Login

Join for Free!
119296 members


Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

Postby gamila » Sat May 02, 2009 4:42 pm

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
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby alextemplet » Sat May 02, 2009 7:22 pm

gamila wrote: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."
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby MrMistery » Sun May 03, 2009 3:32 am

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...
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)


Postby AstusAleator » Sun May 03, 2009 6:52 am

*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?
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 03, 2009 2:34 pm

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!
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby mcar » Thu May 07, 2009 10:01 am

uhm, always the same thing... *walks around and whistles*
---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---
mcar
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Pilipinas a.k.a. Three Stars and a Sun (300, 000 sq Km)

Postby futurezoologist » Fri May 08, 2009 2:00 pm

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.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby GaryGaulin » Fri May 08, 2009 7:09 pm

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.
User avatar
GaryGaulin
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:52 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

Postby futurezoologist » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:46 am

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.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:06 pm

futurezoologist wrote: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.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

Postby futurezoologist » Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:13 am

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.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Re: Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

Postby alextemplet » Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:51 pm

futurezoologist wrote: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.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests