[Taxacom] The reality of fuzziness

[Ken Kinman]

Richard,
     Atoms and molecules do NOT have unambiguous boundaries.  It's their 
fuzziness that makes them a good analogy.  Actually they are fuzzier, 
because the electrons in their boundaries are so loosely held and readily 
exchanged with other atoms or molecules.  I would say that species have 
better control over their boundaries (are less fuzzy) than most atoms and 
molecules.

     Arguments that species aren't real remind me of arguments that a table 
isn't solid because its atoms are mostly made up of empty space (between the 
electrons).  It's a fun mental exercise, but when my knee (mostly made up of 
space) hits that table (mostly made up of space), my brain still says ouch, 
that feels darn solid to me.  ;-)
      -----Ken

*********************************
>From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>To: "'Dick Jensen'" <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>,"'Steve Manning'" 
><sdmanning at asub.edu>
>CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species real? 
>Doesn'tmatter.)
>Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:16:24 -1000
>
>
>Hi Dick,
>
>We have good scientific reason to believe that subatomic particles exist.
>We have good scientific reason to believe that atoms exist.  We have good
>scientific reason to believe that molecules exist.  We have good scientific
>reason to believe that living cells exist. We have good scientific reason 
>to
>believe that multicellular organisms exist. We even have good scientific
>reason to believe that clades exist.  We do NOT have any reason to believe
>that "species" exist.  What separates the first six things from the last is
>that they all have definable and mostly unambiguous boundaries (in the case
>of clades, these are reproductive events -- as in the most recent
>reproductive event that is shared in the evolutionary histories of all
>extant organisms within a defined set).  Specifically, they have boundaries
>that exist whether or not human beings exist.  The boundaries that we 
>define
>for species (i.e., the circumscription of all individual organims -- alive,
>dead, and yet-to-be-born) are simply that -- definitions that we create.
>Subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, multicellular organisms and
>probably even clades are units that exist in nature whether or not humans
>are here to observe them.
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dick Jensen
> > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:29 AM
> > To: Steve Manning
> > Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species
> > real? Doesn't matter.)
> >
> > Steve Manning wrote:
> > >any species, including Homo sapiens,
> > >is real only when validly published, and then only as
> > defined in said
> > >valid publication(s) including any validly published amendments of
> > >circumscription, etc.
> >
> > and Rich Pyle wrote:
> > >I think the point is that the "entity" of a species exists in our
> > >minds, but not in nature.
> >
> > Steve and Rich,
> >
> > Using this approach, then gold, as an atomic element, exists
> > only in our minds and has no intrinsic reality (after all,
> > humans are the ones who have described the properties of
> > gold).  From a pragmatic perspective, I reject both that and
> > your insistence that species have no reality.  To the extent
> > that anything can be real, species, thought of as products of
> > biological evolutionary processes (just as gold is the
> > product of cosmic evolutionary processes), are real.  They
> > are there to be discovered by us.
> >
> > To claim that species exist solely in our minds is, to me,
> > equivalent to claiming that individual humans (e.g., Steve
> > Manning or Rich Pyle) exist solely in our minds.  I don't
> > accept that either.  I have never met either of you, but I do
> > not doubt that you exist at the other end of this virtual connection).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dick J
> >
> >
> > Richard Jensen, Professor
> > Department of Biology
> > Saint Mary's College
> > Notre Dame, IN 46556
> >
> > tel: 574-284-4674
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Steve Manning <sdmanning at asub.edu>
> > To: Michael Schmitt <m.schmitt at uni-bonn.de>,
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Sent: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 14:03:43 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type of Homo sapiens (was: Are species
> > real? Doesn't matter.)
> >
> > After reading the posts on this subject to date, as well as
> > earlier threads addressing the issue, my present conclusion
> > without at all meaning to be facetious is that any species,
> > including Homo sapiens, is real only when validly published,
> > and then only as defined in said valid publication(s)
> > including any validly published amendments of circumscription, etc.
> >
> > "Species" is much more a legalistic sort of concept than a
> > biological one, though as I think Rich said its purpose seems
> > to be mainly to facilitate communication (which it certainly does.)
> >
> > (I am aware of the biological species concept and, as I
> > indicated some years ago in a similar discussion, if it were
> > proposed that we amend the codes to require combining and
> > synonymizing any species discovered to not be reproductively
> > isolated from any other already described species, I would be
> > most supportive of such a proposal.  Of course that would
> > require setting standards for how much and which types of
> > reproductive isolation qualify, and how much evidence is
> > required.  But until any such code modifications are enacted,
> > I will go with the above.)
> >
> > For what it is worth,
> > Best,
> > Steve
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. 
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01