Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

[gamila]

Biologists talk a lot about species phylum
the origin of species speciation etc

they talk about evolution
they talk about this or that species proving natural selection
but the fact is

scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

quote

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

"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

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

"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species is then he is talking meaningless nonsense

Take colin leslie dean proving natural selection wrong

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf
'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG'

many arguments talked about this or that species proving natural selection- but without knowing what a species is then the argument is meaningless and not a refutation of dean at all

also note in this quote Chien talks on about phylum
but the fact is biologists dont know what phylum are so his whole argument is meaningless

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm

Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, "A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

it would seem definitions of species and phylum are so fluid that biologists can make up what ever definition he needs for his purpose- and they call biology a science

[alextemplet]

it would seem definitions of species and phylum are so fluid that biologists can make up what ever definition he needs for his purpose- and they call biology a science

Just about everything in science is a constant state of flux. Scientists are constantly revising and updating old definitions and theories to account for new evidence. That's part of the scientific process; in fact, one could even argue that it's what makes science "science."

[MrMistery]

yeah, gamila, i totally feel you. It's like that with a lot sciences. Chemists used to say that an atom is indivisible by definition. Then they said it's made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Now they're like "well, actually they're made of quarks". And they call chemistry science...

[AstusAleator]

*smirk*

Yes, science is all nonsense since it clearly cannot provide simple concrete answers to any of our important questions! Who do those so-called scientists think they are, always challenging our simple easy-to-understand explanations of the natural world?

[alextemplet]

It's all some evil plot to challenge our faith and get us to stop believing in the flying spaghetti monster! We must never give in to their apostasy!

[mcar]

uhm, always the same thing... *walks around and whistles*

[futurezoologist]

Wow, good work.
Through the definitions of two words you have managed to prove thousands of years of data and people wrong. I bow down to your adept knowledge of our universe...

One of many flaws in your argument; Biological classifications are created by humans(not natural-like physics for example) - nature always provides an exception to our imperfect classifications. But even so natural selection does not depend on how we name and classify things.

[GaryGaulin]

Futurezoologist, after reading your reply it seemed like you are saying that natural selection is responsible for speciation. But from what I have been seeing in computer models that produce information increase speciation is inherent to the molecular mechanism and would still occur where there is no selection at all. Also, the ability to change to a new form must already be present in the genome mechanism or else it can never change, in which case a relatively sudden change in environment would lead to extinction. Therefore logically the only thing natural selection can do is alter morphology in a direction the genome is already capable of going on its own, otherwise there can be no variation in the population at all.

I was wondering what you think.

[futurezoologist]

after reading your reply it seemed like you are saying that natural selection is responsible for speciation

Yes

But from what I have been seeing in computer models that produce information increase speciation is inherent to the molecular mechanism and would still occur where there is no selection at all

Yes, but is there any such occasion in the natural world? There will always be selective pressure on an organism.

Also, the ability to change to a new form must already be present in the genome mechanism or else it can never change

I'm not sure that i know what you mean. There is no 'ability' to mutate genes that i know of, it is a random event, a mistake.

in which case a relatively sudden change in environment would lead to extinction.

Again I'm not sure we are on the same wavelength. A sudden change in the environment could cause a population to become extinct but it would depend on the severity of the change and the effect on the organism, organisms with certain genetic traits which help them survive better in the new changed environment may survive and pass on their genes and the population would live on.

Therefore logically the only thing natural selection can do is alter morphology in a direction the genome is already capable of going on its own

The fact that a genome can mutate in any 'direction' is a mechanism in the process of natural selection.

If you could reply and correct any misinterpretations of mine that would be great as i don't think i understood what you meant.

[alextemplet]

I'm not sure that i know what you mean. There is no 'ability' to mutate genes that i know of, it is a random event, a mistake.

That would depend on how you define a "mistake." Some species are more efficient than others at correcting and preventing mutations in their DNA, whereas others are more likely to mutate because they have to be. Bacteria and viruses are good examples, because they are constantly trying (and usually succeeding) to stay at least one step ahead of the best antibiotic drugs we can throw at them. Thus, even though these organisms have a higher mutation rate, it's hard to call that a mistake when it helps them survive so well.

[futurezoologist]

it's hard to call that a mistake when it helps them survive so well

Yes it is hard when we look at them as a species, but at a cellular level it is a mistake no matter how you define it.

[alextemplet]

Yes it is hard when we look at them as a species, but at a cellular level it is a mistake no matter how you define it.

I guess you have a point there.