|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is related to Teosine (I think that's the name). Teosinte. It's a group of Central American grasses, of which corn (Zea mays mays) is actually a member. What's interesting is that, in Mexico, where the corn crop has been hand-weeded for generations, they're having a big problem with a variety of teosinte (Zea mays mexicana) that has evolved a form that so visually resembles corn that it fools farmers into raising it alongside their crop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I call it a variety of the same creature When you say "variety of the same creature", what do you mean, exactly? If we had two creatures in front of you, and you were asked to determine if they were varieties of the same creature, or two different kinds of creatures, how would you do that? If you couldn't do that, do you know how anybody else would do it? If there's no way to do it at all, don't you think it's a pretty useless idea?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Context crash. Context. We're talking about a known descent. Well, ok, but if you're going to accept descent as the determinant of "same creature-ness" in this context, you have to do it in every context and accept the evolutionary position of common descent. I mean, you can't have it both ways. You can't use shared descent over here to substantiate "same creature-ness", and then use "different creature-ness" over there to refute common descent. It isn't consistent. It's just using whatever pesudo-scientific concepts are handy to, above everything, continue denying the scientific reality of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There's nothing symbiotic about this relationship. Unless you want to call mankind a bunch of parasites. Symbiosis is not the same as parasitism. Symbiosis is defined as a relationship between two dissimilar species that is both intimate and potentially obligatory. Largely, the contiuum of symbiotic relationships can be described as: 1) Mutualism, where the two organisms each benefit from the relationship;2) Commensuralism, where one organism benefits and another is not affected; 3) Parasitism, where one organism benefits to the detriment of another. The relationship between humans and our crops could certainly be described as mutualism, and therefore does qualify as a symbiotic relationship. Humans benefit from the food source provided by corn; Zea mays mays certainly benefits from human husbandry to the extent that it has become the world's most popular and profitable cereal crop. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-05-2006 09:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
really? you contradict yourself later on I'm sorry? Where did I contradict myself? It's no contradiction to say "'doctor' does not mean 'dentist'" and then remind someone that dentists are doctors.
if mutualism is one type of symbiotic relationship, which the defintion you provide earlier does say, then how can you claim that mutualism is not symbiotic, or parasitism for that matter? I didn't say that mutualism wasn't symbiotic. In fact I said the exact opposite, if you'll read. Mutualistic symbiosis is not the same, however, as parasitic symbiosis. If you had bothered to read my post more carefully you would have seen that I was exactly right in what I said, there's no contradiction at all, because mutualism and parasitism are two different forms of symbiosis. Just because a relationship is symbiotic does not mean it is parasitic; it could be commensurate or mutualist. I don't know how I could be any clearer than that in two posts. Is English not your first language, or what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How can parasitism not be symbiotic? I didn't say it wasn't, Kuresu. I mean I come right out and refer to parasitism as one kind of symbiosis. How can I be clearer than that?
I hope I don't have to point out the contradiction again. You haven't pointed it out the first time. Pointing out that symbiosis doesn't have to be parasitic isn't contradictory. I mean, c'mon, Kuresu. How dumb do you think I am? Why would I contradict myself in a single post?
Quote E is from the post I'm directly replying to. You say that you didn't say what you actually did say. In other words, you said you never said quote D, but you did. Where's the contradiction between D and E? Seriously, Kuresu, you're having reading problems of some kind. You keep quoting my exact words and then you keep failing to actually read them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog has explicitly said that parasitism is not symbiotic No, I haven't! It's like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something. How are all you people reading the exact opposite meaning of my words? Can anybody explain what's going on, here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't see how discussion can continue between us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You say parasitism is not symbiotic I. Didn't. Say. That. It's really just that simple, K. If you can't read plain statements in English then discussion with you is not going to be possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Because you do state that. No, I don't. Let me see if I can make it clearer. These two statements do not mean the same thing: "Symbiosis is not the same as parasitism." "Parasitism is not a kind of symbiosis." I repeat - these statements do not mean the same thing, so quoting my first statement to try to prove I said the second doesn't work. Is that clearer for you? Do you understand now that these two statements have two entirely different meanings?
Especially considering that my reading level is above college level, and I'm but a high school senior taking an english class that requires extensive thought into all that literary stuff. "Literary stuff", huh? Yeah I can't imagine what I was thinking, criticizing your reading prowess. Please accept my tenderest apologies, just as soon as you understand, once again, that those two statements have entirely different meanings. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-06-2006 10:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I never considered it to be mutualistic, but that term can take parasitic's place. But it can't. Mutualism and parasitism are two different relationships. They're very different.
You state that symbiosis is not the same as parasitism. Right. Two different words with two different meanings. Not the same thing; just as "doctor" and "dentist" aren't the same thing. Dentists are doctors, but that doesn't mean that if you're not a dentist, you're not a doctor. Do you understand the relationship, yet? This is pretty simple logic.
The whole point of that post (correct me if I'm wrong) is that my statement that the relationship is symbiotic if it is parasitic was wrong. But that's not the statement you made, or that I told you was wrong. What you said was that if we didn't consider the relationship parasitic, we couldn't say that it was symbiosis. That's wrong. The relationship isn't parasitic, it's mutualistic; because of that the relationship is still a kind of symbiosis, even though it isn't parasitic.
Why else do you reply with "symbiosis is not the same as . . . ." To tell you that there are more kinds of symbiosis than parasitism, and that when someone says "symbiosis", they don't necessarily mean to say "parasitism", as you indicated in your post. I mean let's get back to your statement:
quote: In other words "the only way this relationship can be symbiotic is if we mean to say that humans are parasites." But that's not true. We can consider the relationship mutualistic, and therefore symbiotic, and therefore we have no need to refer to humans as parasites. Clear, yet?
The implication then is that my statement was illogical and incorrect and that yours is logical and correct. But we said the same, d**m thing. No, we didn't. I said that the relationship was mutualistic and therefore symbiotic. You said that the relationship could not be said to be symbiotic unless it was parasitic. Those aren't the same thing at all. Your statement is wrong and mine is correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I did not consider our relationship with corn to be either commensualistic or mutualistic, but only parasitic. Right, and that's the source of your mistake. If you had not ignored, or forgotten, that there were at least 2 other symbiotic relationships, you would not have stated that the human-corn relationship could not be symbiotic if it were not parasitic.
Since that was the only relationship I was considering, it makes logical sense to say that the only symbiotic relatioship would be parasitic. There's nothing logical at all about that conclusion; in fact, it's fallacious. It's the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
It also seems that you do not want to call mankind parasites, It's simply not an accurate description of our relationship with corn. We protect corn, we rear it, we spread its seed in the course of our use of it as a crop. It benefits from our husbandry. The relationship is one of mutualism, not one of parasitism. According to the definitions of these words there's really no other conclusion.
Not to say that I didn't know about them, but that I thought the relationship did not fit under those further defined categories. Then it would have been better for you to rebut my argument that it did fit under the category of mutualism, rather than blowing your stack about an imagined contradiction. At any rate, water under the bridge. Would you care to address my argument at this time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is it not illogical to say that a rectangle is not the same as a sqaure and then to include, as part of the defintion of a rectangle, a square? No, it's not. In fact it's the reverse reasoning that's illogical - the fallacy of denying the antecedent. (I told you this already.)
That was why we said the same thing, for the most part. The only difference--how we classify the exact relationship. Even though symbiotic relationships are on a continuum, there's a big difference between mutualism and parasitism. It's the difference between black and white, or the difference between 1 and -1.
I still don't see how corn derives any benefit from our relationship. We grow it. We care for it. We control it genes. We use it. We plant it. Yeah. That's the benefit. Thanks to us Zea mays mays has gone from a short grass indiginous only to Mexico to the most popular cereal crop on the planet, grown on all but one continent in countless varieties and diversities, and protected from insect and fungal parasites. In fact American farmers, this year, will spend 100 million dollars or more to protect their corn crop from pests. Above and beyond that, we've actually improved the genetics of corn so that each plant grows faster and produces more seeds. So that corn can shrug off the effects of glyphosphate herbicides that slaughter its lesser cousins. So that corn can express the Cry protiens of Bacillus thuringensis to protect its roots and stalks from such pests as the European corn borer and the various Diabrotica subspecies.
Everything we do for corn is soley for our benefit, or at least that's how I interpret the evidence. Look, if a massive increase in the population size of corn isn't a benefit, what would be? If resistance to pests isn't a benefit, what is? I mean what would you consider a benefit to corn?
So in order for the relationship to be symbiotic, it then has to be parasitic. You know how on a multiple-choice test, if you eliminate all possibilities except one, that last one then has to be it? I did the same thing. No, you didn't, because you didn't eliminate mutualism. You just ignored it or forgot about it. That doesn't count. The arguments of your opponents are no less valid simply because you do not choose to address them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024