MGT Only: The problem with Mongoose Traveller?

[aramis]

If you don't know, just say so.

(Alternatively, if you know but don't want to go to the bother of telling me, that's all right too).


Hans

It's too vague to be accurate, but it's a 1st order approximation:

1) DNA has been sequenced from fossils - both archaic homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis. (Noting that everything I've read on the testing still uses the two species nomeclature; some of the shows don't specify scientific names, but refer simply to "Humans and Neanderthals.")
2) Some of the DNA sequences are present in identified Neanderthal remains; some are only in AHS remains.
2a) Anything in common is excluded.
2b) some of the supposedly common items are single pair mutations present across one or the other, and are excluded as primary, but included as confirmations.
3) Any identified Neaderthal sequences are checked for being in all the neanderthal samples sequenced. These become the "target sequences".
4) Humans from a variety of locations are checked for the target sequences.
4a) the locations of the humans with the target sequences are checked for being in locations known for presence of Neanderthalensis.
4c) the correlation between Neanderthalensis variant genetics is checked for significance.

 

[aramis]

But it DOESN'T. Aramis's post only means that one book, out of an incredible number of books, has what he thinks are non-white folks drawn in it. Now, for The Traveller Book, I would guess he would be correct. How about for the others? How about, specifically, the MGT line? I've got 5 books for MGT on my shelf (Core, Scoundrels, 760 Patrons 1st edition, Mercenary and High Guard) and in absolutely none of them, except Scoundrels, is there anyone drawn there that, by features, you would call "non-white?"

There are two CT books with significant character artwork: TTA and TTB.
You made the assertion that CT showed only whites; I challenged that assertion, and found that my interpretation of the evidence is shared by several others.

You have, however, now pursued this into what is, essentially, political territory. [m;]Drop it, NOW. Further discussion of it will be considered both political and off-topic.[/m;]

 

[simonh]

I still don't see what possible argument there is to claim that someone who could and did interbreed with Homo sapiens sapiens and produce fertile offspring is not Homo sapiens <something> himself. Even the notion that being separate so that they happen not to interbreed ever makes them separate species[*] doesn't apply here, since the evidence shows that they did meet and did interbreed.

[*] Which IMO is beyond silly.​

Hans

The way I see it, it's partly a historical thing and partly a utility thing.

Historically, looking at the bone evidence, Neanderthals were classified as a different species because there was very may highly specific and easily identified differences between them and other hominid species known at the time. This was of course speculative, given only bone morphology it's impossible to say which individuals may or may not have been able to interbreed.

Now however we know that at least some Neanderthals could interbreed with at least some of our contemporary main-line ancestors. We don't know how common it was, we don't know what complications there might have been or how frequently the offspring were fertile or otherwise viable. Maybe all of them, maybe very few.

There's a lot of inertia in science, particularly when something is useful. It is useful to draw a distinction between neanderthals and other hominids of the time due to their many differences both physically and culturally (diet, tools, burial practices, etc).

The concept of a species is a nebulous thing that's changed over time. Personally I'd argue for classifying Neanderthals as a subspecies of the overall globally dominant hominid species of the time. This allows for treating them as different in the ways that they clearly were physically and likely metabolically, while acknowledging that they were apparently interfertile.

On the general point, the concept of a species really is a very nebulous one. Check our Ring Species.

Simon Hibbs

 

[HG_B]

I still don't see what possible argument there is to claim that someone who could and did interbreed with Homo sapiens sapiens and produce fertile offspring is not Homo sapiens <something> himself.

That's because the ability to interbreed does NOT mean that they are the same species. That point is split in the scientific community and has been for decades.. If you understand Darwin's work then you know that the ability to interbreed does NOT mean same species...

 

[atpollard]

That's because the ability to interbreed does NOT mean that they are the same species. That point is split in the scientific community and has been for decades.. If you understand Darwin's work then you know that the ability to interbreed does NOT mean same species...

Not a challenge, just an admission of ignorance ... but I thought that the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring WAS a significant identifier of species and the ability to interbreed and produce infertile offspring was an trait common among different species of the same genus.

Mules and Ligers are infertile. Therefore, Horses and Donkeys are NOT the same species, and Lions and Tigers are NOT the same species. This would be contrasted with a Cockapoo, which is fertile, indicating that Cocker Spaniels and Poodles are the same species. I was taught (right or wrong and long ago) that this is the reason for defining sub-species.

Since my biology training stopped in HS in the 1970s, I welcome an update.

 

[aramis]

Not a challenge, just an admission of ignorance ... but I thought that the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring WAS a significant identifier of species and the ability to interbreed and produce infertile offspring was an trait common among different species of the same genus.

Mules and Ligers are infertile. Therefore, Horses and Donkeys are NOT the same species, and Lions and Tigers are NOT the same species. This would be contrasted with a Cockapoo, which is fertile, indicating that Cocker Spaniels and Poodles are the same species. I was taught (right or wrong and long ago) that this is the reason for defining sub-species.

Since my biology training stopped in HS in the 1970s, I welcome an update.

Ligers are sterilized surgically, as a rule. (According to the guy who brought them on Kimmel's show.) And Tigons are, too. They aren't taking the chance to see if they are fertile, but the indications are that they might be.

The definition of species was orginally based upon visual and skeletal taxonomy systems, not breeding capability.

Also note: In plants, MANY "species boundaries" are crossable. Most food grains, in fact, can be crossed with other food grain species. Triticale, for example, is a hybridization of any of the species of Wheat with any of the species of Rye; it's capable of human assisted reproduction.

 

[HG_B]

Not a challenge, just an admission of ignorance ... but I thought that the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring WAS a significant identifier of species and the ability to interbreed and produce infertile offspring was an trait common among different species of the same genus.

It is an indication of how close the two species are or aren't. It, in itself is not the defining point. I can't can't overstate the importance of rereading (we are all old farts here ) Origin of Species. Interbreeding within a genus happens in nature. Whether or not it is viable depends on how close genetically the two species are.

 

[rancke]

That's because the ability to interbreed does NOT mean that they are the same species.

I didn't say interbreed, I said (or implied) interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

That point is split in the scientific community and has been for decades...

So the opinion you state as a fact is actually still in dispute among scientists?

If you understand Darwin's work then you know that the ability to interbreed does NOT mean same species...

The ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring is the basic definition of a species. Nature not always being neat, there are exceptions and special cases, not to mention specious arguments designed to preserve the pet prejudices of whoever propounds them. Thus you get odd cases that some scientists claim are different species despite the abovementioned ability. Sometimes the additional qualification "fertile offspring that breeds true" is used to put two animals into different species despite the ability to produce fertile offspring. And we've already had the egregious silliness of counting two populations as different species because while they could have interbred, they never actually had the chance to do so.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

I didn't say interbreed, I said (or implied) interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

It doesn't matter. THAT is not the defining point.

So, what do you have when two different species breed and produce fertile offspring? A new species or, a new sub-species? Take your pick.

 

[simonh]

I didn't say interbreed, I said (or implied) interbreed and produce fertile offspring.


So the opinion you state as a fact is actually still in dispute among scientists?

So his definition of species is out because it is in dispute among scientists, but your definition is ok because it's only disputed by some scientists. Right. Got it.

Simon Hibbs

 

[rancke]

It doesn't matter. THAT is not the defining point.

What is the defining point then?

So, what do you have when two different species breed and produce fertile offspring? A new species or, a new sub-species? Take your pick.

Neither. You get a hybrid.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Good discussion. I've enjoyed following it. Informative, educational and I've learned from it, as well as further confused at times. Much food for though and directions for further research.

Could we get some civility back into it?

 

[rancke]

So his definition of species is out because it is in dispute among scientists, but your definition is ok because it's only disputed by some scientists. Right. Got it.

Mostly his definition is out because he didn't provide it.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

What is the defining point then?

Here is a good place to start reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Neither. You get a hybrid.

In English, sub-species fits that word also. Same thing.

 

[rancke]

Here is a good place to start reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

There's no definition provided. Just descriptions of problems with the common definition of species. Which I already pointed out existed.

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem."​

So please provide your alternate definition.

In English, sub-species fits that word also. Same thing.

No it isn't. 'Hybrid' has several different meanings. One of them is an offspring of members of two different species. 'Subspecies' may be another, different meaning, but I think you're wrong about that. Do feel free to provide a reference that proves you right, though.

Be that as it may, it is not the same thing. The way you can tell them apart is that a subspecies has a a taxonomic name that follows the patters '<Genus> <species> <subspecies>'. A hybrid of two different species has a taxonomic name that follows the pattern '<Genus> <species1> x <Genus> <species2>'.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

So please provide your alternate definition.

Keep reading. I never said mine was an alternate definition. Within a genus it can be all over the place.

BTW, sub- as a prefix ( in English) fits the definition. So, there ARE sub-species of humans on Earth right now. Probably several different ones.

The 2 species we are talking about were much farther apart in physical characteristics & traits than MANY different species classified today in biology.

 

[rancke]

Keep reading. I never said mine was an alternate definition.

Having gone back and reread your original reply to my original statement, I have to admit that you didn't. Nor, I now realize, did you address my statement at all.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Having gone back and reread your original reply to my original statement, I have to admit that you didn't. Nor, I now realize, did you address my statement at all.


Hans

Just keep studying. That's all I can say at this time. You'll have to start at the beginning.

 

[rancke]

BTW, sub- as a prefix ( in English) fits the definition.

The definition of 'hybrid'? Please provide a reference.

The 2 species we are talking about were much farther apart in physical characteristics & traits than MANY different species classified today in biology.

And they were much closer in physical characteristics & traits than some subspecies recognized as belonging to the same species, such as Chihuahuas and St. Bernards which both belong to Canis lupus familiaris. So that argument is nugatory.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Just keep studying. That's all I can say at this time.

It's all you've been able to say all along. Feel free to get back to me when you are prepared to provide some actual arguments. You can start by taking your own advice.


Hans