Question

[Zosimus]

We are talking about the specific use of the term in a specific field. Please stop with the semantic fallacies and the obfuscation.

Oh right. You want something scientific. Excuse me.

The mind of the species problem. [Trends Ecol Evol. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

There you go. A peer-reviewed paper on the species problem.

The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'. The innumerable attacks on the problem have turned the often-repeated question 'what are species?' into a philosophical conundrum. Today, the preferred form of attack is the well-crafted argument, and debaters seem to have stopped inquiring about what new information is needed to solve the problem. However, our knowledge is not complete and we have overlooked something. The species problem can be overcome if we understand our own role, as conflicted investigators, in causing the problem.

 

[Delphiki]

Oh that's easy. http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=especie

Especie: Conjunto de cosas semejantes entre sí por tener uno o varios caracteres comunes.

It's right there in plain Spanish.

Congratulations. You're bilingual. You want a sopapilla?

You got it in Korean? Indonesian? You want to quit trolling?

I asked for the definition of "kind", not "especie", for one.

Second, your dancing around the questions is only illustrating your unwillingness to cooperate with reality or have a coherent conversation.

Third, scientists do generally agree on what defines a species. It's the gradual change in life over time that simply doesn't allow for some bullet-proof, line-drawing definition. The very fact that life evolves makes it impossible to carve the definition of "species" into stone... However, it's far more clear and agreed upon than something like "kind".

"Kinds", however, as mentioned in the bible, can't seem to be reconciled with species, genus, family, or any other level of difference between living things. Is there a cat kind or are lions and tabbies different kinds? Are hyenas dog kind or cat kind?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh right. You want something scientific. Excuse me.

The mind of the species problem. [Trends Ecol Evol. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

There you go. A peer-reviewed paper on the species problem.

Did you even read the abstract? It is describing you.

"Today, the preferred form of attack is the well-crafted argument, and debaters seem to have stopped inquiring about what new information is needed to solve the problem."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh right. You want something scientific. Excuse me.

The mind of the species problem. [Trends Ecol Evol. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

There you go. A peer-reviewed paper on the species problem.

The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'. The innumerable attacks on the problem have turned the often-repeated question 'what are species?' into a philosophical conundrum. Today, the preferred form of attack is the well-crafted argument, and debaters seem to have stopped inquiring about what new information is needed to solve the problem. However, our knowledge is not complete and we have overlooked something. The species problem can be overcome if we understand our own role, as conflicted investigators, in causing the problem.

And it is very very difficult to give a precise definition of species since evolution is a fact.

If creationism was true then the concept of species or kind would be definable. Of course creationism is wrong. That is shown by the utter failure of creationists to come up with a working definition of "kind".

 

[Zosimus]

And it is very very difficult to give a precise definition of species since evolution is a fact.

If creationism was true then the concept of species or kind would be definable. Of course creationism is wrong. That is shown by the utter failure of creationists to come up with a working definition of "kind".

If by evolution you mean that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, then I would agree with you.

If by "evolution" you mean that constant changes in the frequency of alleles eventually leads to the creation of new species, when you cannot even define the freakingword, then I would laugh my buttocks off at you.

 

[Delphiki]

If by evolution you mean that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, then I would agree with you.

If by "evolution" you mean that constant changes in the frequency of alleles eventually leads to the creation of new species, when you cannot even define the freakingword, then I would laugh my buttocks off at you.

Ahh, no wonder you have a problem with the image. You're a "I believe in micro, but not macro" science-denier.

 

[AV1611VET]

Talk about having your cake...

You're too simple minded to understand something as simple as evolution, yet when someone makes it simple to understand, you complain that it's too simple. This how we can all tell you're lying.

If it looks too gradual to you, then you have a problem with it. If I show you it's not as gradual as it seems, then you still have a problem with it.

AV, if someone who wasn't our pastor showed you a duck to your face, you would deny it was a duck until your last breath. If you stop playing games and trolling, maybe people will stop treating you like you're a moron.

Wow!

I'm a liar, a troll, and a moron -- all in one post!

Nice one!

 

[Zosimus]

Ahh, no wonder you have a problem with the image. You're a "I believe in micro, but not macro" science-denier.

No, the question is absurd because there is no definition. As such no one can know whether a change is micro or macro and people who argue over the same are like people who argue whether the number 2 is flarzbam, in the absence of any definition of the word.

 

[Delphiki]

Wow!

I'm a liar, a troll, and a moron -- all in one post!

Nice one!

Learn comprehension. "You are lying" does not equate to "you are a liar". People treating you like a moron does not equate to "you are a moron" (although, while we're on the subject of ducks... if it looks, quacks, and walks like one...)

However... You don't post anything for the sake of productive conversation. You only post for attention and to confuse people with non sequitur. This makes you a troll. And the only reason you're not banned for it is your religious affiliation.

 

[Delphiki]

No, the question is absurd because there is no definition. As such no one can know whether a change is micro or macro and people who argue over the same are like people who argue whether the number 2 is flarzbam, in the absence of any definition of the word.

By your same flawed reasoning, we can't define what is hot or cold, light or dark, big or small, fast or slow...

Exactly how many lumens is "bright"? How many degrees kelvin is the line between "warm" and "hot"?

 

[Loudmouth]

If by evolution you mean that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, then I would agree with you.

If by "evolution" you mean that constant changes in the frequency of alleles eventually leads to the creation of new species, when you cannot even define the freakingword, then I would laugh my buttocks off at you.

If by "evolution" we mean the accumulation of population specific mutations that causes populations to diverge over time, then we have observed evolution.

You get so hung up on the need for definitions that you refuse to look at the world around us. You are trying to shoot the messenger so that you don't have to hear the message.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If by evolution you mean that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, then I would agree with you.

If by "evolution" you mean that constant changes in the frequency of alleles eventually leads to the creation of new species, when you cannot even define the freakingword, then I would laugh my buttocks off at you.

By any definition of the word "species" we can show that evolution occurs. Your creationist demand for a hard definition of a term that cannot be defined is foolish and ridiculous. The impossibility of the hard definition of species that you want so much is a prediction of evolution. The inability of creationists to make a working definition of "kind" debunks creationism.

I know that you have a problem with analogies, but let's try one anyway.

Exactly at what age did you quit being a baby? I want your age to a day. If you can't define the freaking word then I would laugh my buttocks off at you.

 

[Zosimus]

By your same flawed reasoning, we can't define what is hot or cold, light or dark, big or small, fast or slow...

Exactly how many lumens is "bright"? How many degrees kelvin is the line between "warm" and "hot"?

And that's exactly the reason that a theory that predicts that drop objects fall quickly is a bad theory, but a theory that predicts that they will accelerate downwards at 9.8 m/s/s is a good theory.

One theory is specific, measurable, and testable whereas the other one is not.

 

[Loudmouth]

And that's exactly the reason that a theory that predicts that drop objects fall quickly is a bad theory, but a theory that predicts that they will accelerate downwards at 9.8 m/s/s is a good theory.

One theory is specific, measurable, and testable whereas the other one is not.

We can just as easily measure the divergence through time between two non-interbreeding populations.

 

[Delphiki]

And that's exactly the reason that a theory that predicts that drop objects fall quickly is a bad theory, but a theory that predicts that they will accelerate downwards at 9.8 m/s/s is a good theory.

One theory is specific, measurable, and testable whereas the other one is not.

Mutation is largely random, not to mention different forms of life have difference numbers in population. There simply can't be some rate of evolution, which if you understood biology on at least a middle school level, you would know this.

So, tell me how well defined or complete a theory must be to describe it as "good" or "bad"?

Can't tell me how many lumens bright is still? Well, I guess we've just disproven the electromagnetic spectrum.

You say you're not a creationist, yet you see all the evidence that indicates evolution, with all the remains ancestors to modern humans found in the earth, and simply say that, as obvious as the transitions are, that's not what happened. You don't even have a completing hypothesis, or evidence to anything that contradicts evolution, yet you refuse to accept it because, let's face it, you know archaeology, geology, and genetics far better than anyone who went to school 8 years specifically for those things would.

Oops... I seem to have lost my buttocks.

 

[Zosimus]

Mutation is largely random, not to mention different forms of life have difference numbers in population. There simply can't be some rate of evolution, which if you understood biology on at least a middle school level, you would know this.

So, tell me how well defined or complete a theory must be to describe it as "good" or "bad"?

Can't tell me how many lumens bright is still? Well, I guess we've just disproven the electromagnetic spectrum.

You say you're not a creationist, yet you see all the evidence that indicates evolution, with all the remains ancestors to modern humans found in the earth, and simply say that, as obvious as the transitions are, that's not what happened. You don't even have a completing hypothesis, or evidence to anything that contradicts evolution, yet you refuse to accept it because, let's face it, you know archaeology, geology, and genetics far better than anyone who went to school 8 years specifically for those things would.

Oops... I seem to have lost my buttocks.

Congratulations! You just just failed your reading comprehension test. Better luck next time.

The point of my argument was not that a specific definition of the number of lumens required to be called bright, but rather that a better term needs to be used. Rather than saying "it was bright" one you should say "it was 974 lumens."

Unfortunately the theory of evolution is unable to make specific, clear, measurable predictions. It's kind of like astrology in that way.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that I was somehow miraculously convinced by your complete lack of logic and evidence. Let's say I suddenly thought that it was possible, and often occurred, that genetic drift suddenly threw animals into ill-defined and wholly imaginary groups called species. How would that further your point?

I must be missing the logic. Let me recap.

1. The frequency of alleles changes.
2. Sometimes this frequency of alleles creates new species (accepted only for the sake of argument).

THEREFORE

All living species share a common ancestor.
----------------
I must be missing a step in the logical chain. What might that step be?

 

[Delphiki]

I must be missing the logic. Let me recap.

1. The frequency of alleles changes.
2. Sometimes this frequency of alleles creates new species (accepted only for the sake of argument).

THEREFORE

All living species share a common ancestor.
----------------
I must be missing a step in the logical chain. What might that step be?

Yeah, you're missing more than one step. You're missing an entire theory and some number of marbles as well.

As I've already explained, there is no "law of genetic change rate" because the changes are inconsistent. Mutations are largely random, and populations vary from species to species.

The conclusion of a common ancestor isn't simply reached on the basis of genetic variation alone. There's correlation in the geological column, for starters, which plainly shows the variation happening and how. Humans have even applied environmental pressures on countless species through recorded and modern history that proves it happens. You can't arrive at any broad conclusion by simply looking at one specific discovery.

- The moon was crescent the other day
- Now it's half
- Therefore, heliocentric solar system

Your conclusion is correct, you're just really bad at logic or science... probably literature and math too.

Read a book.

 

[Delphiki]

Oh, and yes, your "point" was pretty much that since we can't draw a distinct line through species that will apply to every living thing alive and dead, evolution must not happen.

So unless you can tell me how many lumens is "bright", then the electromagnetic spectrum must not exist.

 

[Zosimus]

Oh, and yes, your "point" was pretty much that since we can't draw a distinct line through species that will apply to every living thing alive and dead, evolution must not happen.

So unless you can tell me how many lumens is "bright", then the electromagnetic spectrum must not exist.

Not at all. I have never denied that the frequency of alleles might not change from generation to generation.

 

[Zosimus]

Yeah, you're missing more than one step. You're missing an entire theory and some number of marbles as well.

As I've already explained, there is no "law of genetic change rate" because the changes are inconsistent. Mutations are largely random, and populations vary from species to species.

The conclusion of a common ancestor isn't simply reached on the basis of genetic variation alone. There's correlation in the geological column, for starters, which plainly shows the variation happening and how. Humans have even applied environmental pressures on countless species through recorded and modern history that proves it happens. You can't arrive at any broad conclusion by simply looking at one specific discovery.

- The moon was crescent the other day
- Now it's half
- Therefore, heliocentric solar system

Your conclusion is correct, you're just really bad at logic or science... probably literature and math too.

Read a book.

You are aware, of course, that the heliocentric model is false, aren't you? The Sun is not the center of the universe, nor do the planets in the solar system go round the sun.

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf

"Although it is convenient to think of the Sun as the stationary anchor of our solar system, it actually moves as the planets tug on it, causing it to orbit the solar system's barycenter. The Sun never strays too far from the solar system
barycenter."