Forget Gender-Identity. What About Species Identity?

[dauer]

I saw this briefly hinted at somewhere else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

It's about how there can be two species capable of breeding together, then a third species the second can breed with, a second the third can breed with, and so on. And it can form a long chain of hybridable species, but skipping a step you don't find compatibility. What does that say about evolution? What does it say for species identity? Are furries really species-queer? (You can ignore the last question. It's a poor attempt at humo(u)r.)

 

[Tao_Equus]

To me it is a clear proof of speciation and confirms Darwinism.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dauer!

Thank you for raising an always intriguing subject.

I saw this briefly hinted at somewhere else:

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's about how there can be two species capable of breeding together, then a third species the second can breed with, a second the third can breed with, and so on. And it can form a long chain of hybridable species, but skipping a step you don't find compatibility. What does that say about evolution? What does it say for species identity? Are furries really species-queer? (You can ignore the last question. It's a poor attempt at humo(u)r.)

I suppose a great deal hinges on the definition of "species." We have touched on this before:

There was a great article in New Scientist last year that made a point of highlighting how common hybridisation actually is. The surprisingly difficult problem of defining a "species" was also raised.

IMO "speciation" is the real achilles heel of evolutionary theory, because we are still lacking a proper description of the vectors in this process. Random mutation cannot account for this because IMO this alone is inconsistent with observation.

As well as the extensive discourse between myself and Gluadys:

If there are two existing species reproducing separately, you will not find a parent in one group producing offspring that belong to the other group. Never. The best you could get is a hybrid of the two. And there are documented cases in which such a hybrid has proved fertile and become established as a third species which does not interbreed with either of its parent species.

Such hybridization is one way to get a new species, but I would call that crossing from one species to another.

The other way to get a new species that we have discussed is through population isolation. A single species is split into two species. This has also been documented both by experiment and in nature. And I don't think that can be called crossing the boundary either. It is more in the nature of erecting a boundary where there was none before.

The other way for a species to change is by phyletic gradualism. This is a gradual accumulation of changes in one species such that the species at the end of the transformative process is different from the initial stock. When phyletic gradualism occurs over time, it has to be inferred from the morphology of fossil sequences as one cannot directly test whether the newer species could or could not interbreed with the ancestral species. But we also see examples of phyletic gradualism in which all the gradations from one species to another are contemporaneous. Such sequences are called "ring species".

"The Arctic Ocean polar ice cap limits the species range of Sea Gulls to its periphery. Races from Siberia freely interbreed with races from America. Races from America freely interbreed with races from Europe. Going the other way, Races from Siberia freely interbreed with races from the Caucauses. However, Western European herring gull (Larus argentatus) do not interbreed with the lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus) from Centrial Europe where these races of Sea Gulls occur together in northern Europe. So, all along the ring that circumnavigates the globe about the Arctic there is gene flow but where the two ends of the ring meet in Europe there is no gene flow."

f26 Phyletic gradualism

This is the closest example I can find of "crossing the boundary from one species to another" yet that description doesn't really seem to fit here either.

I don't know of any other way that new species evolve, so perhaps you are barking at a bogeyman that doesn't really exist in nature.

So, depending on whether the term "species" is being forwarded by a "lumper" or a "splitter" determines whether or not a cosmetic difference denotes a new species. I might add, that if cosmetics were all it takes to establish sexual preference, then humans are comprised of many multiples of species, in stark contrast with the politically correct status quo of a single human species...

which then of course, opens a whole 'nother can'o'worms.

Ah, evolutionists...want to have their cake and eat it too. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, after all...particularly if humans are "merely" another type of animal.

 

[flowperson]

Hi All:

To an extent this is prone to the same assumptions concerning gender.
Speciation slides along a spectrum of identity.

There are specific identifiers apparent for most species, but many times the genetic and chromosomal dances of life blur the lines between species into confusion. We, as order seeking beings, would like to convienietly tag and box all varieties of life in our never ending quest to somehow control it and it's effects.

Alas, the nature of mother nature is to keep the important secrets from us to protect the viability of the whole.

flow....