Evolution question.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

All I need do is ask for a plain and distinct irrefutable definition of "species." And then allow me to offer numerous contradictions. I'll save us more time by asking up front...does a bigger nose, feet, or hair color qualify to distinguish a new species? Does "inablility" to breed (not preference) with the parent stock denote a species? Does the gene count on the genome distinguish what constitutes a species?

Let's put this another way: Are you simultaneously a monkey and an Aardvark? There is some reality to this concept of species, even if it is difficult to pin down how to distinguish among them.

[wil]

Can't help myself, it has been running through my head...think Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"I evolved from a shrew."

"Evolved from a shrew?"

"I gawt bettah."

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Let's put this another way: Are you simultaneously a monkey and an Aardvark? There is some reality to this concept of species, even if it is difficult to pin down how to distinguish among them.

Welcome to CR Dogbrain.

You offer a red herring. I asked for a simple and irrefutable definition of the term "species." I am familiar with at least two primary definitions, that contradict each other. And typically those who use evolution as a baseball bat to beat creationists about the head conflate and confuse the two randomly and ignorantly.

Monkeys and aardvarks generally are not touted as new species if the size of their nose changes...but Galapagos finches frequently are. Seems to me a rather dissimilar and convenient application...when the grant money fits, use the definition that is most provocative, and nevermind clarifying the discrepency for the lay persons.

It's another inconvenient truth that the path started with finches ends up at eugenics...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Welcome to CR Dogbrain.

You offer a red herring. I asked for a simple and irrefutable definition of the term "species." I am familiar with at least two primary definitions, that contradict each other. And typically those who use evolution as a baseball bat to beat creationists about the head conflate and confuse the two randomly and ignorantly.

Monkeys and aardvarks generally are not touted as new species if the size of their nose changes...but Galapagos finches frequently are. Seems to me a rather dissimilar and convenient application...when the grant money fits, use the definition that is most provocative, and nevermind clarifying the discrepency for the lay persons.

It's another inconvenient truth that the path started with finches ends up at eugenics...

Or possibly Eugenics wars...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Let's put this another way: Are you simultaneously a monkey and an Aardvark? There is some reality to this concept of species, even if it is difficult to pin down how to distinguish among them.

There is a 3% difference between monkey's and man (at most)yet we can't interbreed. There is a 12% difference between man and aardvark...

There is no reality to the concept of interspecies, or any species you've brought to bear concerning relativity to man.

To consider that man evolved from the ape, the question is "what" ape? Certainly not the apes alive today. And anthropology has yet to hit the billion dollar link that solidly makes us part of the ape family. Theory is not proof.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in evolution, just not exactly the way others do.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is a 3% difference between monkey's and man (at most)yet we can't interbreed.

Your claims are decades out of date, based on the coding sequences of a handful of genes. Things have turned out to be very different once we have sequenced entire genomes.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Certainly not the apes alive today. And anthropology has yet to hit the billion dollar link that solidly makes us part of the ape family. Theory is not proof.

Not really, Q. Australopithecines are the clear link between the apes that precede them and Homo habilis who appears later down the line. There were some clear dead-ends (the robust Australopithecines) and some clear gracile versions leading to H. habilis.

Some critter had to be the first one who stood upright and walked around. These were the Australopithecines. And they are very clearly transitional. The early ones had foramen magnums that are centrally located (like humans), indicating bipedality, yet their fingers and toes were still curved bone (indicating a body built for tree-climbing). Their heads look pretty much exactly like modern chimps, except for that centralized foramen magnum, only found in bipedal primates. Clearly, something in bipedal locomotion strongly favored larger brain size, as down the line H. habilis shows an increase in brain size and the first stone tools.

I really don't understand why everyone talks about missing links. When I line up the skeletons in the lab, I don't really see anything missing. Sure, we may find more species out there, but in terms of a really clear progression from ancient (and now extinct) ape to (now extinct) Australopithecine to H. habilis to H. erectus to early Archaic H. species to Neanderthals and modern H. sapiens... it's a pretty clear line. We don't know everything about who was breeding with who and yet the skeletal evidence is so plain that I've had non-biology people in their first class go "Wow- I didn't know you could SEE it!" The mosaic of human traits is pretty evident.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Not really, Q. Australopithecines are the clear link between the apes that precede them and Homo habilis who appears later down the line. There were some clear dead-ends (the robust Australopithecines) and some clear gracile versions leading to H. habilis.

Some critter had to be the first one who stood upright and walked around. These were the Australopithecines. And they are very clearly transitional. The early ones had foramen magnums that are centrally located (like humans), indicating bipedality, yet their fingers and toes were still curved bone (indicating a body built for tree-climbing). Their heads look pretty much exactly like modern chimps, except for that centralized foramen magnum, only found in bipedal primates. Clearly, something in bipedal locomotion strongly favored larger brain size, as down the line H. habilis shows an increase in brain size and the first stone tools.

I really don't understand why everyone talks about missing links. When I line up the skeletons in the lab, I don't really see anything missing. Sure, we may find more species out there, but in terms of a really clear progression from ancient (and now extinct) ape to (now extinct) Australopithecine to H. habilis to H. erectus to early Archaic H. species to Neanderthals and modern H. sapiens... it's a pretty clear line. We don't know everything about who was breeding with who and yet the skeletal evidence is so plain that I've had non-biology people in their first class go "Wow- I didn't know you could SEE it!" The mosaic of human traits is pretty evident.

I'll differ to your expertice on that...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'll differ to your expertice on that...

I doubt that, you may differ on your opinion but what expertise will you bring?

I recently watched a documentary online that interviewed people in the streets of some bible-belt town. It quickly became apparent that Mr and Mrs Average American Christian had virtually no understanding of evolution theory and that their creationist dogma was built upon the indignation they felt at being associated with 'lowly animals'. The level of ignorance was startling, the racial prejudice simmered just below the boil and arrogance of the most ugly kind, the kind that gave rise to the Third Reich, seemed to pervade the town like some plague. Evolution is not about belief. It IS about facts. But to try and tell that to these people would be futile. They were so anally retentive that their brains were already stewed beyond rational in their own s**t. This is what religion can do to people and why you will see me continuing to be disgusted by it.

tao

[juantoo3]

I suspect Q meant "defer," not "differ."

Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

Sadly Tao, no, for all of the justification and validation Hitler's regime sought from religious (i.e.: Vatican) sources, the atrocities of the concentration camps and human medical experiments were the result *directly* of institutionalized scientific dogma in the form of eugenics.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is a 3% difference between monkey's and man (at most)yet we can't interbreed.

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Your claims are decades out of date, based on the coding sequences of a handful of genes. Things have turned out to be very different once we have sequenced entire genomes.

Very good, now have we gotten our info from the discovery channel, or the human genome mapping project and Dr. Francis Collins?

I'm afraid there is a line of thought that suggests the possibility of interbreeding between humans and bonobos. The line is drawn at ethics, not genomes.

The typical example of interspecies mating is the mule...and it is sterile. So the *presumption* is that *all* interspecies matings are sterile. Not so.

Even among typically sterile cross breeds, occasionally a virile example will occur. But "occasional" is not conducive to procreation and evolution, however it does slap one definition of "species" square in the face.

To further complicate matters is the example of the wild horse of the Steppes, called Przlewski's horse or something, which has 66 genes. The typical horse we in the west are familiar with has 64 genes. Yet these two can mate, successfully, with virile offspring. Shoots that concept of "species" right in the foot....

If that is not enough, research the quagga. From there, research the various bovine species that are frequently interbred...like the brangus and the beefalo.

Now let's discuss ring species and breeds of dog...how they are the same but they are different but they are the same but they are different....just depends on the bias and needs of the promoter at a given time.

So no, "species" is a necessarily vague and ambiguous term subject to the will and whim of a given author at a given time, subject to amendment on the fly as necessary.

Which leads me now to always ask for the clarification: Linnean or cladist? and to hold that author to their chosen POV at cost. Otherwise, I know they are blowing smoke out of their nether regions....

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I suspect Q meant "defer," not "differ."

Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

Sadly Tao, no, for all of the justification and validation Hitler's regime sought from religious (i.e.: Vatican) sources, the atrocities of the concentration camps and human medical experiments were the result *directly* of institutionalized scientific dogma in the form of eugenics.

Sorry but I have to call on this one. Long before Charles Darwin was a twinkle in his fathers eye Eugenics was a well established practice. We have written evidence of that in the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt, in the lineages of countless Royal families and even in the dying wishes of Muhammed. To state that eugenics is the result of a scientific dogma is utter nonsense. Perhaps back when they did not have a full understanding of what evolution is, but they well understood some of the facets of how lineage worked. Controlling a breeding population is eugenics and its history is as old as any extant writing.

tao

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

Not at all. Before evolution caught the public imagination, God was invoked to justify racist policies. Scripture after Scripture was quoted by the slavers of the US southern states to rationalize their practices of chattel slavery.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Very good, now have we gotten our info from the discovery channel, or the human genome mapping project and Dr. Francis Collins?

I'm a biologist. I specialize in molecular biology of gene promoters and sidelight into genetics. If you wish, I can a list of recent publications. Tell me, how many papers have you had published in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals?

I'm afraid there is a line of thought that suggests the possibility of interbreeding between humans and bonobos. The line is drawn at ethics, not genomes.

And I'm afraid you're trying to do a smear-job on me in a very indirect and dishonest fashion. If you want to call me a monkyf-----, be honest enough to come out and do. Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I said anything about attempting to interbreed humans and bonobo.

Which leads me now to always ask for the clarification: Linnean or cladist?

Ernst Mayr-influenced modern synthesis.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I suspect Q meant "defer," not "differ."

Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

Sadly Tao, no, for all of the justification and validation Hitler's regime sought from religious (i.e.: Vatican) sources, the atrocities of the concentration camps and human medical experiments were the result *directly* of institutionalized scientific dogma in the form of eugenics.

Indeed, defer was what I meant, none the less I definitely sensed the "disgust" and dare I say, prejudice, for even expressing a thought. It seems none are immune to that.