matt-r
9th November 2007, 10:04 AM
Haven't seen this elsewhere, so I thought I'd post it as an example of (I think) poor/misleading science reporting:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7085924.stm
It's an interesting study, no doubt, but it saddens me that "Science Reporters" feel the need to spice it up by saying that these toads are flouting "the general evolutionary rule of not breeding with other species"?!
Evolution doesn't have "rules" as such as far as I know. There are certainly evolutionarily successful breeding tactics and evolutionarily unsuccessful breeding tactics. Since it is suspected that this tactic is adopted because it helps "boost the survival rates of their offspring" I can't see how this is anything but a straight-down-the-line result of evolution by natural selection, not a flouting of it!
Second, is it even right to say that these are two different species? I know that there's lots of debate about what constitutes a separate species, but one workable definition which I've come across reading Dawkins is (broadly) two organisms belong to separate species if they would not ordinarily mate with eachother in the wild. If these two populations do interbreed successfully, at least in some natural conditions, are they a separate species?
I'm a lawyer not a scientist so I'll now shut up and throw this open to people who know what they're talking about. :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7085924.stm
It's an interesting study, no doubt, but it saddens me that "Science Reporters" feel the need to spice it up by saying that these toads are flouting "the general evolutionary rule of not breeding with other species"?!
Evolution doesn't have "rules" as such as far as I know. There are certainly evolutionarily successful breeding tactics and evolutionarily unsuccessful breeding tactics. Since it is suspected that this tactic is adopted because it helps "boost the survival rates of their offspring" I can't see how this is anything but a straight-down-the-line result of evolution by natural selection, not a flouting of it!
Second, is it even right to say that these are two different species? I know that there's lots of debate about what constitutes a separate species, but one workable definition which I've come across reading Dawkins is (broadly) two organisms belong to separate species if they would not ordinarily mate with eachother in the wild. If these two populations do interbreed successfully, at least in some natural conditions, are they a separate species?
I'm a lawyer not a scientist so I'll now shut up and throw this open to people who know what they're talking about. :D