The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

[AFJ]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by AFJ » Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:07 pm

"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes...

Gamila, do you know what prokaryotes are--they are bacteria. Bacteria by nature change genetically very quickly. They are very different from Eukaryotes (us) genetically--that's why they are in a seperate domain from protists, fungi, plants and animals. They ingest plasmids and are infected by viruses. Thus they have insertions, deletions and replacement of their DNA. Some of them revert back and are called revertants.

SO because they change in their genetic material and in their phenotype scientist aren't sure what to call them when this happens. Because they don't have a word for a creature that varies genetically does not negate the science of biology. I insist you are falling prey to lexical semantics. Please reconsider your argument. "Species Problem" is not "species negation."

[AstusAleator]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by AstusAleator » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:22 am

gamila did you even read what I wrote? I honestly spent a lot of time writing it, and I'm offended that you so flippantly dismissed it without apparently giving it any thought. Furthermore, you went ahead and spammed another huge quote.

If you want any credibility (which you have pretty much none at this point) you need to demonstrate that you're actually thinking about and interacting with what others say, rather than sticking to your lines.

I noticed that you avoided addressing my bird example, or anything I said about transitional organisms. I told you who the first "bird" mated with and you ignored it...

Birds are organisms that fall into the broad classification of Class Aves. Clearly there are species of birds. My point was that when you say "the first bird" you aren't even talking about a species, just an organism that meets the classification criteria for what we now call Class Aves.

without knowing what your term species means
all this is meaningless nonsense as your classification system cannot locate or identify the objects of investigation

So gamila, if species are meaningless nonsense, how do you propose that we protect threatened and endangered species if they're just threatened and endangered nonsense? How do we continue agriculture if we're just raising a bunch of crops of nonsense? How do we keep invasive nonsense from ruining our natural resources? How do we prevent diseases that are caused by nonsense?

[gamila]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by gamila » Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:10 am

Clearly there are species of birds.

two points
biologists dont know what species are so you cant say there are species of birds
2if there is a thinbg called species then you have the dean paradox

I told you who the first "bird" mated with and you ignored it...

i said to that

you use the word bird1.0 to distinguish it from betabird and parent organism and vice versa
at some point in this incest you are going to get the first BIRD
so what did this first BIRD mate with

if your beta bird mates with its parent and bird1.0 mates with a beta bird they must be the same species

you said

Your "first BIRD" would be my bird1.0 WITH THE DISTINCTION that this "bird" is not necessarily a new species

you are not answering the question- which is about the first species of bird not something that is not a new species
but deans point is what did the first SPECIES of bird mate with

so what did the first species of bird mate with

you said

, if species are meaningless nonsense, how do you propose that we protect threatened and endangered species if they're just threatened and endangered nonsense? How do we continue agriculture if we're just raising a bunch of crops of nonsense? How do we keep invasive nonsense from ruining our natural resources? How do we prevent diseases that are caused by nonsense?

well of the top of my head
you can just protect endangered organisms

[AFJ]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by AFJ » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:07 pm

Gamila,

Your stubbornness amazes me. I am a creationist--creationist used to believe in species fixity, but we realize there is variation within the genome and phenotypes, and there is common ancestry. Robins all had a common ancestor--it is theorized that they varied into a modern animal from an ancestor off the the ark. ( I know that sounds stupid to evolutionists, but it sounds stupid to me when evolutionists say that collagen, blood cells, and heme in a t.rex bone is 68 m years.)http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

I said all that to say that species is part of a family of organisms that interbreed--that is hard fact. Bacteria are an exception, not the rule for taxonomy.

[gamila]

Post by gamila » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:16 pm

Robins all had a common ancestor-

so what did the first bird mate with

[AFJ]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by AFJ » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:12 pm

Gamila,
You are asking me--a creationist? What do you think I believe the answer to be to that question? I believe Genesis. Genesis says "God created THEM male and female"....and "let there be fowl" (KJV) which is plural.

I've said this before--are you ignoring me, or is that too simple an answer for you? If it is too simple then it clearly shows the complexity of the creation around us?

If you did not have a spiritual nature, why would you even care about such a question?

If you were just a product of mutation and natural selection you would only be worried about having your resources so you could pass on your genes to the next generation!

[AstusAleator]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by AstusAleator » Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:32 am

Clearly there are species of birds.

two points
biologists dont know what species are so you cant say there are species of birds
2if there is a thinbg called species then you have the dean paradox

I knew you would key in on that single statement and ignore any/all other valid points. I regret saying it, not because it's not true, but because it encouraged you to simply spam your "paradox" again.

I've also addressed the issue of definition of species - and you've ignored that. No one here has attempted to argue that we know exactly what species are. We realize the problems inherent in our classification system. It is NOT, however, invalidated by those problems. Like I said before, your logic is faulty. The only person that is refusing to open their eyes is you.

you are not answering the question- which is about the first species of bird not something that is not a new species
but deans point is what did the first SPECIES of bird mate with

so what did the first species of bird mate with

This is the first time you've asked what the first species of bird mated with. Up until now it has clearly been the "first bird."
The answer to this is simple. The first species of birds reproduced within their own population.

Your next question will be - "How did this population form from a single individual which must have reproduced with something?" Which I've already answered in my Bird1.0 example.

Any more questions?

well of the top of my head
you can just protect endangered organisms

I appreciate you answering rather than spamming quoted misinformed logic. Unfortunately, that was your best armor (It calls to mind an ostrich with its head in the sand).

How will we know what organisms to protect if we have no clear idea of which organisms belong to which genetic lineages? For example, Fritillaria gentneri is a federally threatened species, but it has a VERY strong resemblance to Fritillaria recurva. Now if we had no way of distinguishing between the two species, we would assume that all the organisms that look like that are just fine because there's lots of them. Furthermore, if we had no name for all the organisms that looked like them, we wouldn't even be able to address them scientifically at all. They would just be nameless organisms that have no relevance.

We name things so that we can communicate ideas about them and learn more about them. We are not always correct in our grouping and naming, but that does not make the process wrong.

An apple is an apple, but there are many varieties. If I wanted a cortland but I just asked my friend to buy me an apple, chances are I'd get a red-delicious or a fuji. Furthermore, if there was no name for "apple" I'd have to ask my friend to get me one of those round, red fruits that grows on trees. I'd probably end up with a nectarine.

[gamila]

Post by gamila » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:13 am

I've also addressed the issue of definition of species - and you've ignored that

i did not ignore that
but said biologists dont know what species are

We realize the problems inherent in our classification system.

those problems mean your clasifficatory system species cant locate the objects of investigation
thus
your system of classification is meaningless nonsense

This is the first time you've asked what the first species of bird mated with. Up until now it has clearly been the "first bird."

every one else knew what i meant
it is very clear
what did the first bird mate with
first bird would obviously mean the first ever bird which would mean the first species of bird- every one else saw that

"How did this population form from a single individual which must have reproduced with something?" Which I've already answered in my Bird1.0 example.

look i think you forget the things you say
you have already admitted the bird1.0 is not a new species

Your "first BIRD" would be my bird1.0 WITH THE DISTINCTION that this "bird" is not necessarily a new species

and i said

you are not answering the question- which is about the first species of bird not something that is not a new species
but deans point is what did the first SPECIES of bird mate with

so what did the first species of bird mate with

also

The answer to this is simple. The first species of birds reproduced within their own population.

then you have point 2 of deans paradox

2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

[AstusAleator]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by AstusAleator » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:04 pm

i did not ignore that
but said biologists dont know what species are

I told you what my perception of "species" is. It may not be ironclad, or even the most commonly accepted definition - but I challenge you to show me in what way it is meaningless nonsense.

FURTHERMORE: It is indeed difficult(impossible?) to develop a definition of "species" that applies to ALL LIFE; however, within discreet lineages (which you were kind enough to spamquote wikipedias list of) a species is MUCH more defineable. So, just because the same definition of species does not apply to both archaebacteria and mammals DOES NOT mean that there is no such thing as species in either lineage.

those problems mean your clasifficatory system species cant locate the objects of investigation
thus

Locating objects of investigation (rare, threatened, and endangered species and subspecies of plants) is what I do for a living. Interesting that you seem to think it's impossible.

every one else knew what i meant
it is very clear
what did the first bird mate with
first bird would obviously mean the first ever bird which would mean the first species of bird- every one else saw that

Did they?

This is an important distinction gamila:
-If you're talking about the first species, then you're talking about a population; multiple organisms.
-If you're talking about the first bird, then you're talking about an individual organism.

Bird1.0 of my example will go on to be the predecessor of a new lineage of organisms - ie Class Aves. At what point a new species emerges is not necessarily clear. In my example there may not be a clearly defineable species for many generations to come, until the environment and gene pool have "settled down" and become more stable and homogenous.


So I have told you what the "first bird" mated with, and I have told you what the first species of birds mated with.

Finally we have this:

2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

I'm not sure who you're quoting here, but it's not me. I don't think that anyone believes this. There is the possible scenario where an individual of species A gives birth to a lot of species B - so much so that they're capable of interbreeding and forming a new population.

[biohazard]

Re:

Post by biohazard » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:10 am

so what did the first bird mate with

the first bird mated with the last lizardbird

[gamila]

Post by gamila » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:58 am

Your "first BIRD" would be my bird1.0 WITH THE DISTINCTION that this "bird" is not necessarily a new species

Bird1.0 of my example will go on to be the predecessor of a new lineage of organisms - ie Class Aves. At what point a new species emerges is not necessarily clear

and i said
you are not answering the question- which is about the first species of bird not something that is not a new species
but deans point is what did the first SPECIES of bird mate with

I told you what my perception of "species" is. It may not be ironclad, or even the most commonly accepted definition

you can define species any way you want
but fact is biologists dont know what species is as dean has shown

[AstusAleator]

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Post by AstusAleator » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:16 pm

and i said
you are not answering the question- which is about the first species of bird not something that is not a new species
but deans point is what did the first SPECIES of bird mate with

I'm trying to tell you, gamila, that by the time a "species" is distinguishable, there are many organisms that possess the traits of that species - and they are existing in a relatively stable state, environmentally and genetically. They reproduce amongst themselves.

There will be many descendants of Bird1.0 that possess the traits of a "bird" (lets call them Bird1.1). Founder-effect will have been mitigated by cross-breeding with the parent population at first. Eventually the new traits introduced by the first Bird1.0 will become dominant in a new population of Bird1.1. At this point either the parent population will be extirpated, or further environmental or genetic changes will occur which will separate the populations.

------------

I've answered your question(s):
What did the "first bird" mate with?
--It's parent population.
What did the "first bird species" mate with?
--They mated within their population.

And I add this note: We have no way of knowing what the first bird species was. I can only speak of a "first species" of bird in a retrospective sense, assuming that IF scientists had been around at the time to assign classficatory designations, they would have felt confident enough to declare this population a new species. This is all hypothetical. HOWEVER these sorts of scenarios can be reasonably extrapolated from what we know today about evolutionary processes.

---------------

Finally: Your assertion that there is no such thing as species is wrong. Definitions across all phyla may be unclear, but at the Family-Genus-Species level it is VITAL to biological work that we be able to classify organisms in order to study them. It is a classification system, one which only aids us in conceptualizing what we observe empirically. You are wrong wrong wrong, but you will never admit it because your (Colin's) entire logic hinges on that one stubborn assertion that "species" is meaningless nonsense.