September 8, 2011 at 7:27 am
rmechaber (9/8/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/7/2011)
[<snip>Aha - they did. Your friend's statement was absolutely false! 😉
Chris, thanks for posting that: this is a fascinating article and real food for thought. I'm not sure this would satisfy a skeptic about evolution though, b/c the researcher still has E. Coli after thousands of generations, not a new species. Yes, it's evolution, but most creationists mean "evolutionary speciation" when they insist evolution cannot occur.
Rich
And the guy I was refering to, if you had a child who had "evolved" to eat coal instead of food, and had tentacles instead of arms, would still consider that "the same species" because its parents were human. Thus, his defense of creationism was absolute, since it was impossible for there to ever be a "new species" by that definition.
Same importance of definition as the original debate on this thread. Voltaire is still right.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 8, 2011 at 7:42 am
GSquared (9/8/2011)
And from my religious perspective, I'd assert your "body" is the whole physical universe, from a certain perspective.
Now that's just downright creepy: what are you doing in my body, sir? Get out!
If you are correct, I can see this leading in dangerous directions: advocating pacifism, fomenting non-violence, encouraging understanding. After all "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together", right?
This makes it a whole lot easier for the poster earlier on who wanted to sit down and have a beer with you: he only needs to take himself out to the pub!
Thanks for your contributions philosophic and practical here, GSquared. I won't pretend to be able to chew through all of your philosophical musings, but I think you bring the same qualities essential to both philosophy and data analysis/problem solving: defining what the problem is and considering the meaning and limits of possible answers.
Rich
September 8, 2011 at 8:33 am
rmechaber (9/8/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/7/2011)
[<snip>Aha - they did. Your friend's statement was absolutely false! 😉
Chris, thanks for posting that: this is a fascinating article and real food for thought. I'm not sure this would satisfy a skeptic about evolution though, b/c the researcher still has E. Coli after thousands of generations, not a new species. Yes, it's evolution, but most creationists mean "evolutionary speciation" when they insist evolution cannot occur.
Rich
You're welcome Rich. The species boundaries between many closely related bugs are blurry, no surprise when you consider how antibiotic resistance is transferred between species. Bacterial taxonomy isn't for the fainthearted! This isn't an easily resolved problem...
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
September 8, 2011 at 8:44 am
GSquared (9/8/2011)
rmechaber (9/8/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/7/2011)
[<snip>Aha - they did. Your friend's statement was absolutely false! 😉
Chris, thanks for posting that: this is a fascinating article and real food for thought. I'm not sure this would satisfy a skeptic about evolution though, b/c the researcher still has E. Coli after thousands of generations, not a new species. Yes, it's evolution, but most creationists mean "evolutionary speciation" when they insist evolution cannot occur.
Rich
And the guy I was refering to, if you had a child who had "evolved" to eat coal instead of food, and had tentacles instead of arms, would still consider that "the same species" because its parents were human. Thus, his defense of creationism was absolute, since it was impossible for there to ever be a "new species" by that definition.
Same importance of definition as the original debate on this thread. Voltaire is still right.
One generaton is cutting it a bit fine, Gus!
The best explanation I've remembered over the years is this: if two members can breed and produce offspring which can themselves breed between themselves and their parent members, then the original two members are the same species.
I'm hearing Duelling Banjo's as I write this...
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
September 8, 2011 at 8:45 am
rmechaber (9/8/2011)[hrGus, when I learned a bit about quantum mechanics in college, I began to wonder where, exactly, "I" stopped? Where are the physical boundaries of my physical existence: where does my body end? Quantum mechanics says there are only probabilities for the locations of my body's electrons, so.... flip a coin. There is a vanishingly small but non-zero probability that some of my body's atoms' electrons are sitting on your keyboard right now.
Fun stuff.
Rich
I wish I could understand "spooky action at a distance." I mean I know what happens, but it certainly is an odd phenomena. Of course, in a way, gravity is action, or at least force, at a distance. So, in that respect, maybe it isn't all that "spooky." But what Einstein was referring to is information transferred faster than the speed of light. ?? Bizarre.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
September 8, 2011 at 9:24 am
ChrisM@Work (9/8/2011)
GSquared (9/8/2011)
rmechaber (9/8/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/7/2011)
[<snip>Aha - they did. Your friend's statement was absolutely false! 😉
Chris, thanks for posting that: this is a fascinating article and real food for thought. I'm not sure this would satisfy a skeptic about evolution though, b/c the researcher still has E. Coli after thousands of generations, not a new species. Yes, it's evolution, but most creationists mean "evolutionary speciation" when they insist evolution cannot occur.
Rich
And the guy I was refering to, if you had a child who had "evolved" to eat coal instead of food, and had tentacles instead of arms, would still consider that "the same species" because its parents were human. Thus, his defense of creationism was absolute, since it was impossible for there to ever be a "new species" by that definition.
Same importance of definition as the original debate on this thread. Voltaire is still right.
One generaton is cutting it a bit fine, Gus!
The best explanation I've remembered over the years is this: if two members can breed and produce offspring which can themselves breed between themselves and their parent members, then the original two members are the same species.
I'm hearing Duelling Banjo's as I write this...
Which definition of course makes nonsense of the idea that wolves, dogs, and coyotes are "different species", since they can interbreed freely. They usually don't, but it does happen, even in the wild. And yet, they are listed as "canus lupus", "canus lupus familiaris", and "canus latrans" (the last is the coyote). Until fairly recently, dogs and wolves were considered as separate species, instead of just subspecies of "canus lupus".
As with all studies of biology, the naming conventions and definitions are fluid and subject to radical changes over fairly short periods of time. Most, it not all, of the sciences suffer from this, which is part of why learning them is difficult. The terminology changes so complexly that what Newton meant by the word "gravity" and what a modern physicist means by it can be very, very different things.
Also, the "breed with" part of the definition doesn't fit at all for asexual reproduction. Also causes issues with things like, if a child is born sterile, but the parents are members of the same species, is the child still a member of that species, since it can't reproduce at all? That factor is part of why the terminology ends up so complex and fluid, since it has to take into account edge cases and exceptions.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 8, 2011 at 9:26 am
rmechaber (9/8/2011)
GSquared (9/8/2011)
And from my religious perspective, I'd assert your "body" is the whole physical universe, from a certain perspective.Now that's just downright creepy: what are you doing in my body, sir? Get out!
If you are correct, I can see this leading in dangerous directions: advocating pacifism, fomenting non-violence, encouraging understanding. After all "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together", right?
This makes it a whole lot easier for the poster earlier on who wanted to sit down and have a beer with you: he only needs to take himself out to the pub!
Thanks for your contributions philosophic and practical here, GSquared. I won't pretend to be able to chew through all of your philosophical musings, but I think you bring the same qualities essential to both philosophy and data analysis/problem solving: defining what the problem is and considering the meaning and limits of possible answers.
Rich
There's a difference between philosophy and data analysis????!!!!!!
:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:
LOL on the beer bit, and thank you on the compliments.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 8, 2011 at 9:48 am
ChrisM@Work (9/8/2011)
The best explanation I've remembered over the years is this: if two members can breed and produce offspring which can themselves breed between themselves and their parent members, then the original two members are the same species.I'm hearing Duelling Banjo's as I write this...
That surprises me Chris. I'm no biologist, but my expectation was that mutations would be small enough to allow parent-child and child-child reproduction in nearly all cases. I'd have thought that only after several generations of such mutations would interbreeding no longer be possible (great-great-great-... grandparent, if you will).
I don't know if the proponents of punctuated equilibrium -- evolutionary standstills interspersed with rare, major speciation events -- have hazarded any guesses as to what "rapid" means. In geological terms, rapid could be a major shift over a period of 10,000 years, which could be 10,000 or more generations (depending on the species in question). In an outcrop of rock 350 feet thick laid down over 20 million years, 10,000 years would be an average of 2 inches of deposition.
Rich
September 8, 2011 at 10:05 am
rmechaber (9/8/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/8/2011)
The best explanation I've remembered over the years is this: if two members can breed and produce offspring which can themselves breed between themselves and their parent members, then the original two members are the same species.I'm hearing Duelling Banjo's as I write this...
That surprises me Chris. I'm no biologist, but my expectation was that mutations would be small enough to allow parent-child and child-child reproduction in nearly all cases. I'd have thought that only after several generations of such mutations would interbreeding no longer be possible (great-great-great-... grandparent, if you will).
I don't know if the proponents of punctuated equilibrium -- evolutionary standstills interspersed with rare, major speciation events -- have hazarded any guesses as to what "rapid" means. In geological terms, rapid could be a major shift over a period of 10,000 years, which could be 10,000 or more generations (depending on the species in question). In an outcrop of rock 350 feet thick laid down over 20 million years, 10,000 years would be an average of 2 inches of deposition.
Rich
It's by no means perfect but works well enough in principle and practice. Your expectation sounds just about right. There have been quite a few studies where island-trapped species have been compared to their mainland equivalents, which can hint at the timescales required for the populations to diverge into two genetically distinct species. However, the timescale for two separated populations to diverge sufficiently to look and even behave like separate species is remarkably short - a few hundred years IIRC.
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
September 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm
ChrisM@Work (9/8/2011)
The best explanation I've remembered over the years is this: if two members can breed and produce offspring which can themselves breed between themselves and their parent members, then the original two members are the same species.I'm hearing Duelling Banjo's as I write this...
Then there are of course the species that can reproduce through cloning themselves, with no contribution from a male - about 1% of lizards are capable of parthenogenesis (virgin birth) and it also occurs, more rarely, in some fish and invertebrates. While the offspring are essentially identical to the parent, mutations in their DNA could still result in variations that, eventually, give rise to what we might consider a new species.
I'm not sure if that supports the theory of species evolution or not - no doubt it could be used as an argument both for and against it.
Chris
September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Naked Ape (9/8/2011)
ChrisM@Work (9/8/2011)
The best explanation I've remembered over the years is this: if two members can breed and produce offspring which can themselves breed between themselves and their parent members, then the original two members are the same species.I'm hearing Duelling Banjo's as I write this...
Then there are of course the species that can reproduce through cloning themselves, with no contribution from a male - about 1% of lizards are capable of parthenogenesis (virgin birth) and it also occurs, more rarely, in some fish and invertebrates. While the offspring are essentially identical to the parent, mutations in their DNA could still result in variations that, eventually, give rise to what we might consider a new species.
I'm not sure if that supports the theory of species evolution or not - no doubt it could be used as an argument both for and against it.
Most of the arguments against evolution are variations on "breeding dogs for 10,000 years has yet to produce a T-Rex", or something like that.
The real problem is the very definition of "species". It's weak, in that it's either too broad or too narrow. Those that depend on interbreeding fertility have trouble with mules and with ligers/tiglons, since fertility is variable in both of those; and have trouble with asexual reproduction, especially in "species" where asexuality is an uncommon variant, not the standard action. Those that depend on physical characteristics have even worse problems.
Of course, living things are dependent on variation (the whole concept behind evolution), so it's harder to categorize them than, for example, periodic table elements.
Until biologists can really define its terms, "scientific creationists" will continue to use the vagueness of the terms against them. All the arguments against evolution are just rationalized/justified thought to support confirmation bias, really, and no amount of clarification/codification/explanation can defeat hard-set confirmation bias.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm
GSquared (9/8/2011)
All the arguments against evolution are just rationalized/justified thought to support confirmation bias, really, and no amount of clarification/codification/explanation can defeat hard-set confirmation bias.
Translation for the simple-minded among us: you can't change a closed mind. :w00t:
*ducks for cover*
Rich
September 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm
GSquared (9/8/2011)
The real problem is the very definition of "species". It's weak, in that it's either too broad or too narrow.Of course, living things are dependent on variation (the whole concept behind evolution), so it's harder to categorize them than, for example, periodic table elements.
I would have to agree - if the various breeds of dogs we have produced were to have occurred naturally we would likely categorise the chihuahua and rottweiler as different species. The constant debate and changes to taxonomy classification shows that our definition of species is certainly inadequate.
Chris
September 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Naked Ape (9/8/2011)
GSquared (9/8/2011)
The real problem is the very definition of "species". It's weak, in that it's either too broad or too narrow.Of course, living things are dependent on variation (the whole concept behind evolution), so it's harder to categorize them than, for example, periodic table elements.
I would have to agree - if the various breeds of dogs we have produced were to have occurred naturally we would likely categorise the chihuahua and rottweiler as different species. The constant debate and changes to taxonomy classification shows that our definition of species is certainly inadequate.
There are news reports that hundreds of species are going extinct every day/week/month/whatever because of human industrialization, global warming, whatever. What they don't tell you is that many of those "species" are things like ants that are minutely different in one ant hill from the ants in the hill 2 feet away. One of the ant hills dies off, and it's counted as an extinction event, even if the next door ant hill is doing just fine. (This doesn't mean we aren't harming a wide variety of environments. It's just an example of spin and lies trying to make a bad situation seem even worse in order to forward a political agenda and/or garner funding for something or other.)
So, yeah, we categorize for things other than scientifically valid necessity, and do so quite often.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 9, 2011 at 3:17 am
Naked Ape (9/8/2011)
...about 1% of lizards are capable of parthenogenesis...
Including, surprisingly, the biggest. One convenient theory for Komodo parthenogenesis is their habitat - there's a higher probability of an island-dwelling island-hopping species finding itself isolated.
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 158 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply