This retired historian of science thinks it might even be okay to question the “biological ‘species’ concept”:
As a nonagenarian and former historian of science, I know that even foundational building blocks can be questioned. The unifying patterns of the periodic table are now seen, under closer scrutiny, to be riddled with anomalies and paradoxes (E. Scerri Nature 565, 557–559; 2019). Some scientists now wonder whether the concept of biological ‘species’ contributes more confusion than insight, and whether it should therefore be abandoned (see go.nature.com/2offaav). However, such a decision would affect conservation policy, in which identification of endangered species is crucial — so it is not just an issue for basic science.
Science students generally remain unaware that concepts such as elements and species are contested or are even contestable.
Jerry Ravetz, “Stop the science training that demands ‘don’t ask’” at Nature
Actually, the biological species concept is the foundation of Darwinism but apart from that, it is often conceptual clutter.
Perhaps conservation policy should focus on maintaining healthy ecologies and let the life forms sort out their relationships in their usual somewhat fuzzy way. They don’t owe it to us to prove Darwin right.
See also: A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I’m sorry, what?
Mimus,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
Andrew
Actually, you could say an unscientific concept of species is foundational to Darwinism
Andrew
Of related note: Darwin, because of the reductive materialistic foundation that his theory rested upon, denied that there were any true ‘species’. He held the the term species “as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience” and that it “does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms.”
In short, the Darwinist, because of his reductive materialism, is forced to deny the existence of ‘true species’,
Needless to say, if your materialistic worldview denies the existence of ‘true species’ in the first place, then for someone to write a book entitled “Origin of Species”, which is based on the premise of reductive materialism, then that book clearly is, to put it nicely, ‘not even wrong’.
BA77,
You are totally correct. The title should have been, On Why There Is Some Variety.
Andrew
Asauber
Or better yet, perhaps Darwin’s book should have been entitled, “Pops, Whistles, Babbles and other Random Noises from a Mindless Meat Robot” 🙂
BA77.
Touche! 🙂
Andrew
Asauber,
Obviously I’m aware of Darwin’s book. I guess I have the advantage over you in knowing what’s in it and what the term biological species concept refers to .
Mimus,
Am I supposed to be impressed?
Andrew
Not impressive, but surely knowing what the term means would be a requirement for anyone wanting to talk about it? On reflection,I guess news is also ignorant of its meaning. Hard to see how she could make this mistake otherwise.
Mimus states,
I agree. To wit, Charles Darwin’s definition of the term “species”,
As unbiased readers can clearly see, Darwin was hardly being concrete in his definition of species. And the reason for his fuzziness in his definition of species is clear, the term species is an abstract property and/or definition of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. i.e. How much does the concept of species weigh? How long in the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? etc.. etc..
The term species, just like all other abstract properties of the immaterial mind, simply can find no grounding within materialism. The fact that the term species is an abstract definition that is created by the immaterial mind creates an irredeemable problem for Darwinists. You don’t have to take my word for it. A Darwinist admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”
This inability for Darwinists to define what the concept of species truly is within the materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution gives us a glimpse into a irredeemable, and catastrophic, defect within the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic framework.
Darwinists ultimately seek to ‘scientifically’ explain everything in materialistic terms. i.e. Reductive materialism. And yet, if something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., length, mass, energy, momentum, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, i.e., spiritual. Numbers, mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into that category of being an abstract property of the immaterial mind. It is amazing how many things fall into that ‘abstract’ category even though most of us, including scientists, (“scientists” also happens to be an abstract term itself), swear that they exist physically.
This inability of Darwinists to ground abstract immaterial concepts within their reductive materialistic worldview leads to the catastrophic failure of Darwinian evolution as a scientific worldview. The main reason that Darwinian evolution winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure as a scientific worldview is that mathematics itself, (which is the very backbone of all science, engineering and technology), is an abstract concept that simply can find no basis within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution.
Simply put, Mathematics itself, (as well as logic itself), exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time realm. A platonic immaterial mathematical realm of abstract concepts which simply is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the physical world exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be their theory to be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.
Moreover, to make this dilemma of ‘abstract immaterial concepts’ even more devastating to the Darwinian materialists, it turns out that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by the Greek materialists, but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”
In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even matter or energy at all, (as Darwinian materialists presuppose) but is immaterial information itself
Thus, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn to be are ‘real’, (on a materialistic definition of what is suppose to be ‘real’), but the foundation of reality itself turns out to be “abstract” immaterial information. As Anton Zeilinger pointed out in the above video link, this finding of information being the basis of reality fits very well into Christian presuppositions:
This finding also puts the die-hard atheistic materialist in quite the dilemma because as Bernardo Kastrup further explains, to make sense of this conundrum of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!
Or to put it much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
Of supplemental note:
The Darwinian materialist, in his rejection of God, simply has no anchor for reality to grab onto:
As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
A read a few paragraphs of this.
Is there a non-material answer to the species problem? What are we missing out on that would allow us to define species neatly and universally?
Mimus asks,
Well since the term ‘species’ is clearly an abstract immaterial concept of the mind that can have no possible materialistic explanation, then, if there is ever to be found an answer for the ‘species problem’, of course, that answer will necessarily have to be non-material in its solution.
Mimus then asks,
From my nose bleed section of watching ‘the game’ between Theists and Atheistic materialists, I would have to say that the main thing that Atheistic materialists are missing, (aside from the fact that any coherent abstract classification scheme must necessarily be non-material in its foundational basis), is that any coherent classification scheme for species must also necessarily start from the presupposition of ‘top-down’ creation of Theists, instead of the presupposition of ‘bottom-up’ evolution of Atheistic materialists.
In fact, Carl Linnaeus, a Christian who sought to “to reveal God’s creation to mankind in an orderly manner”, and is considered the ‘Father of Taxonomy’, used a ‘top-down’ approach,,,
Here is Linnaeus’s ‘top down’ classification scheme:
Where Atheistic materialists run afoul of this ‘top-down’ classification scheme of Linnaeus is that , as Dr. Wells points out in the following video,
,as Dr. Wells points out, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted, via his theory, should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
But that gradually branching ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not to be found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.
Moreover, this ‘top-down’ pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, (disparity preceding diversity), pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Thus, as the fossil record itself gives abundant evidence for, any coherent classification scheme for the ‘species problem’ must necessarily start with the presupposition of ‘top-down’ creation. And then from that ‘top-down’ presupposition, the ‘species problem’ will at least have a realistic possibility for a coherent, and more or less concrete, solution, (instead of the ‘species problem’ basically being in complete disarray as it currently is because of the ‘bottom up’ presupposition of Darwinists)
Verse:
A few related notes. The ‘top down’ “operating systems”, (i.e. Gene Regulatory Networks), that tell the protein coding regions what to do, are now found to be ‘species specific’
Also of related note:
“Not impressive, but surely knowing what the term means would be a requirement for anyone wanting to talk about it?”
Mimus,
As BA77, points out, “species” is an abstraction. So I think the issue is someone like Darwin trying to do science with an imaginary vision of biology. Darwin has the issue, not me (or News).
Andrew