The Evolution Conflict

[Bandit]

Luna I liked the site a lot. simple, colorful easy to relate & yes i understand a lot of that. (sincere)

i still need lots more proof & have to stick with adam as the first & maybe even the last
that is man as we know him today, created in His image...you know the rest.


BTW, do you think you can make me a brontasaurous.? i sure would like to see one in real life.

[Vajradhara]

thank you all for your kind words and compliments


an aside.. the list of references for observed speciation that i present in these discussions was actually complied by a Christian scientist that had become a bit fed up with the whole "you aren't a real Christian if you believe in Eviloution" arguments.

[lunamoth]

For anyone curious about the Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis:

A comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of humans from many races and regions suggests that all of these DNA sequences have evolved molecularly from a common ancestor sequence. Under the assumption that an individual inherits mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed Mitochondrial Eve. Based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift, Eve is believed to have lived about 150,000 years ago. Phylogeny suggests she lived in Africa.

from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Eviloution

Can't help but wonder if the mispelling was deliberate, or a Freudian slip?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to everybody!

I spelled out my take on science as a type of religion in the Memes thread, probably long buried and I am being lazy not digging it back out. So my apologies to anyone not familiar with what I am talking about.

As for speciation, earlier in this thread I looked into many of the things brought out in Vaj's list, and I had a lengthy dicussion about it all with Gluadys. Should be in the middle of the pages I referenced. My major point of conflict deals with "species" not interbreeding, and we (Gluadys and I) went around and around about it. She settled on a matter called "ring species," using an example of gulls that interbreed around the world where their habitat overlapped, up to a point when the two end species would not interbreed. I pointed out the similarity with domestic dogs. The gulls are considered, officially, "species." The dogs are considered "breeds." When so many examples of "speciation" can and do interbreed, naturally, it is difficult for me to accept them as any more than "breeds." Thinking about it over the last couple of days, I have come to the conclusion that it must be about money and prestige. Grant money is readily available for those who can show or prove "speciation" (the Galapagos finches as but one example recently given). Grant money is not so readily available for showing or proving "breeds." Monies can be gained from agronomically suitable "breeds" and is done all of the time, such as Brangus beef or an improved vegetable or grain, or a new color of rose. But where Brangus cattle are not held out as new species, other creatures readily and adamantly are. So, while the "science" may not be "religion" in the sense of "God's" place in such matters, if one were to substitute money and prestige in the place of "God," my comments about the similarities between them I hope becomes a bit more evident. Science places man as a god, no offense intended to scientifically minded persons who are also faithful minded persons.

Speciation is really, in all of the literature I have looked into, an arbitrary designation when considering closely related creatures. Obviously, a cat is not similar to a dog, and rightly the two are distinct species by the traditional definition. But a wolf is not a distinct species from a dog if the two can interbreed, and they do. A cat is not a distinct species from a bobcat if the two can interbreed, and they can. Adaptation or modification to suit an environment is not enough, in and of itself, to distinguish a species.

In any given population of humans, there are similarities, and there are differences. The same with moths, finches and guppies. So what if having a big nose were somehow an advantage to humans in some particular environment? Over time one would expect to see a "race" or "breed" of humans develop with big noses, assuming of course that such was also conducive to procreation. The resultant "breed" would still be human, it would not be another species from this one genetic adaptation in and of itself.

Hopefully, this example will help clarify what it is I am trying to say here.

I mean no offense to anybody. I have little to no trouble with understanding adaptation, that to me has been demonstrated. But for each individual adaptation to be trumpeted as a new species, is the "religous aspect of science" beating the drum of its own doctrine and dogma, in my humble opinion, in the face of contradicting logic of its own making. It really seems to come down to the precise definition and application of the term "species."

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Found the Meme thread, should there be any interest, in the philosophy section:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...read.php?t=246

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!


Can't help but wonder if the mispelling was deliberate, or a Freudian slip?

nah... that was on purpose

i often, it seems, encouter beings that spell it that way to illustrate that if you feel that evolution is a correct explanation for the diversity of the species, then you are actually, "evil" thus, "eviloution"

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

For anyone curious about the Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis:



from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

lunamoth

thanks Lunamoth for the link...

for those interested in tracking the genetic drift of humans, i would heartily encourage a book called The Journey of Man by Spencer Wells.

you can read a bit about Wells here:

http://utopia.utexas.edu/articles/al...ce&sub=biology

a snippet to whet your appetite:

A: You talked about being descended from this governor. People are naturally intrigued by the fact that they’re descended from William the Conqueror or, in the Arab world, from Muhammad. But isn’t it true, that when you’re dealing with distances of a thousand years, that virtually every white person is directly descended from William the Conqueror and virtually every Arab is descended from Muhammad?

SW: Yes. It’s a simple mathematical problem: You have two parents and four grandparents, et cetera. And it goes 2n where n is the number of generations. You go back 50 generations and it’s 250, which is a huge number; it’s more than the total number of people who have ever existed in the history of life on earth. So obviously, it has to be less than 2; it’s 1-point-something, and that point-something reflects the fact that we are somewhat related. You don’t have two completely unrelated parents. Everybody is related to a certain extent.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I mean no offense to anybody. I have little to no trouble with understanding adaptation, that to me has been demonstrated. But for each individual adaptation to be trumpeted as a new species, is the "religous aspect of science" beating the drum of its own doctrine and dogma, in my humble opinion, in the face of contradicting logic of its own making. It really seems to come down to the precise definition and application of the term "species."

hey Juan,

do you think that you could find a taxonomic classification for "breed" in Kingdom Animalia?

for reference:

http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vl...arya/Animalia/


here is a link to an explanation of the different ways the term "species" is used, both Category and Taxa;
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for the links!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

hey Juan,

do you think that you could find a taxonomic classification for "breed" in Kingdom Animalia?

for reference:




http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Eukarya/Animalia/

I will grant that "breed" or "race" are not accepted nomenclature, however, since the subject is for the most part ignored in the literature, at least in those papers I have read, I am at a loss for a more suitable term. Of course, when it approaches eugenics, a whole 'nother batch of politically incorrect worms gets opened. (One I wish, for those following this, to avoid at cost!)

here is a link to an explanation of the different ways the term "species" is used, both Category and Taxa;
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

I have been reading this, and for the most part I do not see where it contradicts what I have been saying. I do thank you, it is the first I have seen that at least attempts to address the issue. At any rate, so far it seems to correspond with what I have been attempting to say. And while I may not even qualify as an "armchair taxonomist," nevertheless it seems that a great many in the field do seem to operate as armchair taxonomists according to the papers I have read, crossing both definitions of "species," (intentionally or not) blurring the line for those not deeply versed in the nomenclature and jargon. If those in the field cannot get their definition correct, how can they expect the rest of us who can think for ourselves to follow?

The species is the principal unit of evolution and it is impossible to write about evolution, and indeed about almost any aspect of the philosophy of biology, without having a sound understanding of the meaning of biological species. A study of the history of the species problem helps to dispel some of the misconceptions (Mayr 1957, Grant 1994).

I agree, that is my point. (I do find it interesting, the use of the term "philosophy" in relation to biology, kinda goes back to what I said about science as a religion, no?)

The term 'species' refers to a concrete phenomenon of nature and this fact severely constrains the number and kinds of possible definitions...A definition of any class of objects must be applicable to any member of this class and exclude reference to attributes not characteristic of this class. This is why any definition of the term 'species' must be based on careful study of the phenomenon of nature to which this term is applied. Alas, this necessity is not appreciated by all too many of those who have recently discussed the species problem after a mere analysis of the literature.

Nor, it would seem, by many in the field.

The biological meaning of species is thus quite apparent: "The segregation of the total genetic variability of nature into discrete packages, so called species, which are separated from each other by reproductive barriers, prevents the production of too great a number of disharmonious incompatible gene combinations. This is the basic biological meaning of species and this is the reason why there are discontinuities between sympatric species. We do know that genotypes are extremely complex epigenetic systems. There are severe limits to the amount of genetic variability that can be accommodated in a single gene pool without producing too many incompatible gene combinations" (Mayr 1969, 316).

I agree, and have tried to state as much with the dog and cat example.

The validity of this argument is substantiated by the fact that hybrids between species, particularly in animals, are almost always of inferior viability and more extreme hybrids are usually even sterile. "Almost always" means that there are species interpreted to be the result of hybridization, particularly among plants, but except for the special case of allopolyploidy, such cases are rare.

"Rare" being a relative term...I have already listed quite a number.

[quote]

[juantoo3]

OOOPS! Goofed up, so continued here...

It is immaterial whether or not the term isolating mechanism was well chosen, nor is it important whether one places the stress on the prevention of interbreeding with non-conspecific individuals or the facilitation ("recognition") of breeding with conspecific individuals. The concept I have just developed is articulated in the so-called biological species definition: "Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." The isolating mechanism by which reproductive isolation is effected are properties of individuals. Geographic isolation therefore does not qualify as an isolating mechanism.

So, what do you do with canines, seagulls, equines and bovines that are separated by geography and genetics, only to cross, successfully, once placed in proximity by human intervention or migration?

Botanists soon pointed out that this did not correctly describe many situations in nature. They discovered case alter case of occasional (sometimes even rather frequent) hybridization between seemingly "good" sympatric species.

Yes, I began in my examples with plants, but as my previous comment shows, it reaches into higher mammals as well.

After the destruction of much of the southern periphery of the habitat of the gray wolf, the area was invaded by coyotes and, owing to the fertility of the hybrids, the crossing of male wolves with female coyotes led to an introgression of alien genes into both wolf and coyote populations. The same was shown by Templeton and associates (1989, 12) for the sympatric Hawaiian species Drosophila silvestris and D. heteroneura. The fact that the mitochondria are inherited only through the females greatly facilitates the discovery of such cases of hybridization.

Which directly acknowledges at least one of my examples.

It is thus well established that a leakage of genes occurs among many good "reproductively isolated" species. This induced me to revise the definition of isolating mechanisms to "biological properties of individuals which prevent the interbreeding [fusion] of populations"(1970, 56). Thus, isolating mechanisms do not always prevent the occasional interbreeding of non-conspecific individuals, but they nevertheless prevent the complete fusion of such species populations. Clandestine hybridization is apparently far more common among plants than among higher animals.

Whether more frequent in plants or animals is irrelevent. Complete fusion is irrelevent. What is, in nature, is. I just have not yet seen it accurately described.

Among the invalid objections to the biological species concept is the claim that it would work only if the acquisition of the isolating mechanisms was a teleological process (Paterson 1985).

I have deliberately avoided this in my discussion, but the teleological "connection" is irrelevent. This is this author's attempt to dismiss God "out of hand." That is not his place, nor his field of magisteria (in Gould's terminology).

The evolutionist always stresses the genetic uniqueness of every individual of a sexually reproducing population. However, the members of any species also have in common many species-specific properties. This includes, in particular, the isolating mechanisms but also many adaptations, for instance, for niche utilization, as well as certain contingent, species specific properties. If one knew the genetic basis of all the species specific characters, one might be able to give a genetic characterization of a species taxon.

Ah! Now we are getting to the meat of the matter! IF one knew, but all too often in the papers I have read it is evident the full scope of the complexity is ignored or grossly simplified. Again, I am beginning to think there is a "political" motivation behind this, and ultimately it is used to support the memetic dogma of Darwinian philosophy, even in the face of distinct contrary evidence, as stated above!

The BSC is based on the recognition of properties of populations. It depends on the fact of non-interbreeding with other populations.

I can agree with this, if it in fact is the basis for the term and is used as such. When there is conflict, the designation must be broadened. Or the term must be redefined. "They" can't have it both ways! So when a particular creature begins to exhibit an adaptation, it does not delineate a species. I think if you reconsider the list you posted earlier, you will find several examples I have already gone over, that posit this very quandary.

The two meanings of the term species. What the scientist actually encounters in nature are populations of organisms. There is a considerable range in the size of populations, ranging from the local deme to the species taxon. the local deme is the community of potentially interbreeding individuals at a locality (see also Mayr 1963. 136), and the species taxon has been referred to by Dobzhansky as the "largest Mendelian population." The task of the biologist is to assign these populations to species. This requires two operations: (1) to develop a concept of what a species is resulting in the definition of the species category in the Linnaean hierarchy, and (2) to apply this concept when combining populations into species taxa.

A number of recent writers on the species problem have failed to appreciate that the word 'species' is applied to these two quite different entities in nature, species taxa and the concept of the category species. As a result, their so-called species definition is nothing but a recipe for the demarcation of species taxa. This is, for instance, true for most of the recent so-called phylogenetic species definitions. It is also largely true for Templeton's (1989, 1994) cohesion species concept. A paper often quoted as a decisive refutation of the BSC (Sokal and Crovello 1970) is perhaps an extreme example of the confusion resulting from the failure to discriminate between the species as category (concept) and as taxon.

My point. If those "in the know" can't get their own understanding and relating of the term correct, how can any of them expect the rest of us to follow? Rather it seems to me, (deliberate or not) to be a confusion that is fed, and fed well, perhaps in an effort to dogmatize the meme among the masses. If it can be made sufficiently vague, then masses will accept without question becasue it is too much bother to ask and/or explain. If "you" don't believe, well then you are just an illiterate heretic!

(1) The species taxon. The word taxon refers to a concrete zoological or botanical object consisting of a classifiable population (or group of populations) of organisms. The house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and the potato (Solanum tubersum) are species taxa. Species taxa are particulars, "individuals," biopopulations. Being particulars, they can be described and delimited against other species taxa.

No problem, and I've stated as much.

(2) The species category. Here the word 'species' indicates the rank in the Linnaean hierarchy. The species category is the class that contains all taxa of species rank. It articulates the concept of the biological species and is defined by the species definition. The principal use of the species definition is to facilitate a decision on the ranking of species level populations, that is, to answer the question about an isolated population: "Is it a full species or a subspecies?" The answer to this question has to be based on inference (the criteria on the basis of which such a decision is made are listed in the technical taxonomical literature, e.g., in Mayr and Ashlock 1991, 100-105).

This is where things get dicey. When a finch adapts its beak, it is considered a species (see the earlier post by another). Yet, if it is still able to reproduce among finches, any or all, it is not a distinct species by the previous definition. This is where the confusion lies, and the "religion" of science is not generally forthcoming about these things. I have my own suspicions as to why, and they deal with power, money and politics. It is still a religious "war" waged between science and religion proper. (Although in fairness, war may be too harsh a word. Nevertheless, it is a battle of memes (thought processes, one could even say "philosophy." Oh yeah, someone already did...)

I will stop here for copyright considerations, however, there is a clause in those laws that allows for educational and intellectual discussion of copyrighted material, provided the author is acknowledged. So I will here state that the above quotes that are not from Vajradhara are from the second link he posted. To wit: "What is a Species, and What is Not?, by Ernst Mayr, Originally Published in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63 (June 1996) pp. 262-277."
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

hey Juan,

do you think that you could find a taxonomic classification for "breed" in Kingdom Animalia?

After some consideration, I suppose the closest I saw in the material I covered tonight would be the term "sub-species." Is that a little more acceptable?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This is where things get dicey. When a finch adapts its beak, it is considered a species (see the earlier post by another). Yet, if it is still able to reproduce among finches, any or all, it is not a distinct species by the previous definition. This is where the confusion lies, and the "religion" of science is not generally forthcoming about these things. I have my own suspicions as to why, and they deal with power, money and politics. It is still a religious "war" waged between science and religion proper. (Although in fairness, war may be too harsh a word. Nevertheless, it is a battle of memes (thought processes, one could even say "philosophy." Oh yeah, someone already did...)

Hi Juantoo3,

I'm sure I have neither the stamina nor knowledge base to keep up with this debate, but I might suggest that this fuzziness you perceive in the definition of species is not a conspiracy to uphold science as some kind of religion, but rather reflects the art of science. There is disagreement and debate among scientists about things as basic as you point out (i.e., are you a lumper or a splitter?), but it is not done to obscure. It is this way because biology is amazingly and exquisitely complex and one can't be just a reductionist. Scientists most often are the first to admit that they don't have all the answers.

I don't deny that like pretty much every other endeavor of humans science is warped by money, power hunger, corruption and "big business" mentality. But it seems to me to be just fueling the polemics to say that science is a religion.

my 2 c,
lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Point taken. I do not equate science with religion as being a bad thing, or a good thing, it just is. Perhaps "clash of philosophies" might be a better distinction. And you are correct about human endeavors, even organized religion is not immune from lust and greed and power hunger. That is just the way things are. Perhaps my mistake is in calling things the way I see them, that others are not yet prepared to acknowledge. Memes are not good or bad, they just are. I think it quite unfair for science to point to memes as a bad thing in religion, when "they" are equally guilty of the same reality, and it is neither good nor bad. It just is, whether called meme, philosophy or religion; it boils down to the same essense. Everybody has one...why are we afraid to look at it only in this subject?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

After some consideration, I suppose the closest I saw in the material I covered tonight would be the term "sub-species." Is that a little more acceptable?

Yes, or variety. Depends on what you're talking about. Humans, for example, don't sort into varieties/breeds/sub-species these days. Variation in human traits, when observable as a population thing at all, operates clinally rather than in isolated groups. As opposed to say, horse or dog breeds, which are artificially kept as separate categories, or naturally occuring sub-species (aka varieties).

It's speculated humans once had observable sub-species too- Neanderthals. Most now think of Neanderthals as a sub-species of modern humans. I.e., we are Homo sapiens sapiens, and they were Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Folks used to think they were an entirely separate species (H. neanderthalensis) but most the folks I know now think they aren't.

And thanks, lunamoth, for explaining how some stuff just is fuzzy in science right now. I'm no taxonomist, but I know these folks aren't trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. There's still just a lot of debate within biology between lumpers and splitters, and Linneans and cladists. And then the whole issue of populations that can interbreed, but never would in the natural world (without human intervention)- like the domestic house cat and the African Serval. There are more barriers to interbreeding than just absolute genetic isolation (or geographic barriers)- there are also behavioral barriers, and these are linking with genetics, thus constituting (for many scientists) a different species.