If being on the other side of the bering strait for thousands of years without interbreeding with people in asia or europe or africa is not reproductively isolated, then it must mean not mean anything at all or whatever you feel like defining at any given moment. The same holds true for being on the island continent of australia for thousands of years without interbreeding with other humans outside of that continent. I noticed in your typical arrogance, that you don't bother to define what subspecies after you declare that I don't know what it means. How does that help anybody but your ego?
The Real Science Radio Caveman Show
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
If being on the other side of the bering strait for thousands of years without interbreeding with people in asia or europe or africa is not reproductively isolated, then it must mean not mean anything at all or whatever you feel like defining at any given moment. The same holds true for being on the island continent of australia for thousands of years without interbreeding with other humans outside of that continent. I noticed in your typical arrogance, that you don't bother to define what subspecies after you declare that I don't know what it means. How does that help anybody but your ego?
Alate_One
Well-known member
You can say all of that for many wide ranging animal species, such as caribou/reindeer, brown bears and peregrine falcons. The populations may interbreed at the edges and therefore have gene flow. There's evidence of this in many of the human populations you list.
Reproductive isolation by geography is generally not a sole characteristic for a species anyway (though it can be an initiator of speciation). Other isolating mechanisms must come into play to keep species apart such as different mating rituals, chromosomal differences etc.
Subspecies are very often distinguished based on very small differences. Molecular data are erasing a lot of supposed "subspecies".
So, the choice to call a certain population a subspecies is highly subjective. You just said so yourself. If it weren't a subjective decision then molecular data would not erase the classification. You must concede then that Stripe has had a point all along. There is no strict classification scheme for determining what is and isn't a new species. I appreciate your honesty in debating with me as opposed to barbarians dishonesty and arrogance.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I said SUBspecies are much more subjective than species. Species definitions tend to be much clearer, genera still better, families even better etc. That said there are arguments at almost every taxonomic level, in one group of organisms or another.
No human system of biological classification is going to be "rock solid" and "well defined" no matter what Stripe says because biological organisms do not always fit in clear, easily distinguishable groups. That's simply the nature of biology, and that's because of its evolutionary history.
The problem with Stripe is he's asserting that "kind" is less subjective and arbitrary than species, when all he's done is assert that over and over. He's not been able to actually use his definition AT ALL. Something that is useful but occasionally fuzzy is better than something that's totally useless, don't you think?
lain:I said SUBspecies are much more subjective than species. Species definitions tend to be much clearer, genera still better, families even better etc. That said there are arguments at almost every taxonomic level, in one group of organisms or another.
No human system of biological classification is going to be "rock solid" and "well defined" no matter what Stripe says because biological organisms do not always fit in clear, easily distinguishable groups. That's simply the nature of biology, and that's because of its evolutionary history.
The problem with Stripe is he's asserting that "kind" is less subjective and arbitrary than species, when all he's done is assert that over and over. He's not been able to actually use his definition AT ALL. Something that is useful but occasionally fuzzy is better than something that's totally useless, don't you think?
Yes, but I am still fuzzy about something. I now know that the determination of a new subspecies is subjective. A new species used to be a sub population of another species. What are the factors that determine when a sub population can officially be called a species? I could also ask if a subpopulation is the same thing as a subspecies.
What Stripe says is:
regardless of how much difficulty we might face in applying a classification system, "Kind" is well defined and rock solid. There is no room for equivocation on what might be or might not be included in a kind given all knowledge. "Species", however, leaves plenty of room for argument and disagreement.
All creatures are descended from a common ancestor pair that can be used to distinguish it from another organism.
Every organism can be put into a rigorously distinguished group. The only barrier is our historical knowledge to be able to do so.
Assuming the truth of the idea you hold so dear is no way to do science.
With evidence:
"Kind" has a rock solid, clear and simple definition: A "Kind" is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.
"Species" has a vague, malleable multiplication of definitions: "... one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."
-wiki.
Doesn't pay to say things that are so easily shown completely wrong.Apart from being able to tell you that lions and tigers are the same kind.
Pays not to say things that are so easily shown wrong.
Yes.
There were repeated waves of newcomers across the strait, even after the ice ages. Linguistic and archaeological evidence shows at least four waves. And the most optimistic estimates for the first wave are perhaps 50,000 years ago, about the same amount of time that the Austalians got to that continent. But of course, subsequent waves re-connected those early Americans with the Old World genetically and on a more frequent basis than Asians made it to Australia.
This is consistent with the genetic evidence.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/5/927.full.pdf
Reproductive isolation doesn't mean flying a group of people to a distant island and leaving them there. That's geographical isolation, which usually, over a long time, leads to reproductive isolation. But Neandertals were more effectively isolated for a longer time than Australians or Americans, with the expected results.
The isolation was neither as complete nor as long as that separating Neandertals and anatomically modern humans, judging by the genetics. One interesting fact is that anatomically modern humans and early Neandertals lived in close proximity in what is now Israel, but left no traces of interbreeding or interaction at all.
The fact remains that there is more variation between modern humans and Neandertals than there is within the two populations. This means they are different races or more likely, different species. But polar bears and grizzly bears are different species, anatomically and genetically quite different, but still able to interbreed.
Yes, it's messy. Exactly what you'd expect if evolution gradually caused speciation.
I think most everyone else here knows what it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies
It was formerly often referred to as "race."
I'm still waiting for Stipe to answer Alate_One's queston about what carnivores are in one kind.
Apparently, a "rock solid" definition can't be used for anything.
Isn't that a surprise?
Apparently, a "rock solid" definition can't be used for anything.
Isn't that a surprise?
Frayed Knot
New member
Yes, that's reproductively isolated, but just thousands of years isn't long enough for them to count as a different species. Evolution is usually very gradual. Had they been isolated for 50,000 or 100,000 years, there would likely be enough difference between them that we'd call them a different species.
That's correct, but the only disagreement is at the margins. Two different populations that can't interbreed at all are clearly different species. This simple rule takes care of 99% of the creatures we study.
But then you have those pesky margins - what about those cases where two populations can still interbreed, but are starting to show differentiation? There is some disagreement between scientists about whether to call two populations different species if they are in the state of incomplete speciation. This is completely expected by an evolutionary explanation.
Our difficulty in categorizing things into neat groups doesn't mean the theory itself has a weakness, because you should expect to find groups that are in various stages of breaking apart from each other.
More twisting and obvious obfuscation. You don't address any of my points in a straightforward manner. On top of that, you had to be hateful again when you said that everyone here knows what a subspecies is. It is obvious that the evolutionists have their definition and the creationists have theirs. We are trying to get you guys to come out and clearly state what it is. Can you not see that? Of course not, you would rather play games wouldn't you? To us, you guys are contradictory and subjective and make the rules up as you go. We are trying to nail you down so that you won't waver on your statements. Your game playing only serves to add to the confusion. Obviously, you are not here to add understanding; you are here to mock and ridicule and cause confusion. Is there any wonder most people cannot stand you?
The real world is kinda messy. And the fact that there are all sorts of half-species and quarter-species, and three-quarter species is precisely what you would see, if evolution is a fact. If you're a creationist, you need to come up with some explanation as to why things don't fit the nice neat "kinds" supposed by creationist faith.
Exactly what you'd expect if evolution gradually caused......
I'm not going to allow you that excuse. We spend a huge amount of time here, correcting you on what evolution is not. Not abiogeneis, not Big Bang, not entirely new genomes, etc.
You guys want it both ways. Fact remains. If new species gradually evolve, you would expect to see the messiness that you and Stipe are concerned about.
Nice try, but you're not going to be able to use that one. For example, if everything was nice and neat as Stipe wishes is was, that would be evidence against evolution.
Exactly what you'd expect if evolution gradually caused......
I'm not going to allow you that excuse. We spend a huge amount of time here, correcting you on what evolution is not. Not abiogeneis, not Big Bang, not entirely new genomes, etc.
You guys want it both ways. Fact remains. If new species gradually evolve, you would expect to see the messiness that you and Stipe are concerned about.
Nice try, but you're not going to be able to use that one. For example, if everything was nice and neat as Stipe wishes is was, that would be evidence against evolution.
You tried a fast one, and you got burned. Learn from it.
I said I thought everyone did. It's time for you to grow a thicker skin if you want anyone to take you seriously.
I provided one, and I get a screech of anger from you. C'mon.
I'm thinking, when you calm down, you're going to be embarrassed by that one. Or maybe not. But any rational person would be. Even if things are going badly for you, never let yourself get so hacked you can't think.
(back to the issue)
It's pretty clear, even to most creationists, that Neandertals were separated longer and more effectively from other humans, than any human population living today. And if you look at the genomes of humans and Neandertals, that's what you'd expect.
I'm not sure if you're angry or not about the fact that we don't have any biological human races today. But that's the reality we have. There is more variation within any possible "race" you you might draw, than there is between "races." On the other hand, there is more variation between Neandertals and antomically modern humans than there is within each group.
And that settles it from a scientific POV. Like it or not, there it is.
Alate_One
Well-known member
To my knowledge, subspecies are often defined as a population of organisms that are similar enough to interbreed but different enough to be distinguished from other such populations. Bengal vs. Siberian tigers are a great examples. But some subspecies are defined by very tiny distinctions. Other times you can have populations that look almost identical but are actually two different species (i.e. don't interbreed).
Not true. I've explained multiple times, plausible data that would indicate recent special creation would look like. Since recent special creation from scratch isn't what happened, of course nothing will match any prediction made from that point of view.
It's like you're upset that everything matches the theory of gravitation. What exactly do you expect us to do when the theory accurately describes reality? It's a theory BECAUSE it explains data from multiple sources.
No and nor can there be despite Stripe's insistence there is (and utter failure to actually use his definition on a real world example).
Interbreeding isn't even the only definition that is used. It works rather well with animals since they mostly reproduce sexually. It doesn't work so well with plants since many plants can have very wide crosses (between genera even) and if we defined species that way it would be totally useless.
Organisms that don't reproduce sexually at all can't use interbreeding as a basis either. (Oops I guess Stripe's idea fails again!) For example, bacteria reproduce only asexually. They are usually defined as species by microbiologists based on DNA : DNA cross hybridization of 70% or greater. If we used that definition for other organisms, all eukaryotes would be one species!
Defining species is messy for precisely the reasons Frayed Knot has mentioned. If there were obvious boxes that everything fit into, that would be clear evidence for recent de-novo creation of all organisms.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Asserting something as fact does not make it so when you have no supporting evidence.
In fact this idea of "kinds" has been reviewed by scientists and found to be none of the things Stripe has claimed.
How did you make that determination? What else belongs in this "kind"? Do leopards? How about cheetahs? Pumas? Housecats? Otters?
I can tell you exactly what groups these belong in and why. You can do neither.
Then you agree with me that your definition is far inferior to species since species is used by everyone and "kind" is used by essentially no-one.
You are the only one who gets me angry. I calm down the moment I stop reading your crap. I get angry again the moment I start reading your crap. I'm not going to respond to you again until you know how to debate and argue in a reasonable manner.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Why should species be straightforward? If evolution is true, all organisms are constantly in flux. A species is simply a population that happens to be distinct from some other populations at a particular point in time. Biology is not straightforward, in general. That would be math.
If there were groups of organisms that had no evolutionary connection to other groups (say cats and dogs), that would be the "orchard model" with separate trees for particular kinds. But we don't see that, we see a pattern of connectivity between larger groups of organisms that creationists assert cannot have shared a common ancestor.
Barbarian suggests:
I'm thinking, when you calm down, you're going to be embarrassed by that one. Or maybe not. But any rational person would be. Even if things are going badly for you, never let yourself get so hacked you can't think.
I avoid people like that. Life's too short to go around angry.
Well, that might solve the problem.
(back to the issue)
Here's something that might help with the human/Neandertral issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No_Id8H4dv8&feature=related
First, understand that "species" is a difficult concept, because it's about something that involves transformation. The process of speciation is typically very slow in human terms and subject to some interpretation. It's clear enough that a population that cannot breed at all with the original population is a species (since there is complete reproductive isolation). However, what of species that might reproduce (and will, in unusual circumstances) such as grizzly bears and polar bears?
What about ring species or species clines? The populations at the extremes of the ring may be completely reproductively isolated, but gene flow continues through intermediate populations. The leopard frog in North America is like that. The extinction of the intermediate populations would produce a speciation event, as that would case reproductive isolation; the two populations remaining could not reproduce under any circumstances.
Yep. Welcome to biology. It's not nice and neat and orderly, because life isn't.
You'll have to take that up with Him. I'm just learning how He did it.
I'm thinking, when you calm down, you're going to be embarrassed by that one. Or maybe not. But any rational person would be. Even if things are going badly for you, never let yourself get so hacked you can't think.
I avoid people like that. Life's too short to go around angry.
Well, that might solve the problem.
(back to the issue)
Here's something that might help with the human/Neandertral issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No_Id8H4dv8&feature=related
First, understand that "species" is a difficult concept, because it's about something that involves transformation. The process of speciation is typically very slow in human terms and subject to some interpretation. It's clear enough that a population that cannot breed at all with the original population is a species (since there is complete reproductive isolation). However, what of species that might reproduce (and will, in unusual circumstances) such as grizzly bears and polar bears?
What about ring species or species clines? The populations at the extremes of the ring may be completely reproductively isolated, but gene flow continues through intermediate populations. The leopard frog in North America is like that. The extinction of the intermediate populations would produce a speciation event, as that would case reproductive isolation; the two populations remaining could not reproduce under any circumstances.
Yep. Welcome to biology. It's not nice and neat and orderly, because life isn't.
You'll have to take that up with Him. I'm just learning how He did it.
Pays not to post things that are obviously not true.
Our struggles to classify animals due to lack of knowledge does not change the nature of the definitions we use.
Try reading. :thumb:
Pays not to post things that are patently untrue.
Evolutionists - begging the question since 1882. :chuckle: