Bottomline is in vertebrates, mammals , primates , hominoids , hominins and genus homo , if two individual organisms , FEMALE AND MALE, mate and produce fertile offspring, they are the same species, by the perfect Darwinian definition of exclusively sexually reproducing species .
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/definition-of-species-in-darwinian.html
The standard species definition’s perfection for Darwinian natural selection logic is demonstrated in my response below to Dawkins , Wilson , et al.:
Yes what is selected for is a pheno_type_ and its geno_type_.
“Group” would imply a species. The genotype can only be passed on to future generations within a species , because only members of opposite sexes of the same species can mate and produce fertile offspring in an exclusively sexually reproducing species such as humans . The meaning of a genotype being selected for is that that genotype is successfully passed on to future generations. The only future generations that genotypes can be passed on to are future members of the same species.
Thus , the “group” that is selected for is all of the same species , and its being selected for is its species being selected for.
The two individuals of opposite sexes mating and producing fertile offspring is the perfect definition for Darwinian sexually reproducing species , because for Darwinism survival of a species means continuing reproduction and passing on species genotypes/phenotypes down through generations, which can only happen among males and females producing fertile offspring .
None of the discussion below challenges my assertion that this is the perfect definition for being members of the same Darwinian species.
Of course , children of a mother are the same species as the mother and vica versa ; same for biological father and children
See Marshall Sahlins’s critique of Wilsonian social Darwinism in _The Uses and Abuses of Biology_, wherein he demonstrates that Wilson does not adequately take account of the role of language and culture ( kinship ) in human Darwinian natural history and evolution which differentiates it from the evolution and natural history of other species.
Wilson : “ : Wilson’s main focus in On Human Nature (Wilson, 1978) and to a lesser extent the last chapter of Sociobiology (Wilson, 1975) is to show that such a science is possible, ”
CB : Such a science already exists and had existed for decades in 1978; it’s anthropology
AAA is in theoretical anarchy . Anyway , biological anthropology, human evolutionary anthropology, archaeology has so much science in it it isn’t funny - Geology , physics , chemistry, physiology, genetics , Darwinism . Look at a biological anthropology text book .
However, ethnology is scientific in that it makes generalizations and theories based on evidence collected in fieldwork of both culture and language, linguistics being a sub field of anthropology. Linguistics and semiotics are scientific.
On ethnological scientific theory see Claude Levi-Strauss, Marshall Sahlins
CB: "The reality is that for more than 50 years there has been a debate in anthropology as to whether Neanderthals are Homo sapiens because their brain size is bigger than homo sapiens. My professors at the University of Michigan lectured on this .
In the last few years , anthropologists have discovered Neanderthals dna in living Homo sapiens. This is proof positive that we and Neanderthals are the same species, because it means Neanderthals and Homo sapiens mated and produced fertile offspring.
the account of Neanderthals as a separate species is wrong . There are Neanderthal genes in living Homo sapiens. That could only happen if Neanderthals are Homo sapiens. QED
We know all about ligers ; they aren’t fertile.
Donkeys and horses can produce mules . Mules are not fertile, so donkeys and horses are not the same species . Have to produce viable and _fertile_ offspring to be the same species .
If bono Bo’s and chimps produce a _fertile_ offspring they are the same species by the perfect definition of species ,
Dogs and wolves are the same species; have same name.
To the extent any cross breed offsprings are fertile , it just means they aren’t cross breeds , but the same species.
It is C J who makes circular arguments by assuming two types are different species and then saying that when they mate and produce fertile offspring that it’s different species producing fertile offspring. No what it means is your assumption that they were different species in the first place was wrong .
@@@@@@@@@@@&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Jim Farmelant :" The explanation of altruism via kin selection was developed by William Hamilton in the early 1960's and it laid the basis for the gene-centered view of evolution that was promoted by Goerge Williams, John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins. It was embraced too by E. O. Wilson when he wrote his book Sociobiology. But later on, he changed his mind about. Wilson was one of a number of scientists who would attempt to revive the notion of group selection which had been rejected by the gene-centered evolutionists. Richard Dawkins did not take Wilson's change of mind very well.
Like I said, Dawkins did not take E. O. Wilson's change of mind too well.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ya_9-06MIQ
But at least Dawkins is sad over Wilson's passing.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1475495291923189762
CB: if Dawkins, Wilson kinselection were true , the most efficient way to get "kin" genes into future generations would be through incest. Humans have the opposite of this : incest taboo
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/is-human-nature-social-or-selfish.html
No comments:
Post a Comment