Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Why do you keep talking about species when it has been shown by colin leslie dean that biologist donot know what a species is and for that matter what a phylum is
it looks like once a concept enters your head through un critical teaching/text books it become hard wired and cannot be removed
you can only accept a view so long as it comes from a text book or professor
like today you want accept deans arguments
if tomorrow they become accepted wisdom in text books you will just once again go along with the standard view
i will give you some advice
an uncriticel acceptance of the text book standard view want make you the biologist genius most of you hope to be
it will just make you biological techicians
and for sure you will pass your exams by just being a parrot
What is a raccoon gamila? Could you define a raccoon, or distinguish one from another animal.
Reproduction and mating are hard evidence that there are divisions of kinds and a testament of baramin (created kinds) "let them multiply after their kinds..." Gen 1.
as colin leslie dean has pointed out from your own source wiki biologist dont know what a species is
it is called the "species problem" just google it and you will see it is an accepted fact
you just want change your mind even in the face of evidence
just think of all those PHd thesis and postdoctoral path breaking research
which use the term species
a whole lot of meaningless nonsense -as they dont even know what a species is
Well you deny textbooks and yet you rely on google for your "accepted facts"...*smirk*
You are not the only one who dislikes teachers who promote parroting, but this has nothing to do with our man made classifications of organisms - which are not perfect, please if you have one please provide us with a better classification, but until then please stop slandering our current systems.
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.
You didn't answer my question. Can you distinguish a raccoon from say a chimpanzee? If you can, the biological classification system has done well enough. Even if there is a variation within a type or kind of organism, "species" is going to give you a ballpark figure of what you are talking about so you can identify the organism with the name. Can't you even reasonably acknowledge this--even if you are correct technically?
I'm not a mathematician but what about repeating decimals as an illustration (.33333---> = 1/3). You can repeat the decimal a hundred times and it will still be rounded, so TECHNICALLY you can not define it. Does that mean we now can never divide 3 into 1?
What is the point and motivation of your statements about species and phylum? That we are floating directionless in space with no purpose or definition? If you believe in evolution, that is a conclusion you can arrive at. But you are created "in God's image," and therefore you have purpose. You have a moral compass inside, sometimes it fills with indignation and resentment when it sees injustice. It stings with guilt when we do wrong. Though all of them do not agree, and some are broken, they still are there, inside of you and me--unfulfilled--asking questions.
The concept of species as usually defined date from Carolus Linnaeus, and predate evolution and Darwin. In fact the concept of species is much better adapted to a fixist/creationist world view than to the evolutionist one. The concept of reproduction still generally used do not really hold water as many examples have been given to you (i.e. lions and tiger can cross breed, but simply don't because they do not share the same habitat), and different breed of dogs that could potentially still produce offspring (with IVF) don't as you pointed out with St Bernard and Chihuahua. It is likely that many breeds of dog could end up creating different species just because of the artificially created and maintained reproductive isolation they are living in. Bacteriologist and virologist are well aware of that, and never liked the cross breeding definition of species (Hell, bacteria do not need partners to reproduce, so who cares about mating rules).
However groups living in more or less breeding isolation (for many reasons) are interesting, and if you look at the litterature about bacterial ecology, the concept of OTU (operational Taxonomic unit) is replacing more and more the concept of species.
But the concept of species besides all the problems is still convenient in many ways and that is why it is still there. Just like a designer would ask you to grab a chair to sit if you were visiting an office, but still knowing that all the limitations of the concept of "chair" in the real world. It is convenient, in spite of all the limitations. One would expect someone with degrees in philosophy to grab this kind of concepts.
A loser length post just to point out that your vision of biology is clearly outdated and limited to grade 12 textbook, and so your objections about biology show more of YOUR limts than that of what you are trying to criticize.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
fact is people on here use the term species
fact is you dont know what a species is
fact is people talk about species this species that speciation etc
fact is none of you know what a species is
fact is the term is used in bilogy
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodivers ... cords.html
so all of the above is meaningless nonsense
fact is biologist dont know what a phylum is or species
as pointed out by colin leslie dean
and thus all this is meaningless nonsensde to
A geneticist can tell you the whole genome of an organism, and then put a "label" on it. Classifications will be down to SNPs, which could produce some million more "labels".
SNPs - single nucleotide polymorphisms
Yes they can cross breed, but they wouldn't, and its not just because they don't share the same habitat. They are instinctively territorial. Animals within the same family, genus or species school, flock, pack or stay together, and breed together except in rare cases.
Since you seem to think creationists don't have any proof or know anything at all, you ought to know. Creationists acknowledge Darwin's discoveries, and left species fixity behind--that was err--just like evolutionists have left many of their hypotheses behind--because of new research.
Have you ever listened to a creationist with a Ph. D. or read any of of their papers? Many of them have published papers in science journals-in non-Darwinian subjects. I have a friend who is a chemical engineer who is creationist. My pastor is a retired M.D. and is a creationist. Issac Newton and Edward Blythe (whom Darwin read) were creationists. There are more of us than you think.
Just one more thing and I'll stop venting (this is nothing personal-lol). PROOF is the wrong word in your quote there--because if science had proof--they would be CERTAIN. Science has EVIDENCE and scientists interpret the evidence. Not all of them interpret the evidence the same way--even those in the same camp.
So what do we call them gamila! ITS?? And this is Dean's opinion only. I have no trouble with identifying a chihuahua by it's name--perhaps he just uses pronouns for every organism on earth.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests