Island mice
Glenn
"Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of
speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been
the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and
chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major
genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran
mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian
et al. 2000)." References for this are "Britton-Davidian, J., J.
Catalan, et al. (2000) "Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice."
Nature 403: 158."
This is a Nature article, requiring paid subscription to view. However,
I found this article
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml which
paints a somewhat different picture(the reference at the bottom of the
page is essentially the same: "Britton-Davidian, J., J. Catalan, et al.
(2000) "Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice." Nature 403:
158." ):
"Britton-Davidian wants to know whether these populations of mice have
evolved into different species or whether they are on the cusp of
speciation. A species is defined as a group of organisms that can mate
and produce fertile offspring."
"One of Britton-Davidian's most surprising findings is that she and her
colleagues found no mice that are hybrids among any of the six groups.
"This might be because the hybrids are infertile or they may be less fit
than the parents and unable to survive," says Britton-Davidian. Other
explanations could be that the groups have been geographically isolated
and have not had the chance to mate, or that the mice "recognize each
other as different and choose not to mate."
"Britton-Davidian has taken some mice from Madeira back to her lab in
France and will try interbreeding the six populations to confirm whether
the hybrid mice are infertile, which, if they are, would imply that the
different groups were in the process of speciation. Her team will also
observe the mice to see whether they show behavioral or physical
differences."
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
"The 6 different populations are technically described as races because
there is no opportunity for them to attempt interbreeding."
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/159/3/1179
"The simultaneous presence of both extremes of karyotype within orders,
families, and genera and even within *different races of the same
species* indicates that the mechanism leading to the accumulation of one
chromosome morphology within a species has been present throughout
mammalian evolution and that reversal of the direction of nonrandom
segregation has occurred many times." (*emphasis mine*)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
"subspecies, race -- ((biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of
a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation
within a species)"
***********
It appears that, technically, the reference to "speciation" in the
talk.origins article at the top of this post is bunk.
John Stockwell
Funny, the same web site page says:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html#EvolutionaryChange
House mice on the island of Madeira
A recent (13 January 2000) report in Nature describes a study of house mouse populations on the island of Madeira off the Northwest coast of Africa. These workers (Janice Britton-Davidian et al) examined the karyotypes of 143 house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) from various locations along the coast of this mountainous island. Their findings:
* There are 6 distinct populations (shown by different colors)
* Each of these has a distinct karyotype, with a diploid number less than the "normal" (2N=40).
* The reduction in chromosome number has occurred through Robertsonian fusions. Mouse chromosomes tend to be acrocentric; that is, the centromere connects one long and one very short arm. Acrocentric chromosomes are at risk of translocations that fuse the long arms of two different chromosomes with the loss of the short arms.
* The different populations are allopatric; isolated in different valleys leading down to the sea.
* The distinct and uniform karyotype found in each population probably arose from genetic drift rather than natural selection.
* The 6 different populations are technically described as races because there is no opportunity for them to attempt interbreeding.
* However, they surely meet the definition of true species. While hybrids would form easily (no prezygotic isolating mechanisms), these would probably be infertile as proper synapsis and segregation of such different chromosomes would be difficult when the hybrids attempted to form gametes by meiosis.
According to the last point,
"However, they surely meed the definition of a true species."
>
>***********
>
>It appears that, technically, the reference to "speciation" in the
>talk.origins article at the top of this post is bunk.
>
It appears, Glenn, that you are just another out-of-context quoter.
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
So, Glenn, it appears
Glenn
"John Stockwell" <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU...
> >Glenn wrote:
>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#BrittonDavidian_etal2000
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. How about this?
It appears that, TECHNICALLY, the reference to "speciation" in the
talk.origins article at the top of this post is bunk.
I don't know how you would define "true" species, but I'll wager you
would try. Make sure to use words like "probably" a lot. That will make
you look scientific.
You may consider yourself as having "quoted" me out of context,
actually. I did include other articles. It appears that, especially if
the article
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml is
correct, these populations of mice are not known to be
different species, rather they are technically described by various
sources as "races", or "sub-species".
NOW I'll restore your unmarked snip:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/159/3/1179
"The simultaneous presence of both extremes of karyotype within orders,
families, and genera and even within *different races of the same
species* indicates that the mechanism leading to the accumulation of one
chromosome morphology within a species has been present throughout
mammalian evolution and that reversal of the direction of nonrandom
segregation has occurred many times." (*emphasis mine*)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
"subspecies, race -- ((biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of
a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation
within a species)"
To be sure you do not (if that is possible) accuse me of quote mining, I
will post the entire paragraph from one of your snipped articles:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/159/3/1179
"The simultaneous presence of both extremes of karyotype within orders,
families, and genera and even within different races of the same species
indicates that the mechanism leading to the accumulation of one
chromosome morphology within a species has been present throughout
mammalian evolution and that reversal of the direction of nonrandom
segregation has occurred many times. In fact, data gathered from studies
of wild populations of M. musculus indicate that nearly complete
reversal of the prevalent chromosome form can occur both within a
species as well as rapidly, in evolutionary time. Populations that have
been separated by as few as 500 years [on the island of Madeira
(BRITTON-DAVIDIAN et al. 2000)], as well as populations separated by
5-10,000 years [in the Alps (BRITTON-DAVIDIAN et al. 1989 ; NACHMAN et
al. 1994)] are observed to have undergone such "karyotypic reversal."
You may see that their reference of "populations" on Madeira is to
"different races of the same species."
Robin Levett
That's the article which includes the passage:-
" It normally takes thousands to millions of years for one species of animal
to diverge to become two. On Madeira, one species may have evolved into six
in the space of just 500 years. "
and:-
"The current families of Madeiran mice are not short of genetic material.
They have not lost any DNA. What happened is this: over time, some of the
chromosomes fused together, packing more DNA into some chromosomes. Each of
the six unique populations of mice on Madeira has its own special assembly
of fused chromosomes. Each group of mice may now be its own species."
and:-
""What is surprising is how fast this has taken place," says Scott Edwards,
an evolutionary biologist from the University of Washington, in Seattle.
Based on fossil records of sea urchins and invertebrates, evolution of
different species is thought to take thousands to millions of years. "But
this is an interesting case because it may prove to be an extreme case of
rapid speciation," says Edwards."
No reference to them being "races" or "subspecies".
>
> NOW I'll restore your unmarked snip:
>
> http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/159/3/1179
>
> "The simultaneous presence of both extremes of karyotype within orders,
> families, and genera and even within *different races of the same
> species* indicates that the mechanism leading to the accumulation of one
> chromosome morphology within a species has been present throughout
> mammalian evolution and that reversal of the direction of nonrandom
> segregation has occurred many times." (*emphasis mine*)
You appear to have missed out quoting the parts of the paper that associate
karyotypic changes with speciation.
>
> www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
>
> "subspecies, race -- ((biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of
> a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation
> within a species)"
Seems fair enough as a definition.
>
> To be sure you do not (if that is possible) accuse me of quote mining, I
> will post the entire paragraph from one of your snipped articles:
>
> http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/159/3/1179
> "The simultaneous presence of both extremes of karyotype within orders,
> families, and genera and even within different races of the same species
> indicates that the mechanism leading to the accumulation of one
> chromosome morphology within a species has been present throughout
> mammalian evolution and that reversal of the direction of nonrandom
> segregation has occurred many times. In fact, data gathered from studies
> of wild populations of M. musculus indicate that nearly complete
> reversal of the prevalent chromosome form can occur both within a
> species as well as rapidly, in evolutionary time. Populations that have
> been separated by as few as 500 years [on the island of Madeira
> (BRITTON-DAVIDIAN et al. 2000)], as well as populations separated by
> 5-10,000 years [in the Alps (BRITTON-DAVIDIAN et al. 1989 ; NACHMAN et
> al. 1994)] are observed to have undergone such "karyotypic reversal."
>
> You may see that their reference of "populations" on Madeira is to
> "different races of the same species."
Oddly enough, I don't. The point they are making is that "karyotypic
reversal" can take place on timescales of as little as 500 years - it is
irrelevant to that point whether the mice remain a single species or, as a
result of that reversal, six species.
I did see, however:-
"Although karyotypic changes have occurred frequently during evolution and
are associated with speciation, the fixation of such changes has been
assumed to occur by chance, in small populations, or through natural
selection operating at the level of organismal phenotype. Our analysis
indicates that nonrandom segregation of chromosomes, as a general facet of
female meiosis, represents an important selective force in the evolution of
genomes. This mechanism has great potential to affect the number of linkage
groups within a species."
confirming the association of karyotypic changes with speciation.
<snippage>
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Honest, informed, YEC - pick 2.
Douglas Theobald
There are many different definitions of species -- the one favored by
evolutionary biologists who study animals (esp. mammals) is the
Biological Species Concept, and that is the one that I use in this
case.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html#species
From the last paragraph of Britton-Davidian et al. 2000:
<quote>
Hybrids between any of the Madeiran mouse races carrying robertsonian
fusions would be sterile or infertile owing to the complex chromosomal
configurations that would be produced at meiosis (7, 8). Our results
indicate not only that accelerated rates of radiation can occur
without involving adaptive processes, but also that chromosomal
evolution can be an efficient mechanism of isolation, as several
reproductively isolated chromosomal races have appeared in less than
500 years.
<end quote>
Reproductive isolation is reproductive isolation. "Races" is often
used in biology when closely related organisms are geographically
isolated. A species by any other name ....
Glenn
"Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0407...@posting.google.com...
Now show me the scientific evidence that these races appeared less than
500 years ago. Please don't use inference.
Douglas Theobald
Mmm-hmm. Depending on who you talk to, sub-species can be reproductively
isolated. As I said, reproductive isolation is reproductive isolation,
irrespective of what name you subjectively choose to give it. "Species"
is a vague concept do to the continuum of varying degrees of distinction
between populations, precisely as one would expect if gradual evolution
between species were true.
> Now show me the scientific evidence that these races appeared less than
> 500 years ago. Please don't use inference.
Ha. I see. First, you show me *anything* in science, or, for that
matter, anything outside of mathematics, that does *not* use inference.
Once you understand that science is fundamentally based on inference,
then we can talk. Unless, that is, you deny the validity of science
altogether. In that case, carry on.
Glenn
Expect whatever you want, just remember that the word species is not a
"vague concept", though perhaps it becomes vague to evolutionists when
they have to try to support their claims.
>
> > Now show me the scientific evidence that these races appeared less
than
> > 500 years ago. Please don't use inference.
>
> Ha. I see. First, you show me *anything* in science, or, for that
> matter, anything outside of mathematics, that does *not* use
inference.
Data gathering, hypothesizing, testing. That enough?
> Once you understand that science is fundamentally based on inference,
> then we can talk. Unless, that is, you deny the validity of science
> altogether. In that case, carry on.
>
A large part of science is based on repeatablity, and one man's
inference may not be the same as another's.
You can take inference only so far. And when you support an inference
with an inference, you've gone too far.
Now talk. Give me the *evidence* needed to determine that there was an
ancestor species less than 500 years ago.
You have claimed that these species of mice have been observed to have
speciated in that time. Remember that inferences are not observations.
Severian
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Now talk. Give me the *evidence* needed to determine that there was an
>ancestor species less than 500 years ago.
>You have claimed that these species of mice have been observed to have
>speciated in that time. Remember that inferences are not observations.
Please let us know how your inferences, built on a foundation of
unobserved, poorly-told, patently ridiculous, and multiply-translated
fairy tales, are somehow better?
--
Sev
Adam Warlock
>
> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc5h7o$dce$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:53ba0fd0.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >>"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:<glennsheldon-wo_Ec.27$Uz5....@news.uswest.net>...
> > >
> > >>>"John Stockwell" <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message
> > >>>news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU...
> > >>>
> > >>>>>Glenn wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >
>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#BrittonDavidian_etal2000
Snip
> > >>Reproductive isolation is reproductive isolation. "Races" is often
> > >>used in biology when closely related organisms are geographically
> > >>isolated. A species by any other name ....
> > >>
> > > ....Is still a "sub-species".
> >
> > Mmm-hmm. Depending on who you talk to, sub-species can be
> reproductively
> > isolated. As I said, reproductive isolation is reproductive isolation,
> > irrespective of what name you subjectively choose to give it.
> "Species"
> > is a vague concept do to the continuum of varying degrees of
> distinction
> > between populations, precisely as one would expect if gradual
> evolution
> > between species were true.
>
> Expect whatever you want, just remember that the word species is not a
> "vague concept",
Oh, you're probably wrong about that, Glenn, though I would prefer that the
word "species" does not have a very exacting definition and what definitions
do exist are somewhat arbitrary. It means something quite different to a
paleobiologist, for example, and the criteria is a bit different. I suspect
that even you would not argue that reproductive isolation can be determined
in the case of fossil species that are dead millions of years, would you?
> though perhaps it becomes vague to evolutionists when
> they have to try to support their claims.
I think it's less that and more a realization of the limits of our
knowledge, as opposed to creationists whom must insist on having all
knowledge spoon-fed to them and that, failing that, the alternative,
creationism, must be true.
> > > Now show me the scientific evidence that these races appeared less
> than
> > > 500 years ago. Please don't use inference.
> >
> > Ha. I see. First, you show me *anything* in science, or, for that
> > matter, anything outside of mathematics, that does *not* use
> inference.
>
> Data gathering, hypothesizing, testing. That enough?
That isn't what he asked, Glenn. Of course, science involves these things;
and really! Do you understand why hpothesizing should not be in your list?
Still, it is possible to gather data an infer things from that data; and we
often do--more often than not, as a matter of fact. We test, and we infer
things from the results of the tests. You seem to be under the impression
that there is something wrong with inference, but to infer scientifically is
not to suggest or hint or bandy about, but to conclude based on the
evidence. Inference is a major part of theory building and is a significant
portion of the scientific method.
> > Once you understand that science is fundamentally based on inference,
> > then we can talk. Unless, that is, you deny the validity of science
> > altogether. In that case, carry on.
>
> A large part of science is based on repeatablity,
And we infer things from that when repeatability is an option for us, but
not all science is so simply viewed, Glenn.
> and one man's
> inference may not be the same as another's.
That's entirely possible, but that is one of the things that allows science
to be science and not something else.
> You can take inference only so far. And when you support an inference
> with an inference, you've gone too far.
Okay, so with respect to the subject of this thread, how has that happened?
> Now talk.
Are you demanding answers from someone, Glenn? Is this the same Glenn who
repeatedly avoids the answering of questions put to him?
> Give me the *evidence* needed to determine that there was an
> ancestor species less than 500 years ago.
The "evidence" is in the original article, Glenn. Have you read it? I have
it here if you would like to discuss the details.
> You have claimed that these species of mice have been observed to have
> speciated in that time. Remember that inferences are not observations.
Inferences are *conclusions*, Glenn, based on observations and the evidence
that those observations, and whatever other evidence might be available,
provides.
allan m
> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc5h7o$dce$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> >
> > Mmm-hmm. Depending on who you talk to, sub-species can be reproductively
> > isolated. As I said, reproductive isolation is reproductive isolation,
> > irrespective of what name you subjectively choose to give it.
> > "Species" is a vague concept do to the continuum of varying degrees of
> > distinction between populations, precisely as one would expect if gradual
> > evolution between species were true.
>
> Expect whatever you want, just remember that the word species is not a
> "vague concept", though perhaps it becomes vague to evolutionists when
> they have to try to support their claims.
I usually just content myself with chucking stuff at the screen and
mouthing incoherently, but this stuff just drives me up the wall. I
wish you'd read Douglas' paragraph in toto (see "continuum"). Nature
couldn't give a shit about our attempts to classify it with hierarchic
subdivisions. It doesn't matter a damn how you or I or Douglas or
Linnaeus choose to define the terms: in nature, two animals meet. They
may fancy each other, they may not. A little wine and some light jazz,
perhaps, they may mate, they may not. Their gametes may fuse, they may
not. The latter is dependent in part on the degree of congruence
between the genetic material. If very similar, fusion will occur much
of the time. With decreasing similarity, it becomes less likely, but
not all at once. It's a percentage game, not all-or-nothing absolute.
So the edges *are* fuzzy.
> >
> > > Now show me the scientific evidence that these races appeared less than
> > > 500 years ago. Please don't use inference.
> >
> > Ha. I see. First, you show me *anything* in science, or, for that
> > matter, anything outside of mathematics, that does *not* use
> inference.
>
> Data gathering, hypothesizing, testing. That enough?
>
Riiiiight. So what specific non-inferential data do you think we could
conceivably access to demonstrate the 500-year ancestry to your
satisfaction? Genetic analysis springs to mind, but that's
inferential, so no good at all. Good enough for the scientific
community at large, but not up to your exacting standards. Ah well,
we'll live.
Frank J
I can't believe I am actually defending Glenn, but AIUI, he doesn't
really make any inference, such as "these 'races,' or any other pair
of 'races,' species, genera, etc. arose by independent abiogenesis."
That is a classic trick, originated by the mutually contradictory
creationisms, and perfected by the "intelligent design" strategy. The
inference, if any, is made by 3rd parties, while the anti-evolutionist
merely spins arguments of incredulity, using whatever definitions or
quotes (often mined) suit the purpose.
H,R.Gruemm
> Now talk. Give me the *evidence* needed to determine that there was an
> ancestor species less than 500 years ago.
> You have claimed that these species of mice have been observed to have
> speciated in that time. Remember that inferences are not observations.
Remember that *almost all* observations are based on inference. Right
now, you infer from the pattern of photons which your retina absorbs
that there is a computer screen in front of you. Soon you may infer
from the observation of pressure differences in your inner ear that
your wife is calling you for dinner (if you have a wife, that is
....).
Regards, HRG.
Glenn
"H,R.Gruemm" <psych...@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.04070...@posting.google.com...
"the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical
judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions
rather than on the basis of direct observation"
If you accept that definition, then give me an example of direct
observation so that I may play your game about what inference is based
on. When it comes right down to it, we have to infer that we are not all
just warts on a toad dreaming of being free.
Douglas Theobald
>
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>>> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:53ba0fd0.0407...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>> "Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>> varying degrees of distinction between populations,
>> precisely as one would expect if gradual evolution
>> between species were true.
>
> Expect whatever you want, just remember that the word
> species is not a "vague concept", though perhaps it
> becomes vague to evolutionists when they have to try to
> support their claims.
"Species" *is* certainly a vague concept. If you disagree
lets hear your universal definition of species, one that
applies to fossils, bacteria, mammals, angiosperms, viruses,
etc. If you are successful you will have solved a major
unsolved problem of biology. Before you do that, though,
perhaps you should read a little biology so you don't have
to reinvent the wheel:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#species_defs
>>> Now show me the scientific evidence that these races
>>> appeared less than 500 years ago. Please don't use
>>> inference.
>>
>> Ha. I see. First, you show me *anything* in science, or,
>> for that matter, anything outside of mathematics, that
>> does *not* use inference.
>
> Data gathering, hypothesizing, testing. That enough?
No, since none fit the bill. Anyway, I was talking about scientific
conclusions, not really about the methodology. Nevertheless ...
Infer: 1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises.
(Webster-Merriam)
In order to gather data, you must use inference. Say you want to do some
of the most simple data gathering you can imagine, you want to measure
the masses of individuals in a population of mice you are studying. You
put each one on a scale, the needle points to 12 oz., and you know from
Newtonian physics that m = F /a. So you infer from the force exerted on
the scale that the mass of that mouse is directly proportional, but
inversely proportional to the acceleration provided by gravity. You know
that you would have to calculate a different mass if you were at a
different distance from the center of the earth (say on the
international space station). Pretty much any other example you can
think of is analogous. To count the number of craters on the moon, you
must assume that your telescope works, and that is an inference based
upon the fact that it gives reasonable terrestrial results, etc., etc.
To make a hypothesis, you certainly must use inference. Hypothesizing
could be considered a synonym for inferring. You see smoke and infer
that there is a fire, i.e. scientifically speaking you hypothesize that
there is a fire.
To test a hypothesis, you must use inference, for the same reasons that
you must use inference for data gathering.
You must realize, Glenn, that the scientific method really doesn't
concern direct observation at all. We don't need the scientific method
to figure out things that we can see with our own two eyes. The
scientific method is used exclusively for inference, for things that are
a bit more difficult to sniff out. Things that we have never felt nor
seen, except very indirectly and via extended chains of inference,
things such as electrons, atoms, radiowaves, solar fusion, the DNA
double helix, genes, germs, viruses, quarks, entropy, enthalpy, heat,
magnetic fields, X-rays, and until 1961, the round earth -- that is what
science is about.
>> Once you understand that science is fundamentally based
>> on inference, then we can talk. Unless, that is, you
>> deny the validity of science altogether. In that case,
>> carry on.
>
> A large part of science is based on repeatablity, and one
> man's inference may not be the same as another's. You can
> take inference only so far. And when you support an
> inference with an inference, you've gone too far.
See the above. From that last comment I infer that you are obviously not
a scientist.
> Now talk. Give me the *evidence* needed to determine that
> there was an ancestor species less than 500 years ago.
As I said earlier, show me something in science that does *not* involve
inference, then we can move on. And I mean something unique to science,
something concerning scientific conclusions and scientific evidence --
trivial examples of things like "I saw a black rock" don't count (and
even then you are in fact using inference, strictly speaking).
> You have claimed that these species of mice have been
> observed to have speciated in that time. Remember that
> inferences are not observations.
In science, one researcher's inferences are another's observations. See
the example with weighing mice and Newtonian mechanics above.
Adam Warlock
Online references can be so inadequate to as task such as this, but if we
can try to get around your attempts at pedantry, Glenn, we should! Look at
this reference, from the admittedly inadequate dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infer
But therein lies the fallacy of accepting a single phrase as a definition of
a word that encompasses so much more, particularly when used by science.
It's also a problem when you are evasive as you are, Glenn--not interested
in hearing not only that there's a viewpoint other than your own, but why
your viewpoint is wrong. Now, with respect to the use of words, it's like
"theory," Glenn. Most people think a "theory" is a guess, but science has a
different definition that it applies.
Now I told you that I have a copy of the _Nature_ article and will gladly
discuss it with you, so we can see, really, whom has a better leg to stand
on with regard to this particular subject in evolutionary science. I see
you are avoiding that. This seems to be a habit with you. As soon as
someone is prepared to provide you with exactly what you claim you wish to
see, you don't seem to be interested.
Glenn
I'm not going to chew the fat at the moment with idiots that play these
games. There are different definitions of what constitutes a species,
dependent upon the organism, but that does not mean that it is a "vague
concept" anymore than the word evolution is. "Species" is a scientific
designation, NOT a "vague concept". Because a species gene pool changes
does not mean it is a "vague concept", nor does that mean that
"speciation" is a "vague concept". Because there is debate in teh
scientific community as to what constitutes a a species does not mean
that it is a "vague concept". Your insistence that it is a vague concept
is not very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the least.
Perhaps you should read "Dick and Jane" and get back to me after. Or
some of the talk.origins "faqs".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/species.html
"Not all members of a species may have all the diagnostic traits that
tells it apart from similar species."
"Species are biological entities that change."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html#species
"species As usually used within this article, a species is a
reproductively isolated group of organisms capable of interbreeding in
the wild and producing viable, fertile offspring."
Adam Warlock
You are wrong, Glenn. As I said yesterday, of course, I would prefer that
the definitions that are available are arbitrary and not precise, and
"species" is no less a useful designation for that reason, but the idea of
"species" is not as hard and fast as you would like to believe. Now, settle
down, Glenn, that's just the way that it is, and you are not a professional
in the field in any way--nor are you well-informed. You simply must accept
it.
> Because a species gene pool changes
> does not mean it is a "vague concept",
Actually, it contributes mightily to that. On the other hand, your
hand-waving denials do nothing to change that.
> nor does that mean that
> "speciation" is a "vague concept".
Within the limits that I have explained, it means precisely that, Glenn.
> Because there is debate in teh
> scientific community as to what constitutes a a species does not mean
> that it is a "vague concept".
So we're getting a lot of gain-saying. "Does not, does not, does not."
Interesting. Is this the best that you can do, Glenn?
> Your insistence that it is a vague concept
> is not very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the least.
Why not?
> Perhaps you should read "Dick and Jane" and get back to me after. Or
> some of the talk.origins "faqs".
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/species.html
> "Not all members of a species may have all the diagnostic traits that
> tells it apart from similar species."
How does this refute or repudiate Douglas's argument, Glenn?
> "Species are biological entities that change."
Or this?
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html#species
> "species As usually used within this article, a species is a
> reproductively isolated group of organisms capable of interbreeding in
> the wild and producing viable, fertile offspring."
"As usually used within this article." "Usually" is a conditional, isn't
it, Glenn?
You really have no idea what you are talking about, Glenn.
Douglas Theobald
If the definition of species depends upon the species as you claim, I'd
say that actually does add to its vagueness.
> "Species" is a scientific
> designation, NOT a "vague concept".
Invalid disjunction. Is the earth round?
> Because a species gene pool changes
> does not mean it is a "vague concept", nor does that mean that
> "speciation" is a "vague concept". Because there is debate in teh
> scientific community as to what constitutes a a species does not mean
> that it is a "vague concept".
"Vague" means not well defined. If there is active debate in the
biological community as to its definition, isn't it by definition
scientifically vague?
> Your insistence that it is a vague concept
> is not very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the least.
Why? The species concept was developed independently of evolutionary
theory, and it will be a biological problem whether evolution is true or
false. However, since evolutionary theory claims that species evolve
into other species gradually, we would expect the boundaries of species
to be fuzzy and ill-defined. And that is what we see.
> Perhaps you should read "Dick and Jane" and get back to me after. Or
> some of the talk.origins "faqs".
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/species.html
> "Not all members of a species may have all the diagnostic traits that
> tells it apart from similar species."
> "Species are biological entities that change."
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html#species
> "species As usually used within this article, a species is a
> reproductively isolated group of organisms capable of interbreeding in
> the wild and producing viable, fertile offspring."
I've read that last one, and it appears that the author and I have
identical points of view. :)
Glenn, "species" as a concept is rather vague because, in many cases,
the definitions do not give a yes-or-no answer to the question of
whether two populations are different species. Consider ring species as
a very simple and clear example. The biological species concept is based
upon reproductive isolation. However, nothing is truly reproductively
isolated, if by that we mean a complete absence of actual or potential
exchange of genetic material. Reproductive isolation is a continuum,
from little to lots. Are tigers and lions different species? How about
dolphins and whales? Or wolves and foxes? Or gibbons and siamangs, two
apes that are much more genetically divergent than humans and chimps?
Guess what, these pairs of species can interbreed and produce viable,
fertile offspring. Do you understand what happens when HIV, a
retrovirus, infects a human? And do you realize that our HIV was a
chimpanzee parasite only a few decades ago?
Glenn
I'm glad you would say something, but lip flapping convinces no one.
Single-celled organisms and humans are different "species", but I doubt
you would say that defining the differences is a "vague concept".
Or, by God, I wonder maybe you might!
>
> > "Species" is a scientific
> > designation, NOT a "vague concept".
>
> Invalid disjunction. Is the earth round?
The earth is not part of this subject. Species is a scientific
designation, not a vague concept. Neither is the earth's shape a vague
concept.
>
> > Because a species gene pool changes
> > does not mean it is a "vague concept", nor does that mean that
> > "speciation" is a "vague concept". Because there is debate in teh
> > scientific community as to what constitutes a a species does not
mean
> > that it is a "vague concept".
>
> "Vague" means not well defined. If there is active debate in the
> biological community as to its definition, isn't it by definition
> scientifically vague?
No. It means that there is disagreement. "Species" seems well defined
enough for you to swear by it, and probably throw coins in the fountain
of Darwin.
>
> > Your insistence that it is a vague concept
> > is not very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the least.
>
> Why? The species concept was developed independently of evolutionary
> theory, and it will be a biological problem whether evolution is true
or
> false.
Oh what a load of horseshit. "The origin of species" might shock you. Or
not. At this point, I really think you need professional help.
>However, since evolutionary theory claims that species evolve
> into other species gradually, we would expect the boundaries of
species
> to be fuzzy and ill-defined. And that is what we see.
What I see is your statement "evolutionary theory claims that species
evolve into other species". Perhaps you are on drugs? Do you not realize
what you wrote just above that?
>
snip the "lesson"
Adam Warlock
>
> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc7d2g$4b0$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Snip
> > >>"Species" *is* certainly a vague concept. If you disagree
> > >>lets hear your universal definition of species, one that
> > >>applies to fossils, bacteria, mammals, angiosperms, viruses,
> > >>etc. If you are successful you will have solved a major
> > >>unsolved problem of biology. Before you do that, though,
> > >>perhaps you should read a little biology so you don't have
> > >>to reinvent the wheel:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not going to chew the fat at the moment with idiots that play
> these
> > > games. There are different definitions of what constitutes a
> species,
> > > dependent upon the organism, but that does not mean that it is a
> "vague
> > > concept" anymore than the word evolution is.
> >
> > If the definition of species depends upon the species as you claim,
> I'd
> > say that actually does add to its vagueness.
>
> I'm glad you would say something, but lip flapping convinces no one.
A rather ironic statement, Glenn...
> Single-celled organisms and humans are different "species", but I doubt
> you would say that defining the differences is a "vague concept".
> Or, by God, I wonder maybe you might!
And he would be right. You're not seeing the forest for the trees, Glenn.
You are simply incapable of grasping this concept.
> > > "Species" is a scientific
> > > designation, NOT a "vague concept".
> >
> > Invalid disjunction. Is the earth round?
>
> The earth is not part of this subject.
It's an illustration, Glenn-Ever-The-Pedant.
> Species is a scientific
> designation, not a vague concept.
*As* a scientific designation, it is not precise and arbitrary and, given
Douglas's comments, I can even accept that it is a vague concept in the
sense that it is not well-defined.
> Neither is the earth's shape a vague
> concept.
What shape is the Earth, Glenn?
> > > Because a species gene pool changes
> > > does not mean it is a "vague concept", nor does that mean that
> > > "speciation" is a "vague concept". Because there is debate in teh
> > > scientific community as to what constitutes a a species does not
> mean
> > > that it is a "vague concept".
> >
> > "Vague" means not well defined. If there is active debate in the
> > biological community as to its definition, isn't it by definition
> > scientifically vague?
>
> No. It means that there is disagreement.
Gain-saying.
> "Species" seems well defined
> enough for you to swear by it,
In what way, Glenn?
> and probably throw coins in the fountain
> of Darwin.
Irrelevant rhetoric.
> > > Your insistence that it is a vague concept
> > > is not very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the least.
> >
> > Why? The species concept was developed independently of evolutionary
> > theory, and it will be a biological problem whether evolution is true
> or
> > false.
>
> Oh what a load of horseshit.
No, he's right. The species concept was developed long before evolutionary
theory even started to gain widespread acceptance.
> "The origin of species" might shock you. Or
> not. At this point, I really think you need professional help.
You really shouldn't let your ignorance show so obviously, Glenn. Darwin
did not define the concept of the species. Linnaeus did that centuries
earlier. Douglas needs no professional help, but it would appear that you
could use some elementary education in biological classification.
> >However, since evolutionary theory claims that species evolve
> > into other species gradually, we would expect the boundaries of
> species
> > to be fuzzy and ill-defined. And that is what we see.
>
> What I see is your statement "evolutionary theory claims that species
> evolve into other species". Perhaps you are on drugs? Do you not realize
> what you wrote just above that?
Why don't you tell us, Glenn?
> snip the "lesson"
Well, you haven't learned anything so far.
By the way, Glenn, did you notice that, as part of the lesson, it was found
that Douglas *wrote* one of the articles to which you referred near the end
of your earlier tirade? That was quite amusing, don't you think?
Apparently, you didn't notice that at the time, but now that it's been
pointed out (with characteristic humor, of course, by Douglas), you seem to
have snipped that part away. If someone else did that, you might accuse
them of lying, wouldn't you?
Douglas Theobald
>
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>>> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> in message
>>> news:cc75d4$s4b$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>>>
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> in message
>>>>> news:cc5h7o$dce$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote in message
Your refusal to address the point is noted. I agree
that "species" is useful and necessary, and that in
some cases it is very clear. However, that does not
address the fact that, when pushed, the definitions can
and will break down in many common situations.
>>> "Species" is a scientific designation, NOT a
>>> "vague concept".
>>
>> Invalid disjunction. Is the earth round?
>
> The earth is not part of this subject. Species is a
> scientific designation, not a vague concept. Neither
> is the earth's shape a vague concept.
Because you say so? Could you please, then, describe
its shape precisely for me?
>>> Because a species gene pool changes does not mean
>>> it is a "vague concept", nor does that mean that
>>> "speciation" is a "vague concept". Because there
>>> is debate in teh scientific community as to what
>>> constitutes a a species does not mean that it is a
>>> "vague concept".
>>
>> "Vague" means not well defined. If there is active
>> debate in the biological community as to its
>> definition, isn't it by definition scientifically
>> vague?
>
> No. It means that there is disagreement. "Species"
> seems well defined enough for you to swear by it,
> and probably throw coins in the fountain of Darwin.
Hmm. Logic doesn't seem to come easy here. You assert
that "species" has has no agreed upon definition by
scientists, yet, paradoxically, you claim it is
scientifically well-defined.
>>> Your insistence that it is a vague concept is not
>>> very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the
>>> least.
>>
>> Why? The species concept was developed
>> independently of evolutionary theory, and it will
>> be a biological problem whether evolution is true
>> or false.
>
> Oh what a load of horseshit. "The origin of species"
> might shock you. Or not. At this point, I really
> think you need professional help.
Again, your refusal to address the point is noted. I
infer from this that you think Darwin invented the
term "species"?
>> However, since evolutionary theory claims that
>> species evolve into other species gradually, we
>> would expect the boundaries of species to be fuzzy
>> and ill-defined. And that is what we see.
>
> What I see is your statement "evolutionary theory
> claims that species evolve into other species".
> Perhaps you are on drugs? Do you not realize what
> you wrote just above that?
Of course. I realize that a scientific concept, though
uncertain and/or vague, can be important, necessary,
useful, and a reasonable approximation.
> snip the "lesson"
Oh, lets put it back in, just so people can see
how evasive you are being:
Glenn
I did address the point, as I saw fit.
>I agree
> that "species" is useful and necessary, and that in
> some cases it is very clear. However, that does not
> address the fact that, when pushed, the definitions can
> and will break down in many common situations.
That would be a problem with a definition, or lack of knowledge. I not
sure where you think you will benefit from this approach.
>
> >>> "Species" is a scientific designation, NOT a
> >>> "vague concept".
> >>
> >> Invalid disjunction. Is the earth round?
> >
> > The earth is not part of this subject. Species is a
> > scientific designation, not a vague concept. Neither
> > is the earth's shape a vague concept.
>
> Because you say so? Could you please, then, describe
> its shape precisely for me?
I'm not going to the effort, especially for one that questions whether
it is possible to describe the shape of the earth accurately enough for
it to be useful. Species is a scientific designation, and that is not
because "I say so", and you know it.
>
> >>> Because a species gene pool changes does not mean
> >>> it is a "vague concept", nor does that mean that
> >>> "speciation" is a "vague concept". Because there
> >>> is debate in teh scientific community as to what
> >>> constitutes a a species does not mean that it is a
> >>> "vague concept".
> >>
> >> "Vague" means not well defined. If there is active
> >> debate in the biological community as to its
> >> definition, isn't it by definition scientifically
> >> vague?
> >
> > No. It means that there is disagreement. "Species"
> > seems well defined enough for you to swear by it,
> > and probably throw coins in the fountain of Darwin.
>
> Hmm. Logic doesn't seem to come easy here. You assert
> that "species" has has no agreed upon definition by
> scientists, yet, paradoxically, you claim it is
> scientifically well-defined.
I said it was well-defined? No, I said that there are definitions that
are used in biology. That does not go away because of the way science
works.
>
> >>> Your insistence that it is a vague concept is not
> >>> very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the
> >>> least.
> >>
> >> Why? The species concept was developed
> >> independently of evolutionary theory, and it will
> >> be a biological problem whether evolution is true
> >> or false.
> >
> > Oh what a load of horseshit. "The origin of species"
> > might shock you. Or not. At this point, I really
> > think you need professional help.
>
> Again, your refusal to address the point is noted. I
> infer from this that you think Darwin invented the
> term "species"?
You really should quit inferring then, or learn not to ask another
whether you did infer something or not.
You addressed your own point below. It is contradictory to the one you
claim I did not address. However, I regard your statement about
developing theory as nothing more than a one-word knee-jerk, like
"horseshit". Your question about who "invented" the term species should
give you a clue as to how "evolutionary theory developed".
>
> >> However, since evolutionary theory claims that
> >> species evolve into other species gradually, we
> >> would expect the boundaries of species to be fuzzy
> >> and ill-defined. And that is what we see.
> >
> > What I see is your statement "evolutionary theory
> > claims that species evolve into other species".
> > Perhaps you are on drugs? Do you not realize what
> > you wrote just above that?
>
> Of course. I realize that a scientific concept, though
> uncertain and/or vague, can be important, necessary,
> useful, and a reasonable approximation.
But you don't realize that in virtually the same breath, you can say
'The species concept was developed independently of evolutionary theory"
and ""evolutionary theory claims that species evolve into other
species". Of what importance is it, if true, that the species concept
was developed independently, if evolutionary theory claims that species
evolve into other species??????????
>
> > snip the "lesson"
>
> Oh, lets put it back in, just so people can see
> how evasive you are being:
I snipped and marked it. How evasive can you show me to be below, when
you haven't shown it above???????
>
> Glenn, "species" as a concept is rather vague because,
> in many cases, the definitions do not give a yes-or-no
> answer to the question of whether two populations are
> different species. Consider ring species as a very
> simple and clear example. The biological species
> concept is based upon reproductive isolation. However,
> nothing is truly reproductively isolated, if by that
> we mean a complete absence of actual or potential
> exchange of genetic material. Reproductive isolation
> is a continuum, from little to lots. Are tigers and
> lions different species? How about dolphins and
> whales? Or wolves and foxes? Or gibbons and siamangs,
> two apes that are much more genetically divergent than
> humans and chimps? Guess what, these pairs of species
> can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.
> Do you understand what happens when HIV, a retrovirus,
> infects a human? And do you realize that our HIV was a
> chimpanzee parasite only a few decades ago?
>
Nice "lesson". Preach to the choir, not me. And don't change the
subject. *That* is evasion. Answer your own question about tigers and
lions.
You made the claim that these mice have been *observed* to have
speciated. Show your evidence that this is an observation, or a
discovery of different forms of mice that you think speciated recently.
Adam Warlock
No, Glenn, actually, you didn't.
> >I agree
> > that "species" is useful and necessary, and that in
> > some cases it is very clear. However, that does not
> > address the fact that, when pushed, the definitions can
> > and will break down in many common situations.
>
> That would be a problem with a definition, or lack of knowledge. I not
> sure where you think you will benefit from this approach.
He benefits from a professional and educated viewpoint that you lack, Glenn.
He understands. You don't.
> > >>> "Species" is a scientific designation, NOT a
> > >>> "vague concept".
> > >>
> > >> Invalid disjunction. Is the earth round?
> > >
> > > The earth is not part of this subject. Species is a
> > > scientific designation, not a vague concept. Neither
> > > is the earth's shape a vague concept.
> >
> > Because you say so? Could you please, then, describe
> > its shape precisely for me?
>
> I'm not going to the effort, especially for one that questions whether
> it is possible to describe the shape of the earth accurately enough for
> it to be useful.
Is that really what he did, Glenn?
> Species is a scientific designation, and that is not
> because "I say so", and you know it.
Well, that doesn't seem to be a relevant response, because he does not rely
on "I say so." The only person doing that in this argument is you.
> > >>> Because a species gene pool changes does not mean
> > >>> it is a "vague concept", nor does that mean that
> > >>> "speciation" is a "vague concept". Because there
> > >>> is debate in teh scientific community as to what
> > >>> constitutes a a species does not mean that it is a
> > >>> "vague concept".
> > >>
> > >> "Vague" means not well defined. If there is active
> > >> debate in the biological community as to its
> > >> definition, isn't it by definition scientifically
> > >> vague?
> > >
> > > No. It means that there is disagreement. "Species"
> > > seems well defined enough for you to swear by it,
> > > and probably throw coins in the fountain of Darwin.
> >
> > Hmm. Logic doesn't seem to come easy here. You assert
> > that "species" has has no agreed upon definition by
> > scientists, yet, paradoxically, you claim it is
> > scientifically well-defined.
>
> I said it was well-defined? No, I said that there are definitions that
> are used in biology. That does not go away because of the way science
> works.
You certainly were arguing against Douglas's assertions that it, in fact,
not well defined, but vague. Is this a back-pedal on your part now, or are
you so into gain-saying that you aren't even sure what you might be arguing
from one post to the next?
> > >>> Your insistence that it is a vague concept is not
> > >>> very supportive of evolutionary theory, to say the
> > >>> least.
> > >>
> > >> Why? The species concept was developed
> > >> independently of evolutionary theory, and it will
> > >> be a biological problem whether evolution is true
> > >> or false.
> > >
> > > Oh what a load of horseshit. "The origin of species"
> > > might shock you. Or not. At this point, I really
> > > think you need professional help.
> >
> > Again, your refusal to address the point is noted. I
> > infer from this that you think Darwin invented the
> > term "species"?
>
> You really should quit inferring then, or learn not to ask another
> whether you did infer something or not.
Glenn, you did not know that Darwin didn't invent the term. Douglas's
inference was reasonable.
> You addressed your own point below. It is contradictory to the one you
> claim I did not address. However, I regard your statement about
> developing theory as nothing more than a one-word knee-jerk, like
> "horseshit". Your question about who "invented" the term species should
> give you a clue as to how "evolutionary theory developed".
In what way?
> > >> However, since evolutionary theory claims that
> > >> species evolve into other species gradually, we
> > >> would expect the boundaries of species to be fuzzy
> > >> and ill-defined. And that is what we see.
> > >
> > > What I see is your statement "evolutionary theory
> > > claims that species evolve into other species".
> > > Perhaps you are on drugs? Do you not realize what
> > > you wrote just above that?
> >
> > Of course. I realize that a scientific concept, though
> > uncertain and/or vague, can be important, necessary,
> > useful, and a reasonable approximation.
>
> But you don't realize that in virtually the same breath, you can say
> 'The species concept was developed independently of evolutionary theory"
> and ""evolutionary theory claims that species evolve into other
> species". Of what importance is it, if true, that the species concept
> was developed independently, if evolutionary theory claims that species
> evolve into other species??????????
Let's nominate this for a CHEZ WATT.
> > > snip the "lesson"
> >
> > Oh, lets put it back in, just so people can see
> > how evasive you are being:
>
> I snipped and marked it. How evasive can you show me to be below, when
> you haven't shown it above???????
You've been evasive, Glenn. When you remove a good illustration, dismissing
it as you did, it's evasion.
> > Glenn, "species" as a concept is rather vague because,
> > in many cases, the definitions do not give a yes-or-no
> > answer to the question of whether two populations are
> > different species. Consider ring species as a very
> > simple and clear example. The biological species
> > concept is based upon reproductive isolation. However,
> > nothing is truly reproductively isolated, if by that
> > we mean a complete absence of actual or potential
> > exchange of genetic material. Reproductive isolation
> > is a continuum, from little to lots. Are tigers and
> > lions different species? How about dolphins and
> > whales? Or wolves and foxes? Or gibbons and siamangs,
> > two apes that are much more genetically divergent than
> > humans and chimps? Guess what, these pairs of species
> > can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.
> > Do you understand what happens when HIV, a retrovirus,
> > infects a human? And do you realize that our HIV was a
> > chimpanzee parasite only a few decades ago?
>
> Nice "lesson". Preach to the choir, not me. And don't change the
> subject. *That* is evasion. Answer your own question about tigers and
> lions.
In other words, the "lesson" is lost on you.
> You made the claim that these mice have been *observed* to have
> speciated. Show your evidence that this is an observation, or a
> discovery of different forms of mice that you think speciated recently.
I offered to do just that--to discuss the very article that provides the
source. Do you have a copy of the article?
Douglas Theobald
> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:cc7gaf$amf$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
I suppose so, if how you see fit means you evade it.
>>I agree that "species" is useful and necessary, and
>>that in some cases it is very clear. However, that
>>does not address the fact that, when pushed, the
>>definitions can and will break down in many common
>>situations.
>
> That would be a problem with a definition, or lack
> of knowledge. I not sure where you think you will
> benefit from this approach.
>
>> >>> "Species" is a scientific designation, NOT a
>> >>> "vague concept".
>> >>
>> >> Invalid disjunction. Is the earth round?
>> >
>> > The earth is not part of this subject. Species is
>> > a scientific designation, not a vague concept.
>> > Neither is the earth's shape a vague concept.
>>
>>Because you say so? Could you please, then, describe
>>its shape precisely for me?
>
> I'm not going to the effort, especially for one that
> questions whether it is possible to describe the
> shape of the earth accurately enough for it to be
> useful.
I never questioned that. A scientific concept can be
vague or uncertain when pushed yet still be quite
useful. Is the earth round? Depends upon how much of
an approximation you are willing to accept. Claiming
'the earth is a sphere' breaks down when pushed. So
does calling it an ellipsoid, though that is better.
When it comes down to it, that's just an imperfect
approximation. Even so, it is still a very useful
approximation.
> Species is a scientific designation, and that is not
> because "I say so", and you know it.
Of course it is a scientific designation. It is a
vague scientific designation, for all the reasons I
have given, and it does not cease to be vague just
because you say so, sans argument, sans reason.
>> >>> Because a species gene pool changes does not
>> >>> mean it is a "vague concept", nor does that
>> >>> mean that "speciation" is a "vague concept".
>> >>> Because there is debate in teh scientific
>> >>> community as to what constitutes a a species
>> >>> does not mean that it is a "vague concept".
>> >>
>> >> "Vague" means not well defined. If there is
>> >> active debate in the biological community as to
>> >> its definition, isn't it by definition
>> >> scientifically vague?
>> >
>> > No. It means that there is disagreement.
>> > "Species" seems well defined enough for you to
>> > swear by it, and probably throw coins in the
>> > fountain of Darwin.
>>
>>Hmm. Logic doesn't seem to come easy here. You
>>assert that "species" has has no agreed upon
>>definition by scientists, yet, paradoxically, you
>>claim it is scientifically well-defined.
>
> I said it was well-defined? No,
Backpedaling, eh? The latter part of this thread has
been devoted to your objection to the fact that the
species concept is somewhat vague, which by definition
means that it is not well-defined. You are
contradicting yourself.
Huh??? Darwin didn't invent the term, sorry.
>> >> However, since evolutionary theory claims that
>> >> species evolve into other species gradually, we
>> >> would expect the boundaries of species to be
>> >> fuzzy and ill-defined. And that is what we see.
>> >
>> > What I see is your statement "evolutionary theory
>> > claims that species evolve into other species".
>> > Perhaps you are on drugs? Do you not realize what
>> > you wrote just above that?
>>
>>Of course. I realize that a scientific concept,
>>though uncertain and/or vague, can be important,
>>necessary, useful, and a reasonable approximation.
>
> But you don't realize that in virtually the same
> breath, you can say 'The species concept was
> developed independently of evolutionary theory" and
> ""evolutionary theory claims that species evolve
> into other species". Of what importance is it, if
> true, that the species concept was developed
> independently, if evolutionary theory claims that
> species evolve into other species??????????
Huh? Does anyone else have a clue what Glenn means
here? Does this make any sense?
You asserted that the fact that the species concept
"is a vague concept is not very supportive of
evolutionary theory ...". However, the species
concept was developed long before evolutionary theory
hit the biological scene, and 'species' was a
biological problem before evolutionary theory was
developed. Evolutionary theory gives a scientific
explanation for why the species concept is
problematic-- species are mutable and evolve into new
species. Thus we expect that species boundaries will
be hard to define objectively. This is not so very
difficult to comprehend.
>> > snip the "lesson"
>>
>>Oh, lets put it back in, just so people can see how
>>evasive you are being:
>
> I snipped and marked it. How evasive can you show me
> to be below, when you haven't shown it above???????
So far your objections to my arguments have consisted
of saying "not so", telling me I need professional
help, suggesting I'm on drugs, cussing, and calling me
an idiot. You have yet to answer any of the questions
I have asked of you. The following "lesson" is the
very meat of my argument, and you didn't address any
of the points in it either. Is there anybody
following this you doesn't think that Glenn is
being evasive?
>>Glenn, "species" as a concept is rather vague
>>because, in many cases, the definitions do not give
>>a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether two
>>populations are different species. Consider ring
>>species as a very simple and clear example. The
>>biological species concept is based upon
>>reproductive isolation. However, nothing is truly
>>reproductively isolated, if by that we mean a
>>complete absence of actual or potential exchange of
>>genetic material. Reproductive isolation is a
>>continuum, from little to lots. Are tigers and lions
>>different species? How about dolphins and whales? Or
>>wolves and foxes? Or gibbons and siamangs, two apes
>>that are much more genetically divergent than humans
>>and chimps? Guess what, these pairs of species can
>>interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. Do
>>you understand what happens when HIV, a retrovirus,
>>infects a human? And do you realize that our HIV was
>>a chimpanzee parasite only a few decades ago?
>
> Nice "lesson". Preach to the choir, not me. And
> don't change the subject. *That* is evasion. Answer
> your own question about tigers and lions.
I can easily answer it. So can you, and when you do
you will understand precisely why the species concept
is vague.
> You made the claim that these mice have been
> *observed* to have speciated. Show your evidence
> that this is an observation, or a discovery of
> different forms of mice that you think speciated
> recently.
We already went through this-- you have stated that
you won't accept inference as part of scientific
evidence, which is a self-inconsistent requirement.
Uniquely scientific evidence is completely founded
upon inference. When you admit that scientific
evidence is inherently dependent upon inference, I
will discuss the speciation of the Madeiran mice with
you. Until then, there's absolutely no point.
Glenn
snip
Adam Warlock
In other words, Glenn, you have no intelligent response, no rebuttal and
nothing of interest to add. I, for one, found Douglas's comments
necessarily enlightening with respect to your, eh, "contributions" to the
thread--such as they were. If his "technique" was "common" and
"uninteresting" in any way, it is in the way that he intelligently rebutted
you and showed that, in your case, the self-proclaimed emperor has no
clothes.
In the part that you removed, Glenn, Douglas pointed out that, basically,
you weren't even really discussing the issue--you certainly wouldn't debate
the specifics, even though they are readily available, and now you are in
full retreat. You really are quite pathetic, but then, you are also
delusional, so you'll never understand that.
allan m
> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cccms2$hb6$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
<snip for brevity>
Me, I rather like his 'technique'. Reasoned premises, justified
conclusions, supportive examples, minimal bluster, that sort of thing.
Might catch on.
Glenn
"allan m" <allang...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:507dfd68.0407...@posting.google.com...
point.
Douglas Theobald
Let's give you *another* chance to actually address the point and not
evade it. See quoted thread directly above, third paragraph down, by me,
starting "If the definition ...".
"If the definition of species depends upon the species as you claim, I'd
say that actually does add to its vagueness."
Obviously humans and bacteria are different species -- that is a clear
and easy example, but that is not the point at hand. Do you disagree
that circularity in a definition is problematic?
There are different species definitions for asexual and sexual species.
What definition do we use for a species that reproduces by both methods
(like strawberries, sponges, aphids, and water fleas)? And how do we
know which species definition to use before we have a criterion for
which individuals to include in the species?
Glenn
No, "we" will not give me another "chance", Theobold. I can accuse you
of evading my points, and can make arguments all day long to support
that. You can do the same if you wish. I decide when to play
evolutionist games, and with who. You're no different or better at the
game than many other idiots here.
You claimed "Species" *is* certainly a vague concept." If you wish to
argue that, argue it with Mayr. You might also want to take a reality
pill, along with Hershey.
snip
Howard Hershey
Glenn wrote:
>
[snip]
>You're no different or better at the
> game than many other idiots here.
>
[snip]
Is this the same Glenn who whined in another post (see below) about the
mean people here who use "ad hominem" and "insult" to discredit him? If
so, I say: Pot. Kettle. Black.
*****posted from elsewhere****
> These are just a few of the things I can think of to discredit him. ['him' being Glenn] Oh,
> another important one. The use of ad hominem and insult, but subtly as
> possible.
****end repost
Or is his complaint that his opponents do so as "subtly as possible"
rather than crudely and without any finesse whatsoever, like he does?
And that it frustrates him that he is just dimly aware of the fact that
he is being insulted and doesn't *really* comprehend why what he says is
funny to people here?
Glenn
"Howard Hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:40EB68DD...@indiana.edu...
>
>
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> >You're no different or better at the
> > game than many other idiots here.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> Is this the same Glenn who whined in another post (see below) about
the
> mean people here who use "ad hominem" and "insult" to discredit him?
If
> so, I say: Pot. Kettle. Black.
I've already gone on record as saying that I will use whatever tools or
weapons are available.
>
> *****posted from elsewhere****
>
> > These are just a few of the things I can think of to discredit him.
['him' being Glenn] Oh,
> > another important one. The use of ad hominem and insult, but subtly
as
> > possible.
>
> ****end repost
>
> Or is his complaint that his opponents do so as "subtly as possible"
> rather than crudely and without any finesse whatsoever, like he does?
> And that it frustrates him that he is just dimly aware of the fact
that
> he is being insulted and doesn't *really* comprehend why what he says
is
> funny to people here?
>
Yes, you would think it funny to use words like "whine" to misrepresent
me. Face it, jerk. You all use ad hominem and insults, as do I.
That I tell one of your "heavies" that his game is no different or
better than any other here should not be either surprising or unique.
Richard S. Crawford
> "Howard Hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:40EB68DD...@indiana.edu...
>
>>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>You're no different or better at the
>>>game than many other idiots here.
>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Is this the same Glenn who whined in another post (see below) about
>
> the
>
>>mean people here who use "ad hominem" and "insult" to discredit him?
>
> If
>
>>so, I say: Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>
> I've already gone on record as saying that I will use whatever tools or
> weapons are available.
Can you see how effective the tools that you have chosen are? Instead
of convincing people or getting people to engage in serious discussion
with you, you find yourself the subject of ridicule. If this is what
your goal is, then I applaud you in your success. If, however, your
goal is to encourage people to consider alternatives to the theory of
evolution, you are not succeeding and perhaps you ought to reconsider
the composition of your toolbox.
>
>>*****posted from elsewhere****
>>
>>
>>>These are just a few of the things I can think of to discredit him.
>
> ['him' being Glenn] Oh,
>
>>>another important one. The use of ad hominem and insult, but subtly
>
> as
>
>>>possible.
>>
>>****end repost
>>
>>Or is his complaint that his opponents do so as "subtly as possible"
>>rather than crudely and without any finesse whatsoever, like he does?
>>And that it frustrates him that he is just dimly aware of the fact
>
> that
>
>>he is being insulted and doesn't *really* comprehend why what he says
>
> is
>
>>funny to people here?
>>
>
> Yes, you would think it funny to use words like "whine" to misrepresent
> me. Face it, jerk. You all use ad hominem and insults, as do I.
> That I tell one of your "heavies" that his game is no different or
> better than any other here should not be either surprising or unique.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Crawford (http://www.mossroot.com)
AIM: Buffalo2K / Y!: rscrawford
Ask me about my opposable thumb!
"When you lose the power to laugh at yourself, you lose the power to
think straight." --Clarence Darrow
John Wilkins
...
>
> There are different species definitions for asexual and sexual species.
> What definition do we use for a species that reproduces by both methods
> (like strawberries, sponges, aphids, and water fleas)? And how do we
> know which species definition to use before we have a criterion for
> which individuals to include in the species?
I think the answer to this is to understand that we do not have
different *definitions* of species so much as different *descriptions*
of the ways organisms have evolved to be species. A definition is
something that depends on *us*; a description depends on the things
being described.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Mark VandeWettering
On the contrary Glenn, I use only insults. I could claim that your
arguments are incorrect because your a slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging
ignoramus, but *that* would be an ad hominem. It is entirely correct
however to call you a slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging ignoramus because
of the stupidity of your arguments. It's insulting yes, but since the
matter is beyond any reasonable dispute, it's not an argument, and
therefore, not ad hominem.
Mark
Douglas Theobald
Ah, you flatter me. I'd say I'm substantially worse than many of the
other "idiots" here that you "debate".
> You claimed "Species" *is* certainly a vague concept." If you wish to
> argue that, argue it with Mayr.
Why would I do that, when Mayr is on my side of the issue?! I'm on the
record (you have even quoted me) for stating a preference for Mayr's
very own species concept, the biological species concept. Like me, Mayr
believes species are real biological units. Mayr believes that, though
necessarily vague and plagued with unresolvable difficulties in
practice, the biological species concept is important, necessary, a
useful approximation, and better than the alternatives. Let's see what
Mayr says-- he explains it better than me:
<quote>
Taxonomy is not alone in encountering difficulties when trying to assign
concrete phenomena to categories. Most of the universally accepted
categories of our daily life encounter similar difficulties. The
transition in category from subspecies to species is paralleled by the
transitions from child to adult, from spring to summer, from day to
night. Do we abandon these categories because there are borderline cases
and transitions? Do we abandon the concept tree because there are dwarf
willows, giant cactuses, and strangler figs? Such conflicts are
encountered whenever one is confronted with the task of assigning
phenomena to categories ...
_Incompleteness of speciation_
Evolution is a gradual process and, in general, so is the
multiplication of species (except by polyploidy). As a consequence one
finds many populations in nature that have progressed only part of the
way toward species status. They may have acquired some of the attributes
of distinct species and lack others. One or another of the three most
characteristic properties of species--reproductive isolation, ecological
difference,and morphological distinguishibility--is in such cases only
incompletely developed. The application of the species concept to such
incompletely speciated populations raises considerable difficulties. The
various situations usually encountered can be classified under six headings.
(1) Evolutionary continuity in space and time. ....
Even though the number of cases causing real difficulties to the
taxonomist is very small, it cannot be denied that an objective
delimitation of species in a multidimensional system is an impossibility.
(2) Acquisition of reproductive isolation without equivalent
morphological change. ....
(3) Morphological differentiation without acquisition of reproductive
isolation. ....
Whenever reproductive isolation and morphological differentiation
do not coincide, the decision as to species status must be based on a
broad evaluation of the particular case. The solution is generally a
rather unsatisfactory compromise.
(4) Reproductive isolation based on habitat isolation. ...
(5) The incompleteness of isolating mechanisms.
Very few isolating mechanisms are all-or-none devices. They are
built up step by step (except in polyploidy) and most isolating
mechanisms of an incipient species will be imperfect and incomplete.
.... To determine whether or not an incipient species has reached the
point of irreversibility is often impossible.
(6) Attainment of different levels of speciation in different local
populations. ...
The six types of phenomena described in the preceding paragraphs
are consequences of the gradual nature of the ordinary process of
speciation. Determination of species status of a given population is
difficult or impossible in many of these cases.
_The difficulties posed by asexuality_
The criterion of interbreeding among natural populations, the
ultimate test of conspecificity in the higher animals, is unavailable in
uniparentally reproducing organisms. It is evident that the absence of
the criterion provides the most formidable and most fundamental obstacle
to the application of the biological species concept.
...
Whoever, like Darwin, denies that species are nonarbitrarily defined
units of nature not only evades the issue, but fails to find and solve
some of the most interesting problems of biology. These problems will be
apparent only to the student who attempts to determine species status of
natural populations.
<end quote>
> You might also want to take a reality
> pill, along with Hershey.
>
> snip
You might want to first learn a bit about the subject you are attempting
to criticize.
Cheers,
D
Douglas Theobald
Ernst Mayr (1963) _Animal Species and Evolution_ Harvard:Cambridge, MA.
Chapter 2.
Glenn
"species is certainly a vague concept", that they are "necessarily vague
and plagued with unresolvable difficulties in practice". You are on
record here, Theobold.
God knows how many different places you might have pieced that together,
but you seem to have overlooked citing your references.
However, it is my turn. To repeat,
You claim that Mayr agrees that "species is certainly a vague concept",
that they are "necessarily vague and plagued with unresolvable
difficulties in practice". You are on record here, Theobold.
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm
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).
2. Species of organisms are concrete phenomena of nature. Some recent
authors have dealt with the concept of species as if it were merely an
arbitrary, man-made concept, like the concepts of reduction,
demarcation, cause, derivation, prediction, progress, each of which may
have almost as many definitions as there are authors who have written
about them. However, the concept biological species is not like such
concepts. The term 'species' refers to a concrete phenomenon of nature
and this fact severely constrains the number and kinds of possible
definitions. The word 'species' is, like the words 'planet' or 'moon,' a
technical term for a concrete phenomenon. One cannot propose a new
definition of a planet as "a satellite of a sun that has its own
satellite," because this would exclude Venus, and some other planets
without moons. 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.
The conclusion that there are concrete describable objects in nature
which deserve to be called "species" is not unanimously accepted. There
has been a widespread view that species are only arbitrary artifacts of
the human mind, as some nominalists, in particular, have claimed. Their
arguments were criticized by Mayr (1949a, 371).
**************end quote
Since Mayr apparently writes about evolution, it would appear that he is
either a hypocrite, or that he has a "sound understanding of the meaning
of biological species". And I'm afraid you will not find the word "vague
concept" or anything close to it in either my quote or yours. You may
want to consider the difference between "vague" and words such as
"incompleteness" or "difficulties". Or you may just need to pick up a
good "Jack and Jill" book and learn to read.
>
> > You might also want to take a reality
> > pill, along with Hershey.
> >
> > snip
>
> You might want to first learn a bit about the subject you are
attempting
> to criticize.
>
Sheesh.
> Cheers,
Cheers
Glenn
> Oops, sorry -- the ref for this is:
>
Douglas Theobald
It's not pieced.
Ernst Mayr (1963) _Animal Species and Evolution_
Harvard:Cambridge, MA. Chapter 2.
> However, it is my
> turn. To repeat, You claim that Mayr agrees that
> "species is certainly a vague concept", that they
> are "necessarily vague and plagued with unresolvable
> difficulties in practice". You are on record here,
> Theobold.
Yep.
> http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm
This is not a Mayr quote. It is commentary on Mayr.
Another impenetrable piece of Glenn "logic."
> And I'm afraid you will not find the word "vague
> concept" or anything close to it in either my quote
> or yours. You may want to consider the difference
> between "vague" and words such as "incompleteness"
> or "difficulties".
vague: 1 a : not clearly expressed
2 a : not clearly defined
5 : not sharply outlined
(Merriam-Webster)
The biological species concept yields no solution,
either in theory or in practice, in many
situations where reproductive isolation is incomplete.
In these common cases the biological species concept
is "not clearly expressed", "not clearly defined", and
species are "not sharply outlined". This is outright
admitted by Mayr-- it is not controversial. Thus, the
biological species concept is vague, by definition.
> Or you may just need to pick up a good "Jack and
> Jill" book and learn to read.
I infer from the incomplete data that I have that
English cannot be your native language.
Glenn
Really? The article is titled: What is a Species, and What is Not? by
Ernst Mayr
Originally Published in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63 (June 1996) pp.
262-277.
Try this:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/mayr.shtml
Strike one.
Excellent refutation, Theobald! Strike two!
>
> > And I'm afraid you will not find the word "vague
> > concept" or anything close to it in either my quote
> > or yours. You may want to consider the difference
> > between "vague" and words such as "incompleteness"
> > or "difficulties".
>
> vague: 1 a : not clearly expressed
> 2 a : not clearly defined
> 5 : not sharply outlined
> (Merriam-Webster)
Um, I don't see "incomplete" or "difficult" there, Theobald. Neither are
any of the words in these usages used by Mayr in your own reference, or
in mine. Strike three!
>
> The biological species concept yields no solution,
> either in theory or in practice, in many
> situations where reproductive isolation is incomplete.
> In these common cases the biological species concept
> is "not clearly expressed", "not clearly defined", and
> species are "not sharply outlined". This is outright
> admitted by Mayr-- it is not controversial. Thus, the
> biological species concept is vague, by definition.
More "teaching", Theobald? What is outright admitted by Mayr is: "The
word 'species' is...a technical term for a concrete phenomenon", and he
argues that "species" is not an *arbitrary concept* - not a "vague"
definition. Strike four!
>
> > Or you may just need to pick up a good "Jack and
> > Jill" book and learn to read.
>
> I infer from the incomplete data that I have that
> English cannot be your native language.
>
Adding ad hominem to your failure? Strike five! You are out.
Douglas Theobald
Yes, I made it to the wrong link somehow before.
Doesn't matter, nothing in this newer essay by Mayr
contradicts his previous statements or mine, so what
was the point?
> Try this:
> http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/mayr.
And the point is? That you can't use a dictionary?
> Strike three!
>
>>The biological species concept yields no solution,
>>either in theory or in practice, in many situations
>>where reproductive isolation is incomplete. In these
>>common cases the biological species concept is "not
>>clearly expressed", "not clearly defined", and
>>species are "not sharply outlined". This is outright
>>admitted by Mayr-- it is not controversial. Thus,
>>the biological species concept is vague, by
>>definition.
>
> More "teaching", Theobald? What is outright admitted
> by Mayr is: "The word 'species' is...a technical
> term for a concrete phenomenon",
Which I agree with. What does that have to do with
whether it is vague?
> and he argues that "species" is not an *arbitrary
> concept* - not a "vague" definition.
I see you think vague and arbitrary are synonyms.
Really, learn to use a dictionary.
> Strike four!
>> > Or you may just need to pick up a good "Jack and
>> > Jill" book and learn to read.
>>
>>I infer from the incomplete data that I have that
>>English cannot be your native language.
>>
> Adding ad hominem to your failure?
No, being a non-native English speaker is not a bad
thing. I'm personally non-native speaking for hundreds
of languages. But it does go a ways to explain your
confusion about "vague".
Glenn
Bullshit. Show me the "wrong link". You got caught being stupid.
> Doesn't matter, nothing in this newer essay by Mayr
> contradicts his previous statements or mine, so what
> was the point?
>
Oh yes, what Mayr says does contradict your assertion that he believes
"species" is a vague concept.
He says it is a "concrete" concept.
The point was to show you to be just like any other evolutionist,
manipulative, dishonest, and deceitful.
But you knew that, that's why you're being deceitful now.
Douglas Theobald
>>Doesn't matter, nothing in this newer essay by Mayr
>>contradicts his previous statements or mine, so what
>>was the point?
>>
> Oh yes, what Mayr says does contradict your assertion that he believes
> "species" is a vague concept.
> He says it is a "concrete" concept.
Sorry, Glenn, but 'concrete' and 'vague' are not antonyms.
I also think that 'species' are concrete, real objects.
concrete: 1 : naming a real thing or class of things
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=concrete
I suggest you check out the dictionary and/or thesaurus to
get a feel for the accepted English usage of these terms:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=vague
The listed antonynms for 'vague' are 'clear' and 'distinct'.
Your problem is that you do not realize that something can
be quite real and also indistinct. The entire Mayr quote
I gave above is an exposition on the cases where the
biological species concept will not be clear or distinct
with regard to species delineation.
> The point was to show you to be just like any other evolutionist,
> manipulative, dishonest, and deceitful.
Is that your response when you've been shown to misunderstand
a concept?
AC
Glenn <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> "Howard Hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:40EB68DD...@indiana.edu...
>>
>>
>> Glenn wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> >You're no different or better at the
>> > game than many other idiots here.
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Is this the same Glenn who whined in another post (see below) about
> the
>> mean people here who use "ad hominem" and "insult" to discredit him?
> If
>> so, I say: Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> I've already gone on record as saying that I will use whatever tools or
> weapons are available.
Including hypocrisy, apparently.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ccgu8p$r45$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> >>Doesn't matter, nothing in this newer essay by Mayr
> >>contradicts his previous statements or mine, so what
> >>was the point?
> >>
> > Oh yes, what Mayr says does contradict your assertion that he
believes
> > "species" is a vague concept.
> > He says it is a "concrete" concept.
>
> Sorry, Glenn, but 'concrete' and 'vague' are not antonyms.
I'm glad you think so. But someone who says something is concrete
certainly does not mean to imply that something is vague.
And the fact of the matter that you just can't hide (although you are
trying your best) is that Mayr does not use the word "vague", or
anything like it. And on top of that, what he says contradicts a sense
of "vagueness". He believes he has a good working definition of the
concept, and that the concept is concrete.
> I also think that 'species' are concrete, real objects.
Sorry, Theobald, but you just replaced "concept" with "object".
>
> concrete: 1 : naming a real thing or class of things
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=concrete
>
> I suggest you check out the dictionary and/or thesaurus to
> get a feel for the accepted English usage of these terms:
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=vague
I suggest you get off your high horse.
>
> The listed antonynms for 'vague' are 'clear' and 'distinct'.
> Your problem is that you do not realize that something can
> be quite real and also indistinct.
Oh sure.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/mayr.shtml
"He replaced the clear-cut criterion (reproductive isolation) of the
biological species concept with such undefined vague terms as "maintains
its identity" (does this include geographical barriers?), "evolutionary
tendencies" (what are they and how can they be determined?). and
"historical fate." What population in nature can ever be classified by
its "historical fate" when this is entirely in the future?"
[....]
"As far as the species is concerned, the answer clearly is protection of
the gene pool through establishment of a reproductive community."
And so it came to pass that Mayr believes his biological species concept
has *clear*-cut criterion."
>The entire Mayr quote
> I gave above is an exposition on the cases where the
> biological species concept will not be clear or distinct
> with regard to species delineation.
No. It may be an exposition on the cases where the determinations will
be *difficult*. This has NOTHING to do with whether the concept of
species is "vague".
>
> > The point was to show you to be just like any other evolutionist,
> > manipulative, dishonest, and deceitful.
>
> Is that your response when you've been shown to misunderstand
> a concept?
You referring to *your* "concept"? ROTFLMAO!
allan m
> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ccgu8p$r45$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > message news:ccg25r$7mi$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > >
> > >>Glenn wrote:
> > >> > "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >> > in message
> > >> > news:ccfh5v$dvg$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > >> >
> > >> >> Glenn wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> You claimed "Species" *is* certainly a vague
> > >> >>> concept." If you wish to argue that, argue it
> > >> >>> with Mayr.
> > >> >>
<snip Mayr quote in favour of 'vague' asertion>
> > >>
> > >> > However, it is my turn. To repeat, You claim that
> > >> > Mayr agrees that "species is certainly a vague
> > >> > concept", that they are "necessarily vague and
> > >> > plagued with unresolvable difficulties in
> > >> > practice". You are on record here, Theobold.
> > >>
> > >>Yep.
> > >>
> > >> > http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm
> > >>
<snip to the chase>
> Oh yes, what Mayr says does contradict your assertion that he believes
> "species" is a vague concept.
> He says it is a "concrete" concept.
>
> The point was to show you to be just like any other evolutionist,
> manipulative, dishonest, and deceitful.
> But you knew that, that's why you're being deceitful now.
Interesting Mayr article, thanks.
Mayr says:
"The term 'species' refers to a concrete phenomenon of nature.".
That's different to it being a concrete *concept*. Picky, picky,
picky. Nonetheless, 'twig' and 'branch' refer to concrete phenomena of
nature too. Yet there is a boundary where assignment of the thin
branch and the fat twig to the correct category might be somewhat
arbitrary.
Glenn
silly games.
Douglas Theobald
> "Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cch69l$jmn$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>>"Douglas Theobald" <dthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ccgu8p$r45$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>>
>>>>Doesn't matter, nothing in this newer essay
>>>>by Mayr contradicts his previous statements
>>>>or mine, so what was the point?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh yes, what Mayr says does contradict your
>>>assertion that he believes "species" is a
>>>vague concept. He says it is a "concrete"
>>>concept.
>>
>>Sorry, Glenn, but 'concrete' and 'vague' are
>>not antonyms.
> I'm glad you think so. But someone who says
> something is concrete certainly does not mean
> to imply that something is vague. And the fact
> of the matter that you just can't hide
> (although you are trying your best) is that
> Mayr does not use the word "vague", or anything
> like it. And on top of that, what he says
> contradicts a sense of "vagueness". He believes
> he has a good working definition of the concept,
And I agree.
> and that the concept is concrete.
Wrong, see below.
>>I also think that 'species' are concrete, real
>>objects.
>
> Sorry, Theobald, but you just replaced
> "concept" with "object".
No, I didn't, but you did! Mayr refers to the
*species object* as concrete, but not the concept.
"Species of organisms are concrete phenomena of
nature."
"The term 'species' refers to a concrete
phenomenon of nature ..."
"The word 'species' is, like the words 'planet'
or 'moon,' a technical term for a concrete
phenomenon."
"The conclusion that there are concrete
describable objects in nature which deserve to
be called "species" is not unanimously accepted."
"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 belief that species are concrete particulars
was recently rediscovered by ghiselin and hull,
but it has actually been the view of many, if not
most naturalists for more than one hundred years,
as I have shown (Mayr 1988a)."
There is no reference to the species concept as
concrete.
*Relative* to defining a species as something
that "maintains its identity", yes, absolutely.
>>The entire Mayr quote I gave above is an
>>exposition on the cases where the biological
>>species concept will not be clear or distinct
>>with regard to species delineation.
>
> No. It may be an exposition on the cases where
> the determinations will be *difficult*. This
> has NOTHING to do with whether the concept of
> species is "vague".
Wrong again. He does not just talk about
difficulty:
"The transition in category from subspecies to
species is paralleled by the transitions from
child to adult, from spring to summer, from day
to night. Do we abandon these categories because
there are borderline cases and transitions?"
Can you find an absolute line that separates
child from adult, spring from summer, day from
night? No -- there will always be borderline
cases and transitions, i.e. there will be vague
cases.
"They may have acquired some of the attributes of
distinct species and lack others."
IOW, there are cases of indistinct species, i.e.
*vague* species.
"...it cannot be denied that an objective
delimitation of species in a multidimensional
system is an impossibility."
Not just difficult, but *impossible*.
"Whenever reproductive isolation and
morphological differentiation do not coincide,
the decision as to species status must be based
on a broad evaluation of the particular case. The
solution is generally a rather unsatisfactory
compromise."
The solution is not only difficult, but also an
"unsatisfactory compromise." According to
Webster-Merriam, a compromise is "something
intermediate between or blending qualities of two
different things." IOW, unsatisfactorily vague.
"To determine whether or not an incipient species
has reached the point of irreversibility is often
impossible."
Not just difficult, but impossible, because "most
isolating mechanisms of an incipient species will
be imperfect and incomplete." IOW, the criterion
of reproductive isolation is vague in this case.
Glenn
No. Mayr refers to "phenomenon of nature", and he does not treat the
word "species" as a "vague" concepts. He argues against it, claiming
that the concept is not arbitrary. You can see the deliniation between
the *term* species, which he says is a concrete phenomenon, and the
*word* species, which he calls an object. The *term* is referred to as a
concrete pheonomenon, and the *word* species as a technical term for a
concrete phenomenon. He treats both the term and the word as concrete
phoenomenon.
>
"Some recent authors have dealt with the concept of species as if it
were merely an arbitrary, man-made concept, like the concepts of
reduction, demarcation, cause, derivation, prediction, progress, each of
which may have almost as many definitions as there are authors who have
written about them. however, the concept biological species is not like
such concepts. the term 'species' refers to a concrete phenomenon of
nature and this fact severely constrains the number and kinds of
possible definitions. the word 'species' is, like the words 'planet' or
'moon,' a technical term for a concrete phenomenon. one cannot propose a
new definition of a planet as "a satellite of a sun that has its own
satellite," because this would exclude venus, and some other planets
without moons. 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."
>
> "Species of organisms are concrete phenomena of
> nature."
>
> "The term 'species' refers to a concrete
> phenomenon of nature ..."
>
> "The word 'species' is, like the words 'planet'
> or 'moon,' a technical term for a concrete
> phenomenon."
>
> "The conclusion that there are concrete
> describable objects in nature which deserve to
> be called "species" is not unanimously accepted."
>
> "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 belief that species are concrete particulars
> was recently rediscovered by ghiselin and hull,
> but it has actually been the view of many, if not
> most naturalists for more than one hundred years,
> as I have shown (Mayr 1988a)."
>
> There is no reference to the species concept as
> concrete.
>
Yes there is. Read what you write. But there is no reference to Mayr
referring to species is a vague concept.
snip
allan m
.... or 'mountain' -> 'hill', or 'river' -> 'stream', or 'adult' ->
'adolescent', or 'American English' -> 'English English' .... concrete
phenomena all, fairly easily defined, easy to assign in the general
case but fuzzy at the boundaries. I know you couldn't give a sh1t, but
I like the language analogy particularly. If we again became
‘communicatively isolated' across the Atlantic, random drift alone
would eventually render us unintelligible to each other (insert joke
here). I see evolution as similarly inevitable, but that's just me.
Mayr obviously isn't saying that species are immutable in time. He
emphasises the *evolutionary* role of the species: the Origin of
'Species' as a phenomenon, as well as that of the distinguishable
'kinds' which we see in the biosphere and the rocks. These silly games
can lead to some fascinating places. Did nothing in that article
strike you as persuasive, other than the perceived confirmation of
your view on species?
Glenn
that could enforce the view that Mayr treated species as "vague"
concepts. He did not use words like "fuzzy" around the borders, either.
The answer I would give a simpleton is "No, we don't know absolutely
everything about anything, and we can not measure anything with perfect
precision."
allan m
Not as forceful as I'd hoped, but I think I qualify for my "Insulted
by Glenn" badge and bumper sticker. I shall wear them with pride.
Anyway...."isolating mechanisms do not always prevent the occasional
interbreeding of non-conspecific individuals" (Mayr).
"Fuzzy" was my word, not Mayr's, but that quote embodies part of what
I mean. Mayr also doesn't address the 'vertical' problem with species
- that as change accumulates with progression through time, what can
we say about the relationship between modern forms and increasingly
distant ancestors? Of course, if you don't accept that change occurs,
there's nothing to say about it, but for an evolutionist like me this
is another example of "fuzziness".
Because I disagree with your view does not mean I am ignorant of it
(though I concede I might well be). If I understand you correctly, you
believe that species are immutable with time, and fully distinct one
from another, and Mayr's use of words like 'concrete' serve to support
that view. This does not accord with observation, nor with the Mayr
article in toto.
Glenn
You should. You have quickly earned it.
>
> Anyway...."isolating mechanisms do not always prevent the occasional
> interbreeding of non-conspecific individuals" (Mayr).
>
> "Fuzzy" was my word, not Mayr's, but that quote embodies part of what
> I mean.
If I didn't think you were an idiot, I would think you are joking. That
does not sound "fuzzy" to me at all.
>Mayr also doesn't address the 'vertical' problem with species
> - that as change accumulates with progression through time, what can
> we say about the relationship between modern forms and increasingly
> distant ancestors? Of course, if you don't accept that change occurs,
> there's nothing to say about it, but for an evolutionist like me this
> is another example of "fuzziness".
Well, as Theobald would likely retort (or resort), "problem" is not an
antonym of "fuzzy".
>
> Because I disagree with your view does not mean I am ignorant of it
> (though I concede I might well be). If I understand you correctly, you
> believe that species are immutable with time, and fully distinct one
> from another, and Mayr's use of words like 'concrete' serve to support
> that view. This does not accord with observation, nor with the Mayr
> article in toto.
>
In that case you haven't a clue, and you understand nothing, because I
have *never* said or implied that that species are immutable with time.
allan m
You are too kind.
> >
> > Anyway...."isolating mechanisms do not always prevent the occasional
> > interbreeding of non-conspecific individuals" (Mayr).
> >
> > "Fuzzy" was my word, not Mayr's, but that quote embodies part of what
> > I mean.
>
> If I didn't think you were an idiot, I would think you are joking. That
> does not sound "fuzzy" to me at all.
Does to me! I trust that when "fuzzy" becomes an accepted term for the
general case where multiple instances of a class are incompletely
isolated at the boundaries, I will receive due credit for my insight.
There is more than one view. eg:
A the taxonomist. Needs to decide what groupings of organisms are
appropriate, and allocate new instances to the relevant class, as
objectively as possible.
B the individual organism. Needs to find something to have sex with.
A's groups exist because of B. B may be more or less choosy than A,
due to Nature and Circumstance.
>
> >Mayr also doesn't address the 'vertical' problem with species
> > - that as change accumulates with progression through time, what can
> > we say about the relationship between modern forms and increasingly
> > distant ancestors? Of course, if you don't accept that change occurs,
> > there's nothing to say about it, but for an evolutionist like me this
> > is another example of "fuzziness".
>
> Well, as Theobald would likely retort (or resort), "problem" is not an
> antonym of "fuzzy".
Oh, I agree entirely....(?)
If there is a continuum of change between long-past ancestors and
modern forms, then the point at which the accumulated difference
justifies the distinction 壮pecies' is not clearly delimited (of
course, impossible to evaluate using the BSC).
> >
> > Because I disagree with your view does not mean I am ignorant of it
> > (though I concede I might well be). If I understand you correctly, you
> > believe that species are immutable with time, and fully distinct one
> > from another, and Mayr's use of words like 'concrete' serve to support
> > that view. This does not accord with observation, nor with the Mayr
> > article in toto.
> >
> In that case you haven't a clue, and you understand nothing, because I
> have *never* said or implied that that species are immutable with time.
I apologize if I have misrepresented your position.
Adam Warlock
Snip
> > > Play somewhere else. Your "technique" is common and uninteresting.
> >
> > Me, I rather like his 'technique'. Reasoned premises, justified
> > conclusions, supportive examples, minimal bluster, that sort of thing.
> > Might catch on.
> >
> Your refusal to address the point is noted. So is your evasion of the
> point.
It seems that he addressed the point just fine, Glenn. You dismissed
Douglas's comments as a "technique" that is "common" and "uninteresting" and
that is what was being addressed in the response.
By the way, Glenn, you'll probably be happy to know that you cost me $100.
I lost a bet. You might be conflicted, though, to discover that I lost the
bet to Dave, who now is $100 richer because he was exactly right about you.
Attempting to approach you and challenge you to a discussion in civil tones
and about a specific subject resulted in, first, your attempt to divert the
challenge, and then your retreat from the challenge. This particular thread
got very long and even though I told you three times that I have the article
to which your original reference refers and suggested that we discuss it.
Your lack of a response constitutes a refusal. I believe that this should
be chalked up as yet another in a long line of threads that you have
abandoned once it was revealed how incredibly clueless you are. I find such
cowardly tactics interesting in one who claims to have come to "fight."
Your "tools" and your "tactics" give away your game, though. You really are
just an impotent little coward who snipes at others from the relative safety
of a remote computer. If you weren't so mean-spirited and hateful, you
would easily be an object of pity.