The concept of a "species" is flawed

[DJ1]

In looking at the seemingly endless debate by Creationists (including those hiding behind the facade they call ID or Intelligent design) against the existence of evolution (or macro-evolution for the IDers), I feel that there is a fundamental flaw in the accepted scientific law (I've used law as opposed to theory as "Scientific Theory" is so often miscommunicated by IDers as "Best Guess" or "Something that has not stood up to scrutiny")

The scientific world has seemingly locked itself into the concept of "species" as a classification. The way I see it, what we call a species is simply a snapshot in time of a particular genetic strain. We can also put other constraints such as interbreedability on our definition but this restriction in isolation can also occur due to geography ect.

Think of it this way. Here we are in 2005 (or later, depending on when you read this) we look at a living thing and desribe it scientifically. We then proudly proclaim it to be a species. If for example what we were looking at was not a living thing but a length of string 10 miles long, we are simply describing the very end of the string and naming it. As we look back our fossil record we find a snapshot of the same piece of string 10cm from the end, another 32cm from the end or 3 miles and name each an individual species. I'm sure you get the gist of it.

As a christian myself, I often get frustrated by the pseudo-science which the IDers attempt to put forward to prove their literal interpretation of the bible. One of the key issues they constantly attempt to argue is that the biblical "Kind" means "Species". Why does it have to mean species? Why can't it mean a "dynamic genetic genome"?

Thoughts?

 

[path_of_one]

Interesting. I think most scientists know that "species" is a term we use to describe a concept, a way of classifying our world, not really a "thing." At least, all the scientists I know who are well versed in evolution already think of species as a way to classify things, but also recognize that a "species" group is generally fuzzy around the edges for the same reasons you point out. First, that it generally difficult to distinguish in the fossil record when something is sufficiently different from the last something to make it a new species- hence the eternal debate between "lumpers" and "splitters." Second, that species should not interbreed with one another (and produce viable offspring) does not mean they do not. Geographical isolation can differentiate between species, but what to do when the barrier is broken is questionable. There are some endangered species that are currently listed that are part of this theoretical problem- they are threatened by interbreeding with other species that were artificially introduced over geographical barriers. But are they really separate species now that they can produce viable offspring? Tough to say.

I think the concept of species as a solid category, a real "thing" to be found out there in nature is held more by non-scientists than scientists. After one spends more than a couple years studying biology, one learns that the Linnean classification system is a useful way to deal with the natural world, but like all concepts, it isn't a perfect representation of reality. What's interesting is that recognizing that a species isn't necessarily an actual "thing" doesn't impact the theory of evolution, which is grounded in genetics and fluctuations in allele frequency over time along with other forces of change.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DJ1, and welcome to CR!

We've actually covered this a few times.

If for example what we were looking at was not a living thing but a length of string 10 miles long, we are simply describing the very end of the string and naming it. As we look back our fossil record we find a snapshot of the same piece of string 10cm from the end, another 32cm from the end or 3 miles and name each an individual species.

The difficulty I see with your analogy is that the string has the same "genetic makeup" at both ends and all along the middle. It is my understanding that the genetic makeup of a given species modifies, ever so slightly, over time.

The term "species" is not solidly defined even among biologists. There are a number of issues that make the term inadequate or inaccurate, depending on its use. On one extreme, the issue of interbreeding (with sidebars about ability versus desire), and on the other extreme cosmetic variations (which ultimately leads to questions regarding how to classify humans and eugenics). Add to the confusion the point that there is still a lot about genetics and how it applies via evolutionary mechanisms that is not adequately understood, and the whole subject does get confusing.

Hope this helps. There are a few threads around here dealing with evolution compared with creation, I am pretty sure you will find quite a bit about speciation and the difficulties with properly and consistently applying the term.

 

[DJ1]

The difficulty I see with your analogy is that the string has the same "genetic makeup" at both ends and all along the middle. It is my understanding that the genetic makeup of a given species modifies, ever so slightly, over time.

Thanks for the welcome all.

Apologies, my omission. I failed to mention that my piece of string began at one end as a single thread of cotton but 10 miles later was a super heavy duty abseilling rope. Snapshots at different intervals in isolation can be classified as different grades of string (species) but the entire 10 miles in context is a single lineage of a modifying genome.

 

[iBrian]

There's actually quite a debate about what constitutes a "species" within science - I remember reading (last year, I think) a center article about the issue, and the problems of defining a species. Not least was the issue of inter-species breeding, which causes problems as a) different species are generally not supposed to be able to interbreed, and b) it's actually more common than many people realise.

There is a lot in the acadmeic disciplines that can often be presented in a generally simplified form for common consumption, and treated as "fact" - but when you explore the issue more deeply, it's easy to find controversy and opposing views. Science is certainly no different in this regard.