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”.
I’ll grant that the content of the empty set can be said to exist — especially if you are a platonist.
I really doubt that. I’ll bet you are just looking for irrelevant things to muddy the waters and hopefully get me to say something religious that will make the peanut gallery laugh.
peace
If the set is empty then both our lives are equally sad and empty
peace
I’m not squinting, and I’m not ignoring data. And the limits aren’t arbitrary. Why should I care what that fellow from Harvard thinks?
Take away the gravy, leaving just the lumps, and you have a better metaphor. Go ahead, find me the gravy connecting the three American merganser species. What is it, in your metaphor?
That you think the groups are arbitrary shows, again, that you haven’t bothered to look. Yes, there is variation within species. That’s one of Darwin’s main points. But the variation within these species is very much smaller than the variation between them, and there is no gravy between the lumps.
You have completely failed to explain, despite many people asking you, what this has to do with conservation.
No, species don’t exist in my mind. The idea of species, and some notion of how do divide the biota up into species, exists in my mind. But the lumps (sans gravy) that we see in the world exist in the world, and species are an attempt to describe those lumps. Again, or notion of what species are is derived from observation of the lumps, which are real things. The amorphous mass is your imagination founded upon ignorance.
Generally, species are considered hybrid if their genomes are split around 50/50. What percentage of a Panthera genome comes from introgression?
No, I’m just trying to get you to say what you mean. You kept hinting that the “minds” you were talking about were the mind of god, and I was trying to determine if the hints were real. I still don’t know. As for getting you to say something religious, that’s hardly necessary, since you do it spontaneously so often. Anyway, it’s not so much the religious stuff you say that makes people laugh, it’s the ignorance of science.
fifthmonarchyman,
So God revealed nothing, just left it up to Man. Fat lot of use he is then, in the matter of taxonomy.
fifthmonarchyman,
[edited – I made the same comment as John]
OK please explain what is the reason for setting the limit at one point in time rather than another except that it makes the pattern you see more pronounced.
Mash a lump just a little bit and it becomes part of the gravy.
What is your non arbitrary reason to remove the gravy and refrain from mashing the lumps?
We call it introgression. Did you not read the article?
did you not read the article???
quote:
Given the murky area hybrids occupy when it comes to conservation policy, this finding called into question their protected status and complicated biologists’ understanding of their ecological role in the evolutionary history of gray wolves.
Determining the best course of action in conservation when so many factors are unknown or unclear is an exceedingly difficult task, and one that experts have yet to resolve. Nuances in the environment and genomic history of a given hybrid species, according to Shaffer, call for nuances in how to approach their conservation.
end quote:
Again lumps are just gravy that has yet to be properly mashed.
Lumps are defects in gravy we don’t remove the gravy we mash or strain out the lumps.
A beefalo is anything over (37.5%) bison and bison are excluded from conservation efforts if they contain any known bovine DNA at all.
I don’t think anyone knows exactly for sure and the percentage would vary from individual to another. The point is that interbreeding happens often and many adaptations result not from RM but from the introduction of genes from the other species.
peace
Do you still not understand what revelation means. God was revealing when he showed man the animals. The same way a gambler reveals when he shows his hand.
Whether you call it a “dead man’s hand” or “black aces and black eights” is a simply mater of convention and is irrelevant to the card game
peace
God is a mind so he would naturally be included when we talk about minds. Hardly anything controversial there.
Unless you are so allergic to any perspective other than your own that you break out in hives at the mere possibility of deity .
peace
I have more substantial things to say, and have in fact said some of them to you in the past. Matthew 7:6.
That metaphor has outlived all possible usefulness. What does mashing the lumps even correspond to?
Your point, if any, remains opaque. Beefalo are not generally considered a species. Do you think that we should encourage introgression from cattle to bison?
The percentage almost certainly varies very little from one individual to another. Interbreeding doesn’t happen often. You realize that you’re looking at a few events over millions of years, right? Few adaptations result from introgression compared with those that result from mutation. But certainly the bulk of genes that do introgress do so because they are selected.
Tom, I have no idea if you are a good guy or not in person but you come across as a grumpy bitter old man on the Internet.
lighten up, life is to short to be so crabby all the time
peace
the opposite of what you do when you remove the gravy. You focus on the differences between the groupings you choose but you could just as easily focus on the similarity and minimize the differences.
Either way it’s all about your own personal preferences and has nothing to do with the physical reality of the mater.
Right it’s considered hybrid but it’s not anything close to the 50/50 figure you just threw out. Proving that you either did not know or were intentionally misleading when said that.
I have no opinion on the mater one way or the other unless you like the taste of Beefalo. Then I would recommend you encourage some hybridization.
That is just blinkard talk.
in captivity interbreeding happens all the time with big cats I expect that we will find it happens more in the wild than we realized before we removed the blinders.
Did you read the article??
It talked about the frequent interbreeding of polar and grizzly bears and suggested that this could help to meditate climate change. We know that wolf coyote hybrids are creating a new species right now in just the last few decades (somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 wolf DNA by the way).
http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoywolfSpeciesPaperIWC-JWay2016.pdf
The same sort of thing applies to us humans in the recent genetic past (at least 2% to 5% non-human that we know of so far).
When it comes to this stuff the more we look the more we will find
peace
John, to fifth:
And as ineffectively as Mung. If the Christian God actually exists, you have to wonder why he doesn’t zap fifth and Mung’s modems on a daily basis to keep them from further damaging the faith.
keiths,
Yet another sterling contribution to civil discourse from the official gatekeeper of science and logic. 😉
I could not have asked for more.
peace
This has no relevance to what I was saying. God has not revealed to us any species-concepts. Can you find something in the bible that will allow me to determine whether two arbitrarily picked organisms in the wild, belong to the same species? A god-given method of species-detection? Is there one? Have you used it? Give concrete real-world examples where you did, and where it was a big help to conservation efforts (for example).
Perhaps I am. perhaps you are. I think it’s you, actually.
I think that actually said it worse. Because it isn’t all just vanity and “striving after wind”. In fact that seems to me a pretty depressing and nihilistic view of life on Earth.
Are every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every saint, every hunter and forager, every hero.. all just vanity? No.
Getting back on topic let me give a more personal example of what I’m talking about.
The pond outside my kitchen window has either
A.) a single mixed population of sunfish with individuals displaying varying degrees of traits associated with Bluegill and Green sunfish.
B) A population of Bluegill sunfish and a separate population of Green Sunfish plus a smallish number of hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
When I casually look I see (B) but there is no intrinsic physical reason that I should not see (A). Both scenarios equally describe what is going on with the pond but I am naturally drawn to the second one for some reason.
That is the real problem of species.
I could give you many other examples just from my own surrounding area. But I hope you get the drift.
peace
sure he has
Do you think the only place God reveals stuff is in the Bible?
Yes, most of the time we call it science.
Of course problems surface when we import outdated incorrect theology like the idea that species are genetically isolated groupings.
Of course that is what we would expect a blinkard to say. 😉
peace
Of course it is if there is no God you live for a while on a minuscule irrelevant spec experience a usually painful death and then you are forgotten forever, Your existence makes no difference whatsoever in the scheme of things.
That is pretty much the definition of vanity
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Yes, he ‘revealed’ the animals to Man. He didn’t reveal their naming, but left it up to them.
God: “What do you wanna call this?”
Man: “Aren’t you going to reveal it?”
“No, I’m asking you to name it”.
“Go on, give us a hint”
“No, some things you can work out for yourself”.
“But you know what it’s called. Reveal to us, O God”.
“What do you want to call it?”
“Blessed is the Lord, for he hath Revealed to us that we can name them ourselves”.
“So, what are you calling it?”
” … Aardvark. The Lord is great, for he hath revealed that it’s an Aardvark”.
“No, I didn’t, you did”
“… via your revelation”
“Oh, for fuck’s sake”.
quote:
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
William Shakespeare
end quote:
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
So, I can call a rose a mammal. Great help.
It makes a difference to the people around me, and to myself. And the people around me while I exist, matter to me. And that is enough for me, I don’t need more. I don’t have this need for life my to have some sort of cosmic and eternal significance or to be remembered after I no longer exist.
No, vanity is the obsession with the idea that your existence should matter for all of time, otherwise you think it doesn’t matter at all. If it doesn’t matter for an eternity, then it doesn’t matter at all. I’m sorry but that doesn’t follow.
The dissatisfaction with a finite existence and the desire for an eternity of significance is the most vain of all desires.
If there is no God the people around you are in the same boat as you are a momentary minuscule fluctuation that soon dissipates with out changing anything
Some people are content with vanity that does not make it any less empty or sad
Says a tiny temporary movement of matter on an obscure spec totally devoid of any meaning whatsoever.
😉
peace
you can also call a mammal a rose if you like. It’s a free country
You can as long as you don’t confuse what a rose is from what a mammal is.
call me whatever you want just don’t call me late for dinner 😉
peace
“We” not “you”. We are indeed all in the same boat, the same universe.
Why empty? Why sad? For us who think we have just this chance to live, the opportunity to experience, share, love, learn, life in the here-and-now can be pretty challenging and fulfilling.
Look, just saying yes he has isn’t actually evidence, or an argument. Instead of just merely contradicting me, GIVE us the divine definition of what a species is.
I don’t give a fuck where it is revealed, just get to the actual definition.
How do I determine whether two arbitrarity picked species in the wild belong to the same species, according to the divine method? Please give concrete real-world examples.
Too vague, you’re dodging the challenge rather than answering it.
Then what should we be doing instead? Be specific, give concrete real-world examples.
We’d also expect the person who isn’t, to tell the person who is. tee hee
That doesn’t make it without meaning or significance. Again, it matters to me and the people around me, while we are here. Again, that is enough. We don’t have your vain need to have an eternity of validation and comfort. We won’t be remembered, but only a vain person would be concerned with how long they will be remembered for.
Then stop being sad with the empty and vain need to have an eternity of validation.
But it isn’t devoid of meaning, it has meaning to me and others while we are here, and that is enough. Just because that isn’t enough meaning for your vain selfish desire for cosmic significance, doesn’t mean it is entirely without meaning.
What meaning does it have if FMM’s god exists anyway? Their assumption is that their god even cares about them. On the face of it even if it existed I’d call that unlikely. After all, we’re the merest spec in a vast universe. On the balance of evidence I’d say their god cares much more about creating black holes then us. There are far more of them then us I’m sure. So we’re back to the example of a teenager creating a universe as a science lab project. Even if that student became aware of our existence and us of it’s does that now imbue our lives with meaning and significance? Not even FMM could argue that it did I’m sure.
Maybe for the same reason stereotypes exist, does God reveal those as well?
Absolutely.
Another Christian value.
I think you’re starting to get it now.
It’s not RM+NS so it doesn’t exist.
It’s all part of the master plan. 🙂
You’re off chasing pawns while your king is under attack.
That would explain your problem with the species concept. And fitness.
You aren’t listening. Nobody is removing the gravy. There is no gravy. The difference between species is generally many times the difference within species. For example, the difference between randomly chosen humans is about 0.1% while the difference between humans and chimps is about 1.3%. Order of magnitude. Are they different species, or am I just focusing on the differences? Hey, let’s see you focus on the similarity. I’ll wait here.
Leave my mother out of it. No, not personal preferences. Actual reality. You’re making this up.
Or you don’t understand what you read. Beefalo are not a species. I was talking about hybrid species. How was that not clear?
We don’t know any such thing. We know there are wolf-coyote hybrids, but whether they will become a species is unclear and unlikely.
Define “frequently”. In big cats it was a few times over the course of millions of years. In wolves and coyotes, perhaps dozens of times every year. There are all levels of interbreeding from none to lots. Will wolf/coyote interbreeding result in a new species? Hard to know until the environment settles down, if it ever does. But it certainly doesn’t make your point of an amorphous mass. The fact that we can identify wolf and coyote genes actually argues against your point.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. What’s “recent”. You may be about 5% neandertal, but that could have resulted from a single introgression event.
True, but it’s true whether such events are common or rare, isn’t it? The biological species concept is still pretty good. I presume it’s better than whatever you want to replace it with, but of course you’ve never actually said.
You are either incapable of or uninterested in clarity. This makes it painful to attempt any sort of discussion with you. Do you care?
John, do aquatic birds have two functioning ovaries, and if not, why not?
Is it because it would prevent them from being better fliers?
Yes of course
If God does not exist you and I and your love ones and all of humanity are not even an afterthought when it comes to “the universe” we are simply a infinitesimal puff of vapor belched from a tiny speck forgotten as as quickly as it arose. No meaning whatsoever
empty because it necessarily by definition contains no meaning whatsoever.
sad because it’s so empty
If God does not exist what you think or feel is nothing but the gurgling of a tiny insignificant chemical reaction that lasts for a fraction of an instant and is subsumed into the surrounding abyss.
If you think differently it only means you are the self deluded gurgling of a tiny chemical reaction that lasts for a fraction of an instant and is quickly subsumed into the surrounding abyss.
A godless universe is not changed in the slightest whether you exist or not. It does not even know you are here.
You can foolishly claim your life has meaning just as a self deluded fruit fly can claim to be the queen of england but that certainly does not make it so.
peace
You can find our best approximation of the definition in the dictionary
quote:
Species a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name;
end quote:
from here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species
We study them and see if they have the same attributes.
here is a concrete real world example I’m sure you are familiar with
peace
I would agree that would seem unlikely for someone with your very limited information.
What you are missing is the fact that God has personally told me that he cares about me and proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
There are far more dust mites in my house than family members but their numeric superiority does not imply I love dust mites more than family members.
It’s a good thing I’m not suggesting that the universe is a science experiment then 😉
peace
Are you claiming that species are like stereotypes?
I would say that stereotypes are to species as junkyards are to car lots
peace
The “gravy” is similarity between species. do you really want to say there is no similarity between species?
Chimps are more different from anatomically modern humans than Neanderthals and Neanderthals are more different from behaviorally modern than anatomically modern humans.
On the other hand chimps are more similar to behaviorally modern humans than aardvarks so I’m not sure what your point is.
Of course chimps are a different species than humans but we knew that long before we decided to define species as genetically isolated groupings.
peace
What is not clear is what a “hybrid species” is
I know what a hybrid is, animals like beefalo’s are hybrids
I know what a species is, (Bison bison) is a species
I’m not to clear on what a hybrid species is and why it’s important.
From what I understand Hybrids are generally thought to be the result of matings between species
😉
Can you give a couple examples of “hybrid species” that contains the accepted 50/50 split you speak of?
peace
Mung,
Which species concept?
Both are groups of cars, but you didn’t answer,does God reveal stereotypes?
I have no idea how you arrived at that figure. I would guess most matings between big cats of a different species would not leave any trace in the collective genome.
I think you mean that a few times in the course of a millions of years interbreeding resulted in known lateral gene transfer that became established in the wider population . I’d say given the limited population size and non-overlapping habitats of these animals that is a heck of a lot.
Dozens of times a year given the fact that wolves were endangered at the time and like to eat coyotes is more than a heck of a lot it sounds like something from a roman orgy
according to the article I linked the criteria of genetic isolation they are probably already a species
Again a introgression event is not the same thing as interbreeding. The 5% means that not only was interbreeding happening but the offspring of such unions were not evolutionary dead-ends but provided advantage of some kind over their more prudish and darwinianly “pure” neighbors.
peace