But what if these “Homo species”were never sharply differentiated groups? Cutting edge techniques might turn up many more such “species”/groups in the near future, comprising a sort of “United Nations” of deceased cultures.
Wilcox: “Perhaps this could all be resolved if the scientific community simply agreed upon a definition for each rank, but there’s no consensus for that.” If modern biology began with “On the Origin of Species,” many may be willing to live with chaos to protect the sacred history.
For all we know, this type of hybridization could be common. If it’s a bottom dweller, who was looking? Maybe hybridization plays a bigger role in evolution than we supposed. And then schoolbook Darwinism plays a smaller one.
To what extent has the “biological species concept” become a mere means of generating publicity for research or political action for environmental causes? The research and causes are doubtless worthwhile but we still seek an informative classification method.
Let’s read the Nature abstract: Nature (2019) Article | Published: 15 May 2019 Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome Julius Fredens, Kaihang Wang, Daniel de la Torre, Louise F. H. Funke, Wesley E. Robertson, Yonka Christova, Tiongsun Chia, Wolfgang H. Schmied, Daniel L. Dunkelmann, Václav Beránek, Chayasith Uttamapinant, Andres Gonzalez Llamazares, Thomas […]
Their assertion shows, of course, what as mess the biological species concept is. If anyone does think all those breeds of dogs are really species, well…
If Neanderthals “diverged” from “modern humans” 800,000 years ago but many of us have Neanderthal genes (yeah, 23andMe stuff, for sure), what chance is there that much of the contention is based on the fact that we don’t really know enough to be sure of very many things?
Without a clearly understood concept of “species”, it’s hard to know what extinction even means. If all individual life forms are unique, then every death is an extinction. Where do we draw the line and why, exactly?
And maybe of how animals evolve over time.
Perhaps most groups of canines have never been very separate for any length of time and that fact may have served them well.
Just what the concept of “speciation” adds to the human picture is unclear. But it makes for news stories.
But notice how the story is told in such a way as to pretend that some type of Darwinism is happening when maybe it isn’t. Darwin’s Potemkin village?
They want to protect the dingo, mainly for Australian cultural reasons. Fine. Why not just admit that instead of cooking up some nonsense about “speciation”?
“It’s a perfect scenario for cooking up new species,” he said. What? Wait! This isn’t a “new species.” This is a holdover from 50 million years ago, during which it’s always been an obvious frog.
Ridley discusses several other scare claims that did not survive scrutiny and notes that the best estimate is that insect species are dying out at rates simliar to mammals and birds (1 to 5 per cent per century): “A problem, but not Armageddon.”