Jump to content


Photo

New Species


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 January 2014 - 05:58 PM

Can the offspring of infected individuals breed with the kids of uninfected insects? If not it might be the impetus for speciation...

Don't know. The boffins on the biology forum at physicsforums.com might be able to give a better answer.

 

Its not a new species despite the lack of breeding, its one of the few cases which contradicts the breeding definition of species. In this case the "does it look the same" definition of species is used, (yet this has contradictions too, like dogs and species with S@xual dimorphism)

 

At least this is what one of my Biology lecturer said when he brought it up in one of my discussions with him.



#22 nnjamerson

nnjamerson

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 January 2014 - 10:02 PM

Basically, the question is about the origin of asexually producing organisms, and whether (because they dont interbreed with each other) you can call them a [coherent] species.

 

I didn't appreciate cheesburger trying to pass the to a physicsforum - it's a biological question and on species concepts.

 

As per gilco12345, and i hope we're not agreeing solely because he's merely quoting his biology lecturer, indeed asexual organisms DO NOT fit with the Biological Species Concept. That's because there is not yet a single concept that fits all variants of life, it's too diverse to explain in a 'concept' which is basically a simple sentence human construct. But this doesnt mean biologists cant define species, nor the most well agreed species concepts are awful or wrong, it means you apply certain concepts in certain situations, and if you want an 'overarching megaconcept', then i would argue that needs a pluralistic approach, e.g. given conditions X concept B appears to provide the most useful definition.



#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 January 2014 - 04:14 AM


Basically, the question is about the origin of asexually producing organisms, and whether (because they dont interbreed with each other) you can call them a [coherent] species.

 

Its similar to this, not exactly ;)

 

As I said its one of those cases where you use the "does it look the same" definition of species.

 

I didn't appreciate cheesburger trying to pass the to a physicsforum - it's a biological question and on species concepts.

 

Meh, they'll probably say what I said

 

As per gilco12345, and i hope we're not agreeing solely because he's merely quoting his biology lecturer, indeed asexual organisms DO NOT fit with the Biological Species Concept. That's because there is not yet a single concept that fits all variants of life, it's too diverse to explain in a 'concept' which is basically a simple sentence human construct.

 

Exactly :D Most atheists don't like it when I tell them that the species concept is a human construct. I'm glad you see it as it is.

 

But this doesnt mean biologists cant define species, nor the most well agreed species concepts are awful or wrong, it means you apply certain concepts in certain situations, and if you want an 'overarching megaconcept', then i would argue that needs a pluralistic approach, e.g. given conditions X concept B appears to provide the most useful definition.

 

True, biologists can define what a species is... The main issue though is whether the definition of species means anything beyond being a human construct ;)



#24 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:55 AM

Also keep in mind that animals can still biologically produce offspring, yet be considered different species.

There are many examples of this where, due to some sort of natural, or behavioral barrier, they never "hook up", as the kids say these days.

So yes, of course it's a human construct, just a way to help us try to categorize and make sorts of everything the best way we can.

How else could they print bird watchers ID books without some sort of classification? wink.png



#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:23 AM

I wonder if we can consider supermodels and band-geeks different species because of the social barrier? :D

#26 nnjamerson

nnjamerson

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:05 PM

RE: Wolbachia and insects.

Its similar to this, not exactly wink.png

 

I disagree, i feel it is the crux. Perhaps the major consequence of Wolbachia infection is parthenogenesis, which is essentially the origins of asexuality in many insects, so i think actually perhaps the core issue from that question, but if you want to discuss the species concepts for other minor outcomes of Wolbachia infection like male killing, lets go there. But from those outcomes, typically species can still be defined adequately with the biological species concept, as most animal 'species' can.   

 

 

 

I wonder if we can consider supermodels and band-geeks different species because of the social barrier? biggrin.png

 

It's a useful point. With the biological species concept, originating from the Mayr 1940/2: Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. There is the key term 'potentially' here, which i believe was inserted later than the original quote. No matter, its the best current 'Biological species concept' if not the exact original. (See i love how science is ok with amending contested details). The key word 'potentially' allows for individual separated by some gene-flow barriers to remain as the same species. Here for the supermodels and band-geeks they've got the prezygotic barrier of one or other partner is unwilling to mate (guess which!), so the social barrier is indeed an isolating genetic barrier. But, here's where the 'potentially' comes into play, they can POTENTIALLY mate, fertilise AND produce healthy fertile offspring - of course those kids no doubt will need some psychotherapy. Some barriers to gene-flow are permanent, others not. Here, that potential pre-zygotic barrier to gene-flow can be broken down for example after the band-geek is involved in massively profiting from a few hit albums and buys a mansion plus some sports cars, while concurrently the supermodel ages beyond her most desirable years and has a few too many to drink ...

 

Shall we get back on topic now smile.png



#27 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:21 PM

I wonder if we can consider supermodels and band-geeks different species because of the social barrier? :D


Different breeds, certainly! You can imagine a model breeding with a rock star and one of their less ambitious kids breeding with a music promoter thus producing offspring naturally drawn to rock journalists who themselves are elevated band-geeks. Maybe such ring species underpin the functioning of human society.

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:11 PM

I knew I was going to cause problems. :D

Let's change the subject before Fred court-martials me. :(

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:28 PM

Also keep in mind that animals can still biologically produce offspring, yet be considered different species.

 

One of the definitions is (roughly)

 

- can form fertile offspring with each other

 

You can get mules, (a cross of a horse and donkey) which are sterile which fits with this definition

 

There are many examples of this where, due to some sort of natural, or behavioral barrier, they never "hook up", as the kids say these days.

 

As per the biological definition, its based on the viability of the egg and sperm to create a fertile offspring. So big dogs and little dogs are not different species. (I think someone did artificial insemination to prove this)

 

So yes, of course it's a human construct, just a way to help us try to categorize and make sorts of everything the best way we can.

How else could they print bird watchers ID books without some sort of classification? wink.png

 

Ah but as I said before, (which wasn't addressed), how do we know that this construct is relative to reality? Are we imposing reality to conform to our construct?

 

But from those outcomes, typically species can still be defined adequately with the biological species concept, as most animal 'species' can.   

 

Except that there are contradictions which means its not definitive and thus shouldn't be deemed as "Law" as many evolutionists seem to think. Its merely a human construct used as a tool to assist in classification, yet since its not definitive in terms of reality we cannot conform reality to our construct.



#30 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 06:59 AM

One of the definitions is (roughly)

 

- can form fertile offspring with each other

 

You can get mules, (a cross of a horse and donkey) which are sterile which fits with this definition

 

 

As per the biological definition, its based on the viability of the egg and sperm to create a fertile offspring. So big dogs and little dogs are not different species. (I think someone did artificial insemination to prove this)

 

 

Ah but as I said before, (which wasn't addressed), how do we know that this construct is relative to reality? Are we imposing reality to conform to our construct?

 

 

Except that there are contradictions which means its not definitive and thus shouldn't be deemed as "Law" as many evolutionists seem to think. Its merely a human construct used as a tool to assist in classification, yet since its not definitive in terms of reality we cannot conform reality to our construct.

 

If you are pointing out the ambiguity of the term "species", then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

We as humans try to fit everything into categories the best we can, but hey, nature is nature.

 

But naturalists do categorize some animals as different species even though they are biologically able to produce viable offspring.

 

I have no real opinion on that, just pointing out that they do that.



#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:05 AM

If you are pointing out the ambiguity of the term "species", then I wholeheartedly agree with you.
 
We as humans try to fit everything into categories the best we can, but hey, nature is nature.
 
But naturalists do categorize some animals as different species even though they are biologically able to produce viable offspring.
 
I have no real opinion on that, just pointing out that they do that.

I have a question. How can secularists make comments like the one above (seen it made countless times) because things can be understood truly if not exhaustively or perfectly but when a creationist can't always perfectly delineate between original kinds or know the exact day of creation or exactly what the preflood world was like, their whole worldview is expected to collapse?

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:30 AM

I have a question. How can secularists make comments like the one above (seen it made countless times) because things can be understood truly if not exhaustively or perfectly but when a creationist can't always perfectly delineate between original kinds or know the exact day of creation or exactly what the preflood world was like, their whole worldview is expected to collapse?

 

Good question ;)

 

I guess its a demonstration of their double-standards. Just like when they claim belief in something with no evidence is stupid but then believe in atheism with no evidence ;)


  • Mike Summers likes this

#33 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:13 PM

I have a question. How can secularists make comments like the one above (seen it made countless times) because things can be understood truly if not exhaustively or perfectly but when a creationist can't always perfectly delineate between original kinds or know the exact day of creation or exactly what the preflood world was like, their whole worldview is expected to collapse?

Yay, you get it. That is exactly the point!

When it comes to evolution, neither of us can delineate between species clearly...That's the whole point.

 

It's like picking the hour that you changed from a child, to an adult, we can create human constructs, Bah Miztvah for example, but in a natural sense, the change is so gradual that it would be impossible to point out which exact instant a child becomes an adult. We all know it has to happen, but the change is so gradual that there really isn't a clear dividing line.

 

It is the same thing when delineating species.

 

That's why we can't be clear on species, and that's why you can't be clear on brahmins.

 

Because we really don't observe a clear cut original kind. (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

The BIG difference here...

 

YECs claim that there was one specific brahmin or kind that started from nothing that gave rise to all the others, thus, it should be able to be pointed out, correct?

 

I repeat, one specific animal.

 

Evolution claims that there is one big family tree of related species which display such subtle differences at times, that there is no unambiguous way to classify them.



#34 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 January 2014 - 04:20 PM

My dad once said that most "good" ideas become bad when carried to a ridiculous extremes. On the surface your analogy seems valid but we can view the transition from child to adult. Moreover there are examples aplenty of children in various stages of transition. There are day old children, two day old children, three day old children, one month olds etc. Every age child exists to observe a morph into adult and even old age. The fossil record reflects this age progression also.

 

What is  not observed is a dog morphing gradually into a cow in real life or in the fossil record. That's the evidence needed to support evolution as a theory instead of the hypothesis it is.

The fossils of animmal  lines reflect age progression.  Where are the creatures that we can assemble to show logical observable progression from ape to man?  They don't exist except in someone's philosophical imaginary data base  of missing links.  Forget  that, the whole chain is missing.
 



#35 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:16 PM

What is  not observed is a dog morphing gradually into a cow in real life or in the fossil record. That's the evidence needed to support evolution as a theory instead of the hypothesis it is.
 

 

No wonder you think the theory of evolution is crazy.

If that statement would come anywhere near to what the theory actually postulates, then I would think it was a ridiculous idea myself.

And, if the above was actually being taught in schools, then I would probably be just a vocal as you people in trying to stop it.



#36 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:23 PM

You are welcome to enlighten me. Animate the  puppet evolution. I guess it's  like the fairy tale, The Empero's Clothes only the finest eyes can observe evo.

 

Also, I don't think evolution is a theory.



#37 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:51 PM

Do you acknowledge speciation?

I would assume so,  since Answers in Genesis does but I don't want to misrepresent.

Where one group of animals can diverge from its parent group because the variation of the "kind" creates a niche where this slightly different group can better utilize the natural resources than the original group of animals?

 

If you look up AIG's site, I don't think they would have any problem with this.

Note these two slightly different groups could still easily interbreed but they could still be considered different species in certain situations.

 

Not so far fetched yet are we?



#38 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 January 2014 - 06:09 PM

No it's not but your example is  not molecules to man evolution either. kindly explain where I err in understanding the evolution hypothesis? So far too much is left to the imagination.  But then I notice evo's animators tend to do that.

 

I  noticed you said could instead of do or did. Was that a Freudian slip?

 

Given your example, if such animals did interbreed they would most likely end up being one species wouldn't they--unless they were somehow isolated before they could interbreed?

 

Please use as little  extrapolation as possible please.  



#39 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:21 PM

Sure, they most likely would interbreed.
The most famous example would be ring species.
Have you heard of this phenomena, One example is a group of salamanders inhabiting a California Mt range that can only survive up to a certain altitude.

So, since we agree there is diversity, and that other similar species can split of from the original group, what we notice is that slightly different salamanders on the edge of this range will tend to adapt to the habitat that exists there.

What happens then, is that new types of salamanders, each slightly different from the next, expand until they surround the mountain and eventually the group from one end, meets the other. Here's the thing though, salamanders next to each other can easily interbreed with each other.
(whether they do or not is beyond me) but now, on the other side of the mountain, where the ring meets up with each other, they have diversified so much that the two different groups can not viably interbreed.

The two groups of salamanders that meet up are 2 different species by pretty much any defintition.

 

You're OK with that right? After all they are still the same type of animal, a salamander.



#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:44 PM

Yay, you get it. That is exactly the point!

When it comes to evolution, neither of us can delineate between species clearly...That's the whole point.

 

It's like picking the hour that you changed from a child, to an adult, we can create human constructs, Bah Miztvah for example, but in a natural sense, the change is so gradual that it would be impossible to point out which exact instant a child becomes an adult. We all know it has to happen, but the change is so gradual that there really isn't a clear dividing line.

 

It is the same thing when delineating species.

 

That's why we can't be clear on species, and that's why you can't be clear on brahmins.

 

Because we really don't observe a clear cut original kind. (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

The BIG difference here...

 

YECs claim that there was one specific brahmin or kind that started from nothing that gave rise to all the others, thus, it should be able to be pointed out, correct?

 

I repeat, one specific animal.

 

Evolution claims that there is one big family tree of related species which display such subtle differences at times, that there is no unambiguous way to classify them.

 

IF that is the case then we should observe a smooth "line of transitions" demonstrating most of the proposed "slight successive" changes... Yet this is not what we see, instead we observe stasis which defies evolutionary claims since if its a transition from one to the other why do we find "number 1" where "numbers 2-20" are?

 

How the fossils should be if this is true

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

 

what we actually observe as per the fossils

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20

 

This is why the ad hoc hypothesis "Punctuated Equilibrium" was created to simply explain away this contradiction.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users