Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
then tell me...is a polar bear a different species than a grizzly bear -- and why? Likewise are different "species" of Darwin's finches actually different species? Why or why not.
no, I'm just saying they are both vague and ultimately undefinable with any real accuracy. The problem is evolutionists have a tendency to lable different finches, for example, as different "species" of finches, yet they can all breed and produce viable, fertile offspring. So if that is the case, on what basis is there to say they are different "species?"...just because they have a different beak shape? If that's the case, then where do you draw the line?....do different colors dictate different species? How about size? Ultimately, it has to come down to whether or not one type of animal can breed with another similar animal and produce viable, fertile offspring....but the problem is, evolutionists will never verify a new case of speciation by checking to see if the two supposed newly-formed species can breed. They just simply close their eyes, make a guess, and hope no one will question their assertion of speciation.
If you don't believe me, please find me an example of speciation, as claimed by evolutionists, and then show me where they verify that the new species cannot breed with the mother species and create fertile offspring.
Here's a quote:
The site goes on to list several observed cases of speciation, but I believe the species definition that it gives is perhaps the best one currently available. Basically, it is a population that reproduces. If we are to take the grizzly and polar bears as an example, they would be two separate species, since they do not breed with each other in the wild; they are thus two separately reproducing groups. The same could apply to Darwin's finches.
Now could you please tell me which taxanomic level is meant by "kind"?
#2 Total Post Count
you are simply validating my point. You are proclaiming that these species don't interbreed in the wild -- but do they really?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... photo.html
And finches are not different species because a single finch can alter its beak shape during development and emerge with a completely different shape/size than his parents did by way of a re-expression of genes. So what's the logic in saying the offspring is a different species than the parent?
Perhaps in a few rare cases they might, but for the most part they do not.
I'm sure if you turned off a few human genes and re-expressed others, a human embryo could develop into a chimpanzee, and yet both are different species. But that sort of thing doesn't happen naturally.
#2 Total Post Count
Ok sport, you are setting up a straw man here. There are different ways to define species because there are different forms of life. As was pointed out earlier, you wouldn't want to define an asexual species by what it can or can't reproduce with.
You have to take a larger ecological look at the populations in question. Each individual species should have its own unique ecological footprint.
By now you've probably looked through all the different species concepts and know that "viable offspring" is not the only way to define a species.
So you say it's vague and subjective, because the rules set down to define species don't always work in every scenario.
The key is that there ARE rules though, and they can be very detailed. To declare a species, a scientist must undergo rigorous taxonomic definition and then be subjected to peer review.
Do you really think that science (specifically biology and ecology) would have been able to accomlish what it has if we did no more than identify "kinds" of organisms?
I can see it now, the doctor has a patient with a severe infection so he grabs a piece of bread with mold on it and smears it all over the infected area and makes the patient eat the rest. "Hey it's the fuzzy kind of mold, don't worry!"
No sir, "kind" is a cop-out because you're unwilling to aquiesce to the validity of taxonomy, BECAUSE, taxonomy is *gasp* based (at least in part) on evolutionary theory.
I'm not saying it's perfect (ie polar bears and grizzlies, dogs and wolves), but it's valid. It's a system that is capable of correcting itself.
Go ahead, test it. Do an internet search for "Rhinichthys osculus".
Now do a search for "little fish" or "minnows" or "spotted minnows" or "little spotted fish"
Heck do a search for "things that swim"
Those are all "kinds"...
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by claiming the word "kind" is on par with taxonomic nomenclature, or other valid systems.
Really I'm at a loss as to what your point is with the whole "kinds" thing.
Oh and with the grizzlies, etc. So it's vague as to where the species line is going to be drawn... so what? If they're declared the same species (which i think they are) they will still be given different subspecific eptithets. They will be differentiated in their names, as they should be, because they typically live in very different ecosystems and have very different lifestyles.
I believe how I learned it was that Polars are Ursus arctos arctos and Grizzlies are Ursus arctos horriblis. The point is that no scientist is going to call them the same exact animal.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests