Speciation question
C.L.
Can someone please tell me if this statement is true? (From Science on
Trial, by Douglas J. Futuyma - 1982, pp. 23-43). I've read parts of The
Origin of Species but don't own a copy:
[ The first five chapters of the Origin lay out the theory that
Darwin had conceived. He shows that both domesticated and wild species
are variable, that much of that variation is hereditary, and that
breeders, by conscious selection of desirable varieties, can develop
breeds of pigeons, dogs, and other forms that are more different from
each other than species or even families of wild animals and plants are
from each other.]
What breeds of animals (dogs, pigeons, etc.) are more different from
each other than species or families of wild animals and plants from each
other? Since some of Darwin's ideas are no longer considered valid
today, was this one of them? Is this a true statement or just
misleading? If true, what definition of "species" are you using?
(Animals, plants, insects, that can even appear identical but that
cannot breed with other species of the same genus? - that doesn't sound
very "different".) In other words are the dogs still dogs, pigeons still
pigeons?
By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
information.
_______________________
I'm new to this topic and do not have a background in biology so please
reply in laymen's terms if possible; and please be respectful as I'm not
here to argue but to learn --thanks.
C.L.
andre...@yahoo.com
>snip
>
> By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
> have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
> stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
> recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
> information.
> _______________________
> I'm new to this topic and do not have a background in biology so please
> reply in laymen's terms if possible; and please be respectful as I'm not
> here to argue but to learn --thanks.
> C.L.
You are correct, speciation does occur from a creationist point of
view, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
You are correct about created 'kinds' as well.
No new genetic information is EVER added to an organism.
www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.
shane
<snip>
> www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.
>
I don't know why you would say that, CL clearly stated (s)he wanted to
learn.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Bobby D. Bryant
> By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new
> species have not been produced, but that this speciation is within
> the "kind" as stated in the Bible,
Yes, in the absence of any constraints on the interpretation, it is
surely possible to produce an interpretation of Genesis that is
consistent with reality.
The question is whether that interpretation would still qualify as
creationism.
> and involves no new genetic information but a recombination of
> existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic information.
Whoa, stop! What is this genetic information you speak of? Does it
have a definition? Can it be measured?
And we *know* that reproduction involves more than just a
recombination of existing genes.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> C.L. wrote:
>>snip
>>
>> By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
>> have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
>> stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
>> recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
>> information.
>> _______________________
>> I'm new to this topic and do not have a background in biology so please
>> reply in laymen's terms if possible; and please be respectful as I'm not
>> here to argue but to learn --thanks.
>> C.L.
>
> You are correct, speciation does occur from a creationist point of
> view,
I suspect that only a subset of creationists agree with that claim.
> rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
And that as well.
> You are correct about created 'kinds' as well.
So, what is your definition of "kind", and why should we think your
definition is what the writers of Genesis had in mind?
> No new genetic information is EVER added to an organism.
What is the definition of "genetic information"? How do you measure it?
What is the basis for your claim?
> www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.
If you're looking for poor rationalizations for believing that certain
myths are true, yes indeed.
Dan Luke
<andre...@yahoo.com>
Is this a new weasel, or a sock puppet?
A new one would be nice; I'm tired of the old weasels.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
r norman
>
>Can someone please tell me if this statement is true? (From Science on
>Trial, by Douglas J. Futuyma - 1982, pp. 23-43). I've read parts of The
>Origin of Species but don't own a copy:
>
> [ The first five chapters of the Origin lay out the theory that
>Darwin had conceived. He shows that both domesticated and wild species
>are variable, that much of that variation is hereditary, and that
>breeders, by conscious selection of desirable varieties, can develop
>breeds of pigeons, dogs, and other forms that are more different from
>each other than species or even families of wild animals and plants are
>from each other.]
>
> What breeds of animals (dogs, pigeons, etc.) are more different from
>each other than species or families of wild animals and plants from each
>other? Since some of Darwin's ideas are no longer considered valid
>today, was this one of them? Is this a true statement or just
>misleading? If true, what definition of "species" are you using?
>(Animals, plants, insects, that can even appear identical but that
>cannot breed with other species of the same genus? - that doesn't sound
>very "different".) In other words are the dogs still dogs, pigeons still
>pigeons?
I accept your statement that you are here to learn and what a simple
answer to a simple question.
The usual examples of dog differences compares Great Danes with
Chihuahuas
r norman
>
>Can someone please tell me if this statement is true? (From Science on
>Trial, by Douglas J. Futuyma - 1982, pp. 23-43). I've read parts of The
>Origin of Species but don't own a copy:
>
> [ The first five chapters of the Origin lay out the theory that
>Darwin had conceived. He shows that both domesticated and wild species
>are variable, that much of that variation is hereditary, and that
>breeders, by conscious selection of desirable varieties, can develop
>breeds of pigeons, dogs, and other forms that are more different from
>each other than species or even families of wild animals and plants are
>from each other.]
>
> What breeds of animals (dogs, pigeons, etc.) are more different from
>each other than species or families of wild animals and plants from each
>other? Since some of Darwin's ideas are no longer considered valid
>today, was this one of them? Is this a true statement or just
>misleading? If true, what definition of "species" are you using?
>(Animals, plants, insects, that can even appear identical but that
>cannot breed with other species of the same genus? - that doesn't sound
>very "different".) In other words are the dogs still dogs, pigeons still
>pigeons?
(Oops, I accidentally sent this off prematurely, without finishing)
I accept your statement that you are here to learn and what a simple
answer to a simple question.
The usual examples of dog differences compares Great Danes with
Chihuahuas. These two breeds of dogs differ tremendously in size,
behavior, and appearance. They are easily and immediately recognized
as different. Two "sister species" of fruit flies can't be told apart
except by experts. Some of Darwin's famous finches are so similar
that it requires careful examination and measurements to distinguish
them -- even Darwin did not recognize that they were different until
ornithologists back in England (who, of course, were creationists as
was everybody at the time) where he sent his specimens told him. The
many varieties of sparrow or warbler flitting through our forests and
fields look very similar until you learn the fine details. And can
you tell the difference between all the varieties of Caddis Fly? But
any trip to a dog show will reveal a large variety of easily
distinguished breeds. The English of Darwin's time were famous for
breeding pigeons of very unusual and fanciful plumage all of which
look very different. And goldfish breeding is very popular. Just
google on these and you will see pictures showing how vastly different
the breed appear.
The problem this raises is the difference between superficial
differences that may be very apparent but insignificant biologically
and significant differences that may be very subtle but that represent
very important factors, indeed. In modern biology, that is for the
last fifty or more years, the "biological definition" of species has
been used to sort out just which differences are really significant in
evolution. If two organisms cannot interbreed, their genes do not
belong to a common gene pool, hence they belong to different species.
Some people claim that a great dane could not breed with a chihuahua
and so perhaps could be considered different species but it is easy to
breed a whole variety of intermediates -- a chihuahua with another
small dog and a great dane with another large one, generating a series
of hybrids all of which would eventually look quite similar and freely
interbreed. In that way the great dane genes and the chihuahua genes
would freely interchange in the common dog gene pool and so they must
be in one species.
Yes, dogs are still dogs and pigeons are still pigeons, but insects
that look almost identical with very different mating behavior and
copulatory organs that don't mesh properly are different species.
Species are sets of populations that generally freely interbreed
among themselves and generally do not breed with others. That is,
species are separate gene pools.
John Harshman
> Can someone please tell me if this statement is true? (From Science on
> Trial, by Douglas J. Futuyma - 1982, pp. 23-43). I've read parts of The
> Origin of Species but don't own a copy:
>
> [ The first five chapters of the Origin lay out the theory that
> Darwin had conceived. He shows that both domesticated and wild species
> are variable, that much of that variation is hereditary, and that
> breeders, by conscious selection of desirable varieties, can develop
> breeds of pigeons, dogs, and other forms that are more different from
> each other than species or even families of wild animals and plants are
> from each other.]
>
> What breeds of animals (dogs, pigeons, etc.) are more different from
> each other than species or families of wild animals and plants from each
> other? Since some of Darwin's ideas are no longer considered valid
> today, was this one of them? Is this a true statement or just
> misleading? If true, what definition of "species" are you using?
> (Animals, plants, insects, that can even appear identical but that
> cannot breed with other species of the same genus? - that doesn't sound
> very "different".) In other words are the dogs still dogs, pigeons still
> pigeons?
A good answer would be very long and complicated. The average closely
related pair of species don't look all that much different from each
other, not compared to breeds of dogs or (my favorite) the domesticated
plant species Brassica oleracea, which includes broccoli, cabbage,
brussels sprouts, and cauliflower. Whether they are "more different"
depends on what you mean. The domesticated varieties look more
different, but genetically they are probably much less divergent than
those two wild species. Of course most genetic differences have no
effect on appearance, and a few differences of the right sort can have a
big effect.
Just about any definition of species in common use would show the same
thing, but I pick the so-called biological species: a population of
organisms that is reproductively isolated from other such populations
because of some genetically-based mechanism. Notice that the definition
says nothing at all about big differences in appearance.
Of course the dogs are still dogs and the pigeons are still pigeons.
Nobody says the breeds are separate species, just that their appearance
differes as much as or more than do lots of different species.
> By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
> have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
> stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
> recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
> information.
They can say this all they want, but it still doesn't make any sense,
and it's easily falsified by examining the data. That is, if you can get
them to define what a "kind" is, and how to recognize one.
______________
David Jensen
andre...@yahoo.com wrote in
<1125317587....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Your ignorance or dishonesty is profound.
>www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.
Why? What good does it do to read lies of Young Earth Creationists? Why
would God want you to misrepresent what He did? Why would God want you
to worship your interpretation of the Bible rather than His works?
C.L.
I don't think there is any way to know exactly what "kind" means in
Genesis. It may not even be meant to have a precise meaning as far as I
know, and it's also a translated word. Taxonomists continue to redefine
precise definitions of words. I'm not claiming I have my own definition
of "kind". The section of Genesis that deals with origins of the
universe, earth and life are very brief and only provde a general
framework. But it does make me wonder why it repeatedly states "created
according to it's kind" after each set of life being described when it's
not really necissary unless it has some meaning.
By genetic information I would mean anything that would increase an
orgaisms complexity, such as new characteritics for which there were no
genes to start with, or apperance of a new protein (not the modification
of an existing one), besides the physical rearangement of genes such as
chromosome translocation or recombination or mutations.
C.L.
John Harshman
> The helpful responses are appreciated.
> I don't think there is any way to know exactly what "kind" means in
> Genesis. It may not even be meant to have a precise meaning as far as I
> know, and it's also a translated word. Taxonomists continue to redefine
> precise definitions of words. I'm not claiming I have my own definition
> of "kind". The section of Genesis that deals with origins of the
> universe, earth and life are very brief and only provde a general
> framework. But it does make me wonder why it repeatedly states "created
> according to it's kind" after each set of life being described when it's
> not really necissary unless it has some meaning.
Here's a thought. Perhaps Genesis is not a useful guide to the history
of life. Perhaps, in fact, it was never intended to be such a guide.
Perhaps we should ignore Genesis when thinking about biology. That way,
when a literal reading of Genesis conflicts with the physical evidence,
we can just not care, and a Christian would have no need to explain the
contradictions in order to maintain his faith.
> By genetic information I would mean anything that would increase an
> orgaisms complexity, such as new characteritics for which there were no
> genes to start with, or apperance of a new protein (not the modification
> of an existing one), besides the physical rearangement of genes such as
> chromosome translocation or recombination or mutations.
How about gene duplication? Would that qualify as an addition of
information? There are certainly enough of those. And subsequent
divergence of copies can produce new functions that weren't there in the
ancestor.
Richard Forrest
andre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> C.L. wrote:
> >snip
> >
> > By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
> > have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
> > stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
> > recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
> > information.
> > _______________________
> > I'm new to this topic and do not have a background in biology so please
> > reply in laymen's terms if possible; and please be respectful as I'm not
> > here to argue but to learn --thanks.
> > C.L.
>
> You are correct, speciation does occur from a creationist point of
> view, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
No kidding!
What is the 'creationist model' by the way? Where can I find it clearly
expressed, how can it be falsified, and what evidence supports it?
> You are correct about created 'kinds' as well.
Ah, well perhaps you can help me: what is a 'created kind', and how can
I identify one? I've read any number of creationist source, and they
all define kinds differently, or in a very confused way. There are
evidently equivalent to no rank accepted by taxonomists - they have
been defined at every level from species to Kingdom. The only concensus
appears to be that no matter how profound the contradictions it sets up
elsewhere in taxonimic terms, human beings are not in the same kind as
apes.
I conclude from this that there are only two 'kinds': 'homo sapiens',
and 'everything else'.
Can you confirm this?
> No new genetic information is EVER added to an organism.
So gene duplication, followed by mutation of the duplicated section is
not adding information.
What do you call this process, incidentally?
> www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.
Oh yes! They are a great source of misinformation. You can pretty well
guarantee that any information presented on either of those sites is a
distortion, misrepresentation, or a falsehood.
Have a look at True.Origins:
"This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response
to the claims of evolutionism's proponents (including, but not
limited to, the likes of the "Talk.Origins" newsgroup and
website)."
FALSE - it isn't intellectually honest.
"Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and
mechanistic-if not humanistic-philosophical presuppositions,
attaching a "fundamentalist" bias to their perspective."
FALSE - scientists investigate the world using the tools of science.
Their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
"This fact (which they zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists'
credibility, disqualifying them from any claim to objectivity in
matters concerning origins and science. "
FALSE - it's not a 'fact', it's an unfounded assertion.
"Much of the material published by evolutionists embodies precisely
such a pseudo-scientific bias, often articulated under the pretense
that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced
study."
FALSE - it isn't 'pseudo-science', it's science and published in many
of the same scientific journals as other sciences.
"The contributions posted at this site give expression to the "other
side"-dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most
advocates of evolutionism, namely:"
FALSE - they are not myths, but the best scientific interpretations of
the evidence
"1. The myth that today's heavily popularized beliefs about
macroevolution find "overwhelming" or unequivocal support in the
data of empirical science"
FALSE - it's not a myth: it's a fact that the data in empirical science
(and what other forms of science are there, by the way?) supports
'macroevolution'.
"2. The myth that the alternative-biblical creation-somehow fails
to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data"
FALSE - it's a fact that the biblical creation accout is unsupported by
evidence.
"The question of origins is largely a matter of history-not the
domain of applied science."
FALSE- the "question of origins" is nowadays largely investigated (in
terms of allocation of financial resources at least) by studies in
genetics.
"Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one's
worldview does indeed play heavily on one's interpretation of
scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning
origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor
measurement-the three immutable elements of the scientific
method-may be employed."
FALSE on four counts.
1 - evolutionary theory makes predictions which can be observed
2 - evolutionary theory provides outcomes which can be measured
3 - evolutionary theory make repeatable predictions
4 - although one's worldview may affect the interpretation of
scientific data, 'evolutionists' are no more affected by this than
proponents of any other branch of science.
"Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming
exclusive "scientific" status for their popularized beliefs, while
curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning
Darwin's advice."
FALSE - proponents of 'evolutionism' - by which I presume the author
means evolutionary scientists - make no claims to exclusivity. On the
other hand, they don't accept claims which are unsupported by evidence
or argument any more than to scientists in any other discipline.
"This site is one answer to such unreasonable-and
unscientific-practices.."
FALSE - the practices of evolutionary scientists are neither
unreasonable nor unscientific.
Phew! That's the whole of the introduction page of the site, and so far
I've not found a single sentence which does not contain an outright
falsehood.
Ah well - perhaps AiG can do better.
Why not look for yourself.
Oh, and by the way: here's my analysis of an AiG article purporting to
answer the question "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as
Australia?".
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/kangaroos_and_the_flood/kangaoos.htm
Note that the best answer they give is that purely by chance, a diverse
group of marsupials made their way from the near East to Australia, and
that purely by chance no placentals accompanied them.
Persuasive?
RF
r norman
John Harshman's answers are, as always, quite accurate and clearly
stated (except for his omitting Kohlrabi and Kale as varieties of
cabbage in a separate response to you). I would only add that your
inclusion of the notion of "complexity" in the definition of "genetic
information" only clouds the issue. Even the use of the word
"information" is questionable. There is no quantitative definition of
either "information" or of "complexity" that is really useful in
describing living organisms. A variety of computer scientists,
mathematicians, and theoretical physicists use different definitions
for different purposes but these have not yet been shown to have any
applicability or use in biology.
David Jensen
andre...@yahoo.com wrote in
<1125317587....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Your ignorance or dishonesty is profound.
>www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.
Why? What good does it do to read lies of Young Earth Creationists? Why
Bobby D. Bryant
> The helpful responses are appreciated.
> I don't think there is any way to know exactly what "kind" means in
> Genesis. It may not even be meant to have a precise meaning as far
> as I know, and it's also a translated word. Taxonomists continue to
> redefine precise definitions of words. I'm not claiming I have my
> own definition of "kind". The section of Genesis that deals with
> origins of the universe, earth and life are very brief and only
> provde a general framework. But it does make me wonder why it
> repeatedly states "created according to it's kind" after each set of
> life being described when it's not really necissary unless it has
> some meaning.
Unless they have a definition for it, creationists shouldn't be
making any assertions about it at all. How can they make accurate
assertions about an undefined concept?
> By genetic information I would mean anything that would increase
> an orgaisms complexity,
OK... now we need a definiton for complexity. And for a claim that
it can't increase, we need a definition that lets us _quantify_ it,
and a way of measuring it so we can look to see whether or not it
really does increase.
> such as new characteritics for which there were no genes to start
> with, or apperance of a new protein (not the modification of an
> existing one), besides the physical rearangement of genes such as
> chromosome translocation or recombination or mutations.
All the evidence indicates that over the history of life on earth
many, many, many new characteristics for which there were no genes
earlier have arisen.
Whenever creationism gets far enough away from handwaving to make
actual predictions, the predictions turn out to be wrong.
Dana Tweedy
<andre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125317587....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> C.L. wrote:
snipping
>
> You are correct, speciation does occur from a creationist point of
> view, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
Can you please show where speciation, much less rapid speciation, is a
prediction of the "Creation model"? Speciation is the definition of
macroevolution, something that Creationists continue to deny.
> You are correct about created 'kinds' as well.
Can you please define what a "created kind" is, and how we are to determine
when the limits of a "created kind" are reached?
> No new genetic information is EVER added to an organism.
That rather depends on what you mean by "genetic information", and "added".
Mutations are known to produce new variations in populations, so assertions
that no "new genetic information" is ever added are rather hard to swallow.
> www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.
Both are religious ministries, which are committed to apologetics to
biblical literalism. Scientific data which contradict such a belief
therefore are not likely to be found at those sites. That makes their
worth, as an accurate source of information to be rather suspect.
DJT
Daniel T.
Chri...@webtv.net (C.L.) wrote:
> Can someone please tell me if this statement is true? (From Science on
> Trial, by Douglas J. Futuyma - 1982, pp. 23-43). I've read parts of The
> Origin of Species but don't own a copy:
>
> [ The first five chapters of the Origin lay out the theory that
> Darwin had conceived. He shows that both domesticated and wild species
> are variable, that much of that variation is hereditary, and that
> breeders, by conscious selection of desirable varieties, can develop
> breeds of pigeons, dogs, and other forms that are more different from
> each other than species or even families of wild animals and plants are
> from each other.]
>
> What breeds of animals (dogs, pigeons, etc.) are more different from
> each other than species or families of wild animals and plants from each
> other?
Already answered...
> Since some of Darwin's ideas are no longer considered valid
> today, was this one of them?
The above was not an *idea* of Darwin's, it was an observation. One
which still holds true.
> If true, what definition of "species" are you using?
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html> has several
different definitions of species. I suspect that Darwin used the "folk"
definition.
> (Animals, plants, insects, that can even appear identical but that
> cannot breed with other species of the same genus? - that doesn't sound
> very "different".) In other words are the dogs still dogs, pigeons still
> pigeons?
Are the chihuahua and great dane the same species? They can't interbreed
AFAIK... "Ah," you say, "but they can both bread with some intermediate
dog." Read up on ring species
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html> (for
example)
> By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
> have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
> stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
> recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
> information.
However, for them, two different "kinds" are two animals for which
scientists have not identified a genetic link. This is a perfect example
of the "god of the gaps". For anything which scientists cannot explain,
they say "god did it" until, of course, the scientists can explain it...
There was a time when "creationists" thought that every species was
completely unique, now that science has been able to split a single
species into two separate species (thus proving evolution,) the
creationists use "kind".
--
Magic depends on tradition and belief. It does not welcome observation,
nor does it profit by experiment. On the other hand, science is based
on experience; it is open to correction by observation and experiment.
Bob
one fails to see how a mutation is not new genetic information.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Daniel T.
Chri...@webtv.net (C.L.) wrote:
> The helpful responses are appreciated.
> I don't think there is any way to know exactly what "kind" means in
> Genesis. It may not even be meant to have a precise meaning as far as I
> know, and it's also a translated word. Taxonomists continue to redefine
> precise definitions of words. I'm not claiming I have my own definition
> of "kind". The section of Genesis that deals with origins of the
> universe, earth and life are very brief and only provde a general
> framework. But it does make me wonder why it repeatedly states "created
> according to it's kind" after each set of life being described when it's
> not really necissary unless it has some meaning.
It makes much more sense if you think like someone who has no grounding
in science. Horses beget horses, big horses beget big horses, small
horses beget small horses... All according to its "kind".
> By genetic information I would mean anything that would increase an
> orgaisms complexity, such as new characteritics for which there were no
> genes to start with, or apperance of a new protein (not the modification
> of an existing one), besides the physical rearangement of genes such as
> chromosome translocation or recombination or mutations.
1) GCC GUA UGG
2) GUA AGU UGG
What's the difference between the two sequences above? "AGU" has been
inserted between GUA and UGG, and the GCC has been dumped. Is there "new
information" here? Has "complexity increased?
They both code for completely different proteins...
John Wilkins
No. Darwin's view of species officially was what is now called the "taxonomic"
definition - a species is whatever a (professional) taxonomist says is a
species. This was essentially built into the Strickland Code of 1842 to which
Darwin was a signatory. There is no hint that Darwin thought reproductive
isolation was necessary for species (in fact he explicitly rejects that in the
Notebooks). His own view of species followed from his theory - a species in a
permanent (more or less) variety. He thought that species were formed by
adaptation, a view that was not widely adopted then or later.
And it doesn't matter. What Darwin thought was that, whatever species are, or
are not, there is diversity in life that can be explained by (inter alia)
common descent, descent with modification, and natural selection. This remains
true, although we have supplemented Darwin's version with population and
molecular genetics: allopatric speciation (an idea of Moritz Wagner's in
Darwin's time), introgression, drift, neutral molecular drift, lateral
transfer, polyploidy, and of course other domains like plate tectonics.
>
>
>>(Animals, plants, insects, that can even appear identical but that
>>cannot breed with other species of the same genus? - that doesn't sound
>>very "different".) In other words are the dogs still dogs, pigeons still
>>pigeons?
>
>
> Are the chihuahua and great dane the same species? They can't interbreed
> AFAIK... "Ah," you say, "but they can both bread with some intermediate
> dog." Read up on ring species
> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html> (for
> example)
>
>
>>By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
>>have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
>>stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
>>recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
>>information.
>
>
> However, for them, two different "kinds" are two animals for which
> scientists have not identified a genetic link. This is a perfect example
> of the "god of the gaps". For anything which scientists cannot explain,
> they say "god did it" until, of course, the scientists can explain it...
>
> There was a time when "creationists" thought that every species was
> completely unique, now that science has been able to split a single
> species into two separate species (thus proving evolution,) the
> creationists use "kind".
>
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Stanley Friesen
>
> What breeds of animals (dogs, pigeons, etc.) are more different from
>each other than species or families of wild animals and plants from each
>other?
Chihuahuas fall far, far outside the range of variation among all other
canids combined. Indeed on the face of it they would not even fit
within the variation within Carnivora.
> Since some of Darwin's ideas are no longer considered valid
>today, was this one of them?
No
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Rick Merrill
A genetic mutation that ADDS genes would require a similar mutation in a
mate or sexual reproduction would be impossible, would it not?
r norman
<rick0....@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>A genetic mutation that ADDS genes would require a similar mutation in a
>mate or sexual reproduction would be impossible, would it not?
Only if it involve such extensive chromosomal reorganization that
meiosis failed. Little snippets added or removed here and there or
inversions are well tolerated.
Rick Merrill
Until the sum(snippets)>"extensive", yes?
John Harshman
Not necessarily even then. Deletions or insertions on the order of
millions of bases can be tolerated easily. (Aside from any selective
effects of lacking the material in question.) Anyway, one gene
duplication is tiny compared to the size of a chromosome.
C.L.
for which there were no genes to start with, or appearance of a new
protein (not the modification of an existing one), besides the physical
or mutations.
C.L.
How about gene duplication? Would that qualify as an addition of
information? There are certainly enough of those. And subsequent
divergence of copies can produce new functions that weren't there in the
ancestor.
John Harshman's answers are, as always, quite accurate and clearly
stated (except for his omitting Kohlrabi and Kale as varieties of
cabbage in a separate response to you). I would only add that your
inclusion of the notion of "complexity" in the definition of "genetic
information" only clouds the issue. Even the use of the word
"information" is questionable. There is no quantitative definition of
either "information" or of "complexity" that is really useful in
describing living organisms. A variety of computer scientists,
mathematicians, and theoretical physicists use different definitions for
different purposes but these have not yet been shown to have any
applicability or use in biology.
When I say more genetic "information" or "complexity" what I mean is
to say that for example, the cell of an insect or a mammal is more
complex than the cell of say an ameba, correct? Isn't this the way the
evolutionary model works, increasingly complex creatures evolve from
simpler single celled organisms that lived millions of years in the
past? Aren't things like cell organelles and multiple strands of DNA
created along the way? Or do I have the whole concept wrong?
Or for example the theory that a simple eye spot can evolve into a
highly complex eye that can see sharp detail and color. As I said, I
don't have an education in biology but this seems pretty obvious to me
unless I'm really missing something. In the original example I gave of
dogs and pigions, I understand that they are already highly complex
creatures now, but only because of information that would have had to
have been added along the way to their current state of development, all
the genetic coding for all the complex features that did not exist in a
former stage of development.
C.L.
John Harshman
This is hard to read. Would you consider quoting in the usual way, as I
do here? Your news reader should be able to do this automatically.
> By genetic information I would mean anything
> that would increase an organisms complexity, such as new characteristics
> for which there were no genes to start with, or appearance of a new
> protein (not the modification of an existing one), besides the physical
> rearrangement of genes such as chromosome translocation or recombination
> or mutations.
>
> C.L.
>
This is me:
> How about gene duplication? Would that qualify as an addition of
> information? There are certainly enough of those. And subsequent
> divergence of copies can produce new functions that weren't there in the
> ancestor.
This is R. Norman:
> John Harshman's answers are, as always, quite accurate and clearly
> stated (except for his omitting Kohlrabi and Kale as varieties of
> cabbage in a separate response to you). I would only add that your
> inclusion of the notion of "complexity" in the definition of "genetic
> information" only clouds the issue. Even the use of the word
> "information" is questionable. There is no quantitative definition of
> either "information" or of "complexity" that is really useful in
> describing living organisms. A variety of computer scientists,
> mathematicians, and theoretical physicists use different definitions for
> different purposes but these have not yet been shown to have any
> applicability or use in biology.
And back to C.L.:
> When I say more genetic "information" or "complexity" what I mean is
> to say that for example, the cell of an insect or a mammal is more
> complex than the cell of say an ameba, correct?
No, in fact it isn't. I would say that the cell of an amoeba is in fact
more complex than any cell in your body. It has to be, since it has to
perform all the functions of life all by itself. Your cells can afford
to specialize, and each one sheds some of the functions of the amoeba.
In effect, all your cells are parasites on each other, and
simplification is a common feature of parasites.
Now, the *genome* of your cells is arguably more complex than the genome
of an amoeba, but objective measures of that difference are hard to come
by. Similarly, we can all agree that you are more complex than an
amoeba, but it's hard to show rigorously that you are more complex than,
say, a fruit fly.
> Isn't this the way the
> evolutionary model works, increasingly complex creatures evolve from
> simpler single celled organisms that lived millions of years in the
> past?
No, in fact it isn't. Evolution allows complexity to increase, decrease,
or stay the same, as the immediate benefits of each course dictate. In
fact a few descendants of some single-celled organisms are quite
complex, but most of them aren't. For insight into this, I would
recommend S. J. Gould's book Full House.
> Aren't things like cell organelles and multiple strands of DNA
> created along the way? Or do I have the whole concept wrong?
Indeed you do. Cell organelles and multiple chromosomes are present in
many single-celled organisms, and have nothing to do with the evolution
of what you are thinking of as complex creatures. That has more to do
with intercellular communication than anything else. And of course the
most prominent organelles began their existence as independent organisms
in their own right, and were swallowed but not digested by your
one-celled ancestors.
> Or for example the theory that a simple eye spot can evolve into a
> highly complex eye that can see sharp detail and color. As I said, I
> don't have an education in biology but this seems pretty obvious to me
> unless I'm really missing something.
Sorry, this paragraph itself seems to be missing something. What seems
pretty obvious to you?
> In the original example I gave of
> dogs and pigions, I understand that they are already highly complex
> creatures now, but only because of information that would have had to
> have been added along the way to their current state of development, all
> the genetic coding for all the complex features that did not exist in a
> former stage of development.
Right. So what do you think prevents the addition of information? Is
gene duplication an increase of information or isn't it? What prevents
natural selection acting on slight variations from producing an eye from
an eye spot?
r norman
Once again, heed John's advice, especially about the technique of
quoting.
There are "gut feeling" ideas of complexity whereby a camera eye with
a lot of little details and components all working together in a
highly coordinated fashion is more complex than a simple eye spot.
The problem is in defining just what you mean by complexity so that it
can be applied to less obvious cases. The difference between a single
celled organism and a single cell of a multicellular organism is a
case in point. As John says, there are good reasons to believe that
the amoeba or paramecium as far more complex than any single cell of
ours. There are also good reasons to believe that a highly
specialized cell of ours, like a particular neuron with a highly
specialized branching pattern and interconnections with its neighbors
may be more complex. How do you evaluate this? You can't.
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Since we are the ones doing
the beholding, we automatically rate ourselves on the top of the heap.
Biology doesn't look at things that way. Biologists find it very
difficult to see just what there is about humans that makes us at all
special. Except for our brain, there is nothing whatsoever about
humans that make us more "complex" or, in fact, any different than any
other ape or mammal or vertebrate. And we really don't have much of a
clue as to just what about the mass of brain cells, neurons and glia
in our heads makes us different.
Stanley Friesen
>> one fails to see how a mutation is not new genetic information.
>
>A genetic mutation that ADDS genes would require a similar mutation in a
>mate or sexual reproduction would be impossible, would it not?
No. Sexual reproduction only requires that the *whole* *chromosomes*
pair off and split evenly between the daughter cells. Individual genes
matter very little, if at all, in this regard.
er...@swva.net
> The helpful responses are appreciated.
> I don't think there is any way to know exactly what "kind" means in
> Genesis. It may not even be meant to have a precise meaning as far as I
> know, and it's also a translated word. Taxonomists continue to redefine
> precise definitions of words. I'm not claiming I have my own definition
> of "kind". The section of Genesis that deals with origins of the
> universe, earth and life are very brief and only provde a general
> framework. But it does make me wonder why it repeatedly states "created
> according to it's kind" after each set of life being described when it's
> not really necissary unless it has some meaning.
>
I'm no Semitic philologist, but I always assumed it repeated in order
to make it poetic. Poetic texts are more easily remembered and passed
along before writing is invented.
(snip)
>
> C.L.
Eric Root
Robert J. Kolker
> I'm no Semitic philologist, but I always assumed it repeated in order
> to make it poetic. Poetic texts are more easily remembered and passed
> along before writing is invented.
The portion of b'rashis (genesis) describing the creation was in
prosaic, not poetic form. There are poetic portion of scripture, but the
part descrbing how the plants and animals came about is not among them.
Bob Kolker
er...@swva.net
Thanks. Now, I too, wonder why they were using the repetive phrases.
I still think it's to improve "memorizability."
Eric Root