Jump to content


Photo

The Curious Case Of Human And Chimps


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:47 AM

Ring species are a completely different phenomenon and have absolutely nothing to do with varying chromosome counts.  Why are you even bringing them up?  Is that your "don't understand what it means" buzzword du jour?

View Post

Since you are such an eloquent wordsmith why not explain why this has nothing to do with the concept of ring species and what it purports?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ring_species

Aren't ring species considered viable examples of macro-evolution coming soon to a city near you?

Please tell us all why this has no relation to what we're talking about so all can witness more of your doublethink resulting doublespeak.

#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:55 AM

So if two animals can produce fertile offspring they have a common ancestor, but if they can't they still can have a common ancestor.  Sorta kills your definition of "kind", doesn't it?

View Post

Not at all. It just doesn't make it something that can be nailed down perfectly. The definition is coherent and logical and fairly demonstrable. I just have enough candor to say that the perfect answer is locked in the past. It doesn't make it unreal it just makes it something that can't be verified by the scientific method because the empirical data is, like I said, locked in the past.

I would like to see more candor like this from evolutionists but the evolution religion seems to be too strong in many cases.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 12:39 PM

Whoa!  So you're telling me you think interracial marriage can change a human's chromosome number??

So much for your understanding of genetics...

View Post

Did anyone besides Assist24 infer that from what I was saying? :D

For someone who is so technical and learned you certainly have a bad habit of connecting dots incorrectly and wildly misunderstanding what is said. :)

#44 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 12:58 PM

Since you are such an eloquent wordsmith why not explain why this has nothing to do with the concept of ring species and what it purports?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ring_species

Aren't ring species considered viable examples of macro-evolution coming soon to a city near you?

Please tell us all why this has no relation to what we're talking about so all can witness more of your doublethink resulting doublespeak.

View Post

Because ring species - their causes, their geographic ranges, how they are identified, their implications to evolutionary theory - have absolutely jack squat to do with the topic of causes of varying chromosomal numbers that was being discussed.

What part of that don't you understand?

#45 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:03 PM

For someone who is so technical and learned you certainly have a bad habit of connecting dots incorrectly and wildly misunderstanding what is said. :D

View Post

Maybe if you'd present coherent thoughts instead of trying to bluff your way through by tossing out a mish mash of non-sequiturs and technical buzzwords you don't understand, I wouldn't. :)

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:10 PM

Because ring species - their causes, their geographic ranges, how they are identified, their implications to evolutionary theory - have absolutely jack squat to do with the topic of causes of varying chromosomal numbers that was being discussed.

View Post

Noooo?!? :o Is that all we we are talking about? There is more to this subject but you misdirect.

Please take a close look at the fact that we were talking about both chromosome numbers and kinds...

We already demonstrated it... Down Syndrome. Looking at your horses it looks like the mutation was real and also benign. They both have your standard horse features.

<Attention, Assist 24, please note the not so confusing segue in my quote below, highlighted, underlined and colored green for clarity:> :D
As for a more accurate but less easily verifiable definition of Kind once offered by CTD:

Those animals which could originally bring forth.

This does allow for the possible verification of diversity that would lead to what common biology calls ring species.

How do we verify that certain animals had a common ancestor? I would say that if they can bring forth today it's a clincher but there is room to say that kinds may have diversified far enough to have some breeds that are either difficult to interbreed (Lions and Tigers) or almost impossible to interbreed (Great Danes and Teacup Chiwawas) due to prezygotic barriers or other mutations.

We don't deny mutations. We deny the fairytale that mutations increase complexity and viability. I think Ligars are a great case. Those animals look like a throwback to me. Larger stronger and better looking then the parents.

I think the same case can be made for interracial marriages between black and white people. The offspring seem to have better skin tone and more striking features then the parents as if they represent a better bloodline from the past.

View Post

...but I guess you can't follow normal conversation. :) I'm sorry, I didn't know you confuse so easily.

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:35 PM

You didn't answer the question.  I'm not asking for a definitive answer, just tell me what you think based on what you know. Why do animals of the same kind have a different chromosome number?

View Post

Dear onlookers,

This question I believe can be satisfied with what we have talked about up until now. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter because I just learned about the horse with an extra Chromosome today. I will infer from the following facts:

1. Przewalski's Horse DNA is overall very similar to Domestic horse because of possible interbreeding.

2. Extra Chromosomes are possible to survive as seen in human Down Syndrome.

3. Przewalski's Horses are horses, plain and simple

I would extend the hypothesis that the horse, like humans, produced an extra chromosome. However, unlike in humans where this mutation is obviously deleterious, a similar mutation has seemingly benign effects on the horse.

This is based on very limited data but even Wiki goes to the trouble of telling us that these horses are a mystery and not that easy to distinguish:

http://en.wikipedia....ewalski's_Horse

The Przewalski's Horse was described in 1881 by L.S. Poliakov. The taxonomic position of Przewalski's Horse has always been problematic and no consensus exists whether is a full species (Equus przewalskii), a subspecies of the Wild Horse (Equus ferus przewalskii) or even a sub-population of the domesticated horse (Equus caballus).[5][6][7] Studies using DNA have been inconclusive, in part due to crossing domestic horses into the Przewalski's Horse as well as the limited genetic variation present in the founder population of the Przewalski's Horse. A recent molecular studies using ancient DNA (that is DNA recovered from archaeological finds like bones and teeth) places the Przewalski's Horse in the middle of the domesticated horses,[7] but no definitive answers have been given.

This neutral data doesn't do anything for either side. A normal horse makes offspring with an extra chromosome (this can be demonstrated as happening in other organisms) the end product is another horse.

#48 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:50 PM

Noooo?!? :)  Is that all we we are talking about? There is more to this subject but you misdirect.

Causes of chromosomal count variation was all I was talking about, and all I was asking questions to you about.

So sorry that when you vectored off into your own little private Idaho world I didn't follow.

Now, can we please get back to the OP topic of the causes and ramifications of differing chromosomal numbers?

Since you now agree that differing chromosomal numbers are not a barrier to interfertility or having the differing number become fixed in the population, what is your specific objection to the accepted explanation for the human/chimp chromosome 2 fusion event?

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:53 PM

So sorry that when you vectored off into your own little private Idaho world I didn't follow.

View Post

:)

Apology accepted. :D

You are very colorful in your speech and I must say it's fun to read but please be careful to keep it reasonable, okay? :o

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 02:07 PM

Before we get too confused about the idea that chromosome numbers being some linchpin in this discussion let's recap what is amazing about trying to tie Human/Chimp relationship together. We aren't just talking about a mutation like Down Syndrome. We are taking about wild differences that are evident even in the chart you provided:

Posted Image
H=Human, C=Chimp

When we consider the process of mitosis and how well regulated it functions day in and day out in every living body the extrapolation of Human/Chimp ancestry becomes a huge leap of faith.

nPG6480RQo0

Now go one step further and see how well regulated the process of meiosis is and your stabbing in the dark:

D1_-mQS_FZ0

Organisms have built in mechanisms to reject mutations before they go anywhere. We marvel at anomalies like Down Syndrome because they defy the odds. How can the body cope with code that it is not supposed to have? Well, it does it but it is harmful to the unfortunate adult that must suffer with it. This is precisely why nobody will ever get chimps and humans to make offspring. They are different kinds of animals.

#51 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 02:22 PM

Dear onlookers,

This question I believe can be satisfied with what we have talked about up until now. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter because I just learned about the horse with an extra Chromosome today. I will infer from the following facts:

1. Przewalski's Horse DNA is overall very similar to Domestic horse because of possible interbreeding.

2. Extra Chromosomes are possible to survive as seen in human Down Syndrome.

3. Przewalski's Horses are horses, plain and simple

I would extend the hypothesis that the horse, like humans, produced an extra chromosome. However, unlike in humans where this mutation is obviously deleterious, a similar mutation has seemingly benign effects on the horse.

Excellent try, but sadly it's not supported by the genetic evidence.

The genetic evidence shows that the common ancestor of the domestic horse and Przewalski's Horse had at least 66 chromosomes. Przewalski's still has the same number, but the modern horse with 64 evolved through a chromosomal translocation called a Robertsonian event, similar (but not identical) to the chimp/human C2 fusion event.

Here's another interesting tidbit. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes. Zebras (horse "kind" too?) have between 46 and 32 depending on the species, but donkeys and zebras are still interfertile. So it's not the number of chromosomes that make the difference, it's what's in those chromosomes.

That's why the idea that "chimp 48 vs. human 46 chromosomes indicates a different kind" doesn't hold water.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 24 March 2009 - 02:44 PM

Excellent try, but sadly it's not supported by the genetic evidence.

The genetic evidence shows that the common ancestor of the domestic horse and Przewalski's Horse had at least 66 chromosomes.  Przewalski's still has the same number, but the modern horse with 64 evolved through a chromosomal translocation called a Robertsonian event, similar (but not identical) to the chimp/human C2 fusion event.

Here's another interesting tidbit.  Donkeys have 62 chromosomes. Zebras (horse "kind" too?)  have between 46 and 32 depending on the species, but donkeys and zebras are still interfertile.  So it's not the number of chromosomes that make the difference, it's what's in those chromosomes.

That's why the idea that "chimp 48 vs. human 46 chromosomes indicates a different kind" doesn't hold water.

View Post


Thanks! That's some great information so what are people arguing for with chimps and humans then? They can't interbreed so who cares if those squiggly little DNA look similar or not? Your gearshift hear is interesting. I've heard about chromosomal translocation before but I'm not real familiar with it.

It sounds like science, in general, is shooting in the dark to really understand the whole DNA superstructure. So why should the evolution fairy tale receive special treatment to get divine status of playing God in an area we know so little about?

Is it really true that Zebra's vary from 46 to 32 chromosomes? From what I understand Horses and Zebras can interbreed as well:

bZVwILy1oSc

Gregor Mendel showed that hybridization is not a good thing for evolution because selective breeding just toyed with existing data. Which has now been conclusively demonstrated in the DNA of organisms.

I will say that I would like to know what a horse DNA and Zebra DNA do to make viable offspring with so many Chromosome number differences. interesting.

#53 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 04:42 PM

Thanks! That's some great information so what are people arguing for with chimps and humans then? They can't interbreed so who cares if those squiggly little DNA look similar or not?

Actually, that's not known for certain. The main reasons for not experimenting with in vitro fertilization seem to be ethical rather than logistical. From what I've read though, best guess is that there has been too much genetic divergence in the 6 MY between the chimp/human split to produce even a sterile offspring now.

A cool paper did come out a few years back that indicated the chimp/human split was not a clean one, but that the two species did continue to, er, swap genetic material for at least a million years afterwards.

'Chumanzee' evolution: the urge to diverge and merge
Todd R Disotell
Genome Biology 2006, 7:240

Abstract:  A recent analysis of the human and chimpanzee genomes compared with portions of other primate genomes suggests that the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages beginning around 6 million years ago was not a simple clean split.

...

More interestingly, Patterson et al. [1] found that the amount of molecular divergence (the proportion of nucleotides differing between human and chimpanzees) between any region varied between 84% and 147% of the overall average level of divergence. Furthermore, they found that the sequences from the X chromosome diverged from each other by only 83.5% of the average overall divergence, instead of the approximately 93% divergence they inferred from their modeling of the X chromosome. A smaller degree of divergence is expected in sequences on the X chromosome because the number of copies of the X chromosome in a population of any primate species is only three quarters of the number of copies of any autosome. The smaller effective population size of the X chromosome will only be able to generate and maintain a smaller amount of variation. The same is true, but even more so, for the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, whose effective population sizes are only a quarter those of the autosomes. Peterson et al. [1] interpret this reduced amount of variation on the X chromosome to mean that humans and chimpanzees were still exchanging X chromosomes 1.2 million years after the species split (Figure 2). Hence the headlines of ancestral chimpanzees and humans mating.

If chimpanzees and humans were hybridizing for over a million years after their 'split', this might imply that the early human lineage still maintained the 2n = 48 karyotype found among all the great apes (modern humans have 2n = 46). Such a speculation might also explain the apparent lack of hybridization found between modern humans and the very closely related extinct Neanderthals [6]. If the population leading to the modern human lineage subsequently underwent a chromosomal fusion event, giving us our 2n = 46 karyotype, while the Neanderthal lineage retained 2n = 48, perhaps modern humans could not successfully interbreed with Neanderthals.

full text of overview article with good diagrams

link to original paper "Complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees"


It sounds like science, in general, is shooting in the dark to really understand the whole DNA superstructure.

Shooting in the dark? Genetics is a billion dollar a year industry. Hundreds of animals have had their entire DNA sequenced, with hundreds more being done as we speak. Have you never heard of the Human Genome Project? And you may poo poo them, but phylogenetic trees derived from statistical genomic distance analysis are used all over the place in science. They also correlate with better than 99% accuracy with similar trees independently derived from the fossil record.

So why should the evolution fairy tale receive special treatment to get divine status of playing God in an area we know so little about?

Why do you think evolution gets special treatment? It's evolution that's doing all the research and publishing all the results. It's the YEs who seem to want their ideas to be excluded from scientific testing.

Is it really true that Zebra's vary from 46 to 32 chromosomes? From what I understand Horses and Zebras can interbreed as well:

Yep, it's true. Fascinating, innit? :)

Gregor Mendel showed that hybridization is not a good thing for evolution because selective breeding just toyed with existing data. Which has now been conclusively demonstrated in the DNA of organisms.

Hybridization is not a bad thing as long as the gene pool is big enough. The problems come in when you have a small breeding population with not enough genetic diversity ('genetic bottleneck') and the inbreeding causes the reemergence of harmful recessive traits. That's one of the things that screwed the Romanovs royal dynasty in Russia - many of them suffered from hemophilia due to all the close inter family marriages.

Which leads back to the question I've asked repeatedly. If all the animals we see today arose from 2 (or 7) breeding pairs on the Ark, why do none of them show genetic evidence of a severe population bottleneck only 4400 years ago?

I will say that I would like to know what a horse DNA and Zebra DNA do to make viable offspring with so many Chromosome number differences.

Again, it's not the number of chromosomes but what's on them. Breaking one or fusing one doesn't affect the large majority of the genetic codon sequences.

#54 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:06 PM

We already demonstrated it... Down Syndrome. Looking at your horses it looks like the mutation was real and also benign. They both have your standard horse features.

As for a more accurate but less easily verifiable definition of Kind once offered by CTD:

Those animals which could originally bring forth.

This does allow for the possible verification of diversity that would lead to what common biology calls ring species.

How do we verify that certain animals had a common ancestor? I would say that if they can bring forth today it's a clincher but there is room to say that kinds may have diversified far enough to have some breeds that are either difficult to interbreed (Lions and Tigers) or almost impossible to interbreed (Great Danes and Teacup Chiwawas) due to prezygotic barriers or other mutations.

We don't deny mutations. We deny the fairytale that mutations increase complexity and viability. I think Ligars are a great case. Those animals look like a throwback to me. Larger stronger and better looking then the parents.

I think the same case can be made for interracial marriages between black and white people. The offspring seem to have better skin tone and more striking features then the parents as if they represent a better bloodline from the past.

View Post


You can't compare a tigon or liger to a mixed breed dog or multiracial child. The only problems large and small dogs have with interbreeding are of the mechanical variety. It's the definition of a species. Two of the offspring have to be able to mate and produce another. You can't do that with lion/tiger hybrid. You can breed a female liger with a male lion, but male ligers are sterile.

So a liger is absolutely not an example of a species being fitter than their parents because they would die off without another species replacing their numbers.

And mutations can increase viability. If snow leopards and cheetahs are members of the same "kind" and have lost complexity and viability from their common ancestor then why are they adapted to their environments so well. How could a tiger be an effective ambush hunter in the Himalayas???

#55 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:24 PM

At one point in time, Oliver the chimpanzee was considered, or thought to be a human/chimp hybrid. But after scientist studied Olivers chromosomes they came to the conclusion that he was just a mishapen chimp, because he had a normal chimpanzee chromosome count.

I saw Oliver several times on TV... Quite interesting.

Anyways. Lets remember: different breeds of the same species can interbreed and create fertile offspring.

Different breeds from a different species cannot create fertile offspring with that of another species.

This is the main thing that seperates species, from different breeds... Fertile offspring.

This is how we determine and classify species. If any one animal has not had the interbreeding test, then how can we proof positively say what species it belongs to.

#56 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:07 PM

Anyways.  Lets remember: different breeds of the same species can interbreed and create fertile offspring.

Different breeds from a different species cannot create fertile offspring with that of another species.

This is the main thing that seperates species, from different breeds... Fertile offspring.

This is how we determine and classify species.  If any one animal has not had the interbreeding test, then how can we proof positively say what species it belongs to.

View Post

What you are describing is known as the Biological Species Concept (BCS), and is probably the most widely used today. It is not without its problems though. For example, there are cases of three populations A, B, C where A, B are interfertile, B,C are interfertile, but A,C are not. Are A, B, C, one species? There is also the problem of how to classify asexually reproducing organisms like bacteria. Finally, there is the logistical problem that it is impossible to test most populations through actual breeding experiments.

Several alternative classification mechanisms have been proposed, such as the Morphological Species Concept (MCS) which defines species simply by physical characteristics (and is not very accurate or useful) and the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PCS) which is based on the hypothesized phylogeny (there's those darn phylogenetic trees again :o ) of the animals.

There is no one universally accepted standard definition in biology. Many times it comes down to the description that best fits the specific population being described.

Why all the fuzziness and ambiguity over species? Remember, the whole concept of species is a human developed idea solely for classifying nature into neat little bins. Nature, however, is a sloppy mash up of organisms and properties and does not easily lend itself to such neat characterization.

#57 Archea

Archea

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Maryland

Posted 25 March 2009 - 01:50 AM

Here? I have a hard time believing that... we're all a bunch of rebels here, we only believe things if they're true. Can you provide a link?

View Post


I presume Archea is referring to the Welcome->Hi everyone thread here, where he outright called Professor JC Sanford a liar in respect of what he said in this interview.  It seems to me very reckless for a first-year student to assume he understands the subject better than someone who has studied it for years.  More likely he has misunderstood things himself.

In such a case I as a non-expert have to choose between authorities and I reckon Sanford is much more likely to be a good one.

View Post


Yes, this is the thread I was referring to. I do not assume to know more about this than he does. I never said that he didn't know what he was talking about, because I'm sure he does. But what he has presented does not fit with the observable evidence, and I'm left with two options: 1. he has a fake degree and has no idea what he is talking about 2. he is simply lying, most likely for money.

Imagine if someone has studied Jesus extensively and wrote a paper saying that he was eight feet tall, had blond hair, blue eyes and was really born somewhere in Europe (there is an actual sect of Christianity that believes this more or less). And did it in such a way that the average person could not refute it. However, he can wrap that story up all he wants, that person would still be lying because the evidence does not support that view and even laymen people who study this non-professionally can refute it.

And if you want to discuss this in-depth, a separate thread as Adam suggested might be the best way to go.

#58 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:40 AM

However, he can wrap that story up all he wants, that person would still be lying because the evidence does not support that view and even laymen people who study this non-professionally can refute it.

View Post

Wow! You just described evolution. :o

Thanks. ;)

I'm given a hard time all the time because I haven't been brainwashed at a secular University and proud of it.

#59 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:05 AM

Shooting in the dark?  Genetics is a billion dollar a year industry.  Hundreds of animals have had their entire DNA sequenced, with hundreds more being done as we speak.  Have you never heard of the Human Genome Project?

View Post

Being able to pick out patterns and map sequences is amazing and don't get me wrong the technology behind this is fascinating but I have a bet for you.

I bet the most educated and well versed geneticists will admit how little they actually understand the function and scope of DNA and what it actually goes through to keep an organism alive and more how it works when duplicating itself. Agreed?

We can isolate RNA in mid transcription as its in a ribosomes. We can understand basic functions of the nucleus and the mitochondria. Or we can detect the manufacture of microtubules and the motor molecules that use them as conveyor tracks for protein filled vesicles.

We love talking about this stuff. For some reason evolutionists avoid these threads:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2034

With all that said... we are just scratching the surface of life functions and I don't know any serious scientist whether atheist or Christian that would disagree.

#60 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 March 2009 - 11:43 AM

What you are describing is known as the Biological Species Concept (BCS), and is probably the most widely used today.  It is not without its problems though.  For example, there are cases of three populations A, B, C where A, B are interfertile, B,C are interfertile, but A,C are not.  Are A, B, C, one species?  There is also the problem of how to classify asexually reproducing organisms like bacteria.  Finally, there is the logistical problem that it is impossible to test most populations through actual breeding experiments.

Several alternative classification mechanisms have been proposed, such as the Morphological Species Concept (MCS) which defines species simply by physical characteristics (and is not very accurate or useful) and the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PCS) which is based on the hypothesized phylogeny (there's those darn phylogenetic trees again  :o  ) of the animals.

There is no one universally accepted standard definition in biology.  Many times it comes down to the description that best fits the specific population being described.

Why all the fuzziness and ambiguity over species?  Remember, the whole concept of species is a human developed idea solely for classifying nature into neat little bins.  Nature, however, is a sloppy mash up of organisms and properties and does not easily lend itself to such neat characterization.

View Post


This means everyone, everywhere, and at anytime can flip flop the meaning and placement of organisms whenever they so choose.

Like saying there are millions of species of beetles... well, did breeders actually breed these supposed millions of species of beetles to figure out if they really were species or not, or did evolutionary bias laziness get in the way, without actually having to do any breeding.

All placement of organisms are subject to the breeding test, every single one... you can't just guess which one goes where, and then force feed everyone this untested information as fact.

Also, it really doesn't matter about the population, what matters is breeding. You get one male, one female, then there you have it... DONE. Finished product.

From there you can tell if the breeding population as a whole is a species or not. But you must still do breeding test to inspect the fertility of each breed, and this is the ultimate decisive clue.

The only fuzziness would be the laziness on the breeders part of not actually breeding the animals to see whats what.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users