Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 284 (344050)
08-27-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by kuresu
08-27-2006 2:35 PM


Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
Nice to see you working on the problem. As I recall, "body plan" first came up in relation to the genetics involved in variation, the claim being that we see every kind of variation in elements such as -- well, maybe we could call them "adornments" -- word just popped into my head -- but not in body plan.
Adornments -- hair, fur, color, skin, size, shortening, lengthening or elongating, (even some personality traits I suppose) and that sort of thing: All that varies and may vary enormously, while the basic body plan remains recognizable no matter how it gets pushed and pulled and stretched and so on. This basic unevolvable thing we're calling "body plan" is a matter of how the creature both looks and behaves I think.
This would have to be worked out through a lot of examples and tests of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 2:35 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:27 PM Faith has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 197 of 284 (344057)
08-27-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
08-27-2006 8:00 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
right, becuase we have some immediate problems.
one is cattle and pig. they both have the same basic body plan--four legs, hooves on each one, a head, tail, backbone. They have a brain, stomach (the cow's is just in four parts, not actually four different stomachs), liver, bladder, lungs, etc.
here's another problem--how different is a hoove to a nail? Unless I'm mistaken, they aren't that different. so perhaps the best thing to do would be to drop body plan from definition of kind.
you would agree that horses, cattle, and pig are each their own kind, no? what part of each's body plan is different enough to give them their own, unique, body plan?
I don't know how to separate their body plans--they look enough alike to me. Maybe you or mjfloresta have some ideas on this?

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 8:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 8:41 PM kuresu has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 284 (344061)
08-27-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by kuresu
08-27-2006 8:27 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
you would agree that horses, cattle, and pig are each their own kind, no? what part of each's body plan is different enough to give them their own, unique, body plan?
This is what we are trying to define.
I don't know how to separate their body plans--they look enough alike to me. Maybe you or mjfloresta have some ideas on this?
Yes, this is the problem. But you have no problem telling them apart, do you? This is what I mean by how it's an intuitive thing. None of us has a problem telling a pig from a cow from a horse. Whatever the defining characteristics are that make it possible to categorize them as easily as we all do is what we're looking for. It's worth spending some time on I think.
But also, again, MJ didn't propose body plan in this sense anyway; but as the genetic barrier that separates Kinds from each other that he figures will eventually be recognized in the genome.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:27 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:56 PM Faith has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 199 of 284 (344062)
08-27-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
08-27-2006 8:41 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
problem is, we need the definitions here and now, and the criteria here and now. we can't wait for something that may come ten or twenty, or never, years into the future.
In Linneus' classification, pigs and cows are bovines--they would be of the same kind. (I think there both bovines--has to deal with organ setup, somehow)
horses are ungulates, related to tapirs and rhinos. But, intuitively, you would want to put them each into their own kind, by body plan.
so I would advise dropping body plan from the kind class. Without being to make in objective, which, if mjfloresta is right, won't happen for some time, we'll have to stick with being able to interbreed and produce offspring.
which means some scientists are gonna have to get messy and unethical.
ironic, ain't it--the protectors of morality (in your alls eyes) having to resort to unethical procedures.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 8:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 9:10 PM kuresu has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 284 (344066)
08-27-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kuresu
08-27-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
I'd like to play with the body plan idea for a while still, but it doesn't have to take up this thread.
Would it be possible to interbreed a cow and a pig? I'm sure that if we work at it we can make a start toward saying why we know they aren't the same Kind based on mere observation of body plan.
What Linnaeus' system has simply can't be taken as our reference point except in the loosest possible sense.
About interbreeding simians and homo sapiens, I would guess that probably somebody somewhere has already tried it.
About the criterion of interbreeding and producing offspring, I want to keep the caveat on the table that even within the Kind there will probably be types that this is impossible for, because of their greater genetic separation from each other, loss of genetic information in the former processes of differentiation or speciation. At this point some other criterion has to enter. But I'm also aware that as soon as we allow this exception, it can become the basis for objecting that even if you can't interbreed simians with people that's no proof they aren't related. More stuff to think about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:56 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 9:35 PM Faith has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 201 of 284 (344069)
08-27-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
08-27-2006 9:10 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
throw out genetic deterioration with the kind idea. I know you link it to the fall, and, unfortnuately for you, the fall is a biblical idea, and would be very difficult to prove.
Especially since genetics, without ToE, does not show a deterioration of genetic variation. It's just one more subjective critiria that needs to be thrown out.
here's why? Kind is from the bible, and we're finally getting an objective definition, but in genesis, we have "and the cattle according to thier kinds", "beasts of the earth according to thier kinds". So we have one animal, cattle, that has several kinds within it.
your frog example--that there might be some frogs incapable of interbreeding with other frogs, would fall into the cattle example. Make them two separate kinds.
That gives us a concrete, objective definiton to work with, no?
kind--a group of organisms sharing a common ancestor due to the ability to interbreed with each other.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 9:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 10:26 PM kuresu has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 284 (344081)
08-27-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by kuresu
08-27-2006 9:35 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
throw out genetic deterioration with the kind idea. I know you link it to the fall, and, unfortnuately for you, the fall is a biblical idea, and would be very difficult to prove.
Well, Kind is a Biblical idea too. We're committed to finding evidence for all these things. We don't need to prove the Fall as such, but genetic deterioration ought eventually to be provable.
Especially since genetics, without ToE, does not show a deterioration of genetic variation. It's just one more subjective critiria that needs to be thrown out.
Oh I disagree. I see this deterioration the same way I see the body plan. It's just a matter of finding the evidence and the definitions that bring it out for others.
here's why? Kind is from the bible, and we're finally getting an objective definition, but in genesis, we have "and the cattle according to thier kinds", "beasts of the earth according to thier kinds". So we have one animal, cattle, that has several kinds within it.
Well, buffalo, yaks etc? Depends on what the word means in the Biblical context. Perhaps it's broad enough to include camels and sheep. I'd have to study it more. But yes, the Biblical terms are ambiguous. All we know for sure is that different kinds that are still identifiable is where it all started. It didn't start with single-celled creatures in the primordial soup. We are trying to work from genetics.
your frog example--that there might be some frogs incapable of interbreeding with other frogs, would fall into the cattle example. Make them two separate kinds.
Nope. A frog is a frog. I'm talking about speciation, a frog that developed from a parent population with the inability to interbreed with it. We know it's the same kind for that reason. Taxonomically it's either a frog or it's unclassifiable due to inability to get precise enough definitions.
That gives us a concrete, objective definiton to work with, no?
No. Sorry, we have to hold to the creationist premises through all of this. That's our job.
kind--a group of organisms sharing a common ancestor due to the ability to interbreed with each other.
Sounds like a candidate for what we're looking for, but we do have to retain that caveat or exception.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 9:35 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 10:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3685 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 203 of 284 (344085)
08-27-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
08-27-2006 7:44 PM


Re: Sorry
Faith writes:
this illustrates a way we have a problem with the evolutionist definitions of "species"
Again with 'evolutionist definitions'? You have been shown this characterization is not right. Still you say it.
the rest of this thread seems to have gone off demanding a greater precision than should be expected at this point in our thinking, all in the service of harassment or discouragement I would suppose.
Well, if analyzing motives is the project: Your remarks about harassment are all in the service of feeling martyred, I would suppose.
Demanding greater precision is fair game. For your definition to qualify as science it has to be precise--precise enough to be usable, precise enough to meet new situations.
The people who raise legitimate questions now are showing you the questions a valid definition has to answer sooner or later. This is useful information, whether you welcome that information or not.
You don't have to answer every question right away. But it would be foolish to ignore any. This is news you can use.
Talk to any scientist who has been through the peer review process. You feel harassed and discouraged here? No points are awarded in peer review for pure motives. None are deduced for impure ones. Your work holds up or it doesn't.
without even bothering to acknowledge the progress made in starting to define a Kind here.
Professional scientists will tell you not much credit is awarded in their field for 'starting to define' anything. Put out a body of work that makes people rush to the lab to replicate your findings. Then you will know acknowledgment. Put out a body of work that can be replicated, and you will know appreciation.
Until then, the absence of warm fuzzies seems fair enough. You don't acknowledge the value of the real information people give you.
Nothing can be done but ignore them.
See what I mean?
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Reworked sentence.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 7:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 204 of 284 (344087)
08-27-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
08-27-2006 10:26 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
genetic deterioration ought eventually to be provable.
and if it never is?
we use it as part of the defintion, and then we're stuck with something subjective. that's what I want to try to avoid.
as to the cattle, buffalo, yak, etc.
I was trying to make the point that there are several kinds of cattle--cattle being singular here.
as compared to kinds of beasts, beasts being plural.
unless the translator's screwed up, then anything which is incapable of breeding with another organism is not in the same kind as that other organism. that way, we can still keep it objective. otherwise, by including the frog example, we have a subjective part.
and as you may have gathered, I'm trying my damndest to avoid it.
see where I'm coming from on that, now?
Edited by AdminJar, : edited to fix code

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 10:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3685 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 205 of 284 (344101)
08-27-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
08-27-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
Faith writes:
Now, has anyone tried to interbreed a simian and a human? The thought is blasphemous and sinful, but by our new working criterion for a Kind, it's a necessary test.
I applaud your interest in verifying a thesis by experiment--seriously--but this looks like one to save for later.
You have a lot of matters to square away first. If your definition of 'Kind' proves to be genetically verifiable--as it will have to--there would be ways to determine these possibilities in the lab without causing inconvenience to actual simians or humans.
(I do remember reading about some Stalin-era experiments in this area. If memory serves, the project suffered from a shortage of volunteers and inadequate technology; the results were inconclusive.)

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 7:51 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 08-27-2006 11:18 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 206 of 284 (344103)
08-27-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Archer Opteryx
08-27-2006 11:14 PM


Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
And is Faith ready to agree that man is only of the simian kind, Pan sapiens sapiens?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-27-2006 11:14 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2006 12:06 AM jar has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 207 of 284 (344115)
08-28-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by jar
08-27-2006 11:18 PM


Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
or perhaps, chimps move back t the genus Homo? and the rest of the simians go there too? just a thought.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 08-27-2006 11:18 PM jar has not replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 6080 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 208 of 284 (344120)
08-28-2006 12:46 AM


I really hate being absent from this thread all day but that's life;
I've been reviewing the content of the day's posts and it seems that the major topic de jour has been the request to define "body plan"; While I have thoughts on this area, I'm curious as to where this area of inquiry arose since I don't recall it being fundamental to the thesis I've proposed in this thread. If anyone needs feels that such a determination is necessary within the context of this thread, I'll gladly indulge in it; Otherwise, i'd prefer we leave it for another thread since personally, I'm not all that sure what context it fits into in this thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 12:49 AM mjfloresta has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 284 (344121)
08-28-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by mjfloresta
08-28-2006 12:46 AM


Since I was so happy to have a possible definition of Kind in kuresu's list of hybrids I was probably the one who brought up body plan as a contribution to the definition. Sure, save it for another thread and let's get back to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 12:46 AM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 6080 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 210 of 284 (344123)
08-28-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
08-28-2006 12:49 AM


Delineating body plans would certainly aid in the understanding of Kinds. I just figure that since we've rolling right along in this thread we would save room in this thread and deal with body plans in another (and here I am wasting valuable thread space with this post).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 12:49 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by qed, posted 08-28-2006 1:18 AM mjfloresta has replied
 Message 212 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:24 AM mjfloresta has replied
 Message 225 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-28-2006 3:26 AM mjfloresta has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024