Definitions and species (hmmm...)

[TagliatelliMonster]

And, of course, chances are that they're not beneficial.

And, chances are that they are.

This is exactly the point: random, with respect to fitness.

That's what I know right now. Who knows? Maybe a push or shove of a miniscule particle in an organism can cause a mutation.

As explained already: when we say mutations are random, we mean with respect to fitness.
We don't, necessarily, mean that in terms of when what type of mutation occurs. We're rather talking about the effect it has on the organism and how it impacts its survivability and reproductive success.

 

[Pogo]

I really don't know if anyone knows why mutations occur without being forced, i.e., by the environment. And ... since that is truly unknown in its occurrences, we also do not know for real how it all happened.

We don't need to know exactly what caused each mutation, only that they happen and that there is no pattern when looked at from the standpoint of their effect on fitness.

As to why there are errors in the reproduction of DNA, we do know a lot, chemistry of organic molecules is well understood, but the chemistry is not what makes evolution.
Radioactivity for example will damage DNA and cause mutations but whether these mutations will be good or bad in their effect on the DNA is random.

This constantly trying to find tiny little doubts to avoid actually understanding evolution is the mark of a creationist in denial, not the mark of seeker of knowledge.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't need to know exactly what caused each mutation, only that they happen and that there is no pattern when looked at from the standpoint of their effect on fitness.

Science being what it is, I would think that it should be/could be a matter of concern as to how mutations really do happen in general. But that's me and I'm not a scientist and frankly, my dear, not so much interested right now in becoming a geneticist. Although not to say changes impact on the Theory itself in the big scope.

As to why there are errors in the reproduction of DNA, we do know a lot, chemistry of organic molecules is well understood, but the chemistry is not what makes evolution.
Radioactivity for example will damage DNA and cause mutations but whether these mutations will be good or bad in their effect on the DNA is random.

This constantly trying to find tiny little doubts to avoid actually understanding evolution is the mark of a creationist in denial, not the mark of seeker of knowledge.

Once again, IF I believed that all living matter on the earth was formed entirely by natural elements combining now I would say so. Remember I said "all" living matter. You and I come from two parents I suppose. Unless we were testtubers, which I'm pretty sure I was not. Even so, it took two to tango. I was not created in the recent sense by God as if He knew what these two people would reproduce. But I do believe my life is allowed by God and started at the beginning where it was transferred from life to life. Some infants do not make it beyond the womb, as we know. Thus their life was curtailed. From the science, Scientists don't really know, can't produce the evidence specifically relating to the actuality of what evolved, when, where and how, to what exactly. They only surmise, based on circumstances sometimes regarding fossils. But that does not show to me that evidences evolution from one type of organism, or species, to another.

 

[Pogo]

Science being what it is, I would think that it should be/could be a matter of concern as to how mutations really do happen in general. But that's me and I'm not a scientist and frankly, my dear, not so much interested right now in becoming a geneticist. Although not to say changes impact on the Theory itself in the big scope.

Once again, IF I believed that all living matter on the earth was formed entirely by natural elements combining now I would say so. Remember I said "all" living matter. You and I come from two parents I suppose. Unless we were testtubers, which I'm pretty sure I was not. Even so, it took two to tango. I was not created in the recent sense by God as if He knew what these two people would reproduce. But I do believe my life is allowed by God and started at the beginning where it was transferred from life to life. Some infants do not make it beyond the womb, as we know. Thus their life was curtailed. From the science, Scientists don't really know, can't produce the evidence specifically relating to the actuality of what evolved, when, where and how, to what exactly. They only surmise, based on circumstances sometimes regarding fossils. But that does not show to me that evidences evolution from one type of organism, or species, to another.

There it is in all it's glory.
"We don't know everything so we don't know anything, therefor god."

You are not interested in learning and I'm done wasting time.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't need to know exactly what caused each mutation, only that they happen and that there is no pattern when looked at from the standpoint of their effect on fitness.

As to why there are errors in the reproduction of DNA, we do know a lot, chemistry of organic molecules is well understood, but the chemistry is not what makes evolution.
Radioactivity for example will damage DNA and cause mutations but whether these mutations will be good or bad in their effect on the DNA is random.

This constantly trying to find tiny little doubts to avoid actually understanding evolution is the mark of a creationist in denial, not the mark of seeker of knowledge.

Nope, But since I don't KNOW more than what is presented before me, both in science (which can be realistic in terms of fossil remnants and also can change in its categories and analysis) as well as what the Bible says, I'm not telling you what to believe. I know so far that what the Bible says makes sense and so I do not deny that. If I take a trip to China by boat, and you take a trip to China by boat, even if we're on the same boat we have different viewpoints.

 

[YoursTrue]

There it is in all it's glory.
"We don't know everything so we don't know anything, therefor god."

You are not interested in learning and I'm done wasting time.

ok. But thanks for the conversation anyway. Although you're paraphrasing and not quoting my thoughts in 'essence' or accurately. (Have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't need to know exactly what caused each mutation, only that they happen and that there is no pattern when looked at from the standpoint of their effect on fitness.

As to why there are errors in the reproduction of DNA, we do know a lot, chemistry of organic molecules is well understood, but the chemistry is not what makes evolution.
Radioactivity for example will damage DNA and cause mutations but whether these mutations will be good or bad in their effect on the DNA is random.

This constantly trying to find tiny little doubts to avoid actually understanding evolution is the mark of a creationist in denial, not the mark of seeker of knowledge.

Tiny little doubts, you call them? I'm surprised. So what I perceive you as saying is that because you don't know what causes mutations, it isn't important to know. Oh well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There it is in all it's glory.
"We don't know everything so we don't know anything, therefor god."

You are not interested in learning and I'm done wasting time.

Well, at least you're learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There it is in all it's glory.
"We don't know everything so we don't know anything, therefor god."

You are not interested in learning and I'm done wasting time.

Some people are only interested in making excuses. But then they will get very offended when you point out that they are calling their own God a liar and they can never explain why they do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We don't need to know exactly what caused each mutation, only that they happen and that there is no pattern when looked at from the standpoint of their effect on fitness.

As to why there are errors in the reproduction of DNA, we do know a lot, chemistry of organic molecules is well understood, but the chemistry is not what makes evolution.
Radioactivity for example will damage DNA and cause mutations but whether these mutations will be good or bad in their effect on the DNA is random.

This constantly trying to find tiny little doubts to avoid actually understanding evolution is the mark of a creationist in denial, not the mark of seeker of knowledge.

Yeah, radioactivity and chemical mutagens are primary causes of mutation. As you say though, which of the many of those hardly matters unless you are looking at somatic mutations and cancer. A different subject entirely.

That is the game. Grasp any doubt no matter how meaningless or trivial. Blow it well out of proportion and declare whatever belief central to the perpetrator is the default answer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you accept, with 100% no doubt what-so-ever, that cladograms are 100% correct? Its a yes or no answer. If you can't say yes or no... Then you have doubt.

You seem to consider that meaningful. Science is tentative. The pathways of evolution are understood in the main, but not in detail. Human evolution is a good example of that. We have an assortment of extinct primate fossils, but it isn't clear which are ancestors and which have no living descendants.

Obviously some think the theory of evolution per Darwinian style is true beyond compare, but it is not. While there are fossils and time tables, this does not prove the theory. Period. It's simple. Now of course there are those that will automatically agree that the theory is true, but it is conjecture in the long run.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. If you actively doubt it, you aren't using reason or evidence. You aren't now. You just keep saying that you can't follow the evidence to the logical conclusions derived from it.

scientists can't determine what constitutes a species and really how they all started.

And here's an example of that. You seem to think that calls the theory into question. It doesn't.

The only basis for the theory is imagination based on what is considered evidence. But nothing beyond imagination. Some of you make up stories as if I do not understand the theory of evolution. I do.

No, you don't, but that also doesn't matter. You've rejected the theory whether you've understood it or not.

I see the prejudice.

So do I.

I surely don't believe that evolution involves survival of the fittest, morphing or evolving into something else that eventually evolved into more, etc.

Yes, you've said so many times. But that's also not meaningful except that it says you can't or won't learn the science or accept the conclusions it has generated. It says you're a creationist. It isn't important that you understand the theory or accept it. Creationists don't. So what? And why do you feel the need to keep repeating that you don't accept the theory? What need does that meet for you?

 

[McBell]

I know this is a "debate" forum and some people like to debate even if they don't believe in or know what they're saying. In the meantime, scientists can't even agree as to what is a species, much less consider how they came about. (So much for the "On the Origin of Species")
"As if this quest isn't hard enough, biologists cannot agree on what a species is. A 2021 survey found that practicing biologists used 16 different approaches to categorizing species. Any two of the scientists picked at random were overwhelmingly likely to use different ones."

What Is a Species, Anyway?

Some of the best known species on Earth may not be what they seem.

www.nytimes.com

Um...
So what?

Is it your thought that since the term species is not set in stone that that somehow negates evolution?
If so, then your beliefs are in a much bigger world of trouble over the word 'kind'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The journey from St Louis to Key West has a starting point, a route and a destination. Not knowing anything about the towns and countryside along the way doesn't alter any of those three key points that would cause a person to inexplicably end up in Vancouver.

If the traveler has never heard of Paducah, KY, Manchester, TN or Calhoun, GA and has no idea about the history of those places or what caused them, they can still get to Key West from St. Louis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Um...
So what?

Is it your thought that since the term species is not set in stone that that somehow negates evolution?
If so, then your beliefs are in a much bigger world of trouble over the word 'kind'.

I love the illogic of the idea that any controversy in science over the details means that all of science falls apart and is "sound" reason to reject science.

Interestingly, the same thing doesn't seem to apply to a religion like my own where there are at least 48,000 arguments over details and growing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have always found the species problem to be one of the most fascinating discussions in biology. There are about 27 different species concepts that have various application in different groups of organisms to which they are applied. Reconciling them all into a single concept isn't just an exercise in academics, but has great value in utility as well. Having a single universal concept would facilitate research and understanding in conservation, taxonomy, ecology and other disciplines in biology. But not having that one and the current state being a discussion and controversy has no impact on the validity of the theory of evolution.

In entomology, the morphospecies concept dominates taxonomy where differentiation of species is based on similarities and differences in morphology between specimens in collections that obviously cannot be used in interbreeding experiments. And still it does not call into question the fact of evolution.

No more than arguments over the history of different places would have an impact on travel.

To me, this is all just another example of how a drowning person will grasp frantically at even straws to save them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This topic has brought up a lot of thoughts. I have been an entomologist for decades, but still rather recent in the grand scheme of things. I started out during a time of great change in insect taxonomy where modern molecular, biochemical and ecological techniques were being applied to the traditional insect taxonomies developed by the classic techniques of morphology.

It turns out that the use of morphology and the delineation from using it was fairly well done. What these new techniques revealed were things like cryptic species complexes of populations that are morphologically uniform, but genetically, ecologically and reproductively distinct. As well this evidence often lead to changes at the higher levels of taxonomy without impact on the distinction of the described species that made up those higher categories.

I recall the corn earworm controversy that had pretty much played out in the literature by the time I arrived at grad school, but was still grudgingly finding acceptance among the faculty simply because they were each personally resistant to changing something they had used for years.

The corn earworm is a moth caterpillar that is a well-known pest of corn. Historically, it was classified in the genus Heliothis. Heliothis zea to be specific. Serious interest in the taxonomy of this species goes back to the 1960's, but sometime during the 80's, evidence mounted, justifying a move to the genus Helicoverpa. Evidence indicating that it was more closely related to the Old World genus and less closely related to the other species species of Heliothis.

Is it still a pest of corn and other crops? Yes. Can people identify it and determine that it is the pest on their crops? Yes. Nothing about its biology or evolution changed amid this "species controversy". If, at some future date, more evidence is found and to be in favor of merging it back into the genus Heliothis will not change the facts of its biology and evolution. No more than arguing which is the bestest car, Lamborghini or Ferrari will alter the history of those two marques.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is still controversy over whether Helicoverpa zea and and the "American" bollworm of the Old World (Helicoverpa armigera) are distinct species or geographical varieties of a single, global species.

Again, it is a controversy of how they evolved and not whether they did.

 

[Pogo]

I have always found the species problem to be one of the most fascinating discussions in biology. There are about 27 different species concepts that have various application in different groups of organisms to which they are applied. Reconciling them all into a single concept isn't just an exercise in academics, but has great value in utility as well. Having a single universal concept would facilitate research and understanding in conservation, taxonomy, ecology and other disciplines in biology. But not having that one and the current state being a discussion and controversy has no impact on the validity of the theory of evolution.

In entomology, the morphospecies concept dominates taxonomy where differentiation of species is based on similarities and differences in morphology between specimens in collections that obviously cannot be used in interbreeding experiments. And still it does not call into question the fact of evolution.

No more than arguments over the history of different places would have an impact on travel.

To me, this is all just another example of how a drowning person will grasp frantically at even straws to save them.

Utility maybe at some levels, but either the definition will become about as useful as sick as a medical diagnosis or you are back to multiple definitions because of the reality of evolution.

Are 17 year cicadas one species or several?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For those actually interested in the subject of speciation and the various concepts that have come up, Mallet's review, while a little old, is very useful.

https://tarjomefa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/4420-engilish.pdf

Mallet, J., 2001. Species, concepts of. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, 5, pp.427-440.

The excerpt of the introductory paragraph explains why we have species concepts. I've bolded some of the key statements that I thought deserved emphasis.

I. WHAT ARE SPECIES CONCEPTS FOR?
Individual organisms can usually be recognized, but
the larger units we use to describe the diversity of life,
such as populations, subspecies, or species, are not so
easily identifiable. Taxonomists further group species
into genera, families, orders, and kingdoms, while
ecologists group species into higher structures such as
communities and ecosystems. The justification for
these group terms is utility, rather than intrinsic naturalness, but as far as possible we attempt to delimit
groups of organisms along natural fault lines, so that
approximately the same groupings can be recovered by
independent observers. However, there will be a virtually infinite number of different, albeit nested, ways of
classifying the same organisms, given that life has
evolved hierarchically.

Recognition of the species problem and the fact that it doesn't make evolution go away.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Utility maybe at some levels, but either the definition will become about as useful as sick as a medical diagnosis or you are back to multiple definitions because of the reality of evolution.

Are 17 year cicadas one species or several?

Three I believe. My focus on this complex is periodical. But I've recently been taking the time, yet again, to learn and re-learn more.

There is recent research, for instance, to indicate that the old idea that the adults were largely non-feeding was wrong. They are not just bags of gametes looking only to hook up.