tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post113947845613234654..comments2023-10-23T09:26:24.969-10:00Comments on The Questionable Authority®: Going Different Directions in the Same SpaceTQAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01510784510555073197noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1141663401861976482006-03-06T06:43:00.000-10:002006-03-06T06:43:00.000-10:00I think you can reasonably say that for Linnaeus, ...I think you can reasonably say that for Linnaeus, the species corresponded to the original created kinds. ____ The usual definition of species seems to work quite well for vertebrates and insects, at least if you allow a small amount of hybridisation, but it doesn't really work for bacteria, amoebas or hawkweeds. I think a better approach is to think in terms of plotting variable features on a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1141410906781662102006-03-03T08:35:00.000-10:002006-03-03T08:35:00.000-10:00Karl, Your dead wrong when you say, "species was m...Karl, Your dead wrong when you say, "species was meant to embody the original created kinds." We're talking evolution here, not creationism. There were no "original created kinds"<BR/><BR/>Also, as long as there is genetic diversity in a "species", that species can be filtered. Filtering may cease while the environment is stable, but when the environment changes the filter shifts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139804721123478252006-02-12T18:25:00.000-10:002006-02-12T18:25:00.000-10:00Great post. I'm studying speciation too, although...Great post. I'm studying speciation too, although I hadn't seen the papers in Nature. Thanks for the tip.Matthew D Dunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03632800892744296973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139773859583329342006-02-12T09:50:00.000-10:002006-02-12T09:50:00.000-10:00I love it and I am not your mother- wish I underst...I love it and I am not your mother- wish I understood it more though. And your mother is HILARIOUS! Have snooped around a bit and will keep you on my desktop for some elucidation and illumination.Impatient Patienthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16861885720741761010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139618198356286542006-02-10T14:36:00.000-10:002006-02-10T14:36:00.000-10:00Karl asked about pseudonyms,I don't necessarily in...Karl asked about pseudonyms,<BR/>I don't necessarily insist on a pseudonym, but I am a fairly obnoxious commentator where I do most of my online heckling and I didn't want that obnoxiousness to get in the way of what I thought was a good suggestion for you.<BR/><BR/>a panda refugeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139582726053110482006-02-10T04:45:00.000-10:002006-02-10T04:45:00.000-10:00Greetings, TQA. John Wilkins recommended your pag...Greetings, TQA. John Wilkins recommended your page, and he's absolutely right. I greatly admire how clearly you explain the sympatric/allopatric distinction.<BR/><BR/>Karl, you've generated some excellent discussion (as thoughtful questioning tends to do), and I'd like to add something from my layman's perspective that hasn't come up yet.<BR/><BR/>Some pretty smart people have worked on the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139546402927244172006-02-09T18:40:00.000-10:002006-02-09T18:40:00.000-10:00To: a panda refugeeThe Lancelet article is excelle...To: a panda refugee<BR/>The Lancelet article is excellent. He supports my feeling that "species was meant to embody the original created kinds". He also cites Darwin as saying "species as we knew them, were not real".<BR/>And To: wolfwalker <BR/>Your analogy to a spectrum helps a lot.<BR/>Thank you, and the others who wrote.<BR/><BR/>A final question: Please tell me why so many of the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139545018070360502006-02-09T18:16:00.000-10:002006-02-09T18:16:00.000-10:00karl wrote: "I'm sorry - I'm struggling with that....karl wrote: "I'm sorry - I'm struggling with that." <BR/><BR/>No need to apologize -- it's a hard thing to get your mind around. It was for me, at any rate.<BR/><BR/>"Is "same species" a transitive relation? i.e. If A is the same species as B, and B the same as C, must A be the same as C?"<BR/><BR/>It depends on how rigid you want your concept of "species" to be. You can try to tell Nature Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139541867205738442006-02-09T17:24:00.000-10:002006-02-09T17:24:00.000-10:00Karl,In addition to those other resources try here...Karl,<BR/>In addition to those other resources try here for an explanation as to why the species concept is jinky difficult to use or understand.<BR/><BR/>http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/01/<BR/>species-is-as-species-does-part-iii.html<BR/><BR/>a panda refugeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139541336770045682006-02-09T17:15:00.000-10:002006-02-09T17:15:00.000-10:00wolfwalker said...-"I don't understand. Fourteen s...<B>wolfwalker said...</B>-"<I>I don't understand. Fourteen species of Galapagos finches, all clearly descended from the same ancestor-species, individuals generally restricted to their birth-island, divergence has been documented in populations of finches living on the same island, and sympatric speciation is still open to question?</I>"<BR/>Well, remember, that's because there was never any NET Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139539909666333532006-02-09T16:51:00.000-10:002006-02-09T16:51:00.000-10:00wolfwalker said.. Yes and no. The vast, vast maj...wolfwalker said.. <BR/>Yes and no. The vast, vast majority of "species" are defined by reality, not by human fiat. These problems and fuzzy edges show up in a very small minority of cases. So obviously there's _something_ in Nature that acts to define species. Otherwise, the fuzzy ones would be a lot more common. I always saw this as a confirmation in its own way of evolutionary theory: most "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139537438083975682006-02-09T16:10:00.000-10:002006-02-09T16:10:00.000-10:00Great Post. I'm curious if there is any mechanism ...Great Post. I'm curious if there is any mechanism proposed (in words of one syllablr) that will allow a single population to form 2 or more species. I can understand genetic drift in isolated populations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139536149335018562006-02-09T15:49:00.000-10:002006-02-09T15:49:00.000-10:00karl said: "It seems to me that the collective sen...karl said: "It seems to me that the collective sense of what you are saying is that "species" is a human construct (corresponding to the biblical "kinds") and that nature does not make such differences."<BR/><BR/>Yes and no. The vast, vast majority of "species" are defined by reality, not by human fiat. These problems and fuzzy edges show up in a very small minority of cases. So obviously Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139515913996456252006-02-09T10:11:00.000-10:002006-02-09T10:11:00.000-10:00I thank the three of you for your replies. It see...I thank the three of you for your replies. It seems to me that the collective sense of what you are saying is that "species" is a human construct (corresponding to the biblical "kinds") and that nature does not make such differences. As a matter of fact, isn't that what a large part of the argument is about in human evolution. Which fossils represent separate species - the difference between "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139513560386581882006-02-09T09:32:00.000-10:002006-02-09T09:32:00.000-10:00Mike,Thank for the very interesting post. Speciat...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Thank for the very interesting post. Speciation is a fascinating topic.Dave Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18110718908216269032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139513004124845022006-02-09T09:23:00.000-10:002006-02-09T09:23:00.000-10:00Karl:Those are good questions, and they are diffic...Karl:<BR/><BR/>Those are good questions, and they are difficult to answer. <BR/><BR/>Let's start with the definition of species. The "classic" definition is the one you mentioned, which is known in the trade as the "Biological Species Concept" (or BSC). This is the definition that was proposed by Ernst Mayr, and it is the one that appears in most science textbooks. There's plenty of disagreement TQAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01510784510555073197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139509898834916822006-02-09T08:31:00.000-10:002006-02-09T08:31:00.000-10:00Karl: the definition of speciation that you're pro...Karl: the definition of speciation that you're proposing is inaccurate. There is "disagreement" in the scientific community as to what constitutes a species, as shown by the two examples you cite. Basically, there probably isn't a single cookie-cutter definition of species that will apply to all organisms, which is what makes this field of study so interesting - and which, I think, only bolsters Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139508935421608032006-02-09T08:15:00.000-10:002006-02-09T08:15:00.000-10:00karl asked: "What is the current definition of "sp...karl asked: "What is the current definition of "species"? How do you know when two groups are separate species? I always get: "reproductively isolated", even if it's only geographically. Or, if they can physically interbreed, the progeny will be sterile. Now that's a 50 year old answer."<BR/><BR/>It's still the best answer you're likely to get, not because it's very good but because no one can Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139507964405811802006-02-09T07:59:00.000-10:002006-02-09T07:59:00.000-10:00Great post! Thanks a lot!Although, it seems that a...Great post! Thanks a lot!<BR/><BR/>Although, it seems that any talk about sympatric speciation should mention the work done by Jeffrey Feder at the University of Notre Dame. He does his research on true fruit flies and it appears that they speciate sympatrically. He just gave an interesting seminar at my school, UC-Davis last week.<BR/><BR/>You can check out his website at: http://www.nd.edu/~egbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715584748612118513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139507550355754102006-02-09T07:52:00.000-10:002006-02-09T07:52:00.000-10:00Great! Someone who works with "speciation". I ha...Great! Someone who works with "speciation". I have what I consider to be a fundamental question. I have asked it in several places and all I get is a brush-off, like it's not even worth responding to. <BR/> Preliminary questions: What is the current definition of "species"? How do you know when two groups are separate species? I always get: "reproductively isolated", even if it's only Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139504696050449502006-02-09T07:04:00.000-10:002006-02-09T07:04:00.000-10:00". . . little bit corse-grained" should be "coarse...". . . little bit corse-grained" should be "coarse-grained."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139503689338158642006-02-09T06:48:00.000-10:002006-02-09T06:48:00.000-10:00Hi -- QA's mom here.When QA was about 6, he asked ...Hi -- QA's mom here.<BR/><BR/>When QA was about 6, he asked me (very seriously) how you would know you were adult. Is that what diploma's were for?<BR/><BR/>I distinctly remember replying that "it should only be so easy."<BR/><BR/>So here he is, 25+ years later, still pursuing the same basic question.<BR/><BR/>Scary . . . but true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139500840626633282006-02-09T06:00:00.000-10:002006-02-09T06:00:00.000-10:00Very interesting read, and I'm just your average J...Very interesting read, and I'm just your average Joe interested in evolution / science in general. However, I wanted to ask a question, minor nitpicking I suppose. You mentioned a fellow researcher and his better definition of sympatric. I noticed it included "random" and I know how ID/creationists love to point to "random" evolution and claim that it is therefor godless,immoral,foolish or what Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139500596216391012006-02-09T05:56:00.000-10:002006-02-09T05:56:00.000-10:00I don't understand. Fourteen species of Galapagos...I don't understand. Fourteen species of Galapagos finches, all clearly descended from the same ancestor-species, individuals generally restricted to their birth-island, divergence has been documented in populations of finches living on the same island, and sympatric speciation is still open to question? <BR/><BR/>For that matter, the bird world is full of what look like examples of sympatric Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11390444.post-1139498125859491912006-02-09T05:15:00.000-10:002006-02-09T05:15:00.000-10:00"He said that two populations can be considered to..."He said that two populations can be considered to be truly sympatric when mating is random with respect to birthplace."<BR/><BR/>That just artifically defines half the problem away!<BR/><BR/>One of the areas where sympatric speciation has been thought to occur is in insects, where there is selection for specialisation for larvae to eat different host plants. So they are born on different hosts,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com