LJWorld Reader blogs

youcantryreachingme (Anonymous) says…

Although I'm not familiar with the references to Kansas, I would argue the following is incorrect:

“there is still enough genetic diversity for natural selection to lead to a rapid shift in the timing of reproduction.”

I doubt whether “those devils with a tendancy not to breed rapidly” have been selectively eliminated by this debilitating disease, thus leaving behind “those devils with a tendancy to breed rapidly”.

Quite frankly I think DFTD just wipes out whichever devils it infects and those that are left have no choice but to breed whenever the opportunity presents itself because quite frankly, they're living out a very lonely existence otherwise!

That is to say - no selective pressure is being applied. I propose that it wouldn't matter which devils were left behind - the massive gap in the population would encourage them to breed anyway.

See also the article on a small population of Tasmanian devils surviving in north-east Tasmania - the location where the disease first broke out over 10 years ago: http://mainlanddevils.com/index.php?modu…

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

Most Devils breed starting at age two or three, but some breed at age one. The ones with cancer who breed at two or three are often not living long enough to see their offspring mature, but the ones who breed at one do, so there is selective pressure to breed early.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

So… how are the Tasmanian Angels faring?

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

What precludes Taz from developing a kinder nature and refraining from biting each other while winning mates or while mating?

There must be a myriad of adaptations that Taz might stumble into that would reduce the risk of disease.
A Taz with a longer lifetime would allow it to breed more and select for its adaptation.

Waiting longer to breed, thus allowing cancer to present, then rejecting mates that have facial growths? I know that I am biased to this one, because I tend to practice it myself.

Recognizing traits among the population that indicate the presence of genetic inferiority? Rejecting them. This is tricky, because I'm being presumptuous. Could happen, though.

Mutating again to form an even better defense against the cancer? Hanging on until this happens.

Some combination of any of the above, plus stuff that I haven't thought of?
If all the Taz population suffers from the disease, then rapid breeding is a poor adaptation until another mutation comes along……or they're dead Tazes walking.

I mean, rapid breeding as a means to outrun cancer doesn't seem to be a long term solution to Tazes problem. They either find somethin' else or they're toast. N'es pas?

supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…

Devo,

Slow down there big guy. Take some deep cleansing breaths. Get that anxiety out of your system. You don't need the added stress to your teaching duties. Maybe instead of ranting and raving on a city's newspaper blog, you could be working on that definitive world-renowned tome of what constitutes science. I swear engineering dude, I thought maybe your head was about to explode halfway through your little diatribe. Besides the fact that you don't make any sense, I say you are one step away from falling into that Void known as Obsoletus.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

supertrampofkansas,

Huh?

Paul, It seems odd to me that the spread of the cancer is attributed to sharing of cancer cells. This seems less likely than the transmittal of a virus, prion, or some other pathogen.

I went to the web site and I would have to pay to get the article. So far I've just read the abstract. So, If you have read the paper, have they ruled out pathogens as a possible cause of the transmittal of cancer?

I'm thinking about HIV and the slippery nature of it. Blasts the immune system and results in strange cancers. Chemical, prions?

supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…

Sorry Devo,

Here is another link to another article on the Taz Devils that may answer your question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur…

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Thanks, supertramp. But, I still don't get the rejection of an alternative cause of the mutation. From the article:

“But while many scientists had suspected a virus, Anne-Marie Pearse, a researcher for the state of Tasmania who co-wrote the article in Nature, found abnormalities in the chromosomes of the cancer cells were the same in every tumor.

Pearse and her colleague Kate Swift discovered that, while the normal complement of chromosomes in the devil is 14, the tumours contained 13, which were grossly abnormal. These chromosomal rearrangements were identical in tumours from all 11 animals studied by the scientists.
This offers support for the idea that the disease apparently began with a single sick devil, probably in the mid-1990s, that directly spread the cancer cells by biting other animals. The authors propose that cancer cells are dislodged from one animal and essentially transplanted to another as a result of bites inflicted around the mouth. ”

The cause of the tumour (ah, the aussie spelling) is a missing chromosome. This mutation can't be caused by an external pathogen? Say a virus that causes a chromosome to change into something unrecognizable and eliminated in the replication process? Ditto a chemical, or other bad johnnie?

I think there might be information that is understood that isn't spelled out. Or what? Because, reading the article didn't rule out an external cause for the mutation.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

Nasty, little, face-biting Devils… seems only the Angelic Taz' will evolve….

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Tumors occur predominantly around the face and neck (3) and are believed to be of neuroendocrine origin (4).
From: Transmission of a fatal clonal tumor by biting occurs due to depleted MHC diversity in a threatened carnivorous marsupial
Hannah V. Siddle,† Alexandre Kreiss,‡ Mark D. B. Eldridge,§¶ Erin Noonan,‖ Candice J. Clarke,†† Stephen Pyecroft,‖ Gregory M. Woods,‡ and Katherine Belov†‡
––––––––––––––-
The diagnostic values of a number of immunohistochemical stains were employed to further characterize 50 representative cases…………..
These staining characteristics are consistent with cells of neuroectodermal origin.

From:The immunohistochemical characterization of devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) in the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii).
Loh R, Hayes D, Mahjoor A, O'Hara A, Pyecroft S, Raidal S.

–––––––––––
Primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNET) are neoplasms of which medulloblastoma is the prototype. These are small cell, malignant embryonal tumors showing divergent differentiation of variable degree along neuronal, glial, or rarely mesenchymal lines
Considerable controversy exists regarding the histogenesis of these tumors
From:
Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumors of the Central Nervous System Subrata Ghosh, md, mbbs, ms, Staff Physician, Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Division of Neurosurgery, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX
––––––––-

So, DFTD is a neuroectodermal tumor.
It has been studied.
Its histogenesis (how it forms) is the subject of considerable controversy.

Therefore, I remain unconvinced that the tumour spreads by transfer of neuroectodermal cells.
––––––––-

Look, there is a party goin' on here. I've had a coupla beers. Maybe I'm just wasting yer time. I usually refrain from any entries on these blogs when I'm not 100%. Tomorrow I may regret this and have to take it back. If so, I apologize.

For now, I'm out.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

devobrun: “Look… I've had a coupla beers…. For now, I'm out.”

Whoa… lightweight.

,;-)

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

Yeah… what pdecell said….

( Love hangin' with you guys… you use *low* frequency words. )

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Okay, since Dave started it.

From some of the posts, I am swiftly transported back to high school where my fellow “A” students would attend the same classes. The guys, Adam, Jordan, John, the Leban twins, 3 another Johns, Peter, and others I'm forgetting, would spend nearly every moment when the class wasn't in progress, beating each other silly over whatever topic one of them happened to mention first. No one could say anything 'right', it always had to cause a debate.

Sometimes one of the “A” girls would say something, but were most often met with a 'what do girls know' attitude.

These same girls are now college profs, doctors and scientists FYI.

One of the girls would sometimes say, “You'd think by this age, they would find something better to do with all those hormones!”. Of course there was then much speculation and humor added.

I think Paul handles this all very well. I guess that's why he teaches.
:)

supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…

I also have been reading on other websites that the loss of the chromosome in the cancer cell is also significant and suggests a non-viral hypothesis. The cancer cells all have just 13 chromosomes and not the 14 in normal Taz's cells. I still don't quite understand why but apparently this loss of a chromosome seems to be very important in identifying how the tumor spreads.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Ok, first, Paul and others, thanks for the reasoned responses. I learned a bit here and I like it.

My questioning is how I learn.

Here is what I take from this:

1) Cell studies indicate that Taz's cancer problem is a result of a tumor cell type that is the same in all animals. The allografic transfer of cells is accepted. As opposed to the stimulation of cancer due to third party pathogens.

2) Allografic transfer is rare. Really rare. So far, the spread of disease in this fashion is seen in canines and hamsters and now T devils.

3) The ability of cells to transfer in this way is due either to a suppression of MHC molecules in the host, or by being sufficiently like the host that the MHC doesn't recognize the new cell as foreign. The latter is apparently the case in Taz.
I didn't review the literature on MHC to see if there might be ways of fooling the immune response otherwise. I'm pretty sure that this is a massive area of study. I've got other things to do.

4) Taz has evolved such that its genetic makeup is not diverse. Because it is aggressive and not diverse, it can transfer cells through bites. As soon as one Taz developed a cancer of the peripheral nervous system, it was able to transfer those cells to other devils.

So the devil is sending itself into oblivion. If it can change, it will survive. Humans can try to help this change by pulling out non-infected devils and breed them separately, or looking for individuals that have sufficient genetic difference and trying to introduce new genetic material into the species, but Taz is in peril.

The cancer problem in the Tasmanian Devil is here and now. Mitigation techniques are being tried along with the science. But its cancer we're talking about, and cancer has proven to be a vastly tougher nut than we thought 50 years ago. Hang on little devil

I have one more opinion. Any extrapolation to the grand narrative regarding evolution is fraught with peril. Using this episode in science as a positive reinforcement of the principle of grand (or macro) evolution is non-scientific and just begging to be challenged politically.

I think that a separation of science from the human experience (beauty, harmony, love, emotion) is a good thing. Any connection between Taz's plight and human emotion is to be left to blogs, cocktail parties, and the like. Moving from science to human experience allows us to seek mitigation methods for Taz's plight. But, when you extrapolate into grand narratives about evolution in general you are imposing a meaning on the science that invites political problem and serves no scientific purpose. It sure as hell doesn't help Taz.

I come to this opinion because I hate guilt trips. Religious or scientific guilt trips are equally odious. So, when I teach celestial mechanics in my high school physics class, I talk about the math and the observation, not “the music of the spheres”.

supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…

“Any extrapolation to the grand narrative regarding evolution is fraught with peril. Using this episode in science as a positive reinforcement of the principle of grand (or macro) evolution is non-scientific and just begging to be challenged politically.” - Devo

Then you don't understand evolution. Apparently you are challenging it politically which is what I originally thought you were doing. This “episode” as you called it is a continuous process of natural selection, adaptation, reproduction, and survivorship which is what evolution is all about. My guess is that you are trying to make a distinction between micro and macro evolution which is the same process in both cases. Do you really think there is some magical genetic barrier that organisms cannot cross.

If you oppose evolutionary theory, then you should also be opposed to atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory of disease, and the heliocentric theory of our universe. It is baffling to me why evolution alone out of all the theories in the natural sciences is subject to such sociopolitical scrutiny by so many in the general public who have no idea what it is or understand how the many underlying processes operate in nature over time to create the diversity we currently see.

Maybe Devo you are a partly reincarnated Ernest Mach (the positivist part anyway).

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Thanks for the heads up. When I googled it, to my surprise, it came up with a google books entry. Thus, I was able to read over some of it.

Chapter 1 begins with a quote from Darwin:

“There can be not doubt………………and this would be natural selection.”
The author goes on to assert:
“Religion is often used to explain purpose and order………..Darwin showed how the properties inherent in the words such as 'purpose', 'order'……….can arise by the process of natural selection.”

So there is the setup. Darwin explaining order (not a problem) and purpose (oh no!, Mr. Bill!).
On page 6 he breaks into a discussion of functional vs.non-functional thinking. He uses an example of thinking about the intentions of your neighbor vs thinking about the moon.
Going next door and asking about your neighbor's intentions is action resulting from your functionalist viewpoint. Going to the moon and poking around addresses the functionality of it. You might find that functionally, both are null sets. Zero is included in my functionalist philosophy.

On the other hand he talks about a rock rolling down hill and perceiving it as a predator. He says it would be disastrous to think about a boulder as a predator, or visa versa. Not from my functionalist viewpoint. Both are dangerous. Both must be dealt with. Neither has purpose, or if they have purpose, I don't care, which is the same thing as having no purpose.

You see, it is the assigning of purpose via religion or selection that is problematic. If I step out of the way of the boulder, my action has purpose. If I shoot the Bengal tiger, my action has the same purpose. Either case I am trying not to die. Why? I dunno, just seems like the right thing to do. Don't need Darwin or Jesus to tell me what to do.
I could shoot the rock or step out of the way of the tiger……….details are important. Purpose isn't, at least not functionally.
What is the purpose of this behavior?
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?ite…

This video is a good demonstration of the zeroth law of existence: Anything that can possibly occur, will. They do what they do, because they want to, laws of physics allow them to do it. Neither has purpose.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

“If you oppose evolutionary theory, then you should also be opposed to atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory of disease, and the heliocentric theory of our universe.”

Well, I don't oppose the theory of evolution, and yes I do discriminate between that which can be tested and that which cannot. The quality and quantity of a test is the thing. Not the theory.

Explaining Taz and his plight is different than making statements about the origin of man. In the case of Taz, we can take action, or he can. Either way, if action isn't taken, Taz might disappear. We don't want that, so we must act. This is so entirely different than stating that all apelike creatures came from a common apelike ancestor that I don't even know where to start. It just seems intuitively obvious that, functionally, the two statements are entirely different.

The Universe doesn't have the sun at its center.
Germ theory of disease is not the whole story. Yeah, tiny organisms can cause larger ones to become sick. But boy, does it get complicated after that.
Gravitational theory is the least understood force (or field) in physics. When I see bumper stickers proclaiming “What Next, Gravity”, I say “Hell yes that's whats next.” If we lived on a scale of atoms and molecules, the forces of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces would be so large that we would not be able to perceive gravity. It simply wouldn't exist.
Yet here I sit, pushing the cushion down on my chair. A word of advice to evolutionary bio folks: Choose a different example in nature to illustrate the infallibility of the great God, science. It makes us physics-types uncomfortable. Right now, in physics, it sucks to be a gravity researcher.

Atomic theory? Functionally, I'm there. But does a neutron, proton, electron actually exist? I really don't know. So what does exist? The fact that the theory of atoms allows me to combine them and describe the world. I can experiment with them and make high density polyethylene and make a tool box. As far as extrapolating to other molecules and uses? Go with it. If it works great. Don't try to play God with any of it. Its just a damn molecule, big deal.

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

“What is the purpose of this behavior?”
Why not look at the physiological response to this behavior in the brain? Surely examining what response our body has to this behavior and what other behaviors can trigger this response will elucidate this question a lot better than giving up and declaring it incomprehensible. To stop asking why flies in the face of the original purpose of science.

“Well, I don't oppose the theory of evolution, and yes I do discriminate between that which can be tested and that which cannot.”
You failed to mention why you separate macroevolution from microevolution with regards to testability (a question which was posed and you ignored). Let us be even more frank, if you think that microevolution is testable and macroevolution is not, what is your definition of a species?

“Well, I don't oppose the theory of evolution, and yes I do discriminate between that which can be tested and that which cannot.”
This scenario is only untestable if you do not properly phrase hypothesis and/or do not know of a way to test the proper hypothesis.

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

Oh, as for the original question, I think that this is a interesting scenario, but not an example of evolution. My guess is that the short amount of time would be more indicative of behavioral plasticity. Of course, one would have to examine a genetic mechanism to understand this better, but that's just my first impression.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

First of all, I didn't say stop asking. My point is that there is a tendency in humans to impose solutions, especially if they are in accordance with pet theories. Including the “purpose” in Darwin's theory is not the same as investigating the changes in the brain's chemistry. Separating the physically measurable from the purpose is imperative and defines the demarcation of science from spirituality, a most important distinction.

How 'bout instead of definition of species, I define test?
A test is a group of ongoing experiments where the variables are controlled, measured, or at least identified and bounded by statistical models. These experiments are, at the early stage investigative. Later, they are designed to push the limits of a theory. The results of these experiments are intended to fairly look for exceptions, limits, repeatability, and just down right common sense. Ask yourself the question “would I trust my life to this theory?”. Now that is a test.

Proposing that quantum electrodynamics derives Maxwell, which derives Ohm's Law, which are all used to build computers is fundamentally different from saying that quantum electrodynamics is the answer to certain aspects of the origin of the universe. That is a leap that is politically confrontational. It is useless unless the intent is to fight over intellectual supremacy. That fight is not science, it is politics.

So what is the difference between macro- and micro-evolution? The quality of the test.
Taz is an example of adaptation gone wrong. Apparently he has grown more aggressive, or something has made him less diverse. Worked fine until someone in the population got cancer and spread it through a process that is quite rare. OOPs, that adaptation didn't work. Cloning anyone? Eugenics anyone? Didn't think so.

I see no problem discussing the evolutionary concept in regards to Taz. I see a quite different discussion in regards to the apelike nature of humans. If you want to notice the genetic similarity of all us apes, then great, no problem. Might be useful as well.

If you insist that we all got here from a common apelike ancestor, you enter the realm of non-functional, spiritual meaning.

Instead of enhancing your social status as a science, demanding adherence to the grand narrative lowers it. You stoop to the level of politicians and spiritualist by insisting that I must believe all of evolution, not just that I can live with and test here and now. The functional meaning of evolution is important, the non-functional meaning is not important. D'ya see the difference?

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

“Separating the physically measurable from the purpose is imperative and defines the demarcation of science from spirituality, a most important distinction.”
By your reckoning, purpose is separate from a physical basis? If I am understanding you correctly, your argument hinges on the presence of the supernatural. What if one presumes instead that there is no supernatural and purpose (in human terms) is no different from purpose (in physiological terms)?

“How 'bout instead of definition of species, I define test?”
Sadly, such is insufficient. Your argument to separate the testability of microevolution and macroevolution is contingent upon the definition of what a species is since this demarcation is the only thing which separates the two. Without this, your argument falls apart.

“Instead of enhancing your social status as a science, demanding adherence to the grand narrative lowers it. You stoop to the level of politicians and spiritualist by insisting that I must believe all of evolution, not just that I can live with and test here and now.”
You are charging me with a great deal that is inaccurate. I care nothing for social status as a scientist. I work to receive respect for my personal contact with people, not respect for my position. I also do not demand adherence or that anyone believe any part of evolution. I just don't sit idle through that which I do not agree with. I do not agree with your statements, so I pursue dialog to find out why. That and your argument could be taken in one of two directions and I am curious to see which.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

I take “species” as a taxonomic classification which is the highest rank that its members can mate to produce offspring. Clearly, you have a greater meaning for the term. OK, I'll bite. What is the meaning of “species” beyond the taxonomic?

The separation of the physical and the science from the purpose is to avoid the part of purpose that includes the spiritual. If all was functional, then purpose would be all physical and not a problem.
Example is climate change/global warming. The motivation and emotion involved in the purpose has swamped the functional and the science. Thus, we get bio-fuels that don't even provide as much energy as it takes to produce them. But, “its green”. So the broad, expansive, visionary science allowed in evolution is evident in other sciences, and it is causing a problem. Even though bio-fuels are being tested and they are not working well at all, we continue to pursue them because the “science” included so much motivation that rational thought is overridden by the motivation. Dangerous territory that.

Yes, well I was responding to super tramp who said:
“It is baffling to me why evolution alone out of all the theories in the natural sciences is subject to such sociopolitical scrutiny by so many in the general public who have no idea what it is or understand how the many underlying processes operate in nature over time to create the diversity we currently see.”
So, the answer to his bafflement is that Maxwell's equations are baffling to the public and they are not philosophically presented to the public on popular programs. The public just gets to use the cell phones, radios, and computers. There is no argument because there is only functionality. If I say that it is all the result of Maxwell, they smile and say that is nice….but don't care to scrutinize further.
This is a far cry from making statements about evolution that occurred 500 million years ago. Maxwell is 125 year history. His theory is right there in the computer. Testable. No extrapolation to ancient times necessary.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Yes, hypotheses about galaxies and their habits over millions of years are the stuff of fairy tales.

I don't deny that electromagnetic observations yield a wonderful sky. But, I don't put those observations in the same class as that which can be manipulated. Astronomy is suffering from the same debilitating problem that plagues gravity. Experiments are being exhausted. Real tests are minimal. Explanations for the accelerating universe are beyond our ability to test. Observation is all we have. Dark mater and dark energy are required in the theory, but where are you going to get it? How are you going to test it? Big problem for astronomers right now is that theory has greatly advanced beyond experiment, and the astronomers know it. OK students, go out and rustle up some dark stuff for us to test. Until then, I just don't know why the universe appears to be accelerating.

Am I curious. Sure. Is astronomy really important? No.
Might the explanations that arise yield a new set of fields and a new potential energy source, or something equally fecund? Knock yourself out astronomers. Lemme know when you do. I'll dump my Exxon. Until then, I'll stand pat on that which is physically demonstrable at a level that I can use, i.e. functional.

Oh, and I don't have to defend it against sky pilots. They're to busy arguing with you guys. Maybe I should thank you for that.

supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…

pdecell,

I too want to thank-you for your blogs. Not only do I find myself searching and exploring in new directions, I am also reexamining my own understandings and philosophies concerning science and reality.

As for Devo, I have a feeling that if we were to adopt his philosophy of science a long time ago, we would still be thinking that the earth is the center of the universe. To look at it in any other way is simply not “functional”. I mean who cares if we really aren't the center of the universe because it doesn't change anything in my world or effect me any differently, right Devo?

I think I remember Devo talking about (correct me if I am wrong Devo) Newton's laws saying that they “functionally” work because they get “close enough” to the answers we need from a practical standpoint. I think this misses the point of science completely. Newton's laws were supposed to apply to all of physical reality. It is quite clear and well-established they do not. I guess I get the feeling that Devo is saying that “funtionality” is the final justification for practicing the process we know as science to which I (like Paul) disagree with. Indeed who defines what is functional, or practical or even if there is one correct way to practice science. As Paul says, this is most certainly a political emotional stance that has nothing to do with the way we have been practicing science. In the same way, I think it is a mistake to say that science is about finding “truth” because again (and maybe Devo is thinking about this) this is as political as saying that it has to be “functional”.

I must go now but I wanted to leave (especially for Devo since he seems to be quite enamored with Sir Karl) a quote that I think has some relevancy to the general topic of science.

“Science never pursues the illusory aim of making its answers final, or even probable. Its advance is, rather, towards the infinite yet attainable aim of ever discovering new, deeper, and more general problems, and of subjecting its ever tentative answers to ever renewed and ever more rigorous tests.” - Sir Karl Popper

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Functionality is ultimately a human evaluation, and thus political.

Functionality is a form of meaning. To this engineer it is much more important than to most scientists. However, decisions have to be made. Decisions about Taz and decisions about climate change, and decisions about a whole bunch of things.
One of the important meanings of science is to help in decision making.

My beef is with fuzzy definitions and ill-posed questions and an utter lack of respect for testing. The other day I read an article linking an increase in kidney disease to global warming. The pet theory today is climate change. The pet theory in life sciences is endless renditions, modifications of Darwin.

Take a look at what

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

“Oh, as for the original question, I think that this is a interesting scenario, but not an example of evolution. My guess is that the short amount of time would be more indicative of behavioral plasticity.”

Classic. Don't know what to call the problems that plaque Taz, as if it matters whether its plasticity or evolution. Only a scientist would care. Why? Because the practical part of this is going to be some intervention into Taz's life. The most important information is probably going to come from biologists/veterinarian who have intervened in other animal populations and know what works, what doesn't, and what should be avoided. All this with or without some fundamental law, no matter who's name is attached to it.

Paul, sometimes observations are all that we have. Yes, to the detriment of any conclusions that may be drawn. Fortunately, if observations are all that we have, then they are also out of our control. If the sun starts changing……….too bad. Live, or die with it. That's it. Give it a name, propose a theory, predict, its meaningless to me.

Let me ask you guys a question. In the world of science and the meaning of science, is the question “So what?” valid?

Let's form a committee to investigate the convening of a summit with invited papers and experts to form a society that will investigate the formation of a subcommittee to make a list of action items which will include the proper categorizing of the Taz problem. UN sponsorship, save the Taz groups, rock concerts, all to “raise the consciousness of the world” to his plight.
Meanwhile, 40 miles outside Hobart, a rancher and his two teenage sons roam their land with shotguns. Blasting gnarly-face Taz's. That night the old man watches TV about all the “awareness” activity going on and thinks “yep, there goes those scientists, “thinking-off again”.

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

“Clearly, you have a greater meaning for the term.”
Clearly, you are wrong. Without meaning to offend, I doubt you have enough knowledge to adequately discuss species concepts.

“I take “species” as a taxonomic classification which is the highest rank that its members can mate to produce offspring.”
And what is it about reproductive isolation which prevents testing? If the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the degree of reproductive isolation of the populations, how does this difference confound testability?

“The separation of the physical and the science from the purpose is to avoid the part of purpose that includes the spiritual.”
That was a point I wanted clarified. Your views assume the presence of a spiritual. I would posit that while it is human to believe in the spiritual, it is unscientific to assume the spiritual.

“Yes, well I was responding to super tramp who said…”
It would be appropriate for you to address your comments to the appropriate person.

As a 'shout-out' to Paul, thank you, thank you, thank you for blogs where I actually get to do some thinking. I greatly appreciate your fondness for science and the innate beauty of things.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Das_ sorry about the confusion re my comment to supertramp.

Since the spiritual is a part of the human, it is often incorporated into the meaning of things including the meaning of science, i.e. the purpose. Without denigrating the spiritual, one can separate it from science and just say that purpose in science is functional. That which is not functional has meaning but is not science and probably spiritual. Motivational, beauty, photographs, love, the reality of the human non-rational experience. It is all fine with me, just don't mix it in with science.

re “species”. Well, I look at the word and follow its definition. The definition is clear to me. Does the part about reproduction need further refinement (reproductive isolation)? Not to me it doesn't. The definition is clear without details of what causes the isolation.
The definition of what constitutes limits and boundaries on reproduction is all the stuff that is complicated. Prezygotic, postzygotic, temporal, mechanical,
hybrid inviability………complicated. Interesting, functional, but not definitional.

Since taxonomy is just stamp collecting, it doesn't care where the lines are drawn. Oh, but at least in the case of the concept of “species”, it matters a lot to biologists who insist on Darwin. That's because “species” is a magical term. More important than any other category in the Binomial Nomenclature. “The Origin of the Species” is canonical, archetypal, beyond the pale.

And beyond the test. Take a dog and turn it into a fox, please. OK, you can choose your plant or animal. If you can do it, repeat and see where it goes. This is majorly different from Taz's apparent selection-based problem.
It is majorly different because it is a test, rather than an observation. That has been my argument all along. So, here is what you do to avoid an actual test.
1) Define “test” as including simple observation. Maybe a lot of it, but only observation. Collect stuff.
2) Say that “origin of species, selection, etc” is science because it explains so much of that which you collected.
3) Claim the spurious, e.g. that it is the best explanation yet.
4) Set up straw men like creation, religion, prior imposed theories and use the argument to knock 'em down, thus bolstering your theory.
5) Multimedia extravaganzas proclaiming all the successes that have been achieved by the knowledge gained via Darwin's principle. Hype.
6) Build a culture internally and externally which refuses to suffer the foolish ignoramuses who “don't have the knowledge”. Promote sophistication, because sophistication leads to obfuscation. This puts you in a better position of power.
7) Make the science as cultural as possible, then claim that the science is without spiritual purpose.

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

Re: spiritual.
It sounds like your assumptions on spirituality has led you to reject all but deductive. That is an intriguing bit of overcompensation…

“Does the part about reproduction need further refinement (reproductive isolation)? Not to me it doesn't.”
You picked the biological species concept for your definition of species. The biological species concept uses the criterion of reproductive isolation for the definition of species. I did not refine your definition any more than you did.

“The definition is clear without details of what causes the isolation… Prezygotic, postzygotic, temporal, mechanical,
hybrid inviability…”
All of these are types of reproductive isolation.

You have failed to answer the following question posed by myself: “And what is it about reproductive isolation which prevents testing? If the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the degree of reproductive isolation of the populations, how does this difference confound testability?” All you did instead was to create a bunch of strawman fallacies and absurd examples.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

If reproductive isolation is a significant part of evolution, then to the extent that it is tested, it is science.

What part is not tested? The part that requires that reproductive isolation along with selection must occur millions of times in order to go from some early organism to what we have today.
Extrapolation into dimensions that cannot be tested.
Time causes decorrelation of stuff. Did Newtonian mechanics work the same way 1 billion years ago? Maybe, don't know. Don't really care, since it isn't relevant to my operation today.
Asserting it is only fecund in a narrative, not in the functional world. Ah, but if the intent of science includes the non-functional, then you enter the realm of the story (that can't be tested, only inferred). Creation suffers from similar problems (inference, not test). Which narrative is science? Neither, because inductive assertions are made by both, with only observation to back them. Observation may be necessary, but certainly isn't sufficient to constitute a functional view of sciences.

Deduction is a mode of rational thinking. Thinking is only part of science. Don't forget the test. The “do”. Inductive thinking is also allowed and points the way to new possibilities. Allowed, but pending test.
My assumptions regarding spirituality cause me to categorize it as non-functioning in a scientific sense, and therefore not science.
However, the discussion here is science, not whether non-science is valid or not. Again, by putting the spiritual in the non-science category, I am not suggesting that it is not valid in other modes of experience.

I'm outta town until later next week, so I'll be off this blog. I think that my views regarding a much narrower view of science should be clear to you anyway. I also think that you disagree with me. I appreciate what you are saying.
Its just that the next time you get into an argument about evolution with a creationist, know the reason for your clash. A clash that doesn't occur between me and religion when I assert Ohm's Law.
You guys appear to embrace things like Jared Diamond books.
I think they are fun, but worthless as science.
I think Sagan and Hawking are media prostitutes who promote non-functional, inductive theories and pound them into society. I guess that's just me. An engineer-american.

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

Since you are leaving, I'll summarize the path which the conversation would go.

It is nice of you to acknowledge that reproductive isolation is something which can be tested (since it has been). The fact that one can test whether reproductive isolation has occurred between two populations which were previously part of the same species means that one can test speciation (macroevolution). Thus, your statement that “grand (or macro) evolution is non-scientific” is incorrect.

As for your disagreement with common ancestry (which is probably what you meant all along, even if you could not verbalize it), if one wants to test the idea that two groups share a common ancestor, then the way to do it is to hypothesize that if A (common ancestry of primates) is true, then B (primates are more genetically similar to each other than they are to any other group) should be true. After that, you can test B and conclude that the result of B's test either strengthened or weakened A. This method of experimentation is used in every discipline in science and is regarded by scientists as being legit.

The rest of the post (at least the part which doesn't rely on name-calling and association fallacies) simply goes on to demonstrate why you make a better engineer than a scientist. To put it simply the goal of a scientist is to answer questions and the goal of an engineer is to make something work. If one looks at the electron microscope, science was necessary to form the concept behind the structure (wavelength of electrons, etc.), but engineering was necessary to turn the theoretical into the practical. Both have their place in addressing the needs of society, but failing to realize what separates them and why they are separate is a great failing. This is your failing.

supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…

Hope you have a good trip Devo.

I don't really have much to add to what Paul and Das have so lucidly stated. I will elaborate on what I had originally eluded to in that your beef with evolution would be the same with about two-thirds of science. Even you would have to admit Devo that science is as what Dr. Gould calls a “plualistic enterprise” which has been and continues to be pursued (validly) in many modes.

When I read what you are saying devo, I find myself wondering if you really have no understanding in the difference between fact and theory because you continue to use arguments from one realm to refute the other. You state that something has to be directly manipulated by repeatable experiments as the only viable acceptable method for practicing science. While evolution is certainly based on historical events, it does use methods of controlled experimentation as Das and Paul indicated above. Most of science is done similarly with geology, astronomy and physics as examples of where this is done.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinions and as Das pointed out, such a philosophy may serve an engineer quite well. But I think that this approach would be disastrous for humankind in their pursuit for knowledge. Even the very people you seem to admire such as Maxwell and Newton used abductive reasoning to produce their theories. Their contributions enabled further discoveries and understanding in thier fields. Yet they did not have manipulated experimental evidence to back up their claims. In fact Newton's laws have been found to be incorrect in most situations (fortunately not the ones that are directly applicable to us).

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Das_ says: “The fact that one can test whether reproductive isolation has occurred between two populations which were previously part of the same species means that one can test speciation (macroevolution)”

Did I say reproductive isolation testing was associated with populations which were previously same species? And how did you arrive at the implication that I included the same species acknowledgment? That is the main part of the argument. How do you know that they were part of the same species, and now they are not. Test that. Don't give me inference (like fossils). That would be a tautology.
––––––––––––––-
“common ancestry” is jargon for what I said, i.e. I verbalized it.

“AR