[Tj3]

So, Tj3, would you care to clarify or amend your answer?

No. There are variant definitions and what you have posted is not complete with respect to the way in which biologists classify animals. But the classifications of convenience do not change the realities in nature. There are a number of reasons animals have been classed on they have in modern times, but as I stated before, just because you find a sub-classification between different types of dogs did not stop them from reproducing and producing viable offspring. That is why I suspect God chose the word "kind" in scripture. Dogs are dogs are dogs despite what artificial divisions man may add for convenience.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Post 89 was where I asked you the question.
Post 90 is where you answered it.

It comes up numbered differently on mine, but at least you finally found the answer.

However it is NOT what professional geneticists consider to be a species.

See my response to Akoue on the same topic.

[asking]

This may be of interest. It is the abstract from a June 2008 paper from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

It suggests that there is a continuum between races (or subspecies) and species. It also says that species regularly hybridize. Hybridization is already recognized as commonplace among plants. This paper extends that view to insects and vertebrates (animals with backbones, like ourselves). I have only read the abstract, not the rest of the paper (yet).

Hybridization, ecological races and the nature
of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation
James Mallet*
Galton Laborator y, University College London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK

Species are generally viewed by evolutionists as 'real' distinct entities in nature, making speciation appear difficult. Charles Darwin had originally promoted a very different uniformitarian view that biological species were continuous with 'varieties' below the level of species and became distinguishable from them only when divergent natural selection led to gaps in the distribution of morphology. This Darwinian view on species came under immediate attack, and the consensus among evolutionary biologists today appears to side more with the ideas of Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky, who argued 70 years ago that Darwin was wrong about species.

Here, I show how recent genetic studies of supposedly well-behaved animals, such as insects and vertebrates, including our own species, have supported the existence of the Darwinian continuum between varieties and species. Below the level of species, there are well-defined ecological races, while above the level of species, hybridization still occurs, and may often lead to introgression and, sometimes, hybrid speciation. This continuum is evident, not only across vast geographical regions, but also locally in sympatry. The existence of this continuum provides good evidence for gradual evolution of species from ecological races and biotypes, to hybridizing species and, ultimately, to species that no longer cross. Continuity between varieties and species not only provides an excellent argument against creationism, but also gives insight into the process of speciation. The lack of a hiatus between species and ecological races suggests that speciation may occur, perhaps frequently, in sympatry, and the abundant intermediate stages suggest that it is happening all around us. Speciation is easy!

Edit: "Sympatry" just means living side by side.

[Tj3]

This may be of interest. It is the abstract from a June 2008 paper from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

It suggests that there is a continuum between races (or subspecies) and species. It also says that species regularly hybridize. Hybridization is already recognized as commonplace among plants. This paper extends that view to insects and vertebrates (animals with backbones, like ourselves). I have only read the abstract, not the rest of the paper (yet).

Of course it is important to note that hybridization occurs where cross-breeding is already possible, thus we are talking about micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. As for transitions to something completely different, the abstract uses the word "may" and does not indicate that they have ever seen it happen.

[arcura]

asking,
Thanks much for that.
It is and eye opener about species.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[asking]

The question of whether species are real entities in nature has been around for a long time. And it relates to what I said earlier about ideal types. It's extremely hard to resist the idea of species being real natural entities because we feel we know what a species is, as Tom argues strenuously.

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one." This argument is compelling in part because we are raised to think in terms of ideal types. It is part of our culture. In my opinion, one of Darwin's greatest accomplishments was breaking free of that and seeing all life as being made up of individuals instead of types, or "kinds." He experienced a crisis while trying to classify marine snails, alternately splitting some groups, then putting them back together, then splitting them up. It made him doubt the very idea of species.

I would say that if we haven't figured out how to define a species by now, we aren't going to--at least not in a way that is ever going to completely satisfy the longing for ideal types. Species are only approximate classifications--groups of unique individuals, many of whom can be sub classified into mosaics of ecological races. And two species may be so closely related that they can separate and come back together and then separate again. Biologists suspect humans may have done that with our ape ancestors 5-6 million years ago.

Nearly the same thing has happened with the word gene. It used to be thought that there was a gene for every trait and a trait for every gene. But it turns out that a stretch of DNA may code for several different proteins, each of which may be cut and spliced and folded differently, and of course, each resulting protein may do different things depending on context, what kind of cell it's in and when.

Biology is surprisingly abstract. It would be so much easier if everything could be neatly classified--as things are at the hardware store I visited yesterday, all the different washers neatly labeled and tucked into little drawers, the screws separate from the nuts and bolts.

[Tj3]

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one."

Please define your own arguments rather than attempting (not very well) to define mine.

[compsavvyimnot]

Thank you all. This has been a very interesting reading.
I really can't understand how one can believe in micro- but not macro evolution.
Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period. Is it not?
In my opinion, all by the will of God.

[arcura]

asking,
Opps.
I see you have upset Tom Smith
I don't think you were talking just about him.
Years ago I felt that I knew one when I saw one and I'm sure many people did and still do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[asking]

Please define your own arguments rather than attempting (not very well) to define mine.

I wasn't specifically describing your argument, but the general argument for species. But I do think that's consistent with what you have said so far.

CompsavvyImnot wrote:

I really can't understand how one can believe in micro- but not macro evolution.
Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period. Is it not?

That is what most biologists think. (There is some argument for the existence of evolutionary jumps or "saltations," probably based on changes in the regulation of genes that influence embryological development.) But, yes, it's pretty clear that lots of microevolution adds up to macroevolution, and a lot faster than previously thought.

[Akoue]

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one." This argument is compelling in part because we are raised to think in terms of ideal types. It is part of our culture. In my opinion, one of Darwin's greatest accomplishments was breaking free of that and seeing all life as being made up of individuals instead of types, or "kinds." He experienced a crisis while trying to classify marine snails, alternately splitting some groups, then putting them back together, then splitting them up. It made him doubt the very idea of species.

Biology is surprisingly abstract. It would be so much easier if everything could be neatly classified--as things are at the hardware store I visited yesterday, all the different washers neatly labeled and tucked into little drawers, the screws separate from the nuts and bolts.

This is, I think, a very trenchant diagnosis of some of the misapprehensions we've seen circulating. People do tend to revert to a kind of Platonism about natural kinds.

[asking]

Fred,
Do you remember the optical illusion where a drawing looks like a piece of pie and then like a pie with a piece cut out?

That's how species are for me, flipping back and forth between ideal types (how I grew up thinking about them) and constellations of unique individuals (how I know I should think about them).
asking

[compsavvyimnot]

Tj3...
Can you answer my last question?

[Tj3]

I wasn't specifically describing your argument, but the general argument for species. But I do think that's consistent with what you have said so far.

Then once again, it appears that you have not been reading my posts.

[Tj3]

Tj3...
Can you answer my last question?

Is this the questions you mean?

"Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Is it not?"

I did not realize that it was aimed at me. The answer is that this is an assumption made by many people, but in reality, it is only an unproven assumption. Micro-evolution is solidly proven. It would be no problem to produce all sorts of soldly documented examples. So if macro-evolution were merely an extension of micro-evolution, we might see fewer examples, but surely a few solidly documented examples would be possible, but there are none. Even darwin said that the fossil record was the weakest link in his theory. HIV is an excellent example - the number of DNA mutations even in a single person in a day is incredible, and when you add up the changes over the years in the tens of millions of those who suffer from it, the number of times that each possible mutation occurs is astronomical. Yet HIV remains HIV. Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

Every time, for years, that I asked for proof when people say that it is proven, the same answers come forward, and almost always we get into definition of the word species. I would agree that if one defines the word in different ways, you can create a situation where the definition may allow for macro-evolution, but biologically, has the animal become a different animal? In every case, the answer is no. Talk to an accountant - if a company changes the rules by which it does it's accounting, it can appear to make a profit when in fact it lost money. Finagling the method does not change the reality.

[ordinaryguy]

Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

The question, really, is, "How large does a variation have to be in order to call it a difference?".

[Tj3]

The question, really, is, "How large does a variation have to be in order to call it a difference?".

I answered that already. Post 89 (or apparently shows up as 90 on some computers) I believe.

But in any case, if one wants to provide evolution - i.e. single celled animals evolving into humans and other animals, surely we should be able to find something abundantly clear that would not require debate over how many strands of DNA are different. We have many such clear and specific examples of micro-evolution - if macro-evolution has been proven (as some on here explicitly stated), proof must exist.

[Akoue]

Is this the questions you mean?

"Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Is it not?"

I did not realize that it was aimed at me. The answer is that this is an assumption made by many people, but in reality, it is only an unproven assumption. Micro-evolution is solidly proven. It would be no problem to produce all sorts of soldly documented examples. So if macro-evolution were merely an extension of micro-evolution, we might see fewer examples, but surely a few solidly documented examples would be possible, but there are none. Even darwin said that the fossil record was the weakest link in his theory. HIV is an excellent example - the number of DNA mutations even in a single person in a day is incredible, and when you add up the changes over the years in the tens of millions of those who suffer from it, the number of times that each possible mutation occurs is astronomical. Yet HIV remains HIV. Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

Every time, for years, that I asked for proof when people say that it is proven, the same answers come forward, and almost always we get into definition of the word species. I would agree that if one defines the word in different ways, you can create a situation where the definition may allow for macro-evolution, but biologically, has the animal become a different animal? In every case, the answer is no. Talk to an accountant - if a company changes the rules by which it does it's accounting, it can appear to make a profit when in fact it lost money. Finagling the method does not change the reality.

But now it looks like the idea is just to reject any taxonomic scheme that doesn't comport with your initial assumptions regarding macro-evolution. By this method, you could claim that a human-ape hybrid is not a new species--just jigger the taxonomy and everything still works the way you want it to. If this is a mischaracterization of your view, I don't see how.

[Tj3]

But now it looks like the idea is just to reject any taxanomic scheme that doesn't comport with your initial assumptions regarding macro-evolution. By this method, you could claim that a human-ape hybrid is not a new species--just jigger the taxonomy and everything still works the way you want it to. If this is a mischaracterization of your view, I don't see how.

It is a mis-characterization.

Changing names does not change biological reality. Hitler had the Jews defined as a different species. Did they suddenly change biologically because of a racially bigoted meglomaniac change their classification? No one in their right mind would say that they did. Man can apply classes for many different reasons and there is nothing wrong with that, but that will not stop a wolf from being dog (something which is widely recognized both within and outside of the scientific community).

Let me give you an example. In one debate that I had on this topic, one person showed me proof that science had just proven evolution. He found by an article by a scientist who put forward a proposed new definition for a species which would be much more narrowly defined than before, and in so doping he could now identify a number of specific proven examples of species change. Before he made that definition change, he could not prove it, and afterward he could. Did something change biologically? No. Were those organisms suddenly more evolved? No. it was a naming game. I don't care to play games with words - I want to deal with what is really happening in biology.

[arcura]

compsavvyimnot,
Yes.
I agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred