Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Biology has a ‘new’ problem: Speciation Reversal. One recent paper on the topic declares:
“We argue that extinction by speciation reversal may be more widespread than currently appreciated. Preventing such extinctions will require that conservation efforts not only target existing species but identify and protect the ecological and evolutionary processes that generate and maintain species”.
Another paper worries that climate change is hastening the loss of landscape heterogeneity thus encouraging “Interspecific hybridization [which] is …. an evolutionary process that is (i) highly susceptible to human influences, and (ii) very fast” and that “The most probable proximate outcome of such hybridization will be a collapse of hybridizing species and subsequent loss of biodiversity.”
A third paper laments the speciation reversal seen in two previously separately identified raven species in California, the non-sister lineages of ‘California’ and ‘Holarctic’ ravens, which underwent a fusion and formed the Common Raven. This “represents a case of ancient speciation reversal that occurred without anthropogenic causes.” This same paper holds that “Under certain circumstances, hybridisation can cause distinct lineages to collapse into a single lineage with an admixed mosaic genome. Most known cases of such ‘speciation reversal’ or ‘lineage fusion’ involve recently diverged lineages and anthropogenic perturbation.”
What in Darwin’s Name is going on here? Whole species going extinct by speciation reversal — an existential threat to biological diversity on Earth? Or just a threat to the concepts of modern biology?
The biological concepts are: “Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species.” However, “introgressive hybridization erodes differentiation until species collapse into a hybrid swarm. A special case of introgressive hybridization is speciation reversal, in which changes in selection regimes increase gene flow between sympatric species, thus eroding genetic and ecological differences. Speciation reversal may be particularly important in adaptive radiations with recently diverged sympatric species that lack strong intrinsic postzygotic isolation.” [quote link]
Let’s see if we can sort some of the terms out: [in all senses here, we are talking of natural interactions in the biota and we will exclude any consideration of the possibilities of human directed genetic manipulation such as CRISPR-Cas9 techniques.]
Introgressive hybridization, in genetics is the movement of a gene (gene flow) from one species into the gene pool of another by the repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parent species. Purposeful introgression is a long-term process; it may take many hybrid generations before the backcrossing occurs.
Interspecific hybrids are bred by mating individuals from two species, normally from within the same genus. The offspring display traits and characteristics of both parents. [Many interspecific hybrids are sterile, preventing gene flow between the species. An example is the mule, a sterile cross between donkeys and horses.]
Sympatric species are species that occupy the same or overlapping territories — sympatric and sympatry are terms referring to organisms whose ranges overlap or are even identical.
Species: Oh boy — we have a problem here. Let’s try the old high school standard: “A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. “
If that definition were the one adhered to, then introgressive hybridization and interspecific hybrids would be impossible by the definition of species that excludes reproductively-viable inter-species hybrids.
If that definition is adhered to, the Speciation Reversal is also impossible and we can relax — no threat to species then.
But, interspecific hybrids are popping up all over the taxonomic map. That leads us to:
The Species Problem: “The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.”
The species problem is not new — Darwin spoke of it in his 1859 volume “On the origin of species by means of natural selection” in which he wrote:
“… I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.”
We see this in the domestic dog [Canis lupus familiaris]. Domestic dog sizes, physical forms, coloration of fur (and lack of fur), behaviors and even intelligence and “personality” vary fantastically for a single species. Despite this, based on the ability of dogs to inter-breed between varieties, dog breeds, they are considered a single species. There are some practical problems with inter-varietal breeding (crossing various breeds) — Great Danes cannot physically breed with Chihuahuas — but if they did, the offspring would be viable.
As with the domestic dog, it is highly uncertain how many “species” as currently designated are truly “the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring” rather than simply local breeding populations that might be better described as “varieties” — such as varieties of sparrows, varieties of wolves, varieties of bears etc.
The question of speciation reversal becomes policy-relevant in light of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA does not use the usual biology definition of species (if one can call what is in use a definition at all) when designating “species” to be protected, Instead it uses something quite different, as explained in “The Meaning of Species under the Endangered Species Act”:
A group of organisms can be listed under the ESA only if the group constitutes a species. Although the ESA uses the term “species,” it does not use “species” in the common biological sense. In the field of biology, “species” refers to a taxonomic category consisting of “groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
In contrast, the ESA currently defines “species” as follows:
(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.”
I hope that you can see the problem this presents. Not only does the ESA allow Endangered Species designation for “reproductively isolated” populations, which may not actually be species in the stricter sense, in that, if brought together, they would interbreed with viable offspring. The ESA goes much further and allows the designation of “subspecies” — another word without a scientific definition — AND “any distinct population segment of any species”. This virtually allows the designation of nearly any small, isolated population of any vertebrate fish or wildlife.
For example, such a designation could be made for a particular lizard population isolated on one of the Channel Islands of California even though the species is an extremely common lizard found up and down the coast of California.
What do we do about Speciation Reversal and protections under ESA?
The first paper mentioned in this essay stated: “Preventing such extinctions will require that conservation efforts not only target existing species but identify and protect the ecological and evolutionary processes that generate and maintain species.” It demands that conservation efforts combat the forces of evolution itself — that somehow we must prevent designated species from interbreeding with…well…themselves which would force biologists to acknowledge that the species involved were not species at all, but only varieties of the same species.
There is at least one situation in which the ESA requires that biologists run a breeding program to cross-breed two separate species, Coyotes and Grey Wolves, to produce the species labeled the Red Wolf to “keep it from going extinct” — the Red Wolf is not really a species at all but a hybrid between two “species” that are probably biologically varieties of an overlaying Canis species. You see, in the past, when wolves and coyotes both roamed the lands east of the Mississippi, the coyote [Canis latrans] and the grey wolf [Canis lupus] interbred, producing a hybrid known as the red wolf [Canis rufus or Canis lupus rufus] which has not only been incorrectly named as a distinct species but declared an officially-designated Endangered Species. For more about this interesting story, see The Gray, Gray World of Wolves. While I don’t normally recommend Wikipedia for anything more than quick references, the discussion there on the Red Wolf question is pretty thorough — at least as far as demonstrating how inadequate our current definition of species is. Carl Zimmer at the New York Times wrote about this in 2016 in a piece titled “DNA Study Reveals the One and Only Wolf Species in North America”, and highlights Bridgett vanHoldt et al.’s finding that “Whole-genome sequence analysis shows that two endemic species of North American wolf [the Eastern Wolf and the Red Wolf] are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf”.
When grey wolves were extirpated from most of the Eastern US, interbreeding slowed to a standstill, and there has been an apparent “species loss” due to the normal processes of evolution — not, however, the Golden Age version of evolution, where everything runs in one direction — not the Beatles version “I got to admit it’s getting better, little better all the time…”.
Of course, it isn’t that simple. Again, the Species Problem — biology does not have a standardized definition of species based on similarity or differences in DNA sequences either. Despite this fact, the new techniques in DNA sequencing and whole genome sequencing have prompted a flood of studies of the genomes of various species comparing them to related species and making pronouncements about the need to combine or split species. Like the paper mentioned above on North American Wolves, another recent paper declared the need to re-speciate giraffes.
If wolves keep inter-breeding with coyotes, we will end up with one big hybrid population, undifferentiated into separate species. Is that a “loss of species diversity” that threatens wolf species with extinction, thus making them all qualified for Endangered Designation under the ESA? What about the ravens in California, should Holoarctic Ravens and California Ravens be designated Endangered because of the past speciation reversal that brought about the Common Raven — and if this trend continues, they will all end up as Common Ravens, and we will lose two species. How would we protect the ravens and wolves and coyotes from themselves?
It is well-established that what brings about evolution — in either ‘direction’ — is change: genetic changes (either from normal genetic mixtures or genetic mutations), behavioral changes (such as mating and feeding preferences), spatial changes (displacement of species and introduction of species) and environmental changes (changing climates, changing biota, changing landscape, volcanoes, hurricanes, etc) . Some of these changes can be anthropogenic and others due to natural forces. It is, of course, possible that when local and micro-climates change it will affect local populations of animals — which may (or may not) result in changes in breeding patterns (etc.) which could be evolutionary in effect. We see that these changes can tend towards differentiation and speciation or, in the other direction, towards hybridization and collapse of two or more species or varieties into one, or the creation of what appear to be new varieties or species.
Bottom Line: It is fairly certain that Mankind cannot defeat the forces that drive evolution — which will run on, despite our efforts, in either direction.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
The topic of Speciation Reversal brings up so many questions that it is hard to focus on a direction for further discussion. My inclination is to let you, the readers, propose the follow-up questions and then we can jointly try to get some answers to those questions.
If you have a comment or question for me personally, begin your comment with “Kip…” and that will help me see it.
Darwinism and Evolution both tend to be “triggering” topics which evoke a lot of emotion and strong opinions. Let’s try to keep the discussion just to these two narrower topics: The 1) Species Problem, 2) Speciation Reversal and the ESA. Thank you.
# # # # #
Racists have a new “scientific” argument on their side. Pass laws restricting interracial marriages to fight “extinction by speciation reversal”
Sadly, this isn’t a new argument. I’ve gotten into a few pointless online debates with idiots who believe this drivel over the years. The faux scientific claim that blondes are going extinct pops up as “news” at least once every five years or so. Snopes dug up an article from 1865 rejecting the apparently popular notion that blondes were going extinct. Sometimes they switch up which sociopolitical bogeyman is prime cause of concern, but the basic premise has been around for centuries.
As long as there are beauticians, there will be blonds.
“— Great Danes cannot physically breed with Chihuahuas — ”
I’d have to argue this one, I have witnessed a Great Dane bitch lay down flat and raise her tail to give a Jack-Russell a clear run at the end-zone……
In the immortal words of Doctor Ian Malcolm, “Life, uh… finds a way.”
I think step one is demanding proof that ‘biodiversity’ is anything more than totalist language. There are ∼8.7 million eukaryotic species on earth. The idea that loosing 0.0001% represents a problem is absurd.
Since the beginning of time, we have been losing species.
It’s nothing new, nor is there any evidence that the current rate is above normal.
MarkW
“It’s nothing new, nor is there any evidence that the current rate is above normal.”
Do you just make these things up? Or are you repeating something you heard or read? Do you ever question such assertions? Surely you know that many studies have concluded otherwise, so what makes your information more reliable? Really, I’d like to know.
This study attempted to address the question very conservatively.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full
Kristi ==> That’s a Paul Ehrlich study — he has NEVER been right, on any prediction, on anything, as far as I know.
Kristi, as always you believe the myths that you have been taught.
The reality is that the claimed jump in extinctions has always been assumed, it has never been documented.
PS, the study you reference is based on models. Assumptions regarding how many species should have gone extinct.
Kip, the paper by Ehrlich and others was not a prediction, it was a comparison, and he wasn’t first author. Ehrlich, by the way, made significant and lasting contributions to population biology. He’s just a little… *extreme* shall we say?
Here’s evidence from fish:.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/62/9/798/231282
There is very substantial evidence that extinctions are happening at many times the background rate. It’s no surprise – humans are incredibly effective at changing the environment, moving organisms around, hunting, etc. Why should this even be a controversy? It’s just this kind of resistance to the evidence that makes the skeptic position weak. That and the strange assumption that they know science better than scientists themselves.
…I just happened to stumble on this.
“Chytridiomycosis, caused by Batrachochytrium, is thought to be an
exception10. This chytrid grows on amphibian skin and produces
aquatic zoospores22,24. Widespread and ranging from deserts and
lowland rainforests to cold mountain tops27, it is sometimes a nonlethal
parasite and possibly a saprophyte19,2”
http://webpages.icav.up.pt/ptdc/bia-bec/099915/2008/9.Pounds%20et%20al%202006%20Nature.pdf
It’s everywhere. Didn’t need scientists to spread it.
Kristi ==> Erhlich has been one of the world’s leading catastrophists since the 1960s — his position in the authors list is irrelevant. Nothing he ever predicted came to pass.
Without a solid definition for species, we have no idea how many may have gone extinct in the past — absolutely none. The fossil record does not list the species and subspecies alongside the bones.
The fish paper you offer up is “fishy” — it is based on the madcap naming of “species” in the heyday of taxonomy and includes “species” lost when the one spring or caldera they existed in dried up.
Chytrid didn’t need herpetologist to spread it — they could have saved a great many species of amphibians had they been more careful in the early days. No pandemic needs careless spreading — but most, in today’s world, get lots of help from man cooperating in its spread.
Kip, I’m well aware of who Ehrlich is. He’s just on the other end of the spectrum from those who say all the world needs is modern development and all will be fine. From my perspective that’s just as wacky.
Any definition of “species” is going to be a human construct to some extent, and that’s simply what biologists and others have to deal with. As long as they do it consistently within a study it’s usually fine. There are people who are experts at this kind of thing, you know, so let them debate the wolf issue and work it out. The DNA is not a settled issue. The fact that they can inbreed does not make them all the same species. Think about reproduction and how important that is to fitness. It’s going to be highly selected for, with not a lot of genetic variation. That means that even after separation of populations for thousands of years there may be little change in any facet of reproductive biology even while they adapt to their habitat, change diets and develope different anatomy.
“Chytrid didn’t need herpetologist to spread it — they could have saved a great many species of amphibians had they been more careful in the early days. No pandemic needs careless spreading — but most, in today’s world, get lots of help from man cooperating in its spread.”
It is unknown how it was spread. Some of it may have been through trade. I’ve looked and found no indications it was spread by herpetologists. You don’t know how many species of amphibians could have been saved. It’s true that humans have vastly increased the movement of organisms around the globe, but with something that travels this fast and infects so many different species it would have been very difficult to keep it isolated. There’s enough to blame on humans. Now, if the problem were around before but is now aggravated by climate change, that could be blamed on humans, since if more were done earlier it might not have gotten to this point.
Kristi ==> I will find you the study on herpetologists spreading Chytrid — it was quite a shocking thing, and has been allowed to fade into the brush — they’d rather not talk about it much.
I don’t think you have grasped the problem with the ESA and the undefined (vague and using words themselves as yet undefined) terms used in it…imagine the same situation in criminal law — you have been accused of “fraud” — but the term (just for our example) , undefined in law, is allowed to mean that you did something that some others think “wasn’t very nice”…. that’s about how vague the ESA is today.
When it comes to evolution, there are two most active parties in play: those who refuse to “believe” in evolution (as if it is something to believe in), and those who want to stop the evolution (as if it is something that can be stopped). I am sure evolution would love to see these morons to exterminate each other (if it would be something that could have emotions).
P.S. Interracial marriages doom ethnic diversity? Who would have thought?
Hybrids. Hybrids everywhere.
LOL! That is too hilarious!
Aren’t we seeing exactly this in our own genome? The “news” reports lately are rife with articles about how “ancient man” interbred with both Neanderthals and Denisovians, which would seem to indicate to me that all of these varieties qualify as “human” in every aspect that counts.
Se comment below. Modern humans, neanderthals and denisovans were apparently only barely capable of having viable hybrid offspring.
Now wait just a minute, ……. miracles do happen, …. and have been happening, ….. ya know.
Mule’s foal fools genetics with “impossible” birth
Read more @ur momisugly https://www.denverpost.com/2007/07/25/mules-foal-fools-genetics-with-impossible-birth/
Occasional fertile hybrid offspring between normally non-interfertile species are far from unknown.
This was probably the way hybridization between modern humans and neanderthals happened. Note these facts: there are no Neanderthal Y-chromosomes and no neanderthal mt-DNA in modern humans. So apparently male hybrids were sterile or non-viable and so were daughters of sapiens males and neanderthalensis females.
Neanderthal genes in modern humans apparently were transmitted exclusively by daughters of neanderthalensis males and sapiens females.
Alternative hypothesis, there may have been sociopolitical pressures at play. Perhaps a habit of slaughtering rival males and taking their women lead to the situation you describe where only interbred daughters passed on their genetics.
Aparition 42. What you describe is an example of a behavioral species isolating mechanism.
TTY==> “What you describe is an example of a behavioral species isolating mechanism”
What you’ve stated is an example of creating a tautological argument by assigning a nice, sciencey sounding phrase to behavior that may be counter to the initial proposition and then acting as though the redefinition erases the conflict.
Regardless of what you call it, there is a difference between the assumption that it was genetically impossible for interbreeding to have been successful with other pairings due to infertility of offspring and the assumption that we simply do not have evidence that it was possible for interbreeding to be successful for some other reason. Attributing social behavior to genetics has never worked out well under lab conditions, nor has it been documented in the field. Behavior tends to change, sometimes dramatically, in response to external conditions.
That’s the big flaw with inductive reasoning. All it takes is a little imagination to come up with an alternative hypothesis that still hits all the factual wickets, and it’s impossible to prove or disprove either without discovery of new evidence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929716300337
Sam ==> Interesting — Nature finds a way.
A remarkable amount of ignorance is being displayed here. The Biological Species Concept is based on the fact that some populations don’t interbreed and produce viable offspring.
N. B. that they do not interbreed does not equal that they can not interbreed.
For example all the large falcons (subgenus Hierofalco) can interbreed and have fertile offspring as proven by falcon breeders, but they never or extremely rarely do so in the wild, they are well defined biological species. In many cases some introgression is happening continuously between closely related species, but it is not extensive enough to “blur” species delimitation (e. g. Capercailzie/Black Grouse or Red Kite/Black Kite)
Extensive introgression or even amalgamation between such species does occasionally happen naturally (e. g. when two previously isolated population come into contact because climate or other environmental factors change). It can however also happen that the end result is instead three distinct and reproductively isolated species, the two original ones plus a third stabilized hybrid. This is very common in plants but rare in animals, but it does happen (the Italian Sparrow and the Pomarine Skua are examples).
However this process has been greatly accelerated by human modification of habitat which removes dispersal barriers and forces species into new habitats.
And that the Biological Species Concept really exists is most strongly supported by the fact that it is recognized by the animals themselves.
tty ==> Yes, 26 Species Concepts exist….maybe someday biologists will agree on the one to be used for policy setting. DNA techniques will probably become the basis for the final definition.
Kip, Why do think there would every be a final definition? The concept of species has been around for hundreds of years and it becomes more and more vague and undefined as time goes on. All evidence points to it become more ambiguous and undefined. Words like species, evolution, climate, race, liberal, conservative and hundreds of other words become useless in our information age, because they are continually polluted by the internet and the mass points of views that can be found.
I don’t see this improving any time soon. We have entered the age of non-communication and “news speak”.
Dan ==> It depends on whether or not we are talking Science or at the dinner-table.
Scientific concepts have to be very carefully defined so that scientists can talk to one another and mean the same thing — very specifically. Science has ways of talking about vague things that get around this when necessary.
The whole pooint of this essay is to demonstrate the problems brought about when a Science concept — one without a strict agreed upon definition that closely represents at least reality-as-presently-understood, is used to develop Public Policy and Public Laws regulating human affairs.
In the present, there is no single agreed-upon definition of species, or subspecies, or local population — words contained in the ESA that can be used to stop desired public infrastructure enhancements. See snail darter story.
Dear Kip
DNA is not a cure-all. It gives information on how long it is since two lineages became separated, but not how different they are. The problem is that almost all mutations have no somatic effects or are selectively neutral. On the other hand changes in just a few crucial genes can completely isolate two populations (e. g. through a change in breeding season). There are many cases of very distinct taxa that are not separable on DNA by present techniques. On the other hand there are many cases where seemingly homogenous populations which have always been considered to be a single species prove to actually consist of two or more genetically quite different lineages.
tty ==> Oh, I agree completely. We only vaguely understand what DNA is and does and how it relates to even obvious things — like if this DNA were put into a viable undifferentiated cell, would it grow into a human or a chimpanzee. We certainly can’t know what DNA changes we have to see to know if we have one species or two or three….we haven’t any definition of species based on DNA similarity or differences.
But in the end, it will be a DNA-based concept — what form it will take I have no idea — our state of knowledge is too primitive at this stage to formulate a definition even if we knew what we wanted it to say.
tty
March 19, 2018 at 12:33 pm
Maize and its wild ancestor teosinte are genetically identical, in terms of genes, ie protein-coding sequences.
Kip Hansen March 19, 2018 at 1:35 pm
In the case of humans and chimps, we can be sure that the cell would become one or the other, based upon not only the details of DNA but our chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs, instead of the great ape standard 24, because our large #2 resulted from the fusion of two smaller normal ape chromosomes.
And of course the phenotypic differences between humans and chimps are largely due to control sequences in the genome, not to genes, ie protein-coding sequences. For instance, the difference in body hair isn’t thanks to hair proteins but to the control sequences, which cause our hair to grow short rather than long.
I find the obsession with maintaining the purity of wild species darkly humorous. When people were concerned with maintaining the purity of human sub-populations they were correctly condemned by the bien pensants everywhere. Why is it better when they worry about sub-populations of owls?
That works fine, as long as they have a sponsor other than a taxpayer.
The species problem will never be resolved as long as science and education continues to be hijacked by the “progressives.”
RW ==> It is agenda uber science.
Kip, you are usually so reasonable and rational, it disappoints me when I see you make baseless, huge generalizations like this. How do you know it’s “agenda uber science”? You have heard this many many times, but how do you really know?
I have seen the way people’s images of scientists have been manipulated through innuendo, suggestion and assertion in the complete absence of data. The skeptic literature is rife with it. There are claims made, and even when proven wrong they stick. Any alleged evidence of corruption is indication that the whole field is infected. It’s fallacious reasoning.
If you really think agenda trumps science, even discussing all this becomes pretty meaningless. If science can’t be trusted, don’t use it to support your arguments. Simply imagine what scientists believe based on one’s ideas of their politics. It seems to be the MO of many skeptics.
“Not only does the ESA allow Endangered Species designation for “reproductively isolated” populations, which may not actually be species in the stricter sense, in that, if brought together, they would interbreed with viable offspring. The ESA goes much further and allows the designation of “subspecies” — another word without a scientific definition — AND “any distinct population segment of any species”. This virtually allows the designation of nearly any small, isolated population of any vertebrate fish or wildlife.”
This is misleading, I think. You seem to imply that this will result in all kinds of populations inappropriately being listed. ESA policy is lengthy and complex, (see https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/index.html#listing_policy); and you don’t seem to have evidence of questionable subpopulations being listed is you didn’t even allow for the fact that “distinct population segment” has its own standards:
“Distinct population segment (DPS)
A subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a species for purposes of listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be so recognized, a potential distinct population segment must satisfy standards specified in a FWS or NOAA Fisheries policy statement (See the February 7, 1996, Federal Register, pages 4722-4725). The standards require it to be separable from the remainder of and significant to the species to which it belongs.”
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/glossary.html
Kristi ==> This is an opinion, obviously. It is my opinion about much of the current hoopala over a great many “issues” in western society.
For “agenda uber science”, read A conversation with Patrick Moore for a quicky example.
As for ESA being inappropriately applied, see the snail darter story and the Red Wolf story (linked above and in the essay).
On the other hand, Kristi is young and still views scientists as a superior form of humanity that is incapable of suffering from the same vices that infect us mere mortals.
“As for ESA being inappropriately applied, see the snail darter story and the Red Wolf story (linked above and in the essay).”
Kip, you are talking about one incident 40 years ago, and another that you got wrong – the ESA never suggested interbreeding coyotes and gray wolves to get red wolves! And the genetic relationship is not settled. See reply way below.
I started reading the conversation with Patrick Moore, then came across this, “Then you have India and China, both of whom kind of play along with the politics of climate change, but are really in no way doing very much on the policy front to address this so-called problem. ”
Either he’s ignorant or a liar, but since I’ve seen this repeated endlessly, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. China is a world leader in switching from FF to renewables, investing hundreds of billions of dollars. That doesn’t mean they aren’t opening new coal plants; I can understand why this would sometimes be necessary.
Anyway, then I scanned. Same old tired arguments I’ve seen before. All the old groundless assertions. It’s a broken record, and that’s all the more reason to believe that systematic propaganda has played a role in denial. I often wonder whether those who spread it are conscious of what they are doing, or is it simply repeating what they’ve heard. Patrick Moore, activist, talking about his campaigns with Greenpeace. He’d be quite an asset to a group interested in spreading a message.
“There is no proof, if there was a proof, that human CO2 emissions were the cause of warming in the climate, they would write it down on a piece of paper, so we can read it and see it, but they have no such proof. All they have is the hypothesis based on the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas like water vapor, only water vapor is probably a 100 times more important than CO2. So they just say this, they say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore it’s the cause of climate warming. They have no proof whatsoever to back it up. ”
This is just rubbish. It’s as if saying it enough times will make it so. There is plenty of evidence. No proof, because science is not about proof. The problem is, no amount of evidence will ever be enough if you don’t believe that the science is trustworthy. What better way to control information than to convince the public that science has been corrupted?
Patrick Moore said the Russians were against AGW, maybe they have also had a hand in promoting denial. What a sickening thought.
“For a major religion, like the catholic religion, to characterize the human species as basically evil, basically dirty, filthy, is something that I simply do not tolerate.”
Another ridiculous, false characterization.
“What you see from now is a gradual, not perfectly even, but a gradual decline in carbon dioxide from at least 5 000 parts for million”
What??? Uh-uh.
“Well, one of the, I think, contradictions of the environmental green movement is that they’re using all these modern techniques of internet and social media, and just modern society, they’re using the energy that has been produced from the fossil fuels every day of their lives, whether it’s to manufacture the bicycle they’re riding on or to run the television they’re looking at. They’re using all these fruits of modern civilization, while at the same time condemning modern civilization.”
I hate statements like this. Pure propaganda meant to ridicule and dismiss. It’s ubiquitous.
Here is my stance. I believe it is in our long-term interest to not be dependent on fossil fuels alone and to conserve the reserves we have in case of changing international political climate, as well as to make it last. I believe development of renewable energy technology is a wise investment because of the global market. I believe it prudent to lower our CO2 emissions for many reasons, BUT that doesn’t mean I’m simply anti-fossil fuel. Is that so impossible to imagine, that others don’t think in all or nothing terms? Fossil fuels are necessary.
“Condemning modern civilization”? Who is he talking about?
“To me, this is a profoundly dishonest situation that we have with a movement claiming to be virtuous at the same time, as being more hypocritical that one could ever imagine in practice in the way they live their lives. ”
This is because people use fossil fuels? Even if they are trying to make a difference? By riding their bikes, taking public transport, buying into solar energy projects, using energy efficient appliances….the list goes on and on how individuals can make a difference. There is only so much people can do, though, as individuals. But still they are hypocrites if they use any fossil fuel? Does he expect those who want change to live like the Amish to show their dedication? Is rejection of modern civilization the only way to lower carbon emissions? No. Nor is it the case that greenies are against development of underdeveloped countries. Sheesh.
Do you see what he’s doing? He’s creating an enemy. Or preaching the supposed nature of a shared enemy. It’s not some radical fringe, it’s the whole “environmental green movement.”
Men like him can say something and people will believe it just because he said it. He is surely aware of that. I can’t help but think this is not just an explication of his views, but an effort to spread propaganda. If it were a liberal doing the same sort of thing I would consider it equally despicable. i’m sick of all the hatred, lies, assumptions, pigeon-holing and propaganda that fuels it.
………………………………………
Thanks, Kip. I think your articles are very interesting, and I appreciate them. Sorry if I come off as confrontational or something; I don’t mean it like that, I’m just not always very diplomatic.
Kristi ==> I’m glad you’ve joined the conversation here at WUWT.
Patrick Moore gives his opinions….which can neither be right nor wrong…they are opinions. China, however, is building coal plants like crazy.. 700 new coal plants, to be precise. That compares to the USA’s total of 557 coal plants at present.
“(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.”
Thanks Kip for pointing that out. Previously, I was under the impression the EPA was supposed to follow the accepted definition of species. Geez, no wonder the EPA has such broad reach, which needs to be limited!
Chad ==> Shocking, isn’t it?
That is the so-called “Phylogenetic species concept” which in my opinion is quite nonsensical. A very good argument against it is to point out that it implies that there is at the very least five different human species. Which is probably why EPA sneaked in “wildlife” after “vertebrate”.
This isn’t about the EPA, it’s about the Endangered Species Act, which is administered by multiple agencies, primarily the Fish and Wildlife Service.
See my comment above regarding the definition of species.
There is no one accepted definition of species. Species can’t be defined from a biological standpoint, and any definition is an approximation. “Species” is convenient abbreviation that enables people to discuss a generalization. The details are discussed if important, and where they are important. This is the case in the ESA listings. The ESA allows subpecies in the definition to enable it to cover specific groups, but that doesn’t mean that subspecies normally hold weight equal to species. As has been made obvious here, nomenclature of these taxonomic categories is not always straightforward.
Ms Silber, you are being deliberately thick. The ESA is used as a tool by the greens to block whatever they oppose because it might affect an endangered species. If the species is not endangered, the rationale is clearly bogus.
Tom Halla,
I know the complexities of defining “species” and what that means for conservation. What you perceive as being thick is actually a much deeper understanding of the subject than you have, which is convenient when you want to write off the law as the tool of the greens.
You didn’t even mention the taxonomists who can wipe out or create a slew of species with a single monograph or thesis.
Gary ==> Dastardly uncollegial behavior!
The basics are any member of a species is not a clone of that species, each individual is subtly different from every other member of the species. Most species are fairly specialized in adapting to a particular niche environments. However individual adaptations may be better or worse at this adaptation.
Through speciation most types of life adapt to a new environment, whether that change is seen as regressive, or not, is immaterial as long as that life can exploit the resources of the new environment. Those that can’t will become extinct and other life will, if it can, adapt (through it’s speciation) to that new environment and flourish.
Humans are the anomaly here in that we are not very specialized to a particular environment but are highly adaptable (and it is said can also learn).
tom0mason ==> “(and it is said [that humans] can also learn).” — subject to a lot of varying opinions, that.
Or as the great philosopher K put it in the venerable classic Men in Black, “A person is smart; people are dumb, panicky animals and you know it.”
IIRC, due to a relatively recent population collapse event, modern cheetahs would not be a species, as they are essentially genetic clones, variegated coats notwithstanding.
That applies to a very large number of species which started out with a small founder population, though cheetahs are a somewhat extreme example.
How would people react if we applied these concepts to humans?
I think a lot of people would have a problem with classifying people into various species. But it is exactly what ‘they’ are doing with animals.
Indeed.
Anymore than any other physical variation attempts to defines a breed or species? As Albinism in humans is a congenital disorder, are albinos a separate human genetic type? No, we are not clones of our forefathers, we are all hybrid variants.
Humans however push at the species boundaries with our foolish ideas and experiments when breeding animals and plants. We have yet to learn the hard lesson that nature abhors our much valued ideas of a ‘pure’ species. ‘Pure’ selected species that are bred for a minimal adaptation.
The modern concept of racism is surprisingly recent dating back only to the late 1700s. Christoph Meiners of the Gottingen School of History coined the term “Caucasoid” as part of a theory of polygenism. Basically, they believed that different races evolved separately from each other, and thus some were more “evolved” than others. Meiners’ definition of what we now call Caucasian were based primarily on his own personal sexual preferences more than any science at all. He conceived of two basic races, the “beautiful white race” and “the ugly black race”. Those of us with freckles, curly hair, or big noses were deemed the product of unnatural “admixture”.
Racists have fought tooth and nail to maintain the basis of this theory in the face of multitudinous counter evidence for more than two hundred years. It’s easier to convince someone that an as yet undiscovered completely unobservable form of matter is responsible for the majority of the gravity in the universe than it is to convince them that they aren’t genetically “better” than other people based on arbitrary phenotypic differences.
As anecdotal evidence, consider Shakespeare’s Othello. The plot driver isn’t the marriage between Othello and Desdemona. That is taken as a natural and normal condition. It is Iago’s wounded pride that propels the narrative. No one cares about the mixed race marriage.
Happy to be doing the Shakespearian thing and quite convinced the next generation is way superior to the ancestors.
Back in the days when I was studying evolution, the definition of a species was well understood. Members of a species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Inability to do so means you are reproductively isolated from each other and are members of distinct species. I don’t know when that changed, but the field seems to have become more confused rather than less so.
Robert ==> Our understanding of the true state of affairs re species has become more complete — and as with so many things, it is a lot more complicated than we thought.
Is “the true state of affairs” based on something substantive, or just the work product of taxonomists with not enough to do except muddy the waters?
Robert ==> Our understanding of the complexities of what we once thought — “when I was studying evolution, the definition of a species was well understood.”
We understand now that it isn’t that simple — more complex, more complicated, a lot of unknowns yet.
That definition (Biological Species Concept) works very well with birds and fairly well for other animals. It does not work nearly as well for plants (where speciation by hybridization, polyploidy and apomixis is common) and even worse for prokaryotes.
So what is the result of speciation in plants by the mechanisms you mention? With respect to prokaryotes, I can see how it might break down in cases where non-sexual reproduction is common, but in the case of plants I don’t see why it should break down because of the mechanisms you mention. Why is a genetically distinct population that can produce fertile offspring with another genetically distinct population not just a subspecies of the species to which they both belong?
Robert Kral,
“Why is a genetically distinct population that can produce fertile offspring with another genetically distinct population not just a subspecies of the species to which they both belong?”
In this case the offspring would simply be the same species. There would be no reason to classify them as a subspecies, when they are simply a mix of two populations of a species. Just because populations are genetically distinct doesn’t matter.
Robert Kral:
Species formation by hybridization/polyploidy results in ”ordinary” new species, but the process is almost instantaneous. A classic case is Spartina anglica a cordgrass which originated in c. 1870 in England as an allotetraploid from a hybrid of an american and a European cordgrass. It is by the way quite invasive and is spreading in northern Europe.
Apomictic plants produce seeds without fertilization, so every single individual plant is reproductively isolated and starts a new lineage. The only changes are due to mutations. In theory this should result in a completely unstructured continuum, but in practice most lineages become extinct while others are more successful, and these successful lineage groups often become distinct enough to be recognizable as “species” of a sort, at least by specialists. In the short run apomixis is a very successful evolutionary strategy since no resources has to be devoted to producing males or male reproductive organs. Dandelions for example are almost always apomictic, and they are a very successful group of plants.
In the long run apomixis however is not a good idea. Apomictic organisms have quite limited ability to adapt to changed conditions since there is no recombination of genes from different individuals and also there is no way to get rid of bad mutated genes except through the death of the individual, so the number of such genes can only increase in every lineage (“Muller’s Ratchet”). Ultimately all apomictic lineages therefore become extinct without offspring. There are quite a lot of apomictic plants (and a few animals too, as a matter of fact), but they are all young by evolutionary standards.
tty – thanks for your time and effort giving such knowledgeable, detailed answers to comments about evolution. Obviously you have a very solid background in it. It’s always good to see someone with similar interests; I don’t meet many who know much of anything about evolution.
Plant genetics is a whole different ball game, eh? The frequency with which hybridization happens now can be seen in another light: it suggests how different the natural world once was. If there weren’t once more barriers to hybridizing, we wouldn’t recognize the distinct spp now – although there are natural polyploids, of course.
It’s no surprise that Spartina anglica is invasive; there seems to be a relationship with that and polyploidy, or hybrids in general.
“Polyploidy may offer some evolutionary reprieve from the lack of inter-individual variability, as high levels of allelic richness can be maintained within individuals. Japanese Knotweed is an octoploid (2n = 88), and it is noteworthy that polyploidy is common to all 18 of the ‘world’s worst weeds’ listed by Holm et al. (1977) It is worth qualifying this, however, with the comment that polyploidy
per se is not a prerequisite to successful plant invasions, and Gray (1986) noted that
of the 20 most successful alien plants in Britain (Crawley, 1987), nine are diploid. ”
—-ONLY nine! More than half polypolid. Someone should make a movie about a polyploid man who has superpowers, or a polyploid Daisy who roams the country destroying crops and head-butting people into the next county.
Weeds are my Thang. Do you know Japanese knotweed? People in Britain have problems getting mortgages or home insurance if it’s on their property. It’s making its way across the U.S. It’s gynodioecious, so has hermaphrodite plants and male plants, but the males are sterile. A paper did DNA testing and found that all the plants in Britain, as well as samples in central Europe and the US, were one big genetic clone. The plant can grow from pieces of root just a couple inches long.
How’s that for a subspecies? It’s made of one individual genetic individual! It was introduced from the Far East as an ornamental – no surprise there..
There’s also giant knotweed, which is less invasive, but it’s fertile. The two can hybridize, with fertile offspring.
Then there’s the problem with the native American bittersweet hybridizing with the invasive oriental bittersweet. Am. bit. is a source of bird food and a natural component of the system. Or. bit. is a vine that grows into the canopy, shading out and pulling down trees. American bittersweet is under threat of local extinction through hybridization.
Ok, so we lose one vine – so what? Well, when does it stop? Is there a limit to the number of species we are willing to lose? We are in the middle of a mass extinction at the same time Earth’s ecosystems may need diversity to weather climate change. That doesn’t mean trying to keep everything, it means choosing battles, weighing importance vs. resources needed for success..
Urbanization has meant a loss of consciousness of how dependent we are on the living organisms around us.
………………………….
Seems to me definitions of “species” including capacity for interbreeding are often misinterpreted to mean the individuals in the group can’t breed with other species. It’s not a logical inference.
tty March 20, 2018 at 2:45 am :
“A classic case is Spartina anglica a cordgrass which originated in c. 1870 in England as an allotetraploid from a hybrid of an american and a European cordgrass.”
If both grasses have traits identifying them as cordgrass, and they produce viable offspring when in proximity, they are simply varieties of same species, biologically. Isolation preventing interbreeding does not of itself make a distinct species, except in the minds of men.
SR
Kip,
Great [article] and lots of good posted comments!
Article no spell check, small keypad and I’m old to boot.
JimG1 ==> Thanks, as as always, thanks to the readership here.h
…and as always…. me too.
By the way, if You are interested in good data on the history of the Scottish (and other) wild cats in Europe I recommend this:
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2005.00040.x
tty ==> thanks for the link to the paper on the “development of the felid fauna (Felidae) of Europe” — the cats.
Thanks Kip, very intesting article and comments.
Whether the concept of specie is solid or fuzzy, well grounded or arbitrary, it is STILL just a label.
How can such a thing be “endangered”? Makes no sense. You can even invent it millions of years after the death of the last of its “kind”, as the famous T Rex.
T Rex will live for as long as some teacher teach about it. So will red wolf and dodo specie, whether some live animal fit their definition or not.
On the other hand, each and every instance of red wolf will eventually die just like dodos did. And, that’s life. You want to save it? Won’t happen.
So, what’s an endangered specie protection? Some collective right to have offspring imbued to some living beings collection, and some collective duty for humans to have it happen… Sounds ridiculous…
paqyfelyc ==> Your argument is one of the many in the mainstream Species Problem controversy.
“So, what’s an endangered specie protection?”
A tool to control others’ stuff, others’ use of stuff, and the behavior of others (when around the controllers’ stuff).
you might at least learn to spell “species”. “Specie” is money in the form of coin as opposed to notes.
And, no, it is not just a label. As anyone with some actual experience of nature knows.
Whatever happened to Mendel’s Law?
A cross of the same “kind” can produce an individual with differences in appearance and other characteristics yet it is still the same “kind”.
PS I can’t find the reference but I remember reading about a newt (maybe a salamander?) in California.
There is a southern population that can breed with the central population and a northern population that can breed with the central population but the southern population cannot breed with the northern population.
I don’t remember the specifics as to why they can’t but there was more involved than the lack of access to each other due to the absence of Governor Moonbeams high speed train to nowhere. 😎
You are thinking of the Ensatina eschscholtzii complex of plethodontid salamanders. This is a classic example of a so called “ring species” where adjoining populations are interfertile but more distant ones aren’t. This was once thought to be a common phenomenon, but more recent research has found that it is actually rather rare.
Thanks. That might be the critter I read about.
Good post and discussion, been through a lot of it.
Paper 1. Ah yes, eutrophication demon, whitefish is a cold water fish, hmm, cold water holds more oxygen, lets see, also carbon dioxide. Paper behind a pay wall so cannot see if they know nitrogen is an essential element needed in large quantities. “We argue that extinction by speciation reversal may be more widespread than currently appreciated.” Isn’t everything?
In the late 19th century cold water fishes were stocked all over the world, even in the Mississippi River. They thought they knew better. Now they know they know better.
Paper 2. They know about stocking. “A considerable fraction of the world’s biodiversity is of recent evolutionary origin and has evolved as a by-product of, and is maintained by, divergent adaptation in heterogeneous environments.” They don’t seem to know about homogeneous environmental (sympatric) speciation. Another pay wall.
Paper 3. They know about this– “These data suggest that the Common Raven genome was formed by secondary lineage fusion and most likely represents a case of ancient speciation reversal that occurred without anthropogenic causes.” No pay wall but don’t know much about critters that fly very far and have read my limit of papers this week.
Tentative conclusion. A colleague of mine working in aquaculture got in trouble at a meeting by suggesting that fish taxonomists just wanted to keep species static. Like climate taxonomists? It is called Nativism and there is a literature. At least with reversals we can use negative numbers in models. As to Whooping Cranes I mentioned above, I recall certainty that they were doomed because of lack of genetic diversity. Now we know we know better.
HD ==> The first paper is at doi:10.1038/nature10824 (if you know how to get a paper with a doi – SciHub and all that). The eutrophication concern is that it affects deep bottom breeders/nesters in Swiss lakes…but not their shallower breeders, and may have caused the deep breeders to shift up and co-mingle with the shallower breeders (that is vastly over-simplified….:-)
Good Lord this topic gives me a headache.
The fascist eco-freak has been using species identification to wreak havoc on our civilization. For example from wiki-crap: “The Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), also known as the Islands wolf, is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The coastal wolves of southeast Alaska inhabit the area that includes the Alexander Archipelago.” There is no such animal. Some difference were noted a few years ago, quick genetic study by a local vet says, a cross breed with dogs. Thankfully another study showed some recent genetic similarity to mainland wolves. With a new species would come PROTECTION. We would have to stop logging and deer hunting to protect the habitat. God how this whole thing makes me ill.
Wolves are a difficult case. They are very variable, and as you note, often interbreed with dogs (which are wolves after all). Recently they even found that the north-african subspecies of the golden jackal is actually a small non-pack forming wolf subspecies (incidentally similar to the coyote in some respects).
The more refined our tools (genetics, DNA) the more hysterical we get. To me, the ideal is you preserve the habitat if possible and practical, and let the animals do their thing. Stop agonizing over the fact the issues on the ground don’t lend themselves to neat pigeon- holing or shoe-[horning.] Being too clever by half seems to result in ridiculous interventions. Had we been around with these nanotools when the grizzly was morphing into polar bears, we probably would have intervened and prevented this.
We humans have magnified our senses and our tools to where we are capable of great harm or great good but often lack the understanding as to which is which. When the 1960s-70s permissiveness relaxed taboos on nakedness, movies were cranked out with gratuitous sex scenes to the exclusion of having a good story. When computer graphics brought us the great stuff of Jurassic Park, it soon degenerated into waves of Armageddon movies all with the same weak plot and massive destruction. Car chases after Steve McQueen’s in Bullitt were upstaged by phantasmagoric computer graphic colossal pile-ups. I read an alarmist article on research that showed bottled water (essentially another product of hysterics) stored for more than a couple of months was found to have 3 parts per trillion antimony (used in catalysts to make PET plastics). Antimony(V) by the spoonful is administered for certain parasites
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mbi/2011/571242/
And 3 PPT? Our sun is 15 trillion centimetres away from earth. 3 PPT is equivalent to 45cm or 18 inches of that distance.
shoe-horning _ danged illiterate Samsung phone@ur momisugly#$%
Gary ==> And they worry about AI….? They danged IA can’t even read our minds to know what we wanted to type!
Oh great, here we go again. First our betters wanted to control who gets to be born or not, Sanger and Galton and their eugenics jag. Then those that know everything decided that they needed to control the planet’s climate. And now they want to control evolution too? I guess there is no limit to arrogance, self-importance, egotism and pomposity after all.
Oscarphone ==> Got to stop those wolves and coyotes from misbehavin’!