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”.
What who sees? And what makes you suppose that we only “think we know”?
and how do we know they share a recent genetic history? Because they are similar of course
Do you suppose that members of a species don’t share a recent genetic history? What is your alternative explanation for that similarity?
I know species change because they are observed to change. Are you saying that no new variation occurs within species, or are you saying that none of that variation ever spreads? Is it your belief that differences among population of a species (subspecies, they’re often called) stretch back to the creation? If you would at some point clearly explain what you think is true, rather than just pouring piss on evolutionary biology, that would help me understand you better. If you care.
No such implication was intended. Please excuse me. My point was that speciation happens. Do you disagree?
Did you actually mean “conversation”, or did you intend “conservation”. If the latter, you have never explained how it causes harm.
How does your definition of species work in practice, particularly for conservation? What is that definition, for that matter? How do you know your definition is the correct one?
Fits pretty well, in general. It appears, based on your quote, to fit the “coywolf” pretty well. It fits Panthera very well too. And it fits Homo. I don’t think it fits the red wolf, but you can’t have everything. Is there any other species we were discussing? The older a divergence is, on average, the better the genetic isolation. Reinforcement in sympatry can also promote isolation. Of course species can also coalesce when the conditions promoting isolation change, if not too much time has passed. I think of the American black duck, which may be getting submerged into mallards.
Baseless words…induced by impotence to prove it…
I can say the same thing about evolution…and the only way to prove me wrong is not something that anybody can do… Entiendes? 😉
not realmente. I’ll need some giggling help from Muttley
Well…that’s pretty much ALL you and Darwin’s faithful can do…Otherwise you would be shoving the evidence down our throats…Until then…Or… we both know..until never…
Farewell my amigo, in the mean time, here’s some documented evidence of evolution, otherwise known as evorolling
fifth:
LOL. That’s a keeper.
fifth,
When you find yourself making an argument as inane as this…
…isn’t it time to take a break, ponder your place in God’s plan, and go back to cleaning church toilets?
Since you seem to like fairy-tales, I have a better one for you:
How life evolved: 10 steps to the first cells
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells/
BTW: It should be called 10 mentiras…
But as someone once said: “No es una mentira… Si usted lo cree”.
J-Mac, to dazz:
Or if you do it for Jesus.
Dick.
It is not that complicated, just come up with a better explanation than the word design. You don’t have to falsify anything.
381 New Species Discovered in the Amazon
https://www.ecowatch.com/species-discovered-amazon-2479945212.html
Pink dolphins, a monkey with an orange tail, a stingray with patterned skin…But now how do they know they are new species?
Do they already know these dolphins can’t mate with other dolphins? The monkeys can’t mate with other monkeys? Who is willing to bet that they don’t know this?
Keiths should be up in arms-these scientists don’t even know what species means! Come to think of it, nobody knows what it means. I think maybe it just means they look different.
Why are Lucky Accidenters so imprecise keiths?
Lucky Accident #4327654
keiths:
newton:
Yes, he’s that too. See John’s comment:
And Allan’s response:
Perhaps fifth will heed Paul’s advice to the Romans, though I doubt it:
Since fifth is clearly a liability to the faith in any kind of a public role, as his record here attests, perhaps he will swallow his pride and accept a more humble role behind the scenes, where he will do less damage.
J-Mac,
Is it really so difficult to see the difference between the comments on each side? Look at the output from phoodoo, Mung and yourself. It’s mostly just sniping. And on the other side? People are explaining stuff to you.
Don’t you find it odd that, for example, Mung starts a thread on the evidence for common descent then in that thread notes he’s not read Theobald?
Don’t you find it odd that FMM goes on about how current definitions of species are harming conservation efforts but then cannot provide an alternatrive definiton that can actually be used?
Don’t you see you are all lacking the basics to be even be able to have a useful conversation?
And yet that fairy-tale is better then anything you’ve provided so far! As in you’ve provided nothing so far. You have literally nothing that rises to the level of that pop-sci article as to how it really happened.
What? here once again is the definition that everyone but darwinists use
quote:
species- a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class
end quote:
from here
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species
peace
What’s wrong with that one? Why can’t it be used?
peace
calling an argument inane is not the same thing as demonstrating it’s inane.
Why don’t you do the former?
You know like I did with your “by your logic New York city is not real” argument
peace
newton,
It’s pretty predictable when it comes to keiths.
Throw enough crap around and maybe people will forget about what we were just talking about 😉
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
So where’s God drawn the boundary? Mean high water mark on a calm day? Between High and Low? Fuzzy, like the boundaries of atoms?
It doesn’t strike me that God is taking the same interest in the minute detail of ‘boundaries’ that we do, just because you find a Bible passage with the word ‘boundaries’ in it.
Book Of Allan Chap 2 v1: “And lo, Allan said: OK, this line in the sand is just a rough guide. Obviously, it’s fractal, and changes minutely due to atomic resonance and tidal effects of the sun. So … oh, do what you like, I’m off to the pub. Just don’t overthink this, is all I’m saying. God out”.
How about this one I’ve been kicking around?
the product of a nonrandom non-algorithmic process
I think that one would be falsifiable what do you think?
peace
that is what we should be trying to discover
you know “thinking God’s thoughts after him” and all that
If God is interested is something as trivial as numbering the hairs on my head (Matthew 10:30) I’m sure he is interested in the boundaries that effect the lives of large numbers of people.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s what you do. You think that God cares as minutely as you do in argument where to draw the exact boundary of that place we call ‘Manhattan’. How do you know God would not just say ‘please yourself’?
Come off it. The lives of large numbers of people are not affected by whether you choose to use high, low or mean water mark as the boundary.
fifth,
He certainly hasn’t shown much interest in helping the people of southeast Texas, upon whom he has been showering his underwhelming “love”.
keiths,
Even better (rather, worse) examples
But I’m sure God has very strong views on where exactly to draw the boundaries of Bangla Desh.
no I’m sure they do. I just would be a little more humble in thinking that we know precisely what the history is
I linked to an article and I quoted from the article repeatedly. I’m not sure what else I can do
Well for one thing it does not make inbreeding more likely by excluding automatically Bison from conservation efforts if they have a scintilla of bovine DNA and it does not withhold protection from the red wolf just because it does not meet some stupid standard of darwinian purity
I could go on
see above.
Just like we do with any definition we see if it works for what it is intended to do.
Sure works pretty well until it doesn’t if you squint hard enough any definition will work.
Generally when we find that a definition does not work we modify the definition instead of writing off an entire keystone species with a shrug of the shoulders.
peace
John Harshman,
This is particularly relevant to the whole point IMO. fmm thinks we don’t conserve species we ‘should’ conserve because we have a faulty species concept, and we should use God’s, which fmm has on good authority is close to his own.
In reality, nothing much (beyond finite resources) is stopping us conserving that which we wish to conserve – from rare breed sheep through to ‘true’ species. But there is a particular problem in the case of certain species that aren’t biologically isolated. If the species (singular or plural) from which it derived are still around, it might simply require too much effort to maintain the threatened variety. One would have to prevent matings. Biological species do this all by themselves. In domestic animals, we can exert some control. But in the wild, we need to have at least some knowledge of how ‘the wild’ works. It’s not a matter of judgements of ‘Darwinian purity’ (what a particularly ridiculous notion) but of biological reality.
For starters, it does not account for cryptic species with different karyotypes, which tended to mess up captive breeding programs:
For starters, it cannot handle cryptic species with different karyotypes, such as occur in some captive breeding programs:
It would depend on what the supporting evidence was.
He is not alone in that, I just prefer a little more effort when it comes to insults.Church toilets seemed too random
I expect their logic for the claim is in writing somewhere
If evolutionist use the word design to describe things that they believe evolved, give me one reason why should I come up with better word? The word design often is the best testimony in itself… How about creation? Will this do?
“…Craig Venter’s creation comes as CRISPR gene-editing methods … life to its bare essentials and, by extension, to design. life from scratch."
If Craign Veter designs and creates life from scratch, is it going to be called EVOLVED???
Nobody knows? Or everyone is afraid to comment?
Allan Miller,
What does species mean?
Whatever suits evolution…
That works for evolution.
fmm to keiths:
It’s not an analogy! A city is not analogous to a species!
The Lucky Accidenters Club isn’t choosy. Just don’t ask too many questions.
I guess it is a lot like Scientology.
You did. You even gave an example that even a child could understand.
Also are tall people a different species than short people?
Impotent Declarations are meaningless crap.
HT: J-Mac
keiths, you’re welcome to come over to the side of Jesus. He needs you. WE need you. You won’t even have to start off cleaning toilets.
Though there’s no guarantee that’s not where you’ll end up. 🙂
Come to Jesus keiths.
keiths turns a blind eye to the outpouring of love to help those in need.
It is a good word, now what was designed, when was it designed, how was it designed?
Better, what was created, when was it created, how was it created?
Those who would not be in need if God has chosen otherwise, miracles abound in biology, why not weather? If Harvey had stalled in the Gulf , it would have been a miracle
Sure, why not? What’s to say they aren’t?
The result of a random algorithmic process also works for evolution.
The ID definition of species
And design