[net.origins] Species

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/14/84)

It figures that creationists would want scientists to define  "species" to be
to be something with a real existence.  That's exactly the sort of reification
(pretending that an idea has a real existence) that they commit with their
ideas of God.

The purpose of a classificatory system is to provide convenient categories for
the use of the classifiers.  For example, "clean" and "unclean" animals under
Mosaic law.  Scientific classifications are the same, with the purpose of
reflecting phylogeny (the relationships by descent) at the higher levels (such
as genus, family, order, phylum, etc.) and ordering individuals into groups
with similar properties (such as behaviors, interbreedability, food items, etc.)
at the lower levels (species, subspecies, etc.)

Debate about the meaning of the term "species" and other taxa concerns which
criteria are most useful in the classification.  No single set of criteria will
both be without conflicts of criteria, and sufficiently versatile to deal with
the continuity of variation of characteristics that appears in some groups.

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/17/84)

> [Phil Polli]
> The evidence cited by Paul DuBois certainly seems to support
> the evolutionary hypothesis by showing that it is very hard
> to catalog life into discrete, unchanging classifications.
> So I suppose I should thank him for his helpful contribution
> on the side of evolution in this discussion.

Actually, it wasn't evidence, just Ehrlich and Holms' view of
things.  But, anyway, you're welcome!

By the way, here's another quote from that article which
you might like to take as evidence for evolution:

'The term _species_ should be retained only in its original,
less restrictive sense of "kind."'
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth."
					Romans 1:23