Definitions and species (hmmm...)

[YoursTrue]

So let's see -- is the following true as far as you are concerned?
"Why Are Species So Confusing?
The central difficulty when studying species is that, even though all species are kinds of organisms, all kinds of organisms are not species. For example, birds are a kind of organism, but birds are not a species --there are many thousands of species of birds."

Why Should We Care about Species?

 

[Pogo]

So let's see -- is the following true as far as you are concerned?
"Why Are Species So Confusing?
The central difficulty when studying species is that, even though all species are kinds of organisms, all kinds of organisms are not species. For example, birds are a kind of organism, but birds are not a species --there are many thousands of species of birds."

Why Should We Care about Species?

All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs. Yes it is true but so what. The problem is that species is human construct whose main purpose is to allow us to name things. Species is not really important to evolution, all extant species have been evolving for the same amount of time and the same processes affect all of them, that is evolution, not what we call this bird or that.

 

[McBell]

So let's see -- is the following true as far as you are concerned?
"Why Are Species So Confusing?
The central difficulty when studying species is that, even though all species are kinds of organisms, all kinds of organisms are not species. For example, birds are a kind of organism, but birds are not a species --there are many thousands of species of birds."

Why Should We Care about Species?

What is it you wanted to debate?

I much prefer 'species' over 'baramin'.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is it you wanted to debate?

I much prefer 'species' over 'baramin'.

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

 

[sayak83]

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

You should read the whole article maybe?
For Linnaeus, species were divinely created forms of life, each with its own distinctive traits. A century later, Charles Darwin recognized that living species had evolved, like young branches sprouting off from the tree of life. That realization made it harder to say exactly when a new group became a species of its own, instead of just a subspecies of an old one.

The fact that it is hard to exactly determine, in some cases, if two groups are seperate enough to be a species or not is evidence that Darwin was right about speciation (unlike the previous views of divinely ordained demarcations)

 

[YoursTrue]

You should read the whole article maybe?
For Linnaeus, species were divinely created forms of life, each with its own distinctive traits. A century later, Charles Darwin recognized that living species had evolved, like young branches sprouting off from the tree of life. That realization made it harder to say exactly when a new group became a species of its own, instead of just a subspecies of an old one.

The fact that it is hard to exactly determine, in some cases, if two groups are seperate enough to be a species or not is evidence that Darwin was right about speciation (unlike the previous views of divinely ordained demarcations)

The fact is that the definition of species is not agreed upon by scientists. Furthermore, the origin of all the maybe species cannot be found or determined except by guesswork (postulation). Have a good one.

 

[sayak83]

The fact is that the definition of species is not agreed upon by scientists. Furthermore, the origin of all the maybe species cannot be found or determined except by guesswork (postulation). Have a good one.

The fact is that the theory of evolution PREDICTS that species cannot be clearly demarcated and the current observations validate this prediction serving as evidence of evolutionary theory.
The origin of all species is a matter of historical evidence and have no bearing on the theory of evolution.
Have a good one too.

 

[YoursTrue]

The fact is that the theory of evolution PREDICTS that species cannot be clearly demarcated and the current observations validate this prediction serving as evidence of evolutionary theory.
The origin of all species is a matter of historical evidence and have no bearing on the theory of evolution.
Have a good one too.

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.

 

[YoursTrue]

The fact is that the theory of evolution PREDICTS that species cannot be clearly demarcated and the current observations validate this prediction serving as evidence of evolutionary theory.
The origin of all species is a matter of historical evidence and have no bearing on the theory of evolution.
Have a good one too.

There is simply nothing to show (of course can't use the word 'prove' because there is none) that there is historical evidence demonstrating the theory as if it came about by "natural selection," etc. Despite fossils, it's still conjecture. And -- Since scientists cannot agree what constitutes a species, the Origin of Species makes no sense. Because scientists don't even know what constitutes a species.
"The species concept is all over biology, from genetics to ecology to evolution. Yet biologists have not been able to agree on what a species is, exactly. The textbook definition is a group that can't interbreed with other groups, yet many accepted species are biologically able to interbreed—they just don't in nature." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126...e species concept is all,just don't in nature.

 

[Heyo]

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.

If you think theories can be proven, you don't have a problem with biology, you have a problem with science. You should first learn what science is before you comment on biology.
My invitation to teach science is still open: Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

 

[Tamino]

And -- Since scientists cannot agree what constitutes a species, the Origin of Species makes no sense. Because scientists don't even know what constitutes a species.
"The species concept is all over biology, from genetics to ecology to evolution. Yet biologists have not been able to agree on what a species is, exactly. The textbook definition is a group that can't interbreed with other groups, yet many accepted species are biologically able to interbreed—they just don't in nature." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.273.5281.1501#:~:text=The species concept is all,just don't in nature.

Okay, this all reads to me like:

All the world since Aristotle: "Species are clearly defined groups of beings!"

Darwin: "Species are actually changeable and evolving, I think"

You: "Species are changeable and not clearly defined, therefore Darwin is wrong!"

Me: *confused Pikachu face*

 

[Valjean]

So let's see -- is the following true as far as you are concerned?
"Why Are Species So Confusing?
The central difficulty when studying species is that, even though all species are kinds of organisms, all kinds of organisms are not species. For example, birds are a kind of organism, but birds are not a species --there are many thousands of species of birds."

I don't understand. What is confusing? You do understand that there is a hierarchy of taxonomic categories, don't you?

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

And I explained to you just a few hours ago on another thread why categorizing things into species is somewhat arbitrary. Linnean taxonomy is a convenience.
Aforementioned post:

Yours True said: Meantime while Darwin wrote origin of species, scientists have a bit of struggle determining what a species is.

So? Slicing a gradual continuum into distinct subsections is a problem when there is no clear distinction between adjoining slices. Determining cut-off points can be pretty arbitrary.
https://cdn-0.ourplnt.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/red-to-blue-micro-macro-evolution.webp

 

[sayak83]

There is simply nothing to show (of course can't use the word 'prove' because there is none) that there is historical evidence demonstrating the theory as if it came about by "natural selection," etc. Despite fossils, it's still conjecture. And -- Since scientists cannot agree what constitutes a species, the Origin of Species makes no sense. Because scientists don't even know what constitutes a species.
"The species concept is all over biology, from genetics to ecology to evolution. Yet biologists have not been able to agree on what a species is, exactly. The textbook definition is a group that can't interbreed with other groups, yet many accepted species are biologically able to interbreed—they just don't in nature." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.273.5281.1501#:~:text=The species concept is all,just don't in nature.

It is well known in science that nature is continuous and hard clear demarcations, while useful, will never be exceptionless. Furthermore the theory of evolution is not about origin of species (Darwin's book is a misnomer), its an explanation of the natural development of the entire spectra of diversity that exists in the living things. And it specifically says that this diversity is over a continuous spectrum and any conceptual "cut" to break this diversity into neat categories will always be somewhat arbitrary. So, once again, theory of evolution predicted that there will be no hard and fast definition of species, or sub-species or genus etc etc. This is precisely what it found. So what is the problem?

 

[Valjean]

The fact is that the definition of species is not agreed upon by scientists. Furthermore, the origin of all the maybe species cannot be found or determined except by guesswork (postulation). Have a good one.

So what? The term's just a convenience. The scientists are in agreement about all the facts about the organism, they're just filing their identical views in different folders.
Different arbitrary dividing lines do not indicate any scientific disagreement about the organisms in question or their evolution, as you seem to think.
If you want a more helpful illustration of each organism's genetic history and relationships look at a cladogram.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Yours True, you joined over six years ago and we've explained all this to you a thousand times, but your posts still show the same misunderstandings we've corrected over and over. You don't seem to grasp even the most fundamental concepts. Our explanations just go in one ear and out the other, so to speak.
You don't seem to be learning anything here. You just pop up with a new "gotcha!" post whenever you see something you think casts suspicion on biology or science in general.

 

[We Never Know]

So what? The term's just a convenience. The scientists are in agreement about all the facts about the organism, they're just filing their identical views in different folders.
Different arbitrary dividing lines do not indicate any scientific disagreement about the organisms in question or their evolution, as you seem to think.
If you want a more helpful illustration of each organism's genetic history and relationships look at a cladogram.

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.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Noöne accepts blindly; certainly not anyone with a scientific bent. Science is an ongoing research project, constantly adding and refining; always incorporating new information into its models.

You'll find new taxonomic research and cladistic tweaking practically every month in practically any biology journal you could name.

 

[Soandso]

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.

This really doesn't effect the purpose of science at all as science doesn't make any 100% promises on anything. Not only that, but doubt is a fundamental pillar of science altogether that keeps it accurate as better information comes along

I'm confused why are you trying to apply these standards onto something that doesn't make any of these claims

 

[Pogo]

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.

Very simply NO because we understand evolution and the theory that explains it. That you ask the question is indicative of a lack of understanding of the fact of evolution let alone the theory.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Very simply NO because we understand evolution and the theory that explains it. That you ask the question is indicative of a lack of understanding of the fact of evolution let alone the theory.

But at least he's consistent.