Skip to comments.
New Definition of 'Species' Could Aid Species Identification
PhysOrg.com ^
| 23 August 2006
| Staff
Posted on 08/24/2006 6:54:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: Gumlegs
She crossed her legs. Then crossed them in the other direction. Nice ankles. Nice knees too. But I'm a professional; my interests were above that. "My parents didn't leave me many mutations, Mr. Spade. I hope you can help me."
61
posted on
08/24/2006 11:49:31 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Everything is blasphemy to somebody.)
To: PatrickHenry
===>
Placemarker <===
It was a dark and story might placemarker.
62
posted on
08/24/2006 1:04:24 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: PatrickHenry
Above the knees? My high school English teacher called it crossing the equator.
63
posted on
08/24/2006 1:41:33 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: js1138
One of the main reasons I accept evolution and an old earth.
There is just no way all the extinct species lived at the same time 5000 years ago. It wouldn't work.
64
posted on
08/24/2006 2:32:25 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: freedumb2003
Well, Ian Fleming drank pink gin.
How girly is that???
65
posted on
08/24/2006 2:33:43 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: PatrickHenry
Any chance scientists will retain the old definition while adding the newer distinction? "Genetic species" vs. "observed species", something like that?
66
posted on
08/24/2006 2:40:59 PM PDT
by
Dumb_Ox
(http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
To: furball4paws
Simple - humans love to pigeonhole things and if something doesn't exactly fit, they make it fit. 'The Judean People's Front? I thought we were the People's Front of Judea'
67
posted on
08/24/2006 3:10:30 PM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
To: PatrickHenry
If it weren't for extinctions, the inter-relatedness of all species would be as immediately obvious ... Good point.
68
posted on
08/24/2006 3:12:19 PM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
69
posted on
08/24/2006 3:17:10 PM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
Comment #70 Removed by Moderator
To: TropicalFishGuy
I'm sure that was my subconscious inspiration.
71
posted on
08/24/2006 5:36:18 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: Dumb_Ox
Any chance scientists will retain the old definition while adding the newer distinction? "Genetic species" vs. "observed species", something like that?In the long run, say 50 years, there will be no difference. In the short run, it doesn't matter except to specialists.
72
posted on
08/24/2006 5:39:52 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: PatrickHenry
defining mammalian species Well, I'm no scientist, but I'd say let's start with mammaries.
73
posted on
08/24/2006 5:44:53 PM PDT
by
Larry Lucido
("There's no problem so big that government intervention can't make it worse.")
To: doc30
Check out bacterial Numerical Taxonomy. Does what you say and has been around for 50 years or so, but it has problems of its own.
To: PatrickHenry
So does that mean that scientists are going to come up with species and dwarf species? After all, they seem to think it works for planets....
75
posted on
08/24/2006 6:27:50 PM PDT
by
mhking
("Lotion -- apply directly to your skin; Lotion -- apply directly to your skin...")
To: mhking
You like miniatures?
76
posted on
08/24/2006 6:39:39 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: PatrickHenry
We define a genetic species as a group of genetically compatible interbreeding natural populations that is genetically isolated from other such groups. This focus on genetic isolation rather than reproductive isolation distinguishes the Genetic Species Concept from the Biological Species Concept. Recognition of species that are genetically isolated (but not reproductively isolated) results in an enhanced understanding of biodiversity and the nature of speciation as well as speciation-based issues and evolution of mammals.Maybe I'm missing something, but how can population A be genetically isolated from population B, if A is interbreeding with B.
77
posted on
08/24/2006 6:41:41 PM PDT
by
csense
To: gridlock
unless Congress acts to set the definition of the term species.
I think they have, but have not yet codified it. As a practical matter, as far as Congress is concerned, a species is any set of similar organic matter that might vote in a block or cause block voting due to it's existence.
78
posted on
08/24/2006 6:47:24 PM PDT
by
ml1954
(ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
To: csense
My guess is that this new definition would, for example, divide a
ring species into a few separate species, notwithstanding that at a newly-defined species' boundary, it is capable of cross-boundary interbreeding.
79
posted on
08/24/2006 6:51:34 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Everything is blasphemy to somebody.)
To: PatrickHenry
I haven't read the article, but it does look like the new definition is still not transitive. (But is need not be and perhaps cannot be, given the way biology works.)
80
posted on
08/24/2006 8:01:21 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson