On 1/14/2011 9:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior"
>> is genetic, but your counter example is not.
>
> What counter-example do you think I'm claiming?
>
>  > Thus, it cannot represent
>> either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
>
> I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was
> wrong in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond
> "it's genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same
> species.
>
>> Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or
>> otherwise altered, without changing the genetics,
>
> Well, you take a homogenous group of fruit flies. You put them in a two
> different environments for a while. You bring them back together. Their
> behavior is changed. I don't know if the change is genetic or not. It
> would seem to me that fruit flies have very little behavior that isn't
> dictated genetically - it's not like you can train them to do tricks. I
> didn't see anything in the reference I gave that said the fruit flies
> were still genetically compatible. Warp seems to be asserting that the
> fruit flies are still genetically compatible, and it's just that they're
> not sufficiently friendly with the other group any more or something.
>
> I'm simply asking Warp to tell me what test he would use to find out if
> two individuals are the same species. You can't just say "it's genetic."
> Yes, we understand that, but the details are what we're arguing about.
>
The distinction here would be, "Its genetic, but the genetics involve 
purely 'behavior', not development." Obviously, the combination of 
genetics from two individuals is a "developmental" issue, such that you 
could have compatibility on that level, but not in the behavior level. 
You could have the opposite (not terribly uncommon, despite the ick 
factor) where the developmental aspects are 100% incompatible, but 
behavior, for some reason, is driven wrong. For simpler species, which 
could be a tiny flaw in a pheromone receptor, which suddenly "reacted" 
to the wrong species. For complex ones, it can be a result of plasticity 
in the behavior, resulting in what amount to false associations with the 
target species. In either case, the "genetics" on the developmental 
level simply won't allow it to work.

That behavior "can be" driven by genetics is not the key factor. It is 
*if* the genetic driven characteristics actually result in changes 
either behaviorally, or developmentally, which prevent cross breeding. 
The fruit fly case is unusual, in that the deviation is purely, for now, 
in the behavioral aspects, but it wouldn't take too many tweaks in the 
rest of the genome, once trading of such changes no longer take place, 
to make it *both* behavioral and developmental.

Its still "genetics driven", either way. Its just more.. reversible, of 
other factors in the developmental process itself do not yet derail 
cross breeding. I would argue things like Ligers and the like, do not 
qualify the two species as "same", since the result can't produce more 
of its own, or of either of its parent species. The developmental code 
has changed sufficiently that even if the behavior can be overcome, the 
other aspects *cannot*. But, there was certainly, at some stage, a point 
where this wasn't true, or where it was only true for a larger 
percentage of offspring than it was successful.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message