Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Well-Tempered Species
Message-ID: <112@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 15:00:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.112
Posted: Mon May 20 15:00:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 04:19:49 EDT
References: <1086@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 26

Actually, I'm not going to quote Paul's article at all.  [My blow
against tree destruction! :-)].  I just have a few comments to make.

In practice it is usually possible to unamibiguously define separate
species that exist at the same time in the same general area.  There
are many different criteria that scientists and nonscientists use and
with *very* few exceptions that all yield the same results.

Species separated geographically can frequently have an ambiguous status.
Species separated in time (e.g. homo sapiens and homo erectus) present
such problems that it becomes difficult to know where to draw lines.  For
example one may note that discoverers of human fossils have tended to make
extreme distinctions between human fossils (probably because deviations
from the human norm strike us as more significant than deviations from
the wombat norm.)

I can't see how this presents evolution with any problem.  Since creationists
believe in divinely ordained "kinds" these ambiguities do provide them with
considerable food for thought.  However, I must admit that the conumdrum of
"kinds" and "species" plays absolutely no role in why I think creationism is
nonsense.

"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas