MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Origins of....Species (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Indeed. "God" appears to be used loosely by Einstein and Hawking faute de mieux when determining what, if anything, began the universe, a somewhat loaded word in anyone's parlance, scientist or not. Since the abandonment of Steady State theory there's been a plethora of theories attempting to interpret scientists' observations giving the impression they're clutching at straws, or strings. Have you read 'A Brief History Of Time' (has anyone?)?

To understand just how far this 'New Religion' of pure mathematics has permeated science I suggest you all read 'the Big Bang Never Happened' by Eric Learner. You'll be amazed at what is now believed to be scientific truth as opposed to scientific fact. Galileo's persecutors are alive and well and disguised as savants in wheelchairs.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If what is, was, unless strong evidence exists to the contrary, then until we've good evidence that the universe was once empty of life, the only reasonable default position must be that life always was

But we could look around us and say, as far as we can tell, the universe is mostly empty of life now, that life is extremely rare and needs a special explanation

This in itself is a false assumption because our 'perception', and it is quite definitely a perception, is based on interpreting one failed paradigm in light of an even greater false paradigm. Our 'belief' in an empty universe is coloured by a 'Big Bang' only Cosmology. All sciences stem from and must comply with this big picture branch of science.

As the 'Queen of the Sciences', most other disciplines are bound by its paradigm.

If the life sciences came up with a theory that contradicted the core BB assumption it wouldn't see the light of day in the scientific community let alone become public knowledge. Dissension today in science is no different to dissension in Galileo's day; you are branded a heretic, you just don't get physically burned at the stake. But the result is just the same.
Send private message
Xerxes


In: The Forest of Dean
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Give it a shot!

OK, I'll try to keep it short and simple, at least to begin with. If it's too simple, just say so.

The first thing to clear up is that the term 'species' does not belong to 'The Real World Out There', rather it is a tool of taxonomy which is simply a manifestation of mankind's need to collect and organise things. (Stamp collecting is another manifestation of this aspect of human nature.)

When men (or at least some of them) knew that God had created all living things that each reproduced 'according to its kind' they set about making tidy lists of living things. God gave the job to Adam first, then Noah must have had a checklist for the Ark, finally Carl Linnaeus got around to refining the job with a classification system intended to put every type of living thing in its place within the Order of Things.

But of course, it's an impossible task. Life forms do not fit into neat categories (and we still don't even know how to define 'life forms', let alone 'species'.) Sadly, this doesn't stop the wanton use of the term 'species' to bolster a mass of spurious assertions -- the recent onset of genetics has breathed new life into taxonomy and that hasn't done knowledge any favours.

Basically we're onto a loser in even trying to talk about 'species' as if we knew what it is.

And yet, and yet.... Somehow we do know what a dog is, or a cat; even when selective breeding presents them in extreme and bizarre forms. There is an instinctive understanding in human nature about the separate types of living things, and we can't even talk about life on earth without reference to the obvious differences between them.

So, I suggest that we start thinking about one or two examples that might help the process of defining 'types of living things', unencumbered as far as possible, by what has gone before.

To start with, here's a fresh proposition for debate:

Why not use the term 'species' to define any range of living things that most people would agree were (for want of a better term) related? To take a very simple example: the flightless cormorant of the Galapagos is just that -- a cormorant and not a special, separate species. It should simply be seen as an example of the plasticity (diversity) of cormorants.
Send private message
Xerxes


In: The Forest of Dean
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why not use the term 'species' to define any range of living things that most people would agree were (for want of a better term) related?

But I can see that we are likely to get into a tangle if the term 'species' is used both in the orthodox sense (Linnaean binomial taxonomy) and in the loose way I have proposed. To avoid confusion I would like to refer to the rough-and-ready working definition in my proposition as 'aespecies' and leave 'species' as it is.

The concept of aespecies can be interesting and challenging for a number of reasons, one of which is because the theory of evolution needs 'species' a lot more than taxonomy needs evolution. Consider the Flightless Cormorant for a moment. It is very easy to think of it as a species of Cormorant that shares a common ancestor with one or more of the other 40 or so species of Cormorant. That's evolution for you, you don't need to find the common ancestor (how often is any common ancestor found?). It's supposed to be just obvious that evolution is at work and has led to a proliferation of Cormorant species around the globe, of which the Flightless Cormorant is one. But if all Cormorants are one aespecies, then where is their ancestry? And is that common with any other aespecies? Those become hard questions to answer. The successful presentation of the theory of evolution in its present Neo-Darwinian form depends largely on endless cladistics, which need a huge stamp collection of species to put into order. (Where would palaeoanthropologists be without twenty hominid species to explain Homo sapiens ancestry?)

The concept of aespecies can also stimulate thinking 'outside the box' when it comes to the distribution of individual aespecies. Pere David's Deer may well be the same aespecies as European Red Deer and North American Elk (not Moose). Although it is classed as a sub-tropical Asian species, it produces fertile 'hybrids' with Red Deer. It reminds me of the isolated Mexican Lodgepole Pine we discussed in 'Where are all the Neanderthals'. Orthodoxy says of Pere David's Deer:

In spite of the small population size, the animals do not appear to suffer genetic problems from a genetic bottleneck, suggesting that a previous bottleneck had already removed harmful recessive alleles. (Wikipedia)

But the Lodgepole Pine story suggested an alternative view:

A species* will occupy all the biomes that are available to it, as long as its genotypes can fit the environments they encounter. A wide range of genotypes will enable a wide geographic distribution. Where the fit of genotypes to environment is excellent, all or most of the genotypes will be in evidence. Where the fit is poorest either now or in the past, it is likely that relatively few genotypes will be in evidence.
(*I would now say aespecies
.)

So perhaps Pere David's Deer is at the extreme end of those environments that the Red Deer aespecies is able to fit, and in a sense, it has used up all its plasticity. Perhaps like the native Amerindians in Patagonia.

There's much more to this line of questioning. Looking at circumpolar aespecies becomes a fascinating exercise, where in some cases the Bering Straits hardly seem to exist and terrestrial aespecies seem able to span the Pacific Ocean more readily than they can cross the Rockies (either way). But more of that later -- if you're still interested.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We are firm circumpolarites here.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Xerxes wrote:
Why not use the term 'species' to define any range of living things that most people would agree were (for want of a better term) related? To take a very simple example: the flightless cormorant of the Galapagos is just that -- a cormorant and not a special, separate species. It should simply be seen as an example of the plasticity (diversity) of cormorants.

To play devil's advocate, "most people" would think the Rhino, Hippo and Elephant related. And perhaps they would be right! Who knows.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, and they were all once classed as pachyderms.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, and their skin betrays the fact that they were all our watery playmates in the days when we were The Aquatic Ape.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So why don't humans (and rhinos, hippos and elephants) have scales or fur like apes and are humans unique in their lack of protective covering? The pachyderms' hide is tough enough to be almost scale-like. {Human hair contains keratin, not sure if the same sort of keratin found in say a rhino horn, but fat lot of use against predators so presumably to protect the all-important skull from the elements?}
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So why don't humans (and rhinos, hippos and elephants) have scales or fur like apes

What are talking about, dear? No mammal has scales and fur is no good in the water.

and are humans unique in their lack of protective covering?

You don't need protective covering in the sea, you need fat insulation.

The pachyderms' hide is tough enough to be almost scale-like.

Hippos, for example, spend about eighty per cent of their life in water even now. Their skin, like elphants and rhinos, is perfect for more or less permanent submersion.

Human hair contains keratin, not sure if the same sort of keratin found in say a rhino horn, but fat lot of use against predators so presumably to protect the all-important skull from the elements?}

There are no predators in the sea (leastways the inshore parts inhabited by Aquatic Apes). According to the enthusiasts we have hair on our head so that babies have got something to cling on to in the sea, though your explanation sounds good too since the head is the only bit that sticks out of the water.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
...fur is no good in the water.

Unless you're an otter or beaver.

They do coat their fur in oils though. Which some speculate is why we get Acne.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No mammal has scales and fur is no good in the water.

A whole bunch of aquatic mammals would disagree with you.

They're all pretty small, though. Except some are really big. And elephant seals go to quite elaborate lengths to remove their fur. Hmm.

And elephants go to elaborate lengths to cool themselves.

You don't need protective covering in the sea, you need fat insulation.

Otters don't. But they have proper, multi-layered coats don't they? Does the job of insulation. Seals have fur, but not luxurious coats (by the time they're off the ice and swimming) -- do they? -- and they do have blubber... Is it one of the characteristics of apes that they have hair rather than fur: a paltry covering that wouldn't be any use in the water anyway? How do the hair and fat coats of bonobos compare with chimps'? (Maybe they're more terrestrial than aquatic.)

Their skin, like elephants and rhinos, is perfect for more or less permanent submersion.

As well known naturalist Ricky Gervais tells us, elephants have been "caught" swimming 2 miles out to sea.

There are no predators in the sea (leastways the inshore parts inhabited by Aquatic Apes).

Assuming they weren't fresh water apes (first).

But there are sharks and jelly fish... How far south do orca come?

Ray Mears said yesterday that people in trouble stay clear of the mangroves in Oz for fear of the crocs, but that is actually the best place for a feed.

Is living in "shark infested" waters much different from living on the slopes of a volcano? Is it better to have no protection, so as not to delay the inevitable when some big teeth come along? They say sailors didn't learn to swim.

According to the enthusiasts we have hair on our head so that babies have got something to cling on to in the sea, though your explanation sounds good too since the head is the only bit that sticks out of the water.

Assuming we need long hair for protection, how come it can grow so long? (Is it variable because the length no longer matters: it can get long, so in some cases it has?)

Does everyone have a lot of variation in hair length? What about male pattern baldness?

But let's not get carried away with swimming apes: we don't have flippers, but we are bipedal. Close to shore, there is still plenty of walking (and breast feeding) to be done.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On the matter of fur, I was dealing strictly with animals that spent all their time in water (except for odd moments for breeding or whatever). Otters and stuff have fur because they're genuinely land animals (albeit spending loads of time in the water). The point about elephants, rhinos and hippos (plus Aquatic Humans) is that they appear to have skin which is ideal for a life on the ocean wave. Not just diving in every day.

So basically, the question is: "Do elephants have dolphin skin?"
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Otters and stuff have fur because they're genuinely land animals (albeit spending loads of time in the water).

Then otters and beavers (voles, musk rats...?) need to be equipped to spend loads of time in the water.

Maybe they only have to spend time on land because their coats need maintenance to be effective. (What do sea otters do?) Whales neglect their coats because they have blubber.

So basically, the question is: "Do elephants have dolphin skin?"

How about "Do any terrestrial mammals have tusks or horns that project forward?"

(Tapir is a pachyderm: how about the wild boar?)
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"Do any terrestrial mammals have tusks or horns that project forward?"

Unicorn?

Or, if you don't like that one, try the horned gopher - extinct now, but it had a cute pair of horns projecting forward from just above the nose.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 17

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group