That really does depend on how you define a species. Many species (this is particularly common among insects, but occurs among other critters as well) are behaviorally incompatible. Some would-be Adams use this as the way to draw the line -- whether two animals from different populations will mate and produce viable offspring, given the opportunity.
Others view geographical isolation as a defining characteristic. If two populations are completely isolated from each other (like wolves and dingos), they are separate species even if they would mate successfully if brought together artificially (that is, by humans). This is a particularly useful stance if, for instance, you are looking to preserve the population of salmon that spawn in a particular river. If that population is just viewed as a part of a larger species of salmon (not up on my ichthyology, sorry), it might be very difficult to get any sort of federal protection for it. If, however, you can establish a definition of species (such as one of geographical isolation) in which the salmon that spawn in that particular river are a species, you might be able to get them declared endangered, and thus get some protection for 'em.
Just goes to show you, really, what an artificial concept species is, and how inadequate (and, conversely, how plastic) is human language.
Plenty of animals can be hybridized, but does that mean that the two parent animals are of the same species? That is a pretty tough position to maintain.
Your point does, however illustrate the difficulty in classifying animals based on reproduction. That is why systematics is not such an easy field.
Suffice it to say, without evolution there would be tons of scientists suddenly out of work. But in the presence of evolution, is there any reason to close down the churches? Absolutely not. Therefore let the scientists do their jobs, and you can do yours. (That said, I do think that seeking to understand difficult concepts is an extremely valuable pastime. So question away!)
Nobody is saying that churches should be closed down because evolution is right, and creationism isn't (at least I'm not). I really don't care what you think ("you" being anyone that reads this) as long as you don't try to force it on me or to publicly declare it as being correct.
One thing that pisses me off incredibly is that some people have filed complaints about evolution being taught in schools, or that some people want creationism to be taught in schools. Creationism is based on faith, and that goes under the separation of church and state. If you want your kid to learn about creationism (or don't want him to learn about evolution) in school, send him to a christian/jewish/muslim school (whatver the proper terms are, I really don't care). Don't try to attack the education system.
EDIT: And for the record, I believe the widely-accepted definition of a species is that its members can breed. Now, some say that this doesn't apply to, say, dingos and wolves becaase the usually won't mate in the wild. This (partly) is why the term subspecies exists. I'm not sure what the exact definition of a subspecie is, but I think it can safely be said that dingos and wolves are idfferent subspecies.
Technical name of dingo: Canis dingo
Technical name of wolf: Canis lupus (and perhaps others).
Technical name of domestic dog: Canis familiaris.
Different species name implies different species. Biology is fuzzy like that. Fortunately, it doesn't depend on precise definitions of nomenclature to keep rolling on.
(Splitting hairs here, but Dog is in the details...)
So once we have decided that these dogs are different species, and using genetic and archaelogical evidence, we can determine whether these three "dogs" had a common ancestor. If they do, then evolution has taken place.
If we don't agree that they are separate species, then the problem is in how we define the species, not in the mechanism of evolution (yet).
We could irradiate a bunch of 'em until we had a self-sustaining line that was incapable of procreation with its pregenitors. Very doable. Doesn't in itself prove that it happens in nature, so there's a rub.
reproductive isolation has always been the defining criterion to distinguish two species.Such isolation can ride the many mechanisms , from adaptive, to geographic through temporal.
The problem with using a fossil record is that most mammals, birds etc live on an erosion surface so the chances of them being fossilized are almost 1 in a million. Only the ones that die and quickly get covered by somekind of sediment will be preserved. Hence molecular genetics has taken the lead in determining linneages and their root stock.
For those of you that are ID proponents, Ive always had the question that Gould often asked of his students and audiences.
What kinds of questions could a biologist or geologist ask or even conceptualize. "How has this feature changed from its ancestral state , what do its differing forms in various species tell us about their phyletic relationships, and what are the causal bases for both the origin and alteration of this feature through time"
I cannot imagine a brain so rigid that such questions cannot dare be asked without serious scrutiny from ones peers. I, for one, would take up oil painting and quit screwing with science. For to remain defiantly ignorant or obsessively critical of only those parts of science that elaborate on time, paleontology, genetics, geochronology, and physical and optical chemistry, while passing on the equally arcane areas means that there is an agenda driving ones forced ignorance. If these people would spend as much time in taking in and understanding new discoveries as they do on denying it, maybe theyd see that they can still have the mysteries they need but with a belief that they are using the brain that their creator gave them.
As long as its my dime, I blame the formation and organization of the IDers on the "pop" writers Dawkins and Dennett , because with their favorite Phrases that include "Organized ADaptive Complexity" (when no such mechanism has ever been found). One can see that the jump to Irreducible Complexity was a hop over a grass blade. More trouble has come out of apparently innocent phrasemaking that when we argue these topics, for it to be a real experience, the discussions should include precision of terms and a demand that whenever we step off the truck (like the macro/micro gambit) , people come down on our heads with no mercy. Cause in a symposium or a conference the Q/A session is what separates the kernels of grain from the rest of the bullshit.
PS, as a sidebar for suggested reading for the Intelligent Designers. Read William Paleys 1802 treatise on "Natural Theology" It was the true birth of what is known as Intelligent Design. In 1802 it was called British Functionalism. See how Rev Paley is gonna provide the "blunt force trauma" to the modern IDers who are trying to marry Intelligent Design to modern science, while keeping the name of the "Designer" secret.
The US SUpreme Court has already ruled on Creationism. So when Mike Behe et al have ressurected British Functionalism and morphed it into ID, they will have lots of trouble shaking Rev Paley from their bibliography. If ID cannot stand on its own (and I dont believe it can), then it reverts back to square 1 (CREATIONSIM) and even Justice Scalia and Thomas (Rehnquist will be retired by then) wont be able to do anything unless they feel that they wish to overturn Edwards v AGuillard.
Im cookin lots of popcorn .
patiodog wrote:Technical name of dingo: Canis dingo
Technical name of wolf: Canis lupus (and perhaps others).
Technical name of domestic dog: Canis familiaris.
The
Classification of Dogs has changed recently. Domestic dogs are now classified as Canis Lupus Familiaris, and Dingo's are Canis Lupus Dingo.
However, Coyote's are called Canus Latrans (or lycaon) even though they can interbreed with Canis Lupus quite successfully.
Dogs are a good example of why we need to improve the classification system itself. A system using genetics, rather than morphology, is probably a lot more accurate.
A Red Wolf discussion of classification changes
Wolf Evolution
Dog Evolution
Eorl wrote:Identical twins are an example of two cells coming from one (and not in the correct and normal way)
Wow, I was thinking that myself... especially when their brains are merged.
farmerman wrote:reproductive isolation has always been the defining criterion to distinguish two species.Such isolation can ride the many mechanisms , from adaptive, to geographic through temporal.
The problem with using a fossil record is that most mammals, birds etc live on an erosion surface so the chances of them being fossilized are almost 1 in a million. Only the ones that die and quickly get covered by somekind of sediment will be preserved. Hence molecular genetics has taken the lead in determining linneages and their root stock.
For those of you that are ID proponents, Ive always had the question that Gould often asked of his students and audiences.
What kinds of questions could a biologist or geologist ask or even conceptualize. "How has this feature changed from its ancestral state , what do its differing forms in various species tell us about their phyletic relationships, and what are the causal bases for both the origin and alteration of this feature through time"
I cannot imagine a brain so rigid that such questions cannot dare be asked without serious scrutiny from ones peers. I, for one, would take up oil painting and quit screwing with science. For to remain defiantly ignorant or obsessively critical of only those parts of science that elaborate on time, paleontology, genetics, geochronology, and physical and optical chemistry, while passing on the equally arcane areas means that there is an agenda driving ones forced ignorance. If these people would spend as much time in taking in and understanding new discoveries as they do on denying it, maybe theyd see that they can still have the mysteries they need but with a belief that they are using the brain that their creator gave them.
As long as its my dime, I blame the formation and organization of the IDers on the "pop" writers Dawkins and Dennett , because with their favorite Phrases that include "Organized ADaptive Complexity" (when no such mechanism has ever been found). One can see that the jump to Irreducible Complexity was a hop over a grass blade. More trouble has come out of apparently innocent phrasemaking that when we argue these topics, for it to be a real experience, the discussions should include precision of terms and a demand that whenever we step off the truck (like the macro/micro gambit) , people come down on our heads with no mercy. Cause in a symposium or a conference the Q/A session is what separates the kernels of grain from the rest of the bullshit.
FM this is a really great reply you have provided us with...
I am in agreement but as always only to a certain point...
I think we have to take all of science and creation and bring it down to it's smallest possible form.
This is what we are all trying to understand.
Most say this tiny building block of the physical world is a particle and a wave. This alone should make one wonder... So they make "theories" about sub atomic particles. But even the neutron of an atom as dense as it is is still mostly vacuum. In the beginning was vacuum... So are we made of vacuum? Some argue that the smallest possible part of existence is possibility... The atom exists out of all possibilities. So any atom at any given time has many possibilities too "all in the same place at the same time"...
The quantum theory is not to stop people from discovering the physical world or misalign physics, but to open the physical world to MORE possibilities... Atoms form from many possibilities and they react together with possibilities and create suns... I know your ideas FM above are on evolution but I just thought that I might add that the change in our nations policies of evolution are not being attacked by the religious right this time but by quantum physicists.. Because the physicists are on an atomic level talking about intelligent design things in two places at once etc... they have trumped the evolution debate and they have not disproved relative physics but they have expanded it to include that there is intelligent design... they look at possibility as an object...
anastas wrote:Nobody is saying that churches should be closed down because evolution is right, and creationism isn't (at least I'm not). I really don't care what you think ("you" being anyone that reads this) as long as you don't try to force it on me or to publicly declare it as being correct.
One thing that pisses me off incredibly is that some people have filed complaints about evolution being taught in schools, or that some people want creationism to be taught in schools. Creationism is based on faith, and that goes under the separation of church and state. If you want your kid to learn about creationism (or don't want him to learn about evolution) in school, send him to a christian/jewish/muslim school (whatver the proper terms are, I really don't care). Don't try to attack the education system.
EDIT: And for the record, I believe the widely-accepted definition of a species is that its members can breed. Now, some say that this doesn't apply to, say, dingos and wolves becaase the usually won't mate in the wild. This (partly) is why the term subspecies exists. I'm not sure what the exact definition of a subspecie is, but I think it can safely be said that dingos and wolves are idfferent subspecies.
That "faith" that you are talking about has been around for THOUSANDS of years and has endured... as for scientists only a few hundred years... Not all that science thinks about is true... although they take educated guesses and they are probably right their guesses are not that much different than the collective minds of the past trying to measure and predict the events of their own reality.
Like Euclid who in his own lifetime practically discovered and mastered geometry... 2000 years ago... and Beethoven who wrote in his lifetime almost every possible musical variation... The Egyptians had science too though it was primitive but to this day we cannot duplicate it on the same level of precision...
One thing the Egyptians as scientists also had and that was a reverence for the unknown. Like they knew the unknown... This propelled them into eternity.
How can you separate church from state when there are religious matters the state needs to be able to respond fairly on? No one has proven that God does not exist and if God some how does exist I am not sure it is the best reception to make our government take a blind eye to God... The government needs to be able to shepherd the people into a unity of reasonably judicious purpose and existence. To me... separation of church and state means that:
"The state is not God" but it does not mean that the state should not recognize God...
thunder_runner32 wrote:Then how come dumb people last so long.
I couldn't resist answering this question...
hehe
Well...
Humans are at the end of their evolutionary journey.. the next step we will be taking will be into the great beyond... This step will either come as a complete surprise or we will have enough consciousness to see it coming...
patiodog wrote:Technical name of dingo: Canis dingo
Technical name of wolf: Canis lupus (and perhaps others).
Technical name of domestic dog: Canis familiaris.
Different species name implies different species. Biology is fuzzy like that. Fortunately, it doesn't depend on precise definitions of nomenclature to keep rolling on.
(Splitting hairs here, but Dog is in the details...)
Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
CodeBorg wrote:takeoffsaftey wrote:i got VERY confused.
Evolution is a model. Like any model, we only use it
when it is applicable, predictable, and useful.
It produces results. We are able to USE those results,
without belief or knowledge or dogma or faith.
Single cells that gradually change ... are not very incomprensible.
Single cells that occassionally (one in a billion times) change into two cells
seems quite possible. Almost even likely, from time to time.
Two becomes three, then four, then ... well, the point is that everything changes.
Everything.
Does this require some leap of faith because it is beyond all comprehension?
Because it is beyond all comprehension it should inspire faith.
In that case, you sir, ... are my God!
Not because of what You have ... but what I lack.
CodeBorg wrote:In that case, you sir, ... are my God!
Not because of what You have ... but what I lack.
I do not believe any human can be "God"... I have a gift from God so don't be so sure it is not because of what I have...
2 Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
I have faith in You.
So like it or not buddy, You are my God, okay?
Quote:The quantum theory is not to stop people from discovering the physical world or misalign physics, but to open the physical world to MORE possibilities... Atoms form from many possibilities and they react together with possibilities and create suns... I know your ideas FM above are on evolution but I just thought that I might add that the change in our nations policies of evolution are not being attacked by the religious right this time but by quantum physicists.. Because the physicists are on an atomic level talking about intelligent design things in two places at once etc... they have trumped the evolution debate and they have not disproved relative physics but they have expanded it to include that there is intelligent design... they look at possibility as an object..
WTF? Possibilities....please explain in idiot terms.
