 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
Fair enough. You said it so confidently that I thought you had better
definition in mind.
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
I disagree. The definition of "species" that I'm familiar with is "two
populations are distinct species if they can not or normally would not
interbreed." So even if tigers and lions *could* have fertile offspring,
they'd still be different species because they're in different habitats.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
But the study I pointed to said nothing about the genes of the fruit flies.
You're *assuming* it's merely "instinctive behavoir" that didn't affect the
genes.
If your genes tell you not to interbreed, even if artificial insemination
would work, are you a different species? What if a fertile offspring could
be produced, but only if humans put the embryo in a completely artificial
environment? I.e., if the mother could not bring the offspring to term
naturally?
Plus, of course, we can't really look at genes and tell whether the result
will be fertile offspring. Maybe in theory that's true, but in practice,
while it's pretty easy to tell when the species are far apart, it might be
very difficult to tell if the species is very close together.
> You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
> role of behavior in the definition of "species".
And to me, you seem to be completely disregarding the role of behavior. I'm
not overemphasizing it except compared to you, perhaps. I'm just thinking
that if human technology has to get involved to create offspring, chances
are good they're different species. If I did genetic engineering to create a
creature that's half human, half ape, that wouldn't make humans and apes the
same species. And if I stick insulin-producing genes into a bacteria, does
that mean I have a new species or what?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> BTW I’ve lost
> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 6:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> BTW I’ve lost
>> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
>
> Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
>
Got it :-D
I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2011 16:46, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
>
>> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
>> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
>
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
>
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
No, and I am surprised that you still dare say that without any backup
sources.
> A group of humans
> deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
> species.
Not if it is just for one or a few generations. And it depend on the
reason why.
Note that this remark is either inconsistent or an open door as we would
not call both groups humans if it were different species.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
Perhaps in a universe where all species were independently created, but
not in this one. Sometimes I wonder why the whole world has to conform
to your ideas of how it should be. Why can you not just simply admire
its complexity?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 5:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
>> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
>
> It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie,
> with both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical
> overtones.
Too bad he died young. :-(
>
>> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but
>> you are probably right.
>
> Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
> fun movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
>
Yes they made a novel out of a short story.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>
> No, really, it doesn't. At least not to me.
Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>>
>> No, really, it doesn't. At least not to me.
>
> Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?
I couldn't possibly speak to all religions. Some involve meditation,
which would be very roughly analogous.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
Here's my problem with that:
By this very statement, the fruitflies are different species. It's simply
the decisions made by a group of *humans* that determines whether the fruit
flies reproduce. They're not going to do it on their own. The only way it
would happen is if humans decided to pick up teeny tiny scalpels and make it
happen.
And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated
behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but
then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the
genetics?
Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call
them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of
those two to term without the genetics of human beings. Namely, the genetics
of human beings that gave us hands and brains big enough to invent
artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization and artificial wombs. I'd
argue that if trying to bring a child to term kills the mother and the child
before the child is born, the two creatures are a different species.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated
> behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but
> then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the
> genetics?
Genetically-dictated behavior may end up causing (true) speciation over
time (if it keeps the two groups genetically separate long enough). However,
by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?
> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call
> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of
> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.
You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
of the same species.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
> when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?
Who says they are, if they won't? I already supplied my definition. :-)
>> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call
>> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of
>> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.
>
> You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
> of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
> dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
> of the same species.
I'm just trying to figure out what your definition might be. I think
different dog races are the same species by my definition, while the whale
and dolphin would not be by my definition. So your analogy fails in that
respect.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
