ID proponent demonstrates his grasp of biology

[Roy]

From Tom Bethell at ENV:

Adaptations in one species good only for a second species. There are plenty of adaptations in species that are good for other species, but also help members of the first species: these are the basis of mutualisms. (Cleaner fish, for example, remove parasites and dead tissue from other marine fish, but thereby gain a meal.) But we don't expect to see -- and don't see -- adaptations in one species that evolved solely for the benefit of another species.

In other words, he is expecting us to find an "adaptation" (in the example he gives, "adaptation" means a form of behavior) that is certainly and provably unhelpful to those exhibiting the behavior. This we "don't see," says Coyne.

The reason we don't see it, of course, is that it is notoriously easy to concoct a "Just So" story explaining why X's behavior can be construed as useful to X. An example of a possibly self-harmful adaptation is the warning cry of a bird who thereby alerts the neighborhood to the presence of a predator. But such cries may also reveal the whereabouts and presence of the crier. It could therefore be construed as "solely benefiting another species."

Wait, what? Tom Bethell thinks alarm calls solely benefit other species?

Does he not think that members of the callers own species can hear and respond to the calls too? Does he not know that those critturs who give alarm calls belong to species that reside in groups (monkeys, songbirds, meerkats)? Has he managed to confuse "species" with "individual"?

Just because many animals (vervet monkeys, iguanas, fairy-wrens) piggy back on the warning calls of other species does not mean that the warning calls solely benefit other species. That Tom Bethell thinks they do is gratifyingly damaging to the credibility of what is supposed to be a professional ID mouthpiece.

Roy

[lucaspa]

[quote Tom Bethel]'But such cries may also reveal the whereabouts and presence of the crier. It could therefore be construed as "solely benefiting another species." [/quote]
Bethell is mistaking the individual for the species. Species is a population of individuals.

The warning cry may bedetrimental to the individual making the warning cry. The cry may draw the attention of the crier and put him at increased risk of being caught and eaten.

But it benefits the population in that it enables the other members of that species to scatter and avoid predation. So the cry still benefits that paricular species. It also, of course, benefits other prey species in the same area, as Roy noted. But that is incidental to helping the species of the individual making the cry.

FYI those who may not realize why Bethell is trying to make this argument, it is because Darwin laid out this way to falsify natural selection:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

So this is why Bethell ignores the benefit to the species of the caller.

[magellan004]

Species is a population of individuals.

Nonsense. You made that up.

Magellan

[Ansgar Seraph]

From Tom Bethell at ENV:


Wait, what? Tom Bethell thinks alarm calls solely benefit other species?

Does he not think that members of the callers own species can hear and respond to the calls too? Does he not know that those critturs who give alarm calls belong to species that reside in groups (monkeys, songbirds, meerkats)? Has he managed to confuse "species" with "individual"?

Just because many animals (vervet monkeys, iguanas, fairy-wrens) piggy back on the warning calls of other species does not mean that the warning calls solely benefit other species. That Tom Bethell thinks they do is gratifyingly damaging to the credibility of what is supposed to be a professional ID mouthpiece.

Roy

That's some pretty hardcore stupid going on in that article.

[Carrikature]

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

How would you determine the reason something had evolved? Something could hypothetically evolve and later be used for the exclusive good of another species and still not meet this criteria.

Nonsense. You made that up.

Magellan

Ok. What is your definition of a species?

[magellan004]

Ok. What is your definition of a species?

A species is a classification of animals (or plants) that look the same.

Magellan

[Carrikature]

A species is a classification of animals (or plants) that look the same.

Magellan

Thanks. See that -s on the end of those two words? That indicates a plural, i.e. a population not an individual.





[For everyone else reading this thread, I know full well that this definition is pushing the limits of how vague one can be and still retain some modicum of accuracy. Be that as it may, it's enough for my purpose.]

[pancreasman]

A species is a classification of animals (or plants) that look the same.

Magellan

The members of two different species regard each other:

tall-woman-and-short-man.jpg

[magellan004]

Thanks. See that -s on the end of those two words? That indicates a plural, i.e. a population not an individual.
[For everyone else reading this thread, I know full well that this definition is pushing the limits of how vague one can be and still retain some modicum of accuracy. Be that as it may, it's enough for my purpose.]

I was responding to lucaspa's definition of species.

Species is a population of individuals.

That is a new definition and it contradicts other definitions.
I know that he probably meant something like (the cliche) evolution is about populations, not individuals. But he was criticising Tom Bethel for being inaccurate. Using wrong concepts doesn't help lucaspa's case.

A population is (said to be) a group of individuals of the same species. So saying that Species is a population is very mixed up.

There is a greater problem with the concept of Population but I am discussing that in the thread Classification and dichotomous keys.

Finally - no change in evolution can happen except on the individual (parent/child) level.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

I was responding to lucaspa's definition of species.

That is a new definition and it contradicts other definitions.
I know that he probably meant something like (the cliche) evolution is about populations, not individuals. But he was criticising Tom Bethel for being inaccurate. Using wrong concepts doesn't help lucaspa's case.

A population is (said to be) a group of individuals of the same species. So saying that Species is a population is very mixed up.

There is a greater problem with the concept of Population but I am discussing that in the thread Classification and dichotomous keys.

Finally - no change in evolution can happen except on the individual (parent/child) level.

Magellan

Clue: It's not a definition. To expand it in a way you might understand it: The word 'species' applies to a population of organisms not a single organism. That is, we can say this organism belongs to this species in the same way we can say an apple belongs in the grouping called 'fruit'.

BTW You are not discussing anything in the thread on dichotomous keys. You posted two very poor attempts of what you thought were dichotomous keys. Please go back and reuse any key from any article I linked to. Many of them were designed to be understood by children. Then make what you think is your point.

[shunyadragon]

A species is a classification of animals (or plants) that look the same.

Magellan

False. I gave reasonable definitions and concepts of species and you ignored them. Hint - I has to do with reproduction, and yes populations of plants and animals.

[magellan004]

False. I gave reasonable definitions and concepts of species and you ignored them. Hint - I has to do with reproduction, and yes populations of plants and animals.

I was asked for my understanding of Species. If you like to present you notion - I will happily show why it's nonsense.
Do you understand?
Your posting rubbish doesn't establish anything.
Present a cogent concept of Species and I will reply.

Magellan

[DuraGizer]

A species is a classification of animals (or plants) that look the same.

So I can cross a kingsnake with a coral snake after all! Hot dog!

[Ansgar Seraph]

So I can cross a kingsnake with a coral snake after all! Hot dog!

. . . just keep the resulting venomous abomination away from me

[Kristian Joense]

Nonsense. You made that up.

Magellan

What pray tell are you smoking?