Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the term species be used?
wolfwing
Junior Member (Idle past 4818 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 12-27-2010


Message 16 of 24 (598178)
12-28-2010 11:39 PM


BTW :> A general apology if it appears I ignore anyone, I'm not trying too, some posts like the T.rex post *hope I got it right this time heh :>* I found more informative then something I really knew enough on to reply to directly so instead used made the reply part of my other post as a general response.
not a excuse :> But a bare with me, I have AD/OS so my mind tends to go a mile a second and get easily distracted, or hyper focused on something. You guys made great replies and even if in the end we disagree hope we can get along.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 24 (598193)
12-29-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by wolfwing
12-28-2010 11:27 PM


The best solution is not a word but rather education so that a word can be understood within context.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wolfwing, posted 12-28-2010 11:27 PM wolfwing has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 24 (598194)
12-29-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by wolfwing
12-28-2010 11:27 PM


From Message 14:
heh sorry on the not using replies, I did it partly because when there is 3-4 people replying rather then make 3-4 seperate posts and spaming the topic I tend to try to consolidate then into a single post that makes it less spammy.
At the bottom of each post is a section with this:
quote:
This message is a reply to:
Message 9 by wolfwing, posted 12-28-2010 2:26 PM wolfwing has not yet responded
When your logged in, if you click on the part where it says that you have not yet responded (I bolded it), then it will change to: "wolfwing acknowledges this post" and then people will at least know that you've read it.
From Message 15:
but that the term species feels inadequate a term for long time. For all I know species is the best word to use, I'm just wondering if it couldn't be done in a better way that fits more the DATA in long time. Were always changing words, or using new words or old words in new ways to fit our understanding.
How about clade:
Clade - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wolfwing, posted 12-28-2010 11:27 PM wolfwing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by wolfwing, posted 12-29-2010 6:16 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
wolfwing
Junior Member (Idle past 4818 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 12-27-2010


Message 19 of 24 (598237)
12-29-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2010 10:07 AM


Well there certainly could be better education, and I guess Clade works, just felt too broad for me.I guess it works for the moment though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2010 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 24 (598264)
12-29-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by wolfwing
12-28-2010 11:27 PM


Hi, Wolfwing.
wolfwing writes:
Einsteins theories replaced newtonian physics because they worked better in describing what was seen. Yes Newtonian was adequate, but for larger scales it doesn't work.
This is a different scenario. Relativity was a new theory that replaced an old theory because it worked better.
"Species" isn't a theory: it's just a system of naming things.
In physics, they regularly deal with thought exercises that involve frictionless surfaces. This is obviously not an appropriate way to solve problems about the real world, but it is a way to get at a principle by ignoring one extraneous factor (friction).
The same thing applies for the "species" concept. It's the taxonomist's version of a frictionless surface. It's an ideal, a way of pretending that the complications don't exist in order to help us get at some other principle. For example, I can lump the spiders I work with into groups (species) that seem distinct from one another, and learn about fundamental processes of ecology by comparing these groups to each other.
In time, we may have the database and the computer and statistical tools necessary to analyze organisms as clades, rather than as species; but the complexity of that sort of system would make it statistically and logistically very unwieldy. I think we'll just have to suffer with the confusion and creationist misapprehensions for the time being.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wolfwing, posted 12-28-2010 11:27 PM wolfwing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Phage0070, posted 12-31-2010 2:31 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 21 of 24 (598284)
12-29-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by wolfwing
12-28-2010 11:27 PM


wolfwing writes:
Einsteins theories replaced newtonian physics because they worked better in describing what was seen.
And modern cladistics replaced Linnean taxonomy.
wolfwing writes:
Thats sorta what I feel here with the current definition or idea of species, that it's adequate in short time or snapshots, but doesn't erally work for long time in my mind.
If you can come up with a better idea, one that works better, you should try publishing it in a research journal.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wolfwing, posted 12-28-2010 11:27 PM wolfwing has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 24 (598493)
12-31-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
12-29-2010 8:14 PM


Bluejay writes:
In time, we may have the database and the computer and statistical tools necessary to analyze organisms as clades, rather than as species; but the complexity of that sort of system would make it statistically and logistically very unwieldy.
In theory every organism is biologically unique, having one or more novel mutations. These mutations may be more or less influential but there is no clear distinction of how many is required to make them "different". They are either identical or not.
Groupings of organisms are therefore always going to be based on an arbitrary criteria. The only caveat I can see is if we were to encounter an organism that doesn't share common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 12-29-2010 8:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Blue Jay, posted 01-03-2011 5:02 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 23 of 24 (598908)
01-03-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phage0070
12-31-2010 2:31 PM


Stirring up some controversy, maybe
Hi, Phage.
Phage0070 writes:
Groupings of organisms are therefore always going to be based on an arbitrary criteria.
This is an ongoing discussion that I'm having with two members of my lab who used to work in systematics labs.
While all systems of classification and naming are based on arbitrary criteria to some degree or another, some are undoubtedly more arbitrary than others. For instance, the current fad of using genetic divergences and COI barcodes to define species is clearly an arbitrary enterprise.
As an ecologist, I contend that the systems based on these methods are seeking a solution that has much more precision than is biologically or ecologically meaningful. My main problem with these methods is that a large amount of the product they generate is relatively useless outside of a very narrow range of scenarios.
I agree that organizing our information is very important, but there comes a point at which the organization is being done serves little purpose beyond organizing stuff, and this is the point at which we need to question whether the end-product justifies the resources pumped into it. I feel that many lines of research into classification systems already passed this point a long time ago.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phage0070, posted 12-31-2010 2:31 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 24 (599697)
01-09-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
12-28-2010 3:00 PM


Hi Catholic Scientist,
To me, it looks like the smaller version was "trying" to split off a few times over and over again and then finally found a niche where it worked.
Any ideas on what could be driving that? Doesn't look very random...
I agree that there are several instances here that can at first glance appear to be populations "trying" to evolve.
Think of evolution as the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.
There appears to be an ecological opportunity for the evolution of gradually larger individuals within the breeding population (see Cope's rule)*, but that a broad spectrum of sizes, extending back to the original size, cannot be supported (perhaps the smallest survive quite well, but have low reproductive success).
This gradual trend for larger individuals leaves behind an opportunity for a smaller population, and several excursions are made, along with a staggering back and forth in size in the overall trendency, but it is not until that smaller population can become reproductively isolated from the larger population that the branching allows both survival and breeding success for the smaller population.
Enjoy.
* Cope's rule is named after E.D. Cope, and interestingly (to me) there is another reference with this graphic of the same fossil graphic with additional data:
Here you will see fossils of the smaller Copelemur genus that appears to have paralleled or branched off from Pelycodus, with Copelemur named for Cope. Ironically, the Copelemur get smaller here.
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-28-2010 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024