Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DialecticSkeptic" data-source="post: 76868387" data-attributes="member: 444966"><p>Ah, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox" target="_blank">Sorites paradox</a>. Does a single grain of sand constitute a pile? No. What about two grains of sand? No. And yet at some point we do suddenly have a pile of sand. So, what number of grains was the threshold? There is a similar problem in evolutionary biology (<a href="https://imgur.com/gallery/oAnfA" target="_blank">image</a>). We can have populations of a species <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species" target="_blank">forming a biogeographic ring</a>—populations A, B, C, and D—where the two ends are different species (red and blue) and yet the linked populations interbreed (reddish blue and bluish red). Somewhere along this line of evolution was the origin of a new species. Where? I don't have an answer, but I do love the problem.</p><p></p><p><strong>Edited to add:</strong> What would make it more obvious is genetic drift coming along and eliminating populations B and C. Now all we have are A (red) and D (blue) and it's just obvious that they're different species. No Sorites paradox. It seems to me that this is a bit like what we have in the fossil record. Populations A, B, C, and D all lived, died, and decomposed, but fossil remains from A and D were preserved (through some random natural disaster, let's say). Obviously different species, and we can infer their relatedness.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DialecticSkeptic, post: 76868387, member: 444966"] Ah, the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox']Sorites paradox[/URL]. Does a single grain of sand constitute a pile? No. What about two grains of sand? No. And yet at some point we do suddenly have a pile of sand. So, what number of grains was the threshold? There is a similar problem in evolutionary biology ([URL='https://imgur.com/gallery/oAnfA']image[/URL]). We can have populations of a species [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species']forming a biogeographic ring[/URL]—populations A, B, C, and D—where the two ends are different species (red and blue) and yet the linked populations interbreed (reddish blue and bluish red). Somewhere along this line of evolution was the origin of a new species. Where? I don't have an answer, but I do love the problem. [B]Edited to add:[/B] What would make it more obvious is genetic drift coming along and eliminating populations B and C. Now all we have are A (red) and D (blue) and it's just obvious that they're different species. No Sorites paradox. It seems to me that this is a bit like what we have in the fossil record. Populations A, B, C, and D all lived, died, and decomposed, but fossil remains from A and D were preserved (through some random natural disaster, let's say). Obviously different species, and we can infer their relatedness. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
Top
Bottom