Login

Join for Free!
119246 members


The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby gamila » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:18 am

Eventually the new traits introduced by the first Bird1.0 will become dominant in a new population of Bird1.1

you have already said bird 1.0 is not the new species of bird so
you are on an infinite regress what is next bird 1.100000000001

so is bird 1.1 the new species of bird if so what did it mate with

I'm trying to tell you, gamila, that by the time a "species" is distinguishable,


deans point is at some point you get the new specis of bird the veryyy first bird
and thus what did it mate with

you say

I've answered your question(s):
What did the "first bird" mate with?
--It's parent population.
What did the "first bird species" mate with?
--They mated within their population.



the first bird cant mate with its parent population as they belong to different species

and if the first bird mated with it own kind you get deans point 2
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work



Definitions across all phyla may be unclear, but at the Family-Genus-Species level it is VITAL to biological work that we be able to classify organisms in order to study them. It is a classification system, one which only aids us in conceptualizing what we observe empirically.

i dont care if it is vital at all fact is biologist dontknow what species is
you say definitions are unclear
thats your problem as it means just about evvery biolgist either has his own definition -so much for a science
or
because definitions are unclear no two biologist will agree on what they are looking at -so much for your science
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Postby AstusAleator » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:26 am

So you are either so dense that you can't comprehend my bird explanation, or you just refuse to consider it.

Either way, I feel like I've said my piece, and am content in the argument I've put forth. If you feel like it, reread my posts a couple of times and maybe it'll all sink in. Unlike you, I'll refrain from spamquoting myself.

As far as species are concerned, there is near-unanimous agreement on the most important issues concerning species. To expect 100% unanimity would be making the assumption that "species" is a universal truth - which it's not.

You can continue to think that this invalidates biology, and we biologists will continue to do what we do because it's the best system we have, and it works.
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

Re:

Postby biohazard » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:58 am

gamila wrote:your definitions are clear


biologists know what species is
thus
colin leslie dean paradox is meaningless nonsense
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm


Postby papa1983 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:54 am

Besides, Colin Leslie Dean(CLD) is a philosopher and has no grasp of biology, let alone evolution. Biologist have defined what a species is. Though I have to admit, the definition starts to break down when describing asexual organisms.
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
User avatar
papa1983
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:29 pm
Location: Afghanistan

Postby gamila » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:02 pm

Biologist have defined what a species is


wrong biologist dont know what species is



* Edit post
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

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

Postby papa1983 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:17 pm

The definition of a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed. Not that hard.
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
User avatar
papa1983
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:29 pm
Location: Afghanistan

Postby gamila » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:42 pm

The definition of a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed


for starter

looks like a mere philosoopher knows more about biology than the biolgists
there are many examples of different species interbreading -that destroyes your definition off species

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm
the bactrian camel and the dromadry camel are different species
but they can interbreed ie the female of spring is fertile

so we have from your definition species can interbreed
we have two different species interbreading so they must be the same species
but you have said they are two different species - meaningless nonsense

so as colin leslie dean has noted your science /classification systems ends in meaningless nonsense


just look up the "species problem" on the net
Last edited by gamila on Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby papa1983 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:17 pm

Well then according to the definition the Bactrian Camel and the Dromadry Camel can be considered different breeds rather than species. Like a Chihuahua to a Doberman (Dogs)or an Arabian to a Quarter(Horses).
Example of species would be a Puffin to a Penguin.
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
User avatar
papa1983
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:29 pm
Location: Afghanistan

Postby gamila » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:35 pm

Well then according to the definition the Bactrian Camel and the Dromadry Camel can be considered different breeds rather than species

wrong biologist say they are different species

http://www.camelphotos.com/camel_breeds.html

Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.


as dean points out your system of classification end in meaningless nonsense

ooks like a mere philosoopher knows more about biology than the biolgists
there are many examples of different species interbreading -that destroyes your definition off species

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm
the bactrian camel and the dromadry camel are different species
but they can interbreed ie the female of spring is fertile

so we have from your definition species can interbreed
we have two different species interbreading so they must be the same species
but you have said they are two different species - meaningless nonsense

so as colin leslie dean has noted your science /classification systems ends in meaningless nonsense
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby biohazard » Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:04 am

gamila wrote:
as dean points out your system of classification end in meaningless nonsense



the first bird mated with the last lizardbird
thus
colin lesile dean is talking nonsense
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Postby AFJ » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:46 am

just look up the "species problem" on the net


How do you conclude that biologists don't know what a species is because there is a "species problem?"
That's two different things.

Do you know the nature of the problem and why it is a problem?
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby papa1983 » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:03 am

Species don't just roll out like a new sedan. It takes a while for them to split from the original population.
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
User avatar
papa1983
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:29 pm
Location: Afghanistan

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests