In fact I knew this, but since Jane brought it up, I think that the issue of
speciation is a red herring (Clupeus fictus). I've heard the argument that
until we see a new species being created we have no proof that it can
happen, but how would we identify speciation if it did happen? It is not a
discontinuous process, just a matter of a species changing gradually until
we decide it is a new species.
So it is not up to us but the taxonomists, a group with seemingly arbitrary
standards. To me it seems ridiculous to classify all dogs as members of one
species, no matter what the DNA says. If we ran into two wild species as
different as the Chihuaha and the Saint Bernard we would certainly not
consider them the same species. While I've heard the arguments for lumping
some wildly disparate animals in the same species, it doesn't make much
sense still.
For example, there is a bivalve, Macoma baltica, which is found both in the
Baltic and in the Bay of Fundy. The Fundy version is much smaller than the
Baltic one, which is presumably the original, and it is believed that it was
transported on ships. I am inclined to think that they are different species
by now, but no, they aren't classified as such. So that cannot be used as an
example of speciation.
And yet they keep playing around with existing species. I have had two
genera shot out from under me, Pavlova (now Monochrysis) and Gymnodinium
(now Karenia) and a friend of mine wrote a monograph on a species which then
got reclassified as a subspecies of something else. This is a bit of a
nuisance - if someone searches for literature on Monochrysis lutheri they
are unlikely to find the paper I wrote, which kind of messes up the
scientific literature.
Sometimes it seems to me that the Creationists have taken over taxonomy and
are manipulating it to their own nefarous ends. I am sure that is only a
fantasy, but no more implausible than lumping all domestic dogs into one
species (and I hear that they are trying to include the wolf too!).
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Shevtsov" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: segunda-feira, 28 de Dezembro de 2009 16:29
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology as Science Status and Future
BTW, Bill, most creationists don't deny that selection (natural or
artificial) occurs. What they deny is speciation and macroevolution.
