tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post6670412815986049535..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: A rare genomic look at Aboriginal AustraliansDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66119812170958229752010-09-08T13:21:19.478+03:002010-09-08T13:21:19.478+03:00Did you read the link on duck classification?
Not...<i>Did you read the link on duck classification?</i><br /><br />Not much of it, it is apparently much more about >=species classifications than <=species classifications (the area I am more interested in). <br /><br />But I read your essay from beginning to end.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6268813738331898252010-09-08T05:45:42.505+03:002010-09-08T05:45:42.505+03:00Thanks Onur. Did you read the link on duck classi...Thanks Onur. Did you read the link on duck classification?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19031687928294867672010-09-07T20:15:53.374+03:002010-09-07T20:15:53.374+03:00documentented -> documenteddocumentented -> documentedOnur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22698202667529387032010-09-07T20:14:15.216+03:002010-09-07T20:14:15.216+03:00Terry, I read your essay and found it well studied...Terry, I read your essay and found it well studied and documentented. As you might have noticed, I am a lumper when it comes to classifying species. Some splitters go too far as to classify human races (I define them as subspecies) as different species. I don't agree with them, as so much splitting would make the category of species, which is a category defined primarily based on absolute or practical impossibility of sustainable admixture between groups of living beings, meaningless.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58793611895867398912010-09-06T06:28:02.285+03:002010-09-06T06:28:02.285+03:00Sorry for the delay. I was waiting until I had ti...Sorry for the delay. I was waiting until I had time to look it up. Here's my essay on the implications from some time ago (which includes the relevant reference): <br /><br />http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-species.html<br /><br />And here is the link itself: <br /><br />http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v108n03/p0471-p0507.pdf<br /><br />You'll see form the trees on pages 6, 7 and 9 how impossible it is to reduce the complexity to just teo levels. In fact towards the end he talks about 'superspecies', 'allospecies', 'subgenus', 'supergenus' and 'infragenus'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5921516059020845322010-09-03T14:13:08.934+03:002010-09-03T14:13:08.934+03:00If you're interested I'll find and post, b...<i>If you're interested I'll find and post, but I'm sure you're not as interested in ducks as I am.</i><br /><br />If it has relationship with the subject of our discussion, I would be interested.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24255526780479429682010-09-03T06:58:51.839+03:002010-09-03T06:58:51.839+03:00"I was only talking about clades of taxonomic..."I was only talking about clades of taxonomic levels themselves whether they are taxonomically recognized or unrecognized". <br /><br />I have seen some very useful use of clades in the classification of dabbling ducks. So it's not just applicable to individual genes. If you're interested I'll find and post, but I'm sure you're not as interested in ducks as I am. <br /><br />"thanks for the interesting discussion guys". <br /><br />Thanks to you too, and Onur.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70533959994176772582010-09-02T15:57:52.369+03:002010-09-02T15:57:52.369+03:00Sounds about right: use what works basically.
Abs...<i>Sounds about right: use what works basically.</i><br /><br />Absolutely. Science isn't just about some absolute facts or truths, it is also an art of practical conventions. After all, which of the taxonomic categories have any meaning in the lives of living beings that are classified? Maybe the species and subspecies categories, though they are both far less important than small clans or family groups in the lives of animals.<br /><br /><i>thanks for the interesting discussion guys</i><br /><br />You’re welcome. I'll always be ready for discussion unless there is a special condition.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36006136677275144812010-09-02T14:06:27.529+03:002010-09-02T14:06:27.529+03:00Sounds about right: use what works basically.
By ...Sounds about right: use what works basically.<br /><br />By the way, it seems like we might have exhausted this, so if so, thanks for the interesting discussion guys.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74051392414796161762010-09-02T12:43:02.285+03:002010-09-02T12:43:02.285+03:00Well there is the disagreement in a nutshell.
Wha...<i>Well there is the disagreement in a nutshell.<br /><br />What I am saying on the other hand is that trying to describe nature in a way which fits old theories which are known to be wrong, and not the best models of reality, is what is creating confusion.<br /><br />Biologists is not confused. It is has never been so clear and consistent and important as it is today.<br /><br />It is people who try to fit real biological conclusions into pre-Darwinian models in order to "help" and "regulate" who are the confused people, and they are also the ones responsible for confusing the public.<br /><br />Science should not be more regulated.</i><br /><br />I think what we need is bringing current taxonomic classifications completely into consonance with Darwinism and evolution in general. To this end, we should make all species and ultra-species (=supra-species) taxonomic classifications taxonomic clade-based. Unfortunately, as I wrote in my previous post, there is usually no such possibility at infra-species taxonomic levels due to admixture, so at those levels we should turn to a more relaxed but again genetic-based method of classification.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23099381654690169812010-09-02T12:22:44.082+03:002010-09-02T12:22:44.082+03:00Clades do help, in their messy way, to describe re...<i>Clades do help, in their messy way, to describe reality. Describing reality is the aim right?<br /><br />What you see biologist do, as I am sure you must realize, is break the question up and talk about clades of mitochondrial lines, Y chromosomal lines, and of specific genes.</i><br /><br />You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about clades of mitochondrial lines, Y chromosomal lines, specific genes or any other genomic piece, as I already acknowledge that they are helpful at all taxonomically recognized or unrecognized taxonomic levels, whether they be species level, ultra-species levels or infra-species levels. I was only talking about clades of taxonomic levels themselves whether they are taxonomically recognized or unrecognized. At the level of species you can talk about taxonomic clades due to the inter-species barriers to admixture or fertile offspring of both sexes. But at the level of subspecies or any other infra-species taxonomic level (I already said that the only taxonomically recognized infra-species taxonomic level is subspecies BTW) there is no such barrier, so admixture usually makes taxonomic clade-based classifications meaningless at infra-species taxonomic levels (whether they are taxonomically recognized or not).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81017414704648712092010-09-02T10:16:06.151+03:002010-09-02T10:16:06.151+03:00Onur:
Clades don't help us in infra-species le...Onur:<br /><i>Clades don't help us in infra-species levels (including subspecies), as there is no barrier - at least theoretically - to admixture at those levels.</i><br /><br />Clades do help, in their messy way, to describe reality. Describing reality is the aim right?<br /><br />What you see biologist do, as I am sure you must realize, is break the question up and talk about clades of mitochondrial lines, Y chromosomal lines, and of specific genes.<br /><br /><i>We need more regulization instead of more deregulization in this already messy and confusing chaos</i><br /><br />Well there is the disagreement in a nutshell. <br /><br />What I am saying on the other hand is that trying to describe nature in a way which fits old theories which are known to be wrong, and not the best models of reality, is what is creating confusion. <br /><br />Biologists is not confused. It is has never been so clear and consistent and important as it is today. <br /><br />It is people who try to fit real biological conclusions into pre-Darwinian models in order to "help" and "regulate" who are the confused people, and they are also the ones responsible for confusing the public.<br /><br />Science should not be more regulated.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83574289540507191792010-09-02T04:16:02.769+03:002010-09-02T04:16:02.769+03:00Perhaps we should just talk of 'clades'?
...<i>Perhaps we should just talk of 'clades'?</i><br /><br />Clades don't help us in infra-species levels (including subspecies), as there is no barrier - at least theoretically - to admixture at those levels.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31891284297419611612010-09-02T04:10:00.687+03:002010-09-02T04:10:00.687+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43522867886559942982010-09-02T02:48:08.242+03:002010-09-02T02:48:08.242+03:00"Though I respect your scientific perfectioni..."Though I respect your scientific perfectionism in taxonomic classifications, I think your solution would only bring more confusion and messiness to the already existent ones". <br /><br />Perhaps we should just talk of 'clades'? <br /><br />"too much hybridization between two or more subspecies may eventually bring about their fusion under a new subspecies category, or some level of isolation of the members of a single subspecies may eventually bring about their split into two or more subspecies without any speciation". <br /><br />I think that sums up the situation quite well.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8178874147620046752010-09-02T01:41:18.143+03:002010-09-02T01:41:18.143+03:00Andrew,
Though I respect your scientific perfect...Andrew, <br /><br />Though I respect your scientific perfectionism in taxonomic classifications, I think your solution would only bring more confusion and messiness to the already existent ones. We need more regulization instead of more deregulization in this already messy and confusing chaos. So we shouldn't refrain from assigning subspecies status to certain sub-groups of species when they are distinct enough despite the imperfections in drawing lines between subspecies (some hybridization in intermediate zones should be seen normal). Also we should stick to the one-level rule, as it isn't less scientific than using more than one level in any way, as in both cases we are dealing with conventions, not absolute scientific facts. And lastly, it shouldn't be forgotten that subspecies are much more open to change than species as a result of being open to admixture and being generally a much less clearly defined and much more flexible category than species, so for instance, too much hybridization between two or more subspecies may eventually bring about their fusion under a new subspecies category, or some level of isolation of the members of a single subspecies may eventually bring about their split into two or more subspecies without any speciation.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85424689910593105872010-09-02T00:01:56.960+03:002010-09-02T00:01:56.960+03:00I am skeptical that allowing more than one level o...<i>I am skeptical that allowing more than one level of subspecies will make them more clearly defined. Also there is the problem of putting a limit to the number of subspecies levels, as theoretically there is no limit.</i><br /><br />Exactly. And what's more the populations move so quickly. One day two populations never interbreed, and then suddenly they do, but they stop breeding with another. So in other words the whole "tree" shape of relatedness breaks up completely in most cases that not either species, or on their way to be species.<br /><br />But if you look at the real articles being published they do not need to assume a tree of categories, unless there is a tree, for example in the case of male lines on their own. <br /><br />Discussion has gotten messy, and that is good! :)Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68708547824676775752010-09-01T19:57:52.635+03:002010-09-01T19:57:52.635+03:00clearly defined sub-species in only one level
I a...<i>clearly defined sub-species in only one level</i><br /><br />I am skeptical that allowing more than one level of subspecies will make them more clearly defined. Also there is the problem of putting a limit to the number of subspecies levels, as theoretically there is no limit.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70615653695362902452010-09-01T17:20:53.358+03:002010-09-01T17:20:53.358+03:00Onur, It is not only homo sapiens.
I think relat...Onur, It is not only homo sapiens. <br /><br />I think relatively few clearly defined species can usefully be broken into clearly defined sub-species in only one level.<br /><br />It simply requires very specific circumstances for this to come about.<br /><br />I guess that if sub-species means something useful these days it is in practice something like speciation which which is not yet finished.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40801996727212117752010-09-01T14:52:14.792+03:002010-09-01T14:52:14.792+03:00In the case of sub-species, by definition, there i...<i>In the case of sub-species, by definition, there is never a clear gap provided by the extinction of all potential intermediates.</i><br /><br />Then what is the difference of human subspecies from subspecies of other species?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63148436243699577572010-09-01T13:59:59.623+03:002010-09-01T13:59:59.623+03:00Onur asks:
In your first post on this thread, rega...Onur asks:<br /><i>In your first post on this thread, regarding human racial classifications you said, "there are now more objective ways to divide up the species" . What is your proposal for dividing up the human species?</i><br /><br />Maybe a misunderstanding here. I do not propose any <i>particular</i> new classifications. My point is about the method and I just say that there are better ways of doing it than trying to fit all cases into a traditional system which only allows one level.<br /><br />Examples of real scientists getting on with real biology in just this way are cited all over this website for example. <br /><br />It effectively comes down to me saying that reality is messy and so we should not pretend otherwise, which is what biologists are already doing.<br /><br />In contrast, as you yourself pointed out, published biologists "ignore subspecies". <br /><br />I guess there is a reason?<br /><br />They might ignore subspecies, but you can not say they are ignoring human diversity itself. OTOH, if they had to fit their results into subspecies <i>then they really would</i> have to ignore reality.<br /><br />terryt said<br /><i>The boundary between various species is often very ill-defined unless there has been extinction of intermediates.</i><br /><br />Well there are always extinctions of intermediates if you go back far enough, but I agree with what you are saying. Defining species, as I said, is no longer possible or necessary to do in any simple or clear way.<br /><br />But relatively speaking, the concept of a species is more often useable than the concept of a sub-species. In the case of sub-species, <i>by definition</i>, there is never a clear gap provided by the extinction of all potential intermediates.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71287176868974852742010-09-01T11:16:25.300+03:002010-09-01T11:16:25.300+03:00First of all it is inconsistent to be telling me t...<i>First of all it is inconsistent to be telling me that this term is already widely used in a correct and meaningful way, and then to also be saying that you have several proposals for your own definition.</i><br /><br />Actually my first definition was a little haphazard, as I hadn't considered all the possibilities, so I corrected it in the revised version.<br /><br />Anyway, as I have explained enough of my thoughts, I won't further the same debate by answering your questions but will ask you a simple question. In your first post on this thread, regarding human racial classifications you said, "there are now more objective ways to divide up the species" . What is your proposal for dividing up the human species?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73780471970612408712010-09-01T06:43:09.625+03:002010-09-01T06:43:09.625+03:00"Please note that I also explained why the pr..."Please note that I also explained why the problems this word has are nothing compared to the problems 'sub-species' has". <br /><br />I'm sure it does have the same sort of pfoblems. The boundary between various species is often very ill-defined unless there has been extinction of intermediates.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19539369309115899712010-08-31T21:05:26.690+03:002010-08-31T21:05:26.690+03:001. Onur and Terry agree:
What is really important ...1. Onur and Terry agree:<br /><i>What is really important is the degree of the human biological diversity and whether it is in a degree to allow scientists to make subspecies classifications for humans. I think it is and I think that I've said enough to explain why I think so</i><br /><br />But I think what was said was that actually there is too much complexity to fit in a one layer system? Was there another discussion?<br /><br />2. terryt says that the term "species" is still widely used.<br /><br />Yes, but I just said that no simple and clear definition is possible or necessary. I did not say that this stops the term being possible to use. Please note that I also explained why the problems this word has are nothing compared to the problems "sub-species" has.<br /><br />3. Onur says:<br /><i>I have revised my definition of subspecies. My new definition of subspecies is so: lowermost genetic clusters separated from each other to a high degree and long enough to have clearly and easily identifiable consequences on the physical traits in a species. </i><br /><br />First of all it is inconsistent to be telling me that this term is already widely used in a correct and meaningful way, and then to also be saying that you have several proposals for your own definition.<br /><br />Secondly, I agree with Dienekes about how interesting the example of the suburbs of Reykyavik is for this subject of discussion. Haven't you just given a definition which says that the sub-species of humanity are now either that big or smaller?<br /><br />4. onur says<br /><i>I see the exact opposite of what Andrew sees: there is a widespread tendency to ignore subspecies when it comes to humans.</i> <br /><br />Not on the internet though. :)Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35953729947491933972010-08-31T13:45:34.868+03:002010-08-31T13:45:34.868+03:00I have revised my definition of subspecies. My new...I have revised my definition of subspecies. My new definition of subspecies is so: <b>lowermost</b> genetic clusters separated from each other to a high degree and long enough to have clearly and easily identifiable consequences on the physical traits in a species. <br /><br />So even if Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species, they wouldn't be subspecies but groups of subspecies.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.com