Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Sonofason]

I understand your basic premise, but I'm still finding something confusing.

If species doesn't exist, but evolution does, then over time, animals (for example) change, right?

No...over time a creature produces offspring and then die. An animal does not change. Animals (plural) do not change. Each creature produces offspring of the same kind, however with slight genetic variation from that of it's parents. That is evolution.

Species is only a way of dividing the animal kingdom (for example) into groupings for explanatory purposes, etc, right?

I don't know if it is the only way. We have given names to similar creatures for eons, even without the word species. At one point bats were considered birds. According to that seemingly faulty categorization system bats were once considered birds. And of course they were birds until someone changed and narrowed the classification characteristics for birds. But now bats are mammals and not birds. You can argue that one is better than the other, but it really doesn't matter. Perhaps one day today's classification system will no longer suffice for future classification systems. Does that mean we were wrong? It is a human construct. It doesn't really exist. It is a product of the mind, nothing else.

So, that being the case...why couldn't something change from one species to another? it all depends on how we define species. Right?

For you they might. For me they might not. As I said, I see the term species as a nonexistent entity. However, I understand the terms quite well, and so I have no trouble using the term species for your benefit, or anyone else that might be obsessed with nonexistent things.

 

[Revoltingest]

No...over time a creature produces offspring and then die. An animal does not change. Animals (plural) do not change. Each creature produces offspring of the same kind, however with slight genetic variation from that of it's parents. That is evolution.


I don't know if it is the only way. We have given names to similar creatures for eons, even without the word species. At one point bats were considered birds. According to that seemingly faulty categorization system bats were once considered birds. And of course they were birds until someone changed and narrowed the classification characteristics for birds. But now bats are mammals and not birds. You can argue that one is better than the other, but it really doesn't matter. Perhaps one day today's classification system will no longer suffice for future classification systems. Does that mean we were wrong? It is a human construct. It doesn't really exist. It is a product of the mind, nothing else.


For you they might. For me they might not. As I said, I see the term species as a nonexistent entity. However, I understand the terms quite well, and so I have no trouble using the term species for your benefit, or anyone else that might be obsessed with nonexistent things.

What evidence is there that a genetic barrier prohibits one species from becoming another?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For you they might. For me they might not. As I said, I see the term species as a nonexistent entity. However, I understand the terms quite well, and so I have no trouble using the term species for your benefit, or anyone else that might be obsessed with nonexistent things.

There are many concepts we use language to describe which are non-existent, though. And I'm way more obsessed with basketball than 'species', I'm just interested in understanding your point of view.
Rest assured, I am under no illusion that I can convince you of anything, and neither am I trying to do so.

I don't get why you would say that an animal can't become a different species given that species is a word without much meaning to you. For example, if we defined 'species' to be related to ability to breed, then we have examples of a single group of animals becoming 2 separate 'species'. I understand that in your mind these are the same kinds of animals still, and I'm not arguing that point. But doesn't that then mean that an animal can evolve into a different species?

 

[Sonofason]

What evidence is there that a genetic barrier prohibits one species from becoming another?

I never said that there is a genetic barrier prohibiting one species from becoming another.

What evidence is there that a genetic barrier prohibits one species from becoming another?

Are you suggesting that birds might one day evolve into humans? I think that would be an impossibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said that there is a genetic barrier prohibiting one species from becoming another.

It appeared that you did.
Do you now say that one species can evolve into another?

Are you suggesting that birds might one day evolve into humans?

It's pretty clear that I never suggested that.
So why the question?

I think that would be an impossibility.

There's no physical law preventing it.
I'd only say that it's extraordinarily unlikely.

 

[Sonofason]

There are many concepts we use language to describe which are non-existent, though. And I'm way more obsessed with basketball than 'species', I'm just interested in understanding your point of view.
Rest assured, I am under no illusion that I can convince you of anything, and neither am I trying to do so.

I don't get why you would say that an animal can't become a different species given that species is a word without much meaning to you. For example, if we defined 'species' to be related to ability to breed, then we have examples of a single group of animals becoming 2 separate 'species'. I understand that in your mind these are the same kinds of animals still, and I'm not arguing that point. But doesn't that then mean that an animal can evolve into a different species?

I have a dog. It is an animal. It will never, not in its entire life time become another species. Why is it so hard for you to see your terminology is broken? Are you talking of animals, or kinds of animals, or are you talking species of animals. Animals, as I have said, do not become other kinds of animals. And an animal cannot become another species.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a dog. It is an animal. It will never, not in its entire life time become another species. Why is it so hard for you to see your terminology is broken? Are you talking of animals, or kinds of animals, or are you talking species of animals. Animals, as I have said, do not become other kinds of animals.

Evolution is about gradual genetic shift over many generations of a species.
A single individual cannot turn into a different species.
Only its descendants can change.

 

[Sonofason]

It appeared that you did.
Do you now say that one species can evolve into another?

It's pretty clear that I never suggested that.
So why the question?

There's no physical law preventing it.
I'd only say that it's extraordinarily unlikely.

I'm hoping a previous post of mine will make this clear.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm hoping a previous post of mine will make this clear.

No such luck.

 

[Sonofason]

Evolution is about gradual genetic shift over many generations of a species.
A single individual cannot turn into a different species.
Only its descendants can change.

No... a descendant cannot change. A descendant will always be the same animal, the same kind of animal, and same species that it was when it was born. It is sufficient to say that kinds of animals may evolve over time. If you need to categorize them further, you can say that each kind of animal can evolve from one species to another over time. Species of animals can and often do evolve over time. Animals do not evolve. Kinds of animals may or may not evolve over time. I do not know that as a matter of fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

No... a descendant cannot change. A descendant will always be the same animal, the same kind of animal, and same species that it was when it was born. It is sufficient to say that kinds of animals may evolve over time. If you need to categorize them further, you can say that each kind of animal can evolve from one species to another over time. Species of animals can and often do evolve over time. Animals do not evolve. Kinds of animals may or may not evolve over time. I do not know that as a matter of fact.

This is unclear.

 

[Sonofason]

Revoltingest
Lets travel down an evolutionary path.
One individual has offspring. To my knowledge, every offspring is the same species as its parent. And each parent's parent is the same species as it's offspring. Somehow if you take a leap in evolution you find a creature that has such differences in its genetics that we classify it as a different species, yet it is the same species as its offspring was, and so on down the line. How is it that we have a new species, if each parent is the same species as its offspring?

The point is each offspring is not exactly the same species. and so we see the species evolving. We falsely say that a new species is created when it is the species that is changing over time. The classification works for us to identify characteristics of creatures and distinguishing them from one another but it has a major flaw.

 

[Revoltingest]

To Sonofson...
Your post appears to attribute text to me which I didn't post.

 

[Sonofason]

To Sonofson...
Your post appears to attribute text to me which I didn't post.

thanks...fixed it...it is addressed to you

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest
Lets travel down an evolutionary path.
One individual has offspring. To my knowledge, every offspring is the same species as its parent. And each parent's parent is the same species as it's offspring. Somehow if you take a leap in evolution you find a creature that has such differences in its genetics that we classify it as a different species, yet it is the same species as its offspring was, and so on down the line. How is it that we have a new species, if each parent is the same species as its offspring?

Let me illustrate this fallacy.
I have a white box.
It continuously & gradually changes to a black box in 100 hours.
Every microsecond, the shade is virtually the same as the one before.
Therefore, black is white.
See what you did?

 

[Sonofason]

Let me illustrate this fallacy.
I have a white box.
It continuously & gradually changes to a black box in 100 hours.
Every microsecond, the shade is virtually the same as the one before.
Therefore, black is white.
See what you did?

Let me simply ask a question and you answer. I may want to follow up with a new question for you to answer. Lets keep it simple
Am I the same species as my father?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have a dog. It is an animal. It will never, not in its entire life time become another species.

No, of course your dog will remain your dog. I don't think anyone ever has suggested differently.

Why is it so hard for you to see your terminology is broken?

My terminology? I'm trying to understand your definition of species. For me, I would think the ability to breed plays a role but I am unsure whether you would agree with that supposition.

Are you talking of animals, or kinds of animals, or are you talking species of animals. Animals, as I have said, do not become other kinds of animals. And an animal cannot become another species.

And you're sure of this because...

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me simply ask a question and you answer. I may want to follow up with a new question for you to answer. Lets keep it simple
Am I the same species as my father?

I am confident that you are.
But you didn't answer my question, which would be the polite thing to do before expecting the same of me, eh.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm trying to understand your definition of species. For me, I would think the ability to breed plays a role but I am unsure whether you would agree with that supposition.

Theoretically, every offspring is capable of breeding with its parent. Which means that every offspring ought to be considered the same species as its parent, and they are of course. Which seems to imply that even after a million years of evolution an offspring is the same species as was the ancestor of a million years ago. Yet that ancestor and the offspring likely could not, if they could both be alive at the same time, be capable of producing viable offspring. And so we say they are not the same species. I disagree. I think they are the same species because a species either evolves or it doesn't. And each successive generation is somewhat different than the preceding one. It is the species that is evolving. So why do we say we evolve into different species? It is the same species but the characteristics of that species has evolved.

But we don't do that. We categorize each species with a certain set of characteristics. A dog is a dog because of its characteristics. So long as it has those characteristics, it is a dog. If those characteristics should change over time, we call the dog something else. So a species can not evolve. In our present system a species has a set set of characteristics. So how can a species evolve, if the characteristics of what a particular species is is constant?

 

[Revoltingest]

Theoretically, every offspring is capable of breeding with its parent. Which means that every offspring ought to be considered the same species as its parent, and they are of course. Which seems to imply that even after a million years of evolution an offspring is the same species as was the ancestor of a million years ago.

This is the same argument as the white box changing to a black box.
You're proving that white is black again.