We are dealing with a creation that was "very good", shadowed by an event of mutation and retrogression that was a "curse". It could be argued from the biblical perspective that two supernatural beings were involved in our biosphere. The lesser being was only involved by permission of the Greater, who was legally obliged to give him access because Man had been given the oversight, and Man opened the door to him. But that isn't necessary in a lab. or a textbook. However, it allows us to understand seemingly impenetrable contradictions. Incidentally, 'death', as generally employed in the Bible, in it's deep meaning, refers to Man alone.

Gee, Phil, manicheanism in modern dress. Don't tell your pastor. He'll call you a heretic.

Guess what, mate.

He'd be right.

PBH writes but fails to communicate. Does anyone understand what he is babbling about?

It hurts! It makes me sick! I know other words ending with 'tic' too...

The topic of the thread is species. As Wilks shows in his writings, there is what is known as a species problem. Looking at things like lions, tigers, women, and Manichaes, species can be definite, indefinite, undecided, definitely undecided, and decidedly indefinite. Then you get to things that are infinitely indefinite, deafeningly definitive, decidedly definitive, and infinitely unfathomable. We haven't even got to females yet.

Hang around, I might elucidate the species further. Don't tempt me. There's one or two above.

Some authors advocate a boundary between species and "races" at 1% of hybridization. This sounds arbitrary, but it reflects the continuum of the speciation process.

The fossil record is one of abrupt speciation. Many extinct species are clear-cut and easily envisaged as discreet genetic units. In those cases where there is uncertainty, clear-cut, abrupt speciation cannot be disproved.

If this were not so, then by definition, species would be close to useless as time markers.

Hybrids themselves would not be definable, because there would be no fixity of genetic content against which to define them. It is only because we can say, "this is a bovine", and "this is a bison", that we can say, "this is a beefalo".

The topic of the thread is species. As Wilks shows in his writings, there is what is known as a species problem. Looking at things like lions, tigers, women, and Manichaes, species can be definite, indefinite, undecided,

Hang around, I might elucidate the species further.

Hi all,

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, several South African biologists (Paterson - if I spelled his name correctly - and Vrba, who is now a professor of vertebrate paleontology at Yale University) were arguing that species are natural biological entities since they are able to recognize intrinisicly themselves within a given species population; an idea which was devised as "Species Self Recognition". Having been out of the field for almost as long, it is really fascinating to see how difficult this most vexing issue remains in biology. Indeed, as someone else has noted, its mere difficulty is further evidence against any notion of creationism, whether it is by Intelligent Design or some other flavor thereof.

Appreciatively yours,

John

The thread topic is species. It is central to evolutionary theory. Sir Richard Owen, Darwin's superior, said something along these lines in relation to the question of species origin: "The origin of the species is the question of questions in biology .... a question which the most dedicated people from all disciplines have not lost sight of, whilst they have approached it with due reverence". Darwin mentions a Creator: "Darwin's Bulldog", T. Huxley, although claiming agnostic status, recommended that British education employ the Bible, because it was the foundation of Democracy.

The Bible is on the side of science. All settled and proven science can be practiced and taught without overt reference to the Bible or to any personal ideaology. Yours and mine included. Repeat, yours (and mine) included.

The topic is species. The rules are the laws of science: and just as Nature cannot manufacture matter/energy of itself and concurrently have human beings practicing science, neither can it manufacture intelligent information of itself and have us practicing rational investigation thereof. We might send a signal to the Phoenix Lander on Mars and it might get interfered with by Nature on the way, and wreck the project.

The topic is species, and because the universe is rational and reliable, speciation was an empirical, real process, open to investigation. Contribution from yourself would be welcome.

Frank: Your statement suggests you cannot have read even the first chapter of the Bible. I would prefer not to be obliged to quote the Bible here. But why not go and look at the fossil record, and the Bible needn't come into it?

If somebody asked me to write a short essay giving an overview of my favourite topic, the nature of species, I doubt that I could. I can write a long essay on it (in fact, several) but it would be excruciatingly hard to write a short one. For that, we need a real writer. Carl Zimmer is the guy. He has an essay on species in the current edition of Scientific American. And despite quoting some obscure Australian philosopher, it is a good summary of the issues. How he manages to get up on a topic like that amazes me. It took me a good five years. Read the rest of this post at my blog here.

Ken Ham: I certainly believe the Bible's acount of history as presented in the historical narrative of Genesis, that's true. Host: So, uh, were there dinosaurs on Noah's ark? KH: You know, the Bible says that every kind of land animal that god created; kinds are different than species of course--- lots of species within a kind, but every kind was represented on Noah's Ark. Certainly I believe that the dinosaur kinds were represented on Noah's Ark, yes.

SJ: Here's a nice example that's come up in the last ten years: there are two species of salmon in American lakes, one of which goes to the sea and one doesn't, one of which is big and one small. What's happened is that salmon have been moved into new lakes and within the last twenty years they've split into two forms: one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime. KH: That's speciation, but that is not evolution in the molecules to man sense; they're still salmon.

"Species .... recognize intrinsically themselves within a given species population". No, I can't compute it.

Strange that Linneaus, Fabre, R. Owen, Cuvier, Mendel, & co. didn't have this mental block over species. Even Buffon, Darwin & Lamarck didn't seem as stymied by it as some folks. Why? Could it be that they were educated not only perhaps in the Bible, but in the real, observable wilds of Nature, or from the fossil record, which strongly point to organisms created "after their kind"? Why did it become complicated?

PBH sez.... I take the liberty of attempting a couple of generalizations...

a) You won't get an overabundance of technical resoning from YEC. Never go to them for technical or scriptural accuracy.
If a species is defined as a reproductively self-contained unit, then it concurs literally with "kind". Unless I have missed something somewhere? Confusing K.H. would scarcely be anything new. I confused him 30yrs ago. Perhaps that's why he left QLD.

b)Zoologists get a snap shot, geologists get the story of the species. Ring species aren't speciation, unless you can find either microbiologic proof that the immune system, reproductive system, DNA and so on has been fundamentally re-programmed, or you can show that the split will never under any circumstances close up, in the future. SJ's "speciation" is a figment of his terminology. It just doesn't happen like that, in the rocks. One of them has to become non-salmon, for speciation to happen. Heard of any brand new tinned fish species, lately? Anything new at the zoo?

Frank: Your statement suggests you cannot have read even the first chapter of the Bible. I would prefer not to be obliged to quote the Bible here. But why not go and look at the fossil record, and the Bible needn’t come into it?

PvM said: PBH writes but fails to communicate. Does anyone understand what he is babbling about?

Are plant cells really significantly simpler than animal cells?

It helps pass these long nights. Ah, the burden of being a pedantic nit-pick, eh? Trouble is, if the techno-dudes talk confusion, the administrators follow them, and farmers like me get blamed for things, and Mr. Joe Honest feels guilty about the climate or killing a cow, and gets regulated ad nauseum.

Richard Simons said: Given that plant cells include plastids, obtained by endosymbiosis, an argument could be made that plant cells are more complex than animal cells.

*sigh* I really need to take more time proof reading. I'm geting [sic] of all these mistakes.

Did you read up on Darwin's sliced tomatoes, back on RBH's thread? There's complexity for you.

Did you read up on Darwin's sliced tomatoes, back on RBH's thread? There's complexity for you.

Did you read up on Darwin's sliced tomatoes, back on RBH's thread? There's complexity for you.

I wrote an essay on the concept of species:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/why-the-term-species-should-be-abolished/

The term “species” has a clear definition in biology: a group of organisms that breed only among themselves and do not breed with members of any other group. Thus, as far as we can tell, humans are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens.

The lesser black backed gull and the herring gull of Britain, however, act like separate species, yet are connected to each other by a ring of subspecies that extend all around the Northern Hemisphere and can interbreed with their neighbors. So in the sense I stated above, the definition of species breaks down.

The issue of species also fails when asexual life forms are considered, including bacteria, most protists, a few populations of beetles, a population of lizards, and an entire class of rotifers called Bdelloidea. The lizards, beetles and rotifers in question are all females, while among the single celled organisms the issue of gender identity is meaningless.

Suppose we have a population of 400 asexually reproducing lizards which are genetically and physically almost identical. One at a glance would assume they are members of the same species. But because the lizards do not swap genes via sexual reproduction, they would just as well be considered 400 separate species.

The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs.

I would therefore argue that the term “species” is really useless and should be abolished completely, because it is a source of unnecessary confusion.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Did you read up on Darwin's sliced tomatoes, back on RBH's thread? There's complexity for you.

Biology, like most sciences, has a need for units of measurement. And like most sciences those units need to be grounded in the real world. So what species, the "rank" of biology that it is agreed on most sides is the most or only natural one in the Linnean hierarchy, are determines many measures of biology in fields from genetics to ecology. If, as a significant number of specialists think, the rank is a mere convention, then those measures become arbitrary and meaningless. So, what sort of "unit" might a species be?

They are natural objects, not mere conveniences, but they are not derived from explanations, but rather they call for them...

“What is really new about our approach is that we were able to combine both molecular data (DNA sequences) with ecological data in a single mathematical framework,” said Alm. “This allowed us to solve the inverse problem of taking samples of organisms from different environments and figuring out their underlying habitats. In essence, we modeled the evolution of a microbe’s lifestyle over millions of years.” One splendid example of the difficulty of applying the term “species” to a single-celled creature: 17 of those 25 populations are called V. splendidus, a name that was previously assigned to them based on classical taxonomic techniques. Alm and Polz can see now that V. splendidus has differentiated into several ecological populations.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: 1) Life falls into two categories - which for want of better terms I call plant-grade and animal- grade. Viruses are not life, and Man is animal but much more than animal.

"An organism is the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history."

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Viruses are a mutation of mineral, they are not a true life form but an agent of death; they have no part in the Tree of Life.

I find it interesting to imagine having a time machine and using it to track down and tag all the members of any given species.

midwifetoad said: I find it interesting to imagine having a time machine and using it to track down and tag all the members of any given species.

Oh, and to stay away from Shannon, but I think I'm digressing now.

Hosts (plants) are generally more complex than parasites (humans). ;)

Plant’s have to synthesize all of there biochemical components (mostly) from scratch.

they’re still salmon

Dale Husband: I would therefore argue that the term “species” is really useless and should be abolished completely, because it is a source of unnecessary confusion.

SJ: Here’s a nice example that’s come up in the last ten years: there are two species of salmon in American lakes, one of which goes to the sea and one doesn’t, one of which is big and one small.

wikipedia Puget Sound: One interesting case involving speciation with salmon is that of the Kokanee sockeye. Sockeye that have been landlocked are called Kokanee. Kokanee sockeye evolve differently from anadromous sockeye. They reach the level of "biological species". Biological species - as opposed to morphological species - are defined by the capacity to maintain themselves in sympatry as independent genetic entities. This definition can be vexing because it appears that it does apply only to sympatry, and this limitation makes the definition difficult to apply. There are examples in Washington (Kokanee Heritage Project), Canada and elsewhere where two populations live in the same lake but spawn in different substrates, at different times, and eat different food sources. There is no pressure to compete or interbreed (two responses when resources are short). These types of Kokanee salmon show the principal attributes of a biological species: they are reproductively isolated, and show strong resources partitioning (McPhail in Stouder, et al, 1997).

If we want a conception of "species" that is applicable to all living things, then we cannot rely on either the reproductive compatibility definition of Mayr, or the Specific Mate Recognition Concept of Hugh Paterson (yes, you spelled his name rightly, but he's an Australian who was working in SA back then), as most life fails to meet it.

As to why species were not a problem for the early naturalists, I believe, and argue in my forthcoming book, that the problem arose when genetics met natural history. Genetics seemed to uncover the "essence" of species until very early, around 1910 or so, the polymorphic nature of species at the genetic level became obvious. Johanssen's "pure line" definition failed almost immediately. Prior to that a species was always understood, including by Darwin, as the reproduction of similar organisms, which I call the Generative Conception, so very few people had any trouble with the concept (although much trouble in the application, then, as now).

Imagine that there were some method by which we could analyse the genome, or see the structure of every organism that ever lived. It would be invaluable for showing the intricate relationships in the tree of life, but it would put us in trouble deciding where one species ended and another began.

My feeling is that it would be a lot like that ring species thing, - succeeding generations would be seen as members of the same species, but individuals separated widely wouldn't even look similar. There may well have been major changes, like lateral gene transfers, but a lot of descent may have been with only gradual imperceptible modification.

Speaking from a position of boundless ignorance, I was thinking whether we would still have the concept of different species, in that situation ? Perhaps things are 'clearer' now that we have less information about those individuals and populations that leave a trace for us to find, making the survivors more distinct from each other.

Sounds convincing to a non-biologist such as myself: I suspect there will be some interesting developments ahead as the story at the atomic/molecular/info.programming level gets told. There is an article titled "Gene Blocking Could Help Quash Malaria", April this year, I think it was LIFE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY NEWS. University of Texas source as I recall. Anyway, I got to it via a link in the head of a thread by PvM, here, titled, IS IT ALWAYS APRIL FOOL'S DAY AT D.I.?

Something about proteins, sex cell walls, and a species locking mechanism that stops speciation via hybridization. That's got to be one angle of approach?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: SJ's "speciation" is a figment of his terminology. It just doesn't happen like that, in the rocks. One of them has to become non-salmon, for speciation to happen. Heard of any brand new tinned fish species, lately? Anything new at the zoo?

Point taken re. the genus. I should have written, "salmon species x becomes salmon species y." You know, like EQUUS species horse changing to EQUUS species zebra, during a long summer recess. Now if this remarkable event was speciation through hybridization - crossing - what traffic control feature would re-name this speciation event? Stay here, see if the quizz gets a response.

Don't ever say that Darwinism doesn't teach people something.

Speaking from a position of boundless ignorance, I was thinking whether we would still have the concept of different species, in that situation ? Perhaps things are 'clearer' now that we have less information about those individuals and populations that did not leave a trace for us to find, making the survivors more distinct from each other.

You have set me straight re. salmon. I was under the misapprehension that salmon was a single species. I would be better served, perhaps, by turning to creatures I am more familiar with - say, Equus. Domestic horse, genus Equus, zebra, genus Equus. Is this what you are meaning?

Oops me too. Lost the first one, did a re-try. Hope this isn't a problem.

Phillip Bruce Hetwood persists in describing speciation as an 'event'. Speciation is a process. Defining something properly makes a big difference.

Oops me too. Lost the first one, did a re-try. Hope this isn't a problem.

Salmon are any species of ocean-going, but freshwater spawning fish of the genera Salmo or Onchyrhynchus, found throughout Eurasia and North America, the former genus being found along the North American and European coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, while the latter genus is found in Eastern Asia and Western North America. Onchyrhynchus has a fossil record extending into the Miocene, where fossils of a giant, 9-foot long species, O. rastrosus, have been found throughout California, Oregon and Washington.

Furthermore, there are three recognized species of zebra still alive, not one.

You know, like EQUUS species horse changing to EQUUS species zebra, during a long summer recess. Now if this remarkable event was speciation through hybridization - crossing - what traffic control feature would re-name this speciation event? Stay here, see if the quizz gets a response.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Point taken re. the genus. I should have written, "salmon species x becomes salmon species y."

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You have set me straight re. salmon. I was under the misapprehension that salmon was a single species.

RW said: Phillip Bruce Heywood persists in describing speciation as an 'event'. Speciation is a process. Defining something properly makes a big difference.

Richard Simons said:

RW said: Phillip Bruce Heywood persists in describing speciation as an 'event'. Speciation is a process. Defining something properly makes a big difference.

He actually does see it as an 'event'. If you visit his website you will see that he has built up a mountain of speculation based on this misunderstanding.

The term “species” has a clear definition in biology: a group of organisms that breed only among themselves and do not breed with members of any other group. Thus, as far as we can tell, humans are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens.

CDV said: Speaking from a position of boundless ignorance, I was thinking whether we would still have the concept of different species, in that situation ? Perhaps things are 'clearer' now that we have less information about those individuals and populations that leave a trace for us to find, making the survivors more distinct from each other.

Let me also point out that Zimmer actually answers, or rather preempts, the analysis above - he points out that taxonomy is at least socially important when trying to keep species, um, excuse me, population diversity.

CDV: Imagine that there were some method by which we could analyse the genome, or see the structure of every organism that ever lived. It would be invaluable for showing the intricate relationships in the tree of life, but it would put us in trouble deciding where one species ended and another began.

Lenny Flank - now there's a real question. When I was at P.T. some time ago - was it 12months? - I left the revered Dr. in the bathtub. He had stolen my rubber ducky. (We were both at the Bathroom Wall.) I sure hope he didn't drown. What a troll he is. Irresistible. Where are you, Lenny? I'll let you keep the ducky. All is forgiven. Only return from the depths.

Peter and all readers: What we have here is something of a classic revolving door scenario. We have an event that occurred, in the past, in the biosphere - speciation. The technical detail is yet obscure. However, it is self-evident that this event implicated fundamental re-programming of DNA, immune system, reproduction-specific species "lock" - all the hidden paraphernalia that defines a species. Having said that, it is also self- evident that some of the hidden paraphernalia that delineates a species, doesn't always come up with the same clear-cut results that we might wish. Nevertheless it came up with a result, and the result is undeniable - in the wild, untampered with by Man, there were and are genetically definable units. They retained their integrity over time. The fossils prove it. They were not in a state of continuous morphing to another genetic unit. And salmon species X is not changing to salmon species Y over the summer vacation, any more than Equus species horse is changing into Equus species superhorse, superhorse being as reproductively isolated from horse as is Equus zebra. This again is self-evident.

So why do people continually deny the self-evident?

Enter Darwinistic, common descent evolution. For it to have happened, species as reproductively and observationally discreet units, as observed over prolonged time, in the virgin wilds, in the fossil record, can't be true.

But, looking at the "snap shot" of the modern biosphere, we see evidence that superficially supports common descent. I repeat, superficially. If we have a particular world view, that superficial evidence becomes creed. This happens with chronic repetitiveness in the history of Man. Repetition of the creed creates its own momentum.

If common or "blood" descent is true, then by definition, Darwin & co. had nothing to speculate on. They would have seen only a continuum, not species.

There is, as always in science, a solution. It is arrived at via systematic deduction, not by repeating the creed.

There is, as always in science, a solution. It is arrived at via systematic deduction, not by repeating the creed.

Peter and all readers: What we have here is something of a classic revolving door scenario. We have an event that occurred, in the past, in the biosphere - speciation. The technical detail is yet obscure. However, it is self-evident that this event implicated fundamental re-programming of DNA, immune system, reproduction-specific species “lock” - all the hidden paraphernalia that defines a species. Having said that, it is also self- evident that some of the hidden paraphernalia that delineates a species, doesn’t always come up with the same clear-cut results that we might wish.

The fossils prove it. They were not in a state of continuous morphing to another genetic unit. And salmon species X is not changing to salmon species Y over the summer vacation, any more than Equus species horse is changing into Equus species superhorse, superhorse being as reproductively isolated from horse as is Equus zebra. This again is self-evident.

The scientific method is to clear the whiteboard, write up the facts, and analyze until a solution compatible with the laws of the universe presents.

The thread provider here is doing that.

Everyone is a scientist. You and me included.

And despite the assertion of MR. O, beneath yours, science certainly proves things and will in time prove that a species scan be defined not only through observation, but by chemistry.

Henry J said:

plant-grade and animal- grade.

Are plant cells really significantly simpler than animal cells? I'd be very surprised if that were actually the case. What grade to fungi get? How about amoebae and paramecium? Henry

yeah yeah yeah babes and their babblings...... please..... talk some sense

Philip Bruce Heywood said: We have an event that occurred, in the past, in the biosphere - speciation. ... However, it is self-evident that this event implicated fundamental re-programming of DNA, immune system, reproduction-specific species "lock" - all the hidden paraphernalia that defines a species....in the wild, untampered with by Man, there were and are genetically definable units.

Just trying to get PBH onto approximately the same page as most educated people of the last century or so. Anyone want to bet if it’ll work?

The scientific method is to clear the whiteboard, write up the facts, and analyze until a solution compatible with the laws of the universe presents. The thread provider here is doing that. Everyone is a scientist. You and me included.

The fossil record is one of abrupt speciation. Many extinct species are clear-cut and easily envisaged as discreet genetic units. In those cases where there is uncertainty, clear-cut, abrupt speciation cannot be disproved.

— PBH

Strange that Linneaus, Fabre, R. Owen, Cuvier, Mendel, & co. didn’t have this mental block over species. Even Buffon, Darwin & Lamarck didn’t seem as stymied by it as some folks. Why?

— PBH

Ah, the burden of being a pedantic nit-pick, eh?

— PBH

Repetition of the creed creates its own momentum

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The scientific method is to clear the whiteboard, write up the facts, and analyze until a solution compatible with the laws of the universe presents.

... Everyone is a scientist. You and me included.

You mean, ex spurts. Come back and make with more sweet words. I'm too polite.

I run a very basic animation of one expert reconstruction of a horse series - I say, A, because there isn't total unanimity on THE exact sequence - at my site. Look up the paper titled "The Evolution of Evolution".

This pictorial series is courtesy of a fully convinced darwinist geologist. It is about as accurate as you will get.

Don't look at it, gentlemen, whatever you do. It's certified near-accurate.

Certain people above, just called every professional palaeontologist a blathering fool.

And, Nige., you haven't improved since your breathtaking career regarding entropy. Can you remember the units it's expressed in, yet?

I'm not going to go on responding to trash science.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The scientific method is to clear the whiteboard, write up the facts, and analyze until a solution compatible with the laws of the universe presents. The thread provider here is doing that. Everyone is a scientist. You and me included.

"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." [Mayr.]

We have an event that occurred, in the past, in the biosphere - speciation. The technical detail is yet obscure. However, it is self-evident that this event implicated fundamental re-programming of DNA, immune system, reproduction-specific species “lock” - all the hidden paraphernalia that defines a species

You are wrong 1: there is no single “event:” it is a series of small, incremental changes over generations within a subpopulation (which may or may not be isolated geographically – I don’t mean to imply that it has to be a physically isolated group).

If common or “blood” descent is true, then by definition, Darwin & co. had nothing to speculate on. They would have seen only a continuum, not species.

The local forms are moderately constant and distinct in each separate island; but when all from the several islands are compared together, the differences are seen to be so slight and graduated that it is impossible to define or describe them, though at the same time the extreme forms are sufficiently distinct. The geographical races or sub-species are local forms completely fixed and isolated; but as they do not differ from each other by strongly marked and important characters, "There is no possible test but individual opinion to determine which of them shall be considered as species and which as varieties." Lastly, representative species fill the same place in the natural economy of each island as do the local forms and sub-species; but as they are distinguished from each other by a greater amount of difference than that between the local forms and sub-species, they are almost universally ranked by naturalists as true species. Nevertheless, no certain criterion can possibly be given by which variable forms, local forms, sub species and representative species can be recognised. C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th Ed.

If the pics of those horses aren't sufficient, keep in mind, A) Palaeontologists rely on things the piccies don't show, such as tooth structure and ankle bones. In the horse series, there are at least 3 species: 4-toed, 3-toed, and single toed (redundant side-toes may occur in some sub-species). Dentition (indicative of feeding habits) complies to the mobility indicated by the undercarriage.

B) Understandably, there are differing opinions regarding classification, in cases where the tooth/ankle structure isn't definitive. Sub-species or species?

C) We are dealing with distinct genetic units, no matter how much variety came with them, and no matter whether they could hybridize at the edges, or not. Just like the modern scenario.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: For example, biology as we know it is applicable to life as we know it. What would make say modern evolutionary theory universal?

The rest of Dyson's piece is interesting, as you'd expect, and there really is an interesting sense in which there is an interlude between two periods of horizontal transfer (and we mustn't forget that bacteria still practice horizontal transfer and have done throughout the time when eucaryotes have been in the 'Interlude'). But the interlude in the middle is not the Darwinian Interlude, it is the Meiosis / Sex / Gene-Pool / Species Interlude. Darwinian selection between genes still goes on during eras of horizontal transfer, just as it does during the Interlude. What happened during the 3-billion-year Interlude is that genes were confined to gene pools and limited to competing with other genes within the same species. Previously (and still in bacteria) they were free to compete with other genes more widely (there was no such thing as a species outside the 'Interlude'). If a new period of horizontal transfer is indeed now dawning through technology, genes may become free to compete with other genes more widely yet again. [My bold.]

Woa, slow down; now, step by step, item by item: immune system; sex cells; DNA; everything that is the physical human; go through the process of ape-like species morphing to human. The world is waiting for the technical procedure.

You do understand, don't you, that such a procedure, without information re-programming from somewhere, is a flat denial of the principles of heredity, an inherent impossibility - unless special circumstances arise under which the laws of heredity are suspended? I take it I am addressing a rational person.

You do understand, I suspect, that gradual speciation via Mum going to the hospital and having a baby, demands that no two people are equally human?

It's time to de-program. Common Descent is a logical fallacy. Think it out. Quantify those steps, ape to man. They can't be quantified - not that way. Try another way.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ... I'm too polite.

I run a very basic animation of one expert reconstruction of a horse series - I say, A, because there isn't total unanimity on THE exact sequence - at my site. Look up the paper titled "The Evolution of Evolution".

This pictorial series is courtesy of a fully convinced darwinist geologist. It is about as accurate as you will get.

... And, Nige., you haven't improved since your breathtaking career regarding entropy. Can you remember the units it's expressed in, yet?

I'm not going to go on responding to trash science.

I'm not going to go on responding with trash science

C) We are dealing with distinct genetic units, no matter how much variety came with them, and no matter whether they could hybridize at the edges, or not. Just like the modern scenario.

— PBH

DaveH, I am in clinical laboratory science, so an amateur biologist like you. I found your little spiel well thought out and written. It's better than I can do. Compared to PBH you are a genius. So keep it up.

eric said: You are wrong 2: There is no fundamental reprogramming of DNA. Speciation occurs with small, relatively insignificant reprogramming of DNA in combination with changes in habit or habitat.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: C) We are dealing with distinct genetic units, no matter how much variety came with them, and no matter whether they could hybridize at the edges, or not. Just like the modern scenario.

Dear PBH, I am still waiting for your Biblical perspective on a few kinds becoming many. Not all the world's locked in species could fit on the Ark. So how does the Biblical perspective deal with that? You are all for the fossil record, that's good, bravo. But common descent and evolution are the best explanations for that. You keep saying that you disagree with evolution, but what is your better explanation. Among all your pontifications, you are not saying what you think happened. Just like all other IDists, you engage in empty arguments, never getting past ignorance. Come on, cut to the chase, what happened? Where did the horse and the zebra come from?

Nigel D: And then again, what about Euglena? It’s motile, it scavenges, and it can photosynthesise. Is it a plant or an animal?

I'm sure the species problem did not arise with Darwin. In fact his bold idea was was meant to explain the facts as they appeared. Weren't there some biologists called Quinarians decades before Darwin trying to figure why some species were similar by differing degrees to others.

Where did the horse and the zebra come from?

Zebras are just horses that have earned their stripes. :)

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Woa, slow down; now, step by step, item by item: immune system; sex cells; DNA; everything that is the physical human; go through the process of ape-like species morphing to human. The world is waiting for the technical procedure.

You do understand, don't you, that such a procedure, without information re-programming from somewhere, is a flat denial of the principles of heredity, an inherent impossibility

You do understand, I suspect, that gradual speciation via Mum going to the hospital and having a baby, demands that no two people are equally human?

PBH is “hobnobbing” here in order to pretend he is part of the in-crowd of scientists.

Perhaps PBH should buy one of Joe Newman’s franchises. Then he would be in the company of like-minded “genius”, where he would be quite at home.

stevaroni | June 2, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply Zebras are just horses that have earned their stripes. :) they did something wrong and went to horse jail???

You folks seem to have a difficult time understanding that a point mutation from CGG to CCG cannot be said to lower or raise the information content of the DNA strand unless you know what it *does*.

— Eric

Edward Karas said: Weren't there some biologists called Quinarians decades before Darwin trying to figure why some species were similar by differing degrees to others.

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps PBH should buy one of Joe Newman’s franchises. Then he would be in the company of like-minded “genius”, where he would be quite at home.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You do understand, I suspect, that gradual speciation via Mum going to the hospital and having a baby, demands that no two people are equally human?

A) Palaeontologists rely on things the piccies don't show, such as tooth structure and ankle bones. In the horse series, there are at least 3 species: 4-toed, 3-toed, and single toed (redundant side-toes may occur in some sub-species). Dentition (indicative of feeding habits) complies to the mobility indicated by the undercarriage.

Correction. I should have stipulated, front leg. OROHIPPUS as I dimly recall was 3-toed, back leg. I don't know if the others were equi-toed, back and front.

I’m sure the species problem did not arise with Darwin. In fact his bold idea was was meant to explain the facts as they appeared. Weren’t there some biologists called Quinarians decades before Darwin trying to figure why some species were similar by differing degrees to others.

For the third time, go and study my publications. You will find abundance of biblical references there: I would prefer not to transfer them here.

These Quinarians could have their points of interest. Darwin's idea of species was apparently more clear than that of many who have faithfully attempted to implement his engine of speciation.

That's the nub of the problem. An engine of speciation that denies the species it produces. Change the engine, or change the species?

The contributors here seem to wish to undefine the species. Or undermine the species.

The biochemistry is already beginning to show that reproductive integrity has a basis in quantifiable cellular processes.

It is self- evident that humanity as a group and without exception has different immune system programming and different DNA to a chimp.

A babe knows that his great, great, great..... grandfather wasn't a wit more ape than himself.

Whatever sudden changes may happen to genes, the most helpful mutation I have heard of in humans is sickle cell anaemia(!); in cattle, double muscling - not inducive to survival in the wild.

Look at the engine, the species aren't in doubt.

The contributors here seem to wish to undefine the species. Or undermine the species.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: A) Palaeontologists rely on things the piccies don't show, such as tooth structure and ankle bones. In the horse series, there are at least 3 species: 4-toed, 3-toed, and single toed (redundant side-toes may occur in some sub-species). Dentition (indicative of feeding habits) complies to the mobility indicated by the undercarriage. Correction. I should have stipulated, front leg. OROHIPPUS as I dimly recall was 3-toed, back leg. I don't know if the others were equi-toed, back and front.

It shows tooth structure and ankle bones so that you can see the gradual, generation by generation, withering of a toe or so, concurrent with the gradual, generation by generation, tooth conversion from that of a browser to a grazer.

See it all happening, there in the diagram?

You'd better hide all diagrams like that, quickly. They're not idealogically correct. They show species as they really were.

Obviously there are no hackers among creationists, despite that many are programmers.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: For the third time, go and study my publications. You will find abundance of biblical references there: I would prefer not to transfer them here.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: For the third time, go and study my publications. You will find abundance of biblical references there: I would prefer not to transfer them here.

I'd say, not far down the track. Especially since there were predictions in my publications that have been confirmed and there are predictions that are being confirmed.

History tells of abundant cases where acclaim through "peer review" was certification of irrelevancy. But I am confident that there are plenty of good operators about.

So why not start, yourself? What's your field, other than lockjaw?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I'd say, not far down the track. Especially since there were predictions in my publications that have been confirmed and there are predictions that are being confirmed. History tells of abundant cases where acclaim through "peer review" was certification of irrelevancy. But I am confident that there are plenty of good operators about. So why not start, yourself? What's your field, other than lockjaw?

What of archaea, bacteria and fungi? Why do you say viruses are not life? They have genes, they reproduce and they evolve.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ... Darwin's idea of species was apparently more clear than that of many who have faithfully attempted to implement his engine of speciation. That's the nub of the problem. An engine of speciation that denies the species it produces. Change the engine, or change the species?

The contributors here seem to wish to undefine the species. Or undermine the species.

The biochemistry is already beginning to show that reproductive integrity has a basis in quantifiable cellular processes.

It is self- evident that humanity as a group and without exception has different immune system programming and different DNA to a chimp.

A babe knows that his great, great, great..... grandfather wasn't a wit more ape than himself.

Whatever sudden changes may happen to genes, the most helpful mutation I have heard of in humans is sickle cell anaemia(!); in cattle, double muscling - not inducive to survival in the wild.

Look at the engine, the species aren't in doubt.

There is a sense in which species do "blur into each other".
I needn't give instances, they are apparent.

Repeating what I wrote much higher up: It is only because we can say, "This is a bovine, and this is a bison", that we can say, "This is a beefalo". Unless there were species, the observation could not, in fact, be made, that species "blur into each other".

Signalled Evolution calls on species to fulfill a role as conduits. (Not all species necessarily were conduits). One segment of the conduit must be able to fit the next segment. Or have a (side) offshoot capacity, or perhaps multiple forking capacity - tree of life style. I'm not a taxonomist or phylogenist.

Hybridization is presumably a sign that the taxa were very genetically close offshoots of the tree of life. These close taxa presumably come with an inbuilt tendency to meld back into something common - a "ghost", if you like, of the oneness of the mechanism through which they were actuated. I have trouble verbalizing it. I suspect that hybrids are a complete red herring.

Since speciation implicated an existing (conduit) life form, the conduit presumably underwent some superficial modification - perhaps through isolation, followed by specialization/pseudo-splitting from the main population. The isolated, "out on a limb" organism became the specific conduit of life for a new genetic unit, and it is not inconceivable that the isolation and its effects were triggers for the speciation re-programming event. We are talking way out there technology that is only just coming inside, out of the realms of "magic". But the theory is there, so the practice is there, embryonically. Quantum category info.tech..

Yes, there is a sense in which species become conformable to each other. (Biblical concept again, which most of this is - I added that for Rolf.)

I admit I don't understand the underlying issue here. Seems pretty clear to me that the operational definition of a species is "a population of individuals sufficiently similar to one another in some respect to be grouped together for the purpose under consideration." Whatever purpose that may be. This allows for a range of groupings and definitions, but this isn't the fault of our taxonomy, it's just how evolution operates. There can ONLY be an operational definition of a species; it's not an objective "thing".

Interesting point you raise, regarding the genetic closeness (=lack of 'spread') of all modern humans. Like you, I'm not a biologist. I did read a paper that suggested that the tight family genetically speaking that Man now is, was a product of him going close to extinction, early in his career. It was in NEW SCIENTIST, ABOUT 1999. Paper seems to have been buried, quick-time, for some reason. I think I Noah what it is.

Yes I sat through all that stuff for years and parts of it went close to ringing true at times. The fossils that the lecturer showed and that we studied, never quite fitted the explanation of their arrival here.

You've hit it. Females are a separate species, as Doc Bill hinted at the beginning of the thread.

Jay B says.... (To PBH) What of archaea, bacteria and fungi? Why do you say viruses are not life? They have genes, they reproduce and they evolve.

PBH again... Whatever sudden changes may happen to genes, the most helpful mutation I have heard of in humans is sickle cell anemia ... not inductive to survival in the wild.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Signalled Evolution calls on species to fulfill a role as conduits.

There needn’t have been a single speciation “event” in all of history for evolution to be the way things happened. And for life to appear just the way we see it.

Henry J said: For sexually reproducing types, speciation frees up different subsets of a species to evolve differently from then on. Without it there wouldn't be the nested hierarchies we see among sexual species.

Strangely, one of the few things that Darwinism accurately predicts was unknown to Darwin - viruses.

Repeating the facts: viruses are not a life form; they are universally an agent of death; they are a mutation of mineral. Bible again. Why in tarnation would an agent of death be an ancestor of life?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ...Bible again. Why in tarnation would an agent of death be an ancestor of life?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Strangely, one of the few things that Darwinism accurately predicts was unknown to Darwin - viruses. Repeating the facts: viruses are not a life form; they are universally an agent of death; they are a mutation of mineral. Bible again. Why in tarnation would an agent of death be an ancestor of life?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I'd say, not far down the track. Especially since there were predictions in my publications that have been confirmed and there are predictions that are being confirmed. History tells of abundant cases where acclaim through "peer review" was certification of irrelevancy. But I am confident that there are plenty of good operators about. So why not start, yourself? What's your field, other than lockjaw?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Interesting point you raise, regarding the genetic closeness (=lack of 'spread') of all modern humans. Like you, I'm not a biologist. I did read a paper that suggested that the tight family genetically speaking that Man now is, was a product of him going close to extinction, early in his career. It was in NEW SCIENTIST, ABOUT 1999. Paper seems to have been buried, quick-time, for some reason. I think I Noah what it is. Yes I sat through all that stuff for years and parts of it went close to ringing true at times. The fossils that the lecturer showed and that we studied, never quite fitted the explanation of their arrival here.

Interestingly, viruses are polyphletic in origin - i.e., no one common "ancestor" or single beginner. So I am not fully accurate if I say that Common Descent Darwinism and viruses are compatible. If there is a brand of Darwinism that espouses multiple descent, o.k..

Since viruses parasitize living cells, they cannot pre-date life.

They are simpler than living cells.

No fossil viruses had been detected, last time I checked.

No virus that I have heard of can be shown to be ultimately furthering the cause of Life.

There's something to chew on. There is no place in a tree of life for viruses.

Nigel D said: And what relevance does this have to speciation? Just because you have not heard about recent advantageous mutations in humans does not mean there are none. Hoe hard have you looked?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Interestingly, viruses are polyphletic in origin - i.e., no one common "ancestor" or single beginner. So I am not fully accurate if I say that Common Descent Darwinism and viruses are compatible. If there is a brand of Darwinism that espouses multiple descent, o.k.. Since viruses parasitize living cells, they cannot pre-date life. They are simpler than living cells. No fossil viruses had been detected, last time I checked. No virus that I have heard of can be shown to be ultimately furthering the cause of Life. There's something to chew on. There is no place in a tree of life for viruses.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Interestingly, viruses are polyphletic in origin - i.e., no one common "ancestor" or single beginner. So I am not fully accurate if I say that Common Descent Darwinism and viruses are compatible.

When you have finished blowing in the bathtub, there's a job for you. Look up BROOKS, M.,1999, NEW SCIENTIST, 163 (2199),p.33-35. I hope I have given the correct reference details. I have gone and lost my copy of the paper. Report the number of times it refers to a bottleneck, and the number of times it refers to severe de-population. Having lost my copy, and being some distance from a library, I can't be definitive, from where I am.

You might then go on to the beneficial viruses. I suspect that will be a brief report.

LUCA. As in, filthy l., or what? You are abandoning common descent as of now, and going over to the viruses, which just might have a few scattered "bushes", no tree, if we apply enough moonshine. The "bushes" come via Ed. Rybicki,1995 a paper on the origin of viruses, which I haven't misplaced. It's authoritative. When you become so, I'll take note of it.

The comments mystify me so I guess a little more mystification won't be out of place. You don't seem to have comprehended that species exist as empirical entities. I'll grant you that that thought has crossed the minds of many people - who have subsequently dismissed it. The reason that species are empirical, yet bewilderingly elusive, is because they are the outcome of, amongst other things, a bewildering, necessary, and empirical technology that blows the comprehension. Only such a 'way out there' technology could 'fill the bill'. Life she ain't simple.

I take the liberty of quoting from NEW SCIENTIST, 5th April, 2008, p. 38, by Michio Kaku. "More precisely, they can teleport the quantum information contained within a photon or atom onto a distant photon or atom. Within a decade, the first molecule may be teleported in this way, and within a few decades researchers could teleport more complex organic molecules and perhaps even the first virus or strand of DNA. To achieve this, physicists exploit an exotic property called quantum entanglement. If two particles are brought together in such a way that their quantum wave functions vibrate in unison, then they form a bond like an invisible umbilical cord that connects them even if they are separated by vast distances. If you later disturb one particle, then the information you impart onto it is transmitted instantaneously to its partner - so the entangled partner forms a ready and waiting template for whatever information is to be teleported ...... "

That's obviously the sort of technology that accounts for the remarkable properties of living organisms, and their remarkable arrival here. It can be set up to operate automatically, "hands off".

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The comments mystify me so I guess a little more mystification won't be out of place. You don't seem to have comprehended that species exist as empirical entities.

(quoting Michio Kaku): “To achieve this, physicists exploit an exotic property called quantum entanglement.” Then PBH makes the claim: "That’s obviously the sort of technology that accounts for the remarkable properties of living organisms, and their remarkable arrival here. It can be set up to operate automatically, “hands off”."

1) With difficulty.

2) Yes, No, Maybe, depends on the case, some may be indeterminate in our limited time frame.

Observe that the answer to 2) is a little reminiscent of the language of quantum physics. Heisenberg Uncertainty and all that. Is that the correct spelling of Heisenberg?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The comments mystify me...

Since viruses parasitize living cells, they cannot pre-date life.

viruses are polyphletic in origin - i.e., no one common “ancestor” or single beginner. So I am not fully accurate if I say that Common Descent Darwinism and viruses are compatible.

The reason that species are empirical, yet bewilderingly elusive, is because they are the outcome of, amongst other things, a bewildering, necessary, and empirical technology that blows the comprehension.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You might then go on to the beneficial viruses. I suspect that will be a brief report.

Apply to Henry. He seems to be saying there can be no definition. "....'intermediaries' have just as much claim to being a species as do the ones they're between."

Beats me. They still have labels on the cages at zoos.

Tell us more. All that glitters isn't gold, but the case well may be legitimate. The biosphere keeps a few surprises up its sleeve. I would be surprised, but not overwhelmed, to learn that this is a case of an indisputed virus indisputably helping the world go round. Thanks for the tip.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: When you have finished blowing in the bathtub, there's a job for you. Look up BROOKS, M.,1999, NEW SCIENTIST, 163 (2199),p.33-35. I hope I have given the correct reference details. I have gone and lost my copy of the paper. Report the number of times it refers to a bottleneck, and the number of times it refers to severe de-population. Having lost my copy, and being some distance from a library, I can't be definitive, from where I am. You might then go on to the beneficial viruses. I suspect that will be a brief report.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Apply to Henry. He seems to be saying there can be no definition. "....'intermediaries' have just as much claim to being a species as do the ones they're between." Beats me. They still have labels on the cages at zoos.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: 1) With difficulty. 2) Yes, No, Maybe, depends on the case, some may be indeterminate in our limited time frame. Observe that the answer to 2) is a little reminiscent of the language of quantum physics. Heisenberg Uncertainty and all that. Is that the correct spelling of Heisenberg?

And your answer to 2) means that your earlier claims about the absolute and empirical nature of species are, like most of your comments, in error. So far, you seem to be batting 0 for 99+ in your claims, Heywood. Better read a a few more “sciency” articles.

What is a species?

Who knows?

For what it may be worth, here is my layman's opinion:

The tree, bush or whatever analogy we prefer to use in portraying the evolutionary relationship between what we arbitrarily define as ‘species’, are just that – they (we hope) show genetic relationships such as they are.

So what about the species? Nature knows no species. That troublesome word is just one of mankind’s many inventions in its continued effort at making as much sense of the world as it can.

I prefer to see the biosphere, all of life, as just one continuum with no specific boundaries or restraints – except for the limits to which combinations of genetically different individuals by sexual reproduction may have fertile offspring.

And even that limit is ‘just one of those things’ – there are limits to what is possible. In the end, it is all chemistry.

AFAIK, we even find ancient virus in our genome.

It has also been pointed out by others in this thread, that the concept of species is just a tool and not in and by itself anything that life itself is obliged to satisfy.

As for intermediate or transitional species, all species are, for as long as they exist as a ‘species’, transitional.

The only species that are not transitional are species that become extinct before having been the source of speciation.

But I strongly suspect that science already has covered this subject. I am just trying to understand it. I also know that PBH has nothing to contribute.

chuck said:

Henry J said: For sexually reproducing types, speciation frees up different subsets of a species to evolve differently from then on. Without it there wouldn't be the nested hierarchies we see among sexual species.

Well, I didn't say no speciation had occurred. Just that no child would ever be a different species from it's parents. And I'm not saying that is what always happened. Just that an abrupt change in species from parent to child is simply not a necessary occurence for things to wind up the way they did.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Strangely, one of the few things that Darwinism accurately predicts was unknown to Darwin - viruses. Repeating the facts: viruses are not a life form; they are universally an agent of death; they are a mutation of mineral. Bible again. Why in tarnation would an agent of death be an ancestor of life?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Interestingly, viruses are polyph[y]letic in origin - i.e., no one common "ancestor" or single beginner. So I am not fully accurate if I say that Common Descent Darwinism and viruses are compatible. If there is a brand of Darwinism that espouses multiple descent, o.k..

Since viruses parasitize living cells, they cannot pre-date life.

They are simpler than living cells.

No fossil viruses had been detected, last time I checked.

No virus that I have heard of can be shown to be ultimately furthering the cause of Life.

There's something to chew on. There is no place in a tree of life for viruses.

Did you read the article before or after blowing in the bathtub?

Nige, you just re-wrote Biology. Last effort, you re-wrote Physical Chemistry. Is there any topic on which you aren't fluidly conversant? Amazing.

My compliments to the Host and may your work prosper.

You don’t seem to have comprehended that species exist as empirical entities.

— PBH

Philip Bruce Heywood said: 1) With difficulty. 2) Yes, No, Maybe, depends on the case, some may be indeterminate in our limited time frame. Observe that the answer to 2) is a little reminiscent of the language of quantum physics. Heisenberg Uncertainty and all that. Is that the correct spelling of Heisenberg?

I would be surprised, but not overwhelmed, to learn ...

— PBH

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Nige, you just re-wrote Biology. Last effort, you re-wrote Physical Chemistry. Is there any topic on which you aren't fluidly conversant? Amazing. My compliments to the Host and may your work prosper.

Nigel D said:

chuck said: Just that an abrupt change in species from parent to child is simply not a necessary occurence for things to wind up the way they did.

You seem to have a misconception about how evolution occurs. Abrupt species change from parent to child only occurs when new species arise through hybridisation. Speciation by hybridisation appears to be less common than speciation by selection or drift. Speciation by selection or drift occur through the gradual accumulation of small changes, almost always over many generations (e.g. 1,000).

You seem to have a misconception about how evolution occurs. Abrupt species change from parent to child only occurs when new species arise through hybridisation.

chuck said:

Nigel D said: You seem to have a misconception about how evolution occurs. Abrupt species change from parent to child only occurs when new species arise through hybridisation. Speciation by hybridisation appears to be less common than speciation by selection or drift. Speciation by selection or drift occur through the gradual accumulation of small changes, almost always over many generations (e.g. 1,000).

I thought that was what I said. The point is that the idea of "Kinds" or the argument that evolution must be wrong because no turtle ever gave birth to an eagle are just blather unrelated to the real world.

Larry Boy said:

You seem to have a misconception about how evolution occurs. Abrupt species change from parent to child only occurs when new species arise through hybridisation.

Not true, aneu and poly ploid can lead to speciation in a single generation, and is common cause of speciation in plants (common here means it has been inferred in many specific cases, I am not making an assertion about relative frequency).

I would be laughed out of the room if I talked to a bunch of physicists and argued that there wasn't really any attractive force between masses because gravity turns out to be more complicated that Newton thought it was.
Yet PBH and ilk seem to be able to get a serious discussion going when they make such an argument about biology.
That is something I would like to understand.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: LUCA. As in, filthy l., or what? You are abandoning common descent as of now, and going over to the viruses, which just might have a few scattered "bushes", no tree, if we apply enough moonshine.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The "bushes" come via Ed. Rybicki,1995 a paper on the origin of viruses, which I haven't misplaced. It's authoritative. When you become so, I'll take note of it.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You might then go on to the beneficial viruses. I suspect that will be a brief report.

chuck said: I would be laughed out of the room if I talked to a bunch of physicists and argued that there wasn't really any attractive force between masses because gravity turns out to be more complicated that Newton thought it was. Yet PBH and ilk seem to be able to get a serious discussion going when they make such an argument about biology. That is something I would like to understand.

So no viruses, no placental mammals.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Did you read the article before or after blowing in the bathtub?

It might be partly due to the fact that physics is simpler. Biology deals with very complex systems, and there are lots of terms and classification schemes to learn and understand. In addition, evolution threatens the dominance of the leaders of sectarian dogma, so for them it is a life-and-death argument.

stevaroni said: ... Additionally, basic physics is a hell of a lot easier to demonstrate to the naked eye than basic biology. Galileo dropping two rocks off the Tower of Pisa, apocryphal or not, has the advantage that it's easy to see and hard to refute. You don't have to trust anyone's analysis, the casual observer can evaluate it for himself. Evolution has no real parallel "killer demonstration". ...

“killer demonstration” is right. Gallileo didn’t do the demonstration for the simple reason that he knew it wouldn’t work. If you drop two rocks (or canon balls) off the Tower of Pisa, or any other great height, the larger one will hit the ground first!

I don’t think the basic theory of evolution is any more complex or less obviously correct than Newton’s theory of gravity.

The reasons for denialism about evolution are purely social.

I guess the abundance of individual facts that biology contains gives the deniers cover.

It's not so much that I wonder why they answer, hell I answer sometimes.
What I wonder is why they argue about the details of the science.
If someone came in and called the blue sky green would one be fool enough to get into a discussion of light scattering in hopes that it would convince them of the sky's true color?

More generally, I guess I wonder about the seeming defensiveness.

“killer demonstration” is right. Gallileo didn’t do the demonstration for the simple reason that he knew it wouldn’t work. If you drop two rocks (or canon balls) off the Tower of Pisa, or any other great height, the larger one will hit the ground first!

stevaroni said:

“killer demonstration” is right. Gallileo didn’t do the demonstration for the simple reason that he knew it wouldn’t work. If you drop two rocks (or canon balls) off the Tower of Pisa, or any other great height, the larger one will hit the ground first!

Actually, it does work pretty well. I've seen this myself, done as a historical re-enactment at my olde college (lo those many years ago). True, if you drop two very dissimilar objects, like a feather and a brick, they will fall at dramatically different rates, but if drop reasonably large, dense objects, they swamp the air resistance and the similarity is obvious (and if you pick your objects carefully, you can get a tie, ball bearings and cinder blocks fall pretty much the same, except that the cinder blocks bounce into the front of the chemistry building). If you experiment by "racing" various objects, it's easy to demonstrate the effects of air resistance, say, by comparing a full 16 ounce bottle of water to a gallon jug holding the same 16 ounces.

chuck said: I don't think the basic theory of evolution is any more complex or less obviously correct than Newton's theory of gravity. The reasons for denialism about evolution are purely social.

Eric said: ... In which case denial of evolution may not be social or religious, it may just be butting up against the very typical human bias to extrapolate future growth/change linearly, even when its not.

fnxtr said: I find that mind-boggling. The pre-placentals were 'infected', and here we are.

chuck said: More generally, I guess I wonder about the seeming defensiveness.

Eric said: In which case denial of evolution may not be social or religious, it may just be butting up against the very typical human bias to extrapolate future growth/change linearly, even when its not.

Sure, but then the deniers would come out whining about “if your theory is so great why doesn’t it hold for cannonballs and feathers?” and the details of the exceptions prove somehow that the theory is wrong, and besides, air resistance can’t really blah blah blah etc, etc, ad nausium. Come to think of it, just like here ;)

Chuck said: That’s an interesting point. I don’t agree with it because the fossil record is available to be seen all at once like an amortization table. But it is an interesting point.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Actually the basic bias in all animals is to use a logarithmic scale.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: This is presumably why YECs says spontaneously can say millions of years instead of billions of years for the age of the universe.

Eric said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Actually the basic bias in all animals is to use a logarithmic scale.

Interesting article but I'm not convinced. Figuring out a good nonlinear way to map a set of known points is not the same thing as accurately calculating nonlinear change/growth. And my completely unscientific, anecdotal experience for which I have no convincing defense :) is that people regularly and consistently underestimate cumulative change - whether it's surprise at the few number of steps needed in Dawkin's weasel program, or surprise at the results of the much older double-the-gold-pieces-on-each-chess-square monetary example.

Mike Elzinga said:

I don’t think the basic theory of evolution is any more complex or less obviously correct than Newton’s theory of gravity.

However, extracting the facts of evolution and the nested relationships of living organisms is far more difficult, and took far longer, than anything in physics. Personally, I found biology harder than physics; but that may be just a personal quirk.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You might then go on to the beneficial viruses. I suspect that will be a brief report.

Eric Finn said: As regard to the concept of species, I found the example of mountains very illuminating.

Oops, that became fuzzier than usual, if possible.

I meant that the branching analogy can be imagined to have an idealized "last" cut separating one branch from two further "up".

[And that the "angles" particle observers see are the angles of the light cones for what they see as their respective "simultaneous" events.]

Btw, I now realize that possibly my tree estimation is simply backwards of how people estimate that 99.9 % of species are extinct. What goes around comes around...

Chuck said: "I don’t think the basic theory of evolution is any more complex or less obviously correct than Newton’s theory of gravity."

.

Newton's is hard science, quantified, and makes specific predictions, hence it's falsifiable, and we were (eventually) able to determine its limitations; hence the need for the equations from Einstein's general relativity which provides a more complete (and different) picture than Newton's gravity.

Evolution by RM+NS, OTOH, explains and predicts little more than a circular notion and truism----survival of the fittest.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: So I'm thinking, the problem with (biological) species is obviously that we apply a species definition from the outside and idealize, and it is apparent here. The very real branch will have cells that doesn't "know" where they are - they pass through such an ideal, unrealistic cut.

Or possibly we idealize from the wrong model. [OT example] AFAIU string theory manages to avoid singularities in branching interaction processes of particles by allowing cutting a string worldsheet in the different angles the different particle observers sees along their separate world lines. (And so becomes both compatible with special relativity and admits gravitons to become compatible with general relativity.) [/OT example]

So analogously I think different populations could well have different "opinions" on how much they are affected by an coevolving population they segregate from (in some cases) and what exactly happens. This seems more along an evolutionary, not definition of course, but associated description that keeps the inherent fuzziness in the real process. And thus the branch analogy seems IMHO to be in fact quite nice as well.

Evolution by RM+NS, OTOH, explains and predicts little more than a circular notion and truism—-survival of the fittest.

bigbang said: ... Evolution by RM+NS, OTOH, explains and predicts little more than a circular notion and truism----survival of the fittest.

Eric Finn said: I think the example of branching (by Henry J, I believe) was addressing another problem: that of identifying where exactly a differentiation occurs.

Eric Finn said: Unfortunately, I am unable to follow you in the realm of string theories, although I am superficially aware of the prospects of uniting relativity and quantum mechanics, and avoiding singularities.

bigbang said: Evolution by RM+NS, OTOH, explains and predicts little more than a circular notion and truism----survival of the fittest.

Evolution by RM+NS, OTOH, explains and predicts little more than a circular notion and truism—-survival of the fittest.

It is driven by hatred inflamed by sectarian dogma...

Flint said:

It is driven by hatred inflamed by sectarian dogma...

Do you really think so? ...

bigbang said: Newton's is hard science,

quantified, and makes specific predictions,

hence it's falsifiable,

and we were (eventually) able to determine its limitations;

hence the need for the equations from Einstein's general relativity which provides a more complete (and different) picture than Newton's gravity.

Evolution by RM+NS, OTOH, explains and predicts little more than a circular notion and truism----survival of the fittest.

Mike Elzinga said: It is amazing that in the 21st century there are people still preaching like they did at the beginning of the 20th century.

Flint said: RBH (where's he been lately?)

Nigel D said: First off, you are still using a strawman. Wake up and smell the coffee, lackwit.

Mike,

OK, I see some of the fear. In fact, I see two classes of fear. The first is a fear that a society not based on the doctrines of their faith will degenerate into id-driven anarchy (Freud's id, not Behe's) due to moral decay. They worry that atheists, lacking any sense of values or moral compass, will somehow transmogrify into autonomic rapists and murderers. And this seems a pretty straightforward conclusion from a lifetime of being told that religious faith is all that keeps us from being as immoral as bonobos.

The second class is more metaphysical. Many of these people really, sincerely fear that exposure to godlessness (evolution is Exhibit A) will jeopardize their kids' immortal souls and slam closed the gates of heaven. I've encountered pity and condescention from True Believers, but no hate. Maybe I've been lucky.

Nonetheless, it's clear to me that they fear evolution-the-word, having no concept of what it signifies and no frame of reference within which the actual meaning makes any sense. So they make the word mean something as close as their context permits, which is so far off base it's not even wrong. And that distorts evolution (in their minds) into a tautology. Only way it can fit.

I’ve encountered pity and condescension from True Believers, but no hate. Maybe I’ve been lucky.

I can’t say I agree. AFAIU group behavior and socializing with like minded gives us strong rewards; preaching, public sports events et cetera is supported by general social and media culture, and I believe such has grown in scale if not in frequency.

They worry that atheists, lacking any sense of values or moral compass, will somehow transmogrify into autonomic rapists and murderers. And this seems a pretty straightforward conclusion from a lifetime of being told that religious faith is all that keeps us from being as immoral as bonobos.

And that distorts evolution (in their minds) into a tautology. Only way it can fit.

But, a tautology is a statement that has to be true for purely logical reasons, without any need for evidence. So somebody who argues that evolution is a tautology is arguing that it’s true.

And yet, they were all sure that civilization would break down. It was just that it would start with someone else, someone invariably morally weaker...some of the worst atrocities ever committed were done in the very name of God

HenryJ, I don't think that the creationist's argument is that evolution it tautological. I've seen them argue that "Survival of the fittest" is tautological. With a limited understanding, it could be read that way. That is, if they ignore that survival means that an individual survives to propogate offspring which also must survive. By ignoring the details, they use the "tautology" to then argue that the claims of evolutionary theory are meaningless - but they don't seem to argue that the claims are correct.

Larsson wonders: “where are the precambrian rabbits?”

.

We’ve already discussed this elsewhere, Larson, but perhaps you missed it: As Evo-Devo has discovered, all of the essential evolution of the genes required to build and evolve those large complex animal bodies---e.g. your rabbits---- had already taken place, albeit unexpectedly by neo-Darwinian thinking prior to the discovery, in those ancient single cell organisms, close to 10^40 of them, prior to the Cambrian Explosion; paving the way for the emergence of the variety of multicellular creatures that we see today, e.g. rabbits and us.

Of course no one really knows how RM+NS working on those roughly 10^40 Precambrian cells could have possibly evolved such things, especially when we consider that it took RM+NS working on about 10^20 cells b/f malaria finally developed the relatively simplistic mechanism needed for CQ resistance, but still, the only important thing is that it RM+NS did it, and we know that it did b/c neo-Darwinism consensus declares that it did.

Yet, bigbangBigot fails to mention that the HOX genes do not actually occur in single-celled organisms, nor do they occur in sponges, which lack an axis or defined tissues, either. Furthermore, the HOX cluster duplications seen in vertebrates did not appear until during the late Cambrian/Earliest Ordovician, when the craniates diverged from the Conodont chordates.

Of course, if Random Mutation + Natural Selection does not account for what we see in life and in the fossil record, one should notice that bigbangBigot has never once tried to propose an alternative to it, viable or otherwise, despite boasting that Random Mutation + Natural Selection is going wind up like Astrology.

stevaroni said: I've always been fascinated by this argument, I run into it a lot...They always reply something to the effect of "Oh, why heavens no - what do you think that I am, some kind of animal?".

bigbang said: ...the only important thing is that it RM+NS did it, and we know that it did b/c neo-Darwinism consensus declares that it did.

I've heard the same "I wouldn't but they would" argument here in Canada, over cannabis. Opponents of decriminalization claim it would lead to every one turning into a stoned zombie. But somehow new legislation would never change the way these opponents behave, only The Others. For my part I have better things to do than inhale burnt leaves, but whatever...

Flint said: Henry J:

But, a tautology is a statement that has to be true for purely logical reasons, without any need for evidence. So somebody who argues that evolution is a tautology is arguing that it’s true.

Huh? You lost me. The problem with a tautology is, it doesn't explain anything. It can't be a process, it can't lead to changes.

bigbang said: Larsson wonders: “where are the precambrian rabbits?” . We’ve already discussed this elsewhere, Larson, but perhaps you missed it: As Evo-Devo has discovered, all of the essential evolution of the genes required to build and evolve those large complex animal bodies---e.g. your rabbits---- had already taken place, albeit unexpectedly by neo-Darwinian thinking prior to the discovery, in those ancient single cell organisms, close to 10^40 of them, prior to the Cambrian Explosion; paving the way for the emergence of the variety of multicellular creatures that we see today, e.g. rabbits and us.

Regarding cannabis legislation, one could also point out that making it illegal does not seem to have stopped people from inhaling it, anyway. (Well, aside from that one well-known self-proclaimed exception.)

Henry

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Nigel D said: First off, you are still using a strawman. Wake up and smell the coffee, lackwit.

"- This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!!"

The Norwegian Blue prefers to be on his back - he's just resting.

Exactly, Henry J.: Getting the Lord doesn't stop some people from acting very, very badly.

But as you agree that there were no precambrian rabbits, and you agree that this is a prediction of “neo-Darwinian thinking”, it follows by logic that you must agree that evolution is falsifiable by such rabbits.

The non-existance of pre-cambrian fossils does not falsify evolution. Not at least according to Popper's logic.

Reason said:

But as you agree that there were no precambrian rabbits, and you agree that this is a prediction of “neo-Darwinian thinking”, it follows by logic that you must agree that evolution is falsifiable by such rabbits.

— Reason quoting Torbjorn Larsson OM

The non-existance of pre-cambrian fossils does not falsify evolution. Not at least according to Popper's logic.

Yeah, one or two things outside the region covered by the theory would be sort of like what the precession of Mercury was to Newton's laws of mechanics and gravity. It would imply that there's something larger that contains the current theory, rather than something that contradicts it.

Henry