Evolution in Action 266
An anonymous reader writes "A new species of plant came into existence about 30 years ago. It is a fertile hybrid which cannot breed with either of its parent species."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Evolution in Action
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
Re:definition of 'species' (Score:2, Informative)
A horse and a donkey can breed to make a mule, but two mules can not breed to give birth to another mule, so mules are not a species.
If two mules could breed that would not guarantee that mules were a new species, but if two mules could breed together AND a mule and a horse or a mule and a donkey could not breed, then mules would be a species.
The definition of breed, in case it's not clear, is basically "give birth to a another animal of the same type as it"
I believe the reason that horses and donkeys are considered different species is because their offspring, the mule, can not reproduce.
Re:definition of 'species' (Score:3, Informative)
Things are often defined by their own terms in science because it's otherwise impossible to define them. "Species" is otherwise definable as "a group of living things that cannot breed with it's parent's group of living things or any other group of living things", but "a group of living things" is taken out and "species" is put back in.
Sure, you ask, well, what defines a group of living things? What defines living things? What defines life?
Well, since these are all unanswered or undefined without using the same original terms, you end with the same type of circular definitions.
I do hesitate to add that the definition of species they propose doesn't entirely make sense. Instead, it ought to read, "able to reproduce with members of it's own species to produce viable offspring of the same species, while being unable to produce viable offspring with members of other species without creating a new species." Whew. Now how's that for circular? =P
Re:Non-Biased reporting (Score:3, Informative)
But there are creationists that believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection; when I worked in Natural Science (been almost a decade since I was writing taxonomic database management code, I admit) there were plenty of knowledgeable scientists who believe in both divine creation and evolution.
Some of them were even Christians, although mainstream Christian beliefs are pretty rare among evolutionists. Most scientists don't like the paradoxes engendered by trying to resolve observed reality with the biblical creation fables.
I beg to differ (Score:3, Informative)
Well, not really. Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a strict fundamentalist who has no science background, then yes, it does disprove his breed of creationism. It doesn't, however, disprove Dr. Michael Behe's breed of "creationism".
What it does disprove, though, is that speciation is possible, but that's rather obvious to anyone who looks at the genetic/chromosomal make-up of, say, chimps, gorrillas and humans.
If you're truly interested in this debate, then I would recommend a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. He's a physicist who is also a creationist, but with a rather different take on the whole thing. He maintains that God did create the world in 7 literal days, but that it also took roughly 13.5 Billion years. Has to do with the theory of relativity of time... He's also Jewish, and has an incredible grasp on the Hebrew underlying the English in Genesis, and brings to light several key verses that could have either been translated better, or simply lost something in translation. Great stuff.
As a creationist who also has a degree in genetics and did research under an evolutionary geneticist, I've seen both sides of the spectrum. both sides extremes have their intellectual/theological bigots who aren't willing to budge simply for spites sake. However, those that are willing to at least listen generally can have very unique viewpoints.