RE: The code that is DNA
December 29, 2019 at 12:16 am
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2019 at 12:40 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(December 29, 2019 at 12:12 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Yes, each successive representative in a line could likely mate with the previous one. This has already been addressed...repeatedly...and is not an objection to speciation, or the definition of species.
Do you have an objection to speciation, an event that we have observed in the lab and the field...or not?
See this is what I mean lol. You asked what the issue is, I told you, and then it doesn't matter unless the issue is specifically what you want it to be.
---
To expand on my previous post, the idea of species seems strangely unnecessary. It almost seems a byproduct of creationism, which does have the idea of kinds to which individuals belong embedded in it. Either that or we're dealing with a psychological predisposition to group things together, projecting categories into nature, where nature has not placed them.
The idea of species seems incompatible with evolution, which is ironic since evolution is almost the front-runner of the idea. The whole "notion of phylogeny," as you say, starts off with species. But common descent and gradual change ought to blur all boundaries between organisms, such that speaking of this or that species no longer makes sense.
Specially since you're also fond of genetic similarity representing relatedness. If I share 5% of my genome with mushrooms, the idea that I'm a different species from mushrooms ought to be reduced by 5%.
