On the thread entitled “Species Kinds”, commenter phoodoo asks:
What’s the definition of a species?
A simple question but hard to answer. Talking of populations of interbreeding individuals immediately creates problems when looking at asexual organisms, especially the prokaryotes: bacteria and archaea. How to delineate a species temporally is also problematic. Allan Miller links to an excellent basic resource on defining a species and the Wikipedia entry does not shy away from the difficulties.
In case phoodoo thought his question was being ignored, I thought I’d open this thread to allow discussion without derailing the thread on “kinds”.
No, it most certainly won’t. Do you understand the word “fission”?
Of course it does. Do you have any notion of what chemistry entails?
Yes I get the point, you don’t know chemistry, among the nearly-comprehensive list of subjects that you fail to understand.
Glen Davidson
Do you need a nap?
It’s you who introduced “the elements” as an area of classification that is analogous to biological classification in that in both cases the boundaries are objective and perfectly discrete in the physical realm .
What you have failed to do is demonstrate why this is the case. And apparently gotten a little angry in the process.
my supposedly “off-the-subject objections” are simply attempts to draw your attention to the fuzzy boundaries in the real physical world that you are trying so hard to ignore. I’m not sure why this gets you so upset
Here is a quote from the essay I linked to perhaps lighten the mood a little
quote:
If we are looking to build the future laws of physics, discrete mathematics is no better a starting point than the rules of scrabble
end quote:
😉
peace
Do you need elementary education? In grade school I knew the basics that you’re too ignorant to comprehend now. Why don’t you learn something?
Yes, and your aptitude with these matters is about as good as your understanding of texts, religion, and philosophy–beyond simple-minded.
I half expect some intelligent engagement from you. I never get it. Not even on very basic issues, like atoms and how their nuclei rarely change, with the exception of radioactive decay.
First off, you know almost nothing about the “fuzzy boundaries” in the real physical world, which, btw, are fairly well understood in science. Secondly, your questions only reveal your appalling ignorance of science, philosophy, and chemistry. I would expect some decency from you, rather than idiotically stupid “questions” as you pretend to be teaching me what I actually do understand fairly well (thus, extremely more so than yourself). But decency isn’t really something that is seen from you.
This just shows your usual abysmal lack of comprehension. Yes, we’re well aware of the fact that “future physics” isn’t about discrete mathematics, but “normal chemstry” actually is (in fact, quantum states are a very great reason for this). Rather than learn from those of us who do understand, you quote what you don’t understand.
All you really do is crash around in your ignorance, trying to find quotes and bits of “fact” that support your prejudices. You don’t learn, you don’t admit that you’re extremely ignorant about chemistry and biology, and you don’t respect learning. If I have to suffer fools, I don’t have to do so gladly, you know.
Glen Davidson
The fact that it is so easy to equivocate when it comes to the definition of species is not a particularly strong endorsement for the status quo when it comes to the term
Practical difficulty for who? Certainly not red wolfs and coyotes. They seem to have little trouble with it at all.
I certainly agree that interbreeding in general is a practical difficulty for the idea that BCS species are a discrete physical reality.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Your quote seems to be nothing more than a use of the word “discrete”, one that’s completely irrelevant to anything we’re talking about. Again I ask you to make any point you have clear and explicit. That means you have to explain what you’re saying and how it relates to our discussion.
The elements are an example of a classification that isn’t a matter of preference and isn’t fuzzy at all. That a sample of gold can have impurities is irrelevant. That elements can have multiple isotopes is irrelevant. That individual fission products do not have 92 protons is irrelevant. Your risible misunderstanding of chemistry is irrelevant. That discrete mathematics is not a good starting point for future laws of physics is irrelevant. If you disagree in any of these cases, please provide a clear justification, not a hint or sound bite.
More from the essay
quote:
Perhaps more surprisingly, the existence of atoms – or, indeed, of any elementary particle – is also not an input of our theories. Despite what we learn in high school, the basic building blocks of Nature are not discrete particles such as the electron or quark.
Instead our fundamental laws of physics describe the behaviour of
fields, continuous fluid-like objects spread throughout space. The electric and magnetic fields are familiar examples, but our best description of reality — the Standard Model — adds to these
an electron field, a quark field, and several more.
The objects that we call fundamental particles are not fundamental. Instead they are ripples of continuous fields, moulded into apparently discrete lumps of energy by the framework of quantum mechanics which, in this context, is called quantum field theory. In this way, the discreteness of the particle emerges. It is conceptually no different from the energy levels of the Hydrogen atom.
end quote:
peace
Not sure what else I can do but point you to examples of the obvious fact that the physical world is continuous and not discrete.
You calling these examples irrelevant does not make them so.
All you need to do is prove your point is provide an example of categorization of a actual real physical entity existing at a discrete point in time and space that does not involve rounding off the digits at some arbitrary point.
That is all it should not be hard
peace
You are adding extra conditions. But each atom is an actual real physical entity existing at a discrete point (by which I assume you don’t mean a zero-dimensional mathematical abstraction but, more generally, a place) in time and space. Its identity as some particular element does not involve rounding off anything, just counting a positive integer number of protons. Protons do not come in fractional amounts. A boron nucleus has 5 protons, not 5.001 or 4.999.
can you link to an actual picture of an atom so I can count the protons?
peace
Atom Ant
Was that intended seriously? If so, it shows some serious ignorance. If not, why are you wasting my time?
There are actual pictures of atoms, for a sufficiently broad definition of “picture”. Here’s one. Of course you can’t see the protons, just the outer electron shell, which anyone ought to know. And anyone further ought to know that you don’t need a photograph to know something exists. There are other varieties of evidence.
Again, why are you wasting my time with facetious bullshit?
Fixed that fer ya!
So categorizing a single atom requires more than simply counting the protons? Well who would have thunk it?
I know that atoms and protons exist. That is not at question.
What I don’t know is if they exist in the physical universe with the perfectly discrete boundaries that you are claiming they have.
peace
The FMM version of YEC.
And petrushka wonders at the lack of respect for being a constant source of snark.
Once more, if you have a point to make, any point at all, please state it explicitly rather than indulging in these coy little digs. I will soon lose the urge to reply to you if this continues.
I never claimed that atoms and protons have perfectly discrete boundaries. What I have claimed is that protons come in integer numbers only, and that elements are discrete because each one has a different integer number. I think you may be incapable of arguing any coherent point on any subject. Would you agree?
The only reason you know that a particular quantity of matter is one element rather than another is because you rely on measurement devices that give you a numerical value that must be rounded at an arbitrary digit.
The point is that when we actually get down to categorizing real matter as being a particular element it is just like every other kind of categorizing we do in life.
We have a “idea” that exists in the world of the mind and we decide whether what we encounter in the physical world corresponds to that “idea”.
That is what we do with every kind of categorizing except with biological species.
I know that you disagree you have made that clear. So far that is all you have done.
You’ve provided no evidence for another kind of categorizing that is analogous to what you claim for taxonomy
peace
So far all you have done is assert a claim. I don’t see that anything of the sort happens. Do you agree that elements differ by their number of protons and that proton count is an integer, requiring no rounding at all? That makes those categories distinct, and no decision is necessary. If it has 7 protons, it’s nitrogen. There is no wiggle room at all.
Actually, species are in some cases more ambiguous than elements. Evolution, you know. It’s just that they’re distinct in most cases.
But at least you seem to be trying harder to make explicit points. Keep that up.
peace
GlenDavidson,
Can YOU follow a train of thought Glenn?
FMM orginally said that physical objects may appear to be discreet things to our human perceptions, but that is only because we are looking at them from an obscured distance, rather then up very close, where their existence is no longer separated from the rest of the world around it. And he is perfectly correct. It is you and Allan and John who have tried to argue this as if he is not right-which he clearly is.
Furthermore, have you ever noticed that FMM continues to be generally quite polite to you, despite your childish little rants towards him at every turn-as if by not believing in YOUR worldview, he is stealing your dinner from you or something? Do you respond to everyone in your life this way? When someone is as unabashedly as rude and intellectually petty as you, I am the type to likely respond in kind. You should probably appreciate the fact that FMM is a bit more gracious than I and doesn’t tell you to go fuck yourself, and suck back some of your diaper whining.
John Harshman,
Again Allan, John can’t quite grasp quantum mechanics yet can he?
I wonder what he thinks a proton is made of?
phoodoo,
No. You still aren’t at the scale where quantum mechanics operates. What holds molecules together is starting to get into the realm of QM. But deciding whether a particular molecule is part-of-a-cup or not is definitely not quantum physics. And still hopelessly irrelevant to categorisation, either of cups or of taxa.
fifthmonarchyman,
Practical difficulty for conservationists. Mating individuals do not give a shit about whether they can continue their particular ‘essence’ or not. But hybrid ‘species’ can disappear despite continuing to leave descendants.
Then you don’t understand the BSC. If ‘species’ interbreed, they are not two BSC species, but one. They are discrete on physical grounds: because they constitute a single gene pool. The idea is based upon the practicality; the practicality cannot therefore undermine it.
this just in
quote:
The puzzle is that the proton — the positively charged particle found in atomic nuclei, which is actually a fuzzy ball of quarks and gluons — is measured to be ever so slightly larger when it is orbited by an electron than when it is orbited by a muon
and
The harsh reality is that the proton radius is extremely hard to measure, making such a measurement error-prone. It’s especially tough in the typical case where a proton is orbited by an electron, as in a regular hydrogen atom. Numerous groups have attempted this measurement over many decades; their average value for the proton radius is just shy of 0.88 femtometers. But Pohl’s group, seeking greater precision, set out in 1998 to measure the proton radius in “muonic hydrogen,” since the muon’s heft makes the proton’s size easier to probe. Twelve years later, the scientists reported in Nature a value for the proton radius that was far more precise than any single previous measurement using regular hydrogen, but which, at 0.84 femtometers, fell stunningly short of the average.
end quote:
😉
from here
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160811-new-measurement-deepens-proton-radius-puzzle/
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Good grief.
That is because you are not looking
Yes that is not what is at issue, The discrete categories are real but they exist as abstractions in the world of the mind.
Many times we knew what a element would look like before it was ever observed in nature. This is nothing like what happens with taxonomy as presently practiced.
You are the one who brought up the elements as an example of a categorization that was analogous to what happens to species.
Are you now backpedaling on that claim?
peace
That is simply because they are using an unworkable definition for species
That is why BSC is flawed. Which is of course what I have been arguing all along
The problem is that the gene pool is not really discrete and it does not reflect what we everyday slobs mean when we think about species.
That is the species problem and that is what I’m offering a solution to fix.
What biologists have done is try and shoe horn the philosophical notion that reproductive compatibility is a boundary criteria into our common sense understanding of what species are.
I’m suggesting that we abandon that misguided effort in the interest of clarity and protecting ecological diversity.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
No. How many more times? It is a practical difficulty for actual conservation. Hybridisation threatens species – particularly hybrid species.
You wonder why people sometimes seem irritable? It’s not always entirely down to them.
Of course it is ‘flawed’. All species concepts are ‘flawed’ in some way. That is rather the point. You think you’ve got one that isn’t, You Are Wrong.
Nonetheless, my comment was not about the perfection or otherwise of the BSC, but about what it is.
The gene pool is discrete. That’s what a gene pool is. There is not a continuum of interbreeding potential throughout nature.
Why should scientists give a damn about what everyday slobs mean by a word? There is wealth of technical literature on the matter. You want experts to throw away their knowledge about this and start talking like Joe Down The Pub.
A preferred term might be ‘taxon’. That’s what the IUCN Red List goes for. It incorporates subspecies, where this is considered appropriate.
You haven’t offered any solution. You’ve just gibbered with a limited degree of comprehension. Pre 1994, the IUCN Red List used more subjective criteria. They have moved away from that. You want them to move back, have a word with them, not some people on the internet.
If you knew more about biology, your ‘common sense’ notion would include that knowledge. You want knowledgable people to throw away that knowledge and behave as if ignorant.
Again you imply, despite your prior denial of the same, that knowledgeable taxonomists are somehow the enemies of diversity.
Allan Miller,
No Allan, its about whether a particular molecule is a discreet thing in and of itself.
And of course we know it is not, it is made of even more fuzzy things (you know, like at the quantum level and all…).
Now would probably be the right time to admit that FMM is right about this, and John is completely nuts.
Here is another point to consider about the whole species-relationship problem:
Dog breeds have almost certainly been bred from wolves on many occasions ( a poodle wasn’t made just once, and then all poodles came from them).
So suppose you have a poodle that was bred from wolves 100 years ago, and then you have some huskies that were bred from wolves 1000 years ago. Which breed is more closely related to the wolf?
The husky is almost identical physically to the wolves, but yet we must conclude the poodles are more closely related, because they are more recent?
Sort of makes the whole species-relation tree a mess now doesn’t it?
phoodoo,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/full/nature04338.html
Completely and utterly wrong. I encourage you to learn about mass spec.
Even the article that you keep quoting admits:
Richardthughes,
You tripped on the carpet and hit the computer with your nose again?
Is that what we are to conclude?
You probably should change your Donald Duck slippers.
phoodoo,
Do you think ‘tripping on the carpet and hitting the computer with my nose” is a sufficient mechanism to account for me posting a relevant academic article on canid evolution (not just an abstract, a la Phoodoo)? No wonder you have learning difficulties. Stick to UD. Reality is too hard for you.
PS.. There’s no “We”, just “You”.
Richardthughes,
There is absolutely zero evidence that what you posted is relevant to anything I said, other than it has the word dog in it.
Dog is probably one of the pictographs you have on your Fischer Price internet plaything.
phoodoo,
Most are. They are also discrete. But anyway, you are being revisionist. We were talking about whether coffee cups are discrete, by reference to their molecules.
Yeah, let’s just nip into the quantum level and pretend that’s where we were all along.
I don’t see the connection between those two possibilities. I think that might be what is called a false dichotomy.
So “evolution” doesn’t count?
I know the article is probably beyond you, Phoodoo. As is Science. Stick to UD, they say words you like. Again, onlookers. Phoodoo is REAL, not a PARODY.
phoodoo,
Indeed. Has that not been my point? Essentialism hardly sorts this out.
Although either way real examples are probably better than hypothetical ones. You could recast your example as ‘suppose an earthworm were bred from wolves 100 years ago and a husky 1000 years …’. Your illustration depends for what little force it has on what you choose to populate it with.
Oooh, that’d be Fisher price. I use Fisher Pry adoption/diffusion modelling quite a bit. Would you like me to talk about that so you can get that wrong as well?
Pick an objective standard, and huskies may be more similar because they have been bred back with wolves over time. Fifi hasn’t.
What is the price of a Fisher?
No, any given gene pool is subject to HGT and mutations are always happening, gene fixation is also a not a discrete binary process but instead one with ebbs and flows.
For one thing we pay their salaries. If the natives become restless enough the elite might find it difficult to get funding.
You don’t get it, the argument from the elite is that there is no such thing as a hybrid species.
It’s only a problem for “actual conversation” if they don’t take the elite at their word when they claim that the boundary of a species is defined by reproductive compatibility.
The solution is simple, drop the “reproductive compatibility” nonsense when it comes to defining the boundaries of species.
It’s either that or continue the with the unstable status quo until the hoi polloi get sufficiently fed up.
Again, it’s not that anyone is an enemy of diversity is just that the present definition is not conducive to that end.
peace
No one is arguing that the elements are not real and discrete.
The point is that something can be real and discrete in the world of the mind and a little continuous in the physical universe.
peace
That is exactly the argument against absolute morality.
If that is true then the argument against absolute morality is self defeating and an object failure.
Just because something is “a little continuous in the physical universe” does not mean it’s not absolute in the world of the mind.
The world of the Mind and not the physical universe is where morality exists after all.
peace
So it is not immoral to physically harm someone?
fifthmonarchyman,
A typically silly ‘gotcha’. Any connection of two gene pools by HGT is a singular event, like transference of a bit of water between swimming pools. It has zero bearing on the existence of discrete reproductive gene pools.
What does that have to do with the discreteness of a gene pool?
Or that?
Bollocks. You don’t pay the salary of every scientist in the world from your ‘tax dollars’, American. Science is an international endeavour, with private as well as public funding.
So Joe Down The Pub is going to withdraw funding if scientists don’t use a word the way he does?
It depends on the species concept being used as to whether there are or aren’t. There is not just one species concept, even in technical literature. When I use the word, I am not always using it in the BSC terms. Ironically, in that sentence, I was using it as ‘Joe Down The Pub’ might. Because I was talking to one such. And he saw a splendid opportunity for a ‘gotcha’.
It is a problem for actual conservation if a taxon gets genetically reabsorbed into its parent population. It is not a definitional problem at all.
Like I say, uncomprehending gibbering.
Seriously? The Glorious Revolution will tear up the Red List criteria and go back to pre 1994. I’m quite sure the world of biological diversity will be much the richer for having clueless non-biologists in charge.
Exactly. And when the last human dies so will the very concept of morality.
It depends on if the harm is intentional.
You know intentional it means involving a conscious choice occurring in the world of the mind
peace
Unless I’m mistaken a transference of a bit of water between swimming pools means that the two pools are not entirely discrete but instead are connected to each other.
You did not mention “reproductive” in your original comment. Why must it always come down sex with you?
It means the gene pool is a squishy fluid thing that is always changing in time and space. The gene pool today is not the same as the gene pool yesterday so there is nothing tangible you can point to and say this is the gene pool.
It’s not what you think of when you think of discrete
Last I heard private and public funding both comes people.
You don’t see this as a problem?
So we agree, there is no absolute morality in the physical world . Physical slavery itself is not immoral.
Since people have conflicting beliefs ,it is possible to be mistaken in one’s beliefs.
So if one believes slavery is not immoral then one’s intentions cannot be immoral.
So from an intentional moral view, slavery is not absolutely immoral.