5 ms·
Well, they are tripping on their own imprecise definitions. Using the most prevalent definition of species, the one listed on Wikipedia, we don't have "too man
by lmilcin 5y ago
Well, they are tripping on their own imprecise definitions.
Using the most prevalent definition of species, the one listed on Wikipedia, we don't have "too many species lumped together into Homo Sapiens", we actually have too few. We know all or almost all "species" since and including Homo Erectus were able capable of interbreeding, meaning they were actually single species.
The trouble is they are trying to use definition that has been developed on observation of the current state that is not suitable for classifying evolving organisms over long periods of time.
That might not have been a huge problem when discussing other animals, but for some reason we pay much closer attention to precision of resolving our own parentage and that is when the definition falls short of being able to serve the need.
- User23 5y ago> We know all or almost all "species" since and including Homo Erectus were able capable of interbreeding, meaning they were actually single species. While this is what we were taught in grade school, actual biologists don’t use this children’s definition anymore than actual quantum physicists say atoms are like little solar systems. There are plenty of separate species that are physically capable of producing fertile hybrid offspring. Dogs and wolves and polar and grizzly bears are a couple obvious examples. Also plenty of species don’t reproduce sexually, so defining species in terms of sexual compatibility isn’t even well defined.
- dsjoerg 5y ago> actual biologists don’t use this children’s definition anymore Can you link me to the definition biologists use? I googled for a minute and didn't get very far. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species): "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction." What is the correct & concise definition?
- ufo 5y agoThe whole problem is that there isn't a single correct definition. For example: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/other-species-concepts/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/other-species-concepts/
- errcorrectcode 5y agoYes and I think we're stuck with what's already happening: modifications to existing classifications by genetic discoveries as they occur. There's no good way to please everyone, have a trillion special cases, or throw it all away because it's imperfect.
- mcguire 5y ago"We know it when we see it."
- hyperpape 5y agoThere isn’t a correct and concise definition, any more than than there is a correct and concise definition of good art, good code, mathematical proof, or sandwiches. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/ Even the term planet has recently given us trouble. There we’ve adopted a definition, it’s just not fully agreed upon.
- lmilcin 5y agoMathematical proof actually has very precise definition. You can take something and answer precisely whether it is or is not a mathematical proof.
- lrem 5y agoWait, mathematical proof? > A mathematical proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. Unlike all the other sciences, mathematics is abstract enough to allow for things being fundamentally simple and true.
- lukas099 5y agoiirc dogs and wolves are classed as the same species.
- sokoloff 5y agoWolves are canis lupus, while dogs are canis familiaris (and coyotes are canis latrans). All are capable of interbreeding and producing non-sterile offspring.