The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

[biohazard]

so what did the first bird mate with

With a banana, you dork.

[gamila]

With a banana, you dork.

and what did the first banana pollenate with

[alextemplet]

It's not really possible to define what is the exact moment of speciation, since we're talking gradual change here. It's easy to say that the beginning and end products are separate species, but as for what's in the middle, that gets more difficult. Should it be grouped with the original species, or with the resulting species, or as something else entirely?

Many species today exist right on this cusp of a speciation event, and are called ring species. To put it very briefly, population A can interbreed with population B, which can interbreed with population C, but A and C can't interbreed. If B didn't exist, A and C would thus be classified as different species. What they actually represent is a species that is beginning to diverge into two new species, but the intermediate form (in this case, population B) hasn't died out yet. This is a very brief desciption but you can read here for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

In conclusion, you can't really say what the first bird mated with because you can't define with any degree of certainty what the first bird was. All you can do is point to a series of dinosaur-bird intermediates, each becoming progressively more avian than the one before, and say that by this process birds evolved.

[gamila]

In conclusion, you can't really say what the first bird mated with because you can't define with any degree of certainty what the first bird was. All you can do is point to a series of dinosaur-bird intermediates, each becoming progressively more avian than the one before, and say that by this process birds evolved.

at some time we must get the first bird or else we will not get any birds

thus we have the colin leslie dean species paradox what did the first bird mate with
sorry
that is why colin leslie dean says biology is not a science since it cannot locate the objects of from its it classification system ie they cant tell us what a species in the first case

about15956.html

2) biologist classify living organisms by a heirarchy of taxonomies
ie species phylum
but again biologists cant tell us what species is or phylums are



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 and identify 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 or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless



Thus it can be seen that biology is not a science as its classificatory systems cannot identify the objects of its science if it cannot identify the objects of its investigations it cannot be a science
all it is is a meaningless array of terms which dont identify anything

but biologist dont know

[biohazard]

and what did the first banana pollenate with

With the bird, obviously. See, it all makes perfect sense.

[Zongo]

then war 1 nana com froom/

[mcar]

biohazard: Though, the words 'logic' and 'god' are mutually exclusive

Unless that "logic" must be really of God's, otherwise it could be the false logic that unconsciously perverts the human mind.

Species mates with their same kind. That's a very simple natural law.

[gamila]

Species mates with their same kind

so what the first bird mate with
so the colin leslie dean paradox

[biohazard]

Species mates with their same kind. That's a very simple natural law.

That's not quite true. Species mate with other species as well. Usually the offspring are are sterile, though (if there are any), but not always. Closely related species can mate and have offspring that are capable of having offspring of their own. In nature, few things are simple ;)

[gamila]

That's not quite true. Species mate with other species as well. Usually the offspring are are sterile, though (if there are any), but not always. Closely related species can mate and have offspring that are capable of having offspring of their own. In nature, few things are simple

you statement is meaningless nonsense
for as colin leslie dean has shown biologists dont know what a species is any way
so how can you make such a statement
see the thread
biology is not a science

[alextemplet]

Okay gamila, if you have a beam of red light, and you change its wavelength by 1nm every minute, eventually you're going to end up with a completely different color. But when, with such small changes that are individually imperceptible, do you stop having red light? At what exact wavelength does the light stop being red?

[AstusAleator]

Yes, but what did the red light mate with?