Liveblogging the conference: Roberta Millstein 14 Mar 2008 Roberta is a great philosopher from UC Davis and she’s talking about the notion of populations. Known she needed a definition of population for a long time – this is a first stab. “Population” has many definitions by biologists. Most try to limit it by space or time or interbreeding. But very little analysis. We invoke it often – it needs a proper definition. Uses include conspecificity, arbitrary delimitation, geography, area and time, interbreeding, etc. Second motivation based on selection and drift, which are processes that occur in populations. These processes become arbitrary if the term population is arbitrary. Third motivation: if population and drift are processes then populations must be individuals [not expanded here]. Wants a definition that works. Core question: can we characterise “populations” as individuals in a non-arbitrary way? “Arbitrary” can mean gerrymandering, or difficult to count and draw boundaries. Want to avoid the former, and not necessarily the latter (the world is fuzzy). Context in evolutionary terms only. Definitions in sociology, etc. beside the point. Only in this sense – evolution is broad term, not merely population genetics in formal terms, but in real terms. Populations of organisms only; other types of biological entities ignored for now, and can distinguish organisms. Starting assumptions: populations are spatiotemporally located. Are they cohesive? Are they contiguous over time? Should be different from “species” – may have more than one population; should not be true by definition that population = species. Organism should be able to migrate between populations. Concept should be distinct from “metapopulation”. Problem with that and subpopulations. Should consist of conspecifics [what happens if we lose the species category?]. Minimum of two organisms per population. No singletons… Definition should be independent of definitions of natural selection and drift, on pain of circularity. Three types of definitions: Boundary definitions: bounded in space and time Causal interaction definitions: interactions between organisms Historical definitions: genealogical ties Combinations are possible. Only the second that provides for cohesion necessary for individuality. Disjoint groups may share a fate, so maybe shared spatial distribution is not necessary. But spatial distribution may be an indirect indicator. Definitions based on reproductive isolation are too strong: these are species definitions. Five possible candidate criteria, four reproductive, one causal: Reproductive criteria: gene flow out of the “group”. What about causal interactions. What is minimum flow? Might be an indirect indicator also. Potentially interbreeding organisms: even stronger than Mayr’s BSC. Actual interbreeding: what about unsuccessful mating? Non mating individuals? At what time or interval? Actual mating organisms: At a point in time? Over a time span? Any old time span or a species typical generation/mating time? Struggle for existence: Ghiselin on hypermodern species? Conspecifics competing for limited resources; common climatic factors. Shared fate of group. Tentative suggestion: Populations in an evolutionary context consist of at least two conspecific organisms who are mating over a species appropriate time. [Something about locale I missed] Genealogical continuity needs to be cashed out without being a species definition. Will get historical continuity through time, and so satisfies individuality criterion. Ecology and Biodiversity Evolution Species and systematics
Evolution Notes on novelty 1: Introduction 14 Dec 201115 Jan 2012 Notes on Novelty series: 1. Introduction 2. Historical considerations – before and after evolution 3: The meaning of evolutionary novelty 4: Examples – the beetle’s horns and the turtle’s shell 5: Evolutionary radiations and individuation 6: Levels of description 7: Surprise! 8: Conclusion – Post evo-devo I like to take the most extreme view I can… Read More
History False botanists 1 May 2009 … says Linnaeus: False BOTANISTS proclaim the Laws of the Art before they have learned them: Extol absurd Authors, and are jealous of the excellent ones: Steal from others, producing nothing of their own: Boast much of a little knowledge: Pretend they have discovered a natural Method: Assert the Genera… Read More
Biology On gods and religion 14 Oct 2009 I have just had a very pleasant meeting of the minds with Justin Barrett here in Oxford, who gave me some of his time. We agreed on a lot, and this has set me thinking that I should document some of the claims I intend to make in my research,… Read More
Thanks, John. This is something I’ve been puzzling about for a couple of years. Dr. Millstein now has an email in her inbox asking about what she really said.
Thanks, John. This is something I’ve been puzzling about for a couple of years. Dr. Millstein now has an email in her inbox asking about what she really said.
Thanks, John. This is something I’ve been puzzling about for a couple of years. Dr. Millstein now has an email in her inbox asking about what she really said.
Thanks, John. This is something I’ve been puzzling about for a couple of years. Dr. Millstein now has an email in her inbox asking about what she really said.
Thanks, John. This is something I’ve been puzzling about for a couple of years. Dr. Millstein now has an email in her inbox asking about what she really said.
Actually, John did a pretty fair job summing up what I said… just substitute the word “hack” for “great.”
Hey Dr. Millstein! It’s me, Josh, from your Phil Bio class! This is kinda weird see a professor I’ve had talked about on a blog I’ve been reading for a while now… Now I see why we talked about populations… you were using us to develop your talk! Haha, just kidding….
Hey Dr. Millstein! It’s me, Josh, from your Phil Bio class! This is kinda weird see a professor I’ve had talked about on a blog I’ve been reading for a while now… Now I see why we talked about populations… you were using us to develop your talk! Haha, just kidding….