ineresting article on Kow Swamp fossils

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Lewis, I don't doubt there are political considerations at work, but at the same time, I feel the real error is to try to make Neanderthals, Cro-magnons, and some homo erectus different species instead of racial or ethnic variants of the same thing.

Genus Homo
Species sapiens
subspecies: neandertalis: Neanderthal
subspecies: sapiens: Cro-magnon
subspecies: sapiens: you & me

SEE??? All the same species!!!

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
So diagnostic characterstics are fine, but heaven forbid a creationist even mentions "kinds."

The hypocrisy of evolutionists appears to know no bounds.

What Hypocrisy? The fact that we expect creationists to defend their claims?

I have yet see a creationist defend the notion of "immutable kinds." I have yet to see them explain how to find the absolute and obvious boundaries which kinds are supposed to have. In other words, creationists are incapable of doing anything more than just asserting that immutable kinds exist. If you think you can, go right ahead and try.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
It sure has. Species used to mean the difference between a frog and a tiger. Now it means the difference between a mosquito and a mosquito.

Nick,

Multiple species of mosquitoes were recognized even before Linnaeus. Could you explain exactly when "species" meant something so different that it refered to a taxonomic family? You do know that mosquito's have their own family, Culicidae, don't you? There are three subfamilies, 34 genera, and some 2,700 species of mosquito. Yet you would have us believe that the differences between mosquitoes are rather insignificant.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Could you explain exactly when "species" meant something so different that it refered to a taxonomic family?

Here you go. And you know it has to be 100% correct and factual because it's a link to talkorigins, every letter of which evolutionists worship day and night.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

To take 2 of the 3 definitions of species on that page (folk and BSC):

2.1 The Folk Concept of Species Naturalists around the world have found that the individual plants and animals they see can be mentally grouped into a number of taxa, in which the individuals are basically alike. In societies that are close to nature, each taxon is given a name. These sorts of folk taxonomies have two features in common. One aspect is the idea of reproductive compatability and continuity within a species. Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats! This has a firm grounding in folk knowledge. The second notion is that there is a discontinuity of variation between species. In other words, you can tell species apart by looking at them (Cronquist 1988).

2.2 The Biological Species Concept Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

Then it tries to beef up the credibility of the longevity of this definition by pulling a few quotes from as far back as 1930. But at least it admits in the definition that it's been "the last few decades."

Also to its credit, the page also points out:

1. Not everyone subscribes to this definition.

2. Some of the obvious objections and problems.

All of which just shows you how "species" was arbitrarily defined this way in spite of the hilarious problems it introduces.

The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists. Two facts account for this. First, these are the groups that the authors of the BSC worked with . (Note: Mayr is an ornithologist and Dobzhansky worked extensively with Drosophila). More importantly, obligate sexuality is the predominant form of reproduction in these groups. It is not coincidental that the BSC is less widely accepted among botanists. Terrestrial plants exhibit much greater diversity in their "mode of reproduction" than do vertebrates and insects.

Ah, so WHO came up with this definition?!?! Entomologists? What do they study, hmmmm? Insects...you know, mosquitos.

2.2.2 Criticisms of the Biological Species Concept There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC. (Cracraft 1989, Donoghue 1985, Levin 1979, Mishler and Donoghue 1985, Sokal and Crovello 1970).

The application of the BSC to a number of groups, including land plants, is problematical because of interspecific hybridization between clearly delimited species (McCourt and Hoshaw 1990, Mishler 1985).

There is an abundance of asexual populations that this definition just doesn't apply to (Budd and Mishler 1990). Examples of taxa which are obligately asexual include bdelloid rotifers, euglenoid flagellates, some members of the Oocystaceae (coccoid green algae), chloromonad flagellates and some araphid pennate diatoms. Asexual forms of normally sexual organisms are known. Obligately asexual populations of Daphnia are found in some arctic lakes. The BSD can be of no help in delimiting species in these groups. A similar situation is found in the prokaryotes. Though genes can be exchanged among bacteria by a number of mechanisms, sexuality, as defined in eukaryotes, in unknown in the prokaryotes. One popular microbiology text doesn't even mention the BSC (Brock and Madigan 1988).

The applicability of the BSC is also questionable in those land plants that primarily self-pollinate (Cronquist 1988).

[...]

A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species. The BSC suggests breeding experiments as the test of species membership. But this is a test that is rarely made. The number of crosses needed to delimit membership in a species can be astronomical.

Duh.

 

[seebs]

The "hilarious" problem with the concept of species is that there are often multiple intermediate states between two things which, according to the most obvious definition, are "the same species".

I don't see God as having any reason to make gradually different mice across the course of a single desert. Evolution, on the other hand, explains it perfectly.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

Nice presentation of the Biological Species Concept, but you haven't shown exactly when "species" meant something so different that it refered to a taxonomic family?

Could it be that that was never the case and you are actually making things up?

~~RvFvS~~