to me, at least, the Species Problem is one of the most interesting topics in biology, but it doesn't come up much since large parts of the science necessitate strategically ignoring it.
-
-
The way Lamarck is kept around as a silly foil is kinda ridiculous. If he was a big idiot who couldn't intelligently justify his ideas to the intellectual community then Darwin wouldn't have been challenged to expand on them. “Take my name from me and make it a meme.”
Prikaži ovu nit -
Scientist myth-making always seems to do this to its own detriment, to record Galileos and Newtons and Darwins as iconoclasts separate from their culture, not than participants. And it's just not like that.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The great scientists are always part of a continuum, building off preexisting ideas, participating in a cultural discussion. If Copernicus' arguments had landed only on deaf ears, heliocentrism would have disappeared. But plenty of others were ready to hear him out.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Anyhow, better high schools than mine taught August Weismann, a Darwin follower, as the disprover of acquired characteristic heredity when he cut the tails off mice and their grandchildren still had tails, but this is still wrong. I think Scientists have always hated mice.
Prikaži ovu nit -
By his own admission Weismann's experiments proved nothing, convinced nobody, as Lamarck made claims on use and disuse, not inheritance of mutilated limbs. Weismann's work was writing, where he deduced the mechanism of DNA more than half a century before Crick, Franklin & Watson
Prikaži ovu nit -
It doesn't diminish Newton to recognize to that Einstein essentially proved his equations wrong for large parts of the universe, and it shouldn't diminish Darwin to recognize that his theory required refining. Maybe people are scared of being misinterpreted as creationists?
Prikaži ovu nit -
Darwin could never fully abandon inheritance of acquired characteristics, and as we learn more about epigenetics it appears he was somewhat ironically right for the wrong-ish reasons. We do pass down all kinds of things that don't appear directly connected to our DNA.
Prikaži ovu nit -
But he did make a mistake in elevating the Organism as the exclusive unit upon which selection acts. Turns out wrong because the biological hierarchy (Macromolecule|Cell|Tissue|Organ|OrganSystem|Organism|Population|Community|Ecosystem) suffers from its own Species Problem.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Said twice: the species problem also applies hierarchically and I love it. It's another spot where biology overlaps with philosophy/epistemology/the meaning of language.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If the minimum definition of an organism is “behaves like life”, then some computer programs or a single RNA strand could be considered organisms.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If an "organism" is a self-sufficient being with its own unique DNA, then you are more of a colony than an organism, as you require the workings of your mitochondria and gut bacteria to survive, all of which contain their own genetic code.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If you want to consider your body as the walking vat that holds your brain, then you start to consider yourself an organ or an organ system. I'd recommend you don't do this, but that's a different discussion.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If the families of mitochondria living within your cells are not organisms themselves but support structures for a larger organism, then perhaps you yourself are simply a support structure for a larger “Humanity” organism.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The categories within the hierarchy are as (needfully) reductive as the concept of a species. Definitional barriers are so easily crossed as to be functionally nonexistent, and if nature does not recognize an organism, how could natural selection operate exclusively upon it?
Prikaži ovu nit -
Modern evolutionary theory reinvigorates multilevel selection, a difficult concept Darwin once had to dispense with in order to move the theory forward. It's a fascinating history, and if you want to read more in depth I'd suggest Stephen Jay Gould and Thomas Kuhn
Prikaži ovu nit -
in summary, biology always verges on soft science, but economics, social science and psychology are never sciences at all since they depend on non-falsifiable assumptions, and Kim Cattrall is 100% in the right while SJP can burn in the scorching winds of Jahannam.
#TeamKimPrikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.