Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The ambiguity of species definition is a reflection of different contexts, perspectives and times.
Species do not exist in nature. They are classifier intended to organise our descriptions and observations of organisms. They are a system that is there for convenience. It simplifies discussion about organisms, their behaviour and relationships. Somewhat different definitions facilitate different types of discussion. If this makes you uncomfortable, confused, or frustrated that is - unfortunately - your problem. The only solution I know of is a combination of acceptance and education. Your choice.
Cut to the chase. Here's the difference:
Chimps in 1900
View attachment 300722
and in 1969
View attachment 300724
Men in 1900
View attachment 300725
Men in 1969.
View attachment 300726
Then I referenced a post; not a definition. Please be precise.
Another dodge on giving an unambiguous definition for "species".
No need for emotions. Don't be sorry; let's be rational about the matter and define our terms.
Cut to the chase. Here's the difference:
Chimps in 1900
View attachment 300722
and in 1969
View attachment 300724
It is not a problem in the way think. Species are classified according to the available evidence.Sorry, not my problem ... yours.
The concept of species is flawed. So why is it so important to us?
At its most basic, this traditional species concept, useful for theoretically dividing up life into groups is flawed for a number of reasons.Species concept - Wikipedia
The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.The Species Problem: A Conceptual Problem?
Few biological problems have remained as consistently challenging through the past two centuries as the species problem.
Cousins is descriptive of closeness, I do realize though that for some people brothers would be closer.Chimpanzees are not our cousins.
Agreed, but without the Crisco and sugar, it is quite good, just doesn't have much of a shelf life.Either way, it's just Crisco made to taste like peanuts.
Okay, that's funny.Cousins is descriptive of closeness, I do realize though that for some people brothers would be closer.
Well, let's try to figure this out. You're not an evolutionist, you post frequently in the "Creation & Evolution" forum, you have no definitions for key terms in evo theory, you don't care about them anyway, and you ask others to defend evo theory.I'm not dodging. If you want a good definition(s) for species, check a biology textbook. I work with what ever definition(s) they have.
Macro/micro, I don't care. I know these terms mostly from creationist claims and posts.
Exactly! We don't need a new chimp picture for 1969.Those are literally the same picture, with one in color, the other monochrome. At best the picture comes from only one of those years.
Well, let's try to figure this out. You're not an evolutionist, you post frequently in the "Creation & Evolution" forum, you have no definitions for key terms in evo theory, you don't care about them anyway, and you ask others to defend evo theory.
Then I guess you must be a "Creationist".
Third rate rhetoric. One of my cousins was a welder in a shipyard. Another, somewhat more distant, was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.Cut to the chase. Here's the difference:
Well, now who's being unfair. I presently favor Process Structuralism as an evo theory. I posted that a fundamental problem with other evo theories is an over reliance on randomness. In a presumed determined universe, claiming randomness is simply to admit ignorance. Structuralism not only introduces constraints on that randomness but explains convergence as well as divergence. Once the physicists get involved, quantam mechanics will move, IMHO, the ball even further toward a coherent theory of a directed evolution. Stay tuned.To be fair to you, you can be critical of science but where you are unfair is in your attempt to cheapen evolutionary science because of things that not be clear to you.
Good. You're profession is in the batter's box.I'm not an evolutionist since I do not study evolution professionally and I reject your attempt to label me as such. I am a physicist, not because I accept the world described by physics, but because it is my profession.
Good. You're profession is in the batter's box.
Wake me when that happens.Well, now who's being unfair. I presently favor Process Structuralism as an evo theory. I posted that a fundamental problem with other evo theories is an over reliance on randomness. In a presumed determined universe, claiming randomness is simply to admit ignorance. Structuralism not only introduces constraints on that randomness but explains convergence as well as divergence. Once the physicists get involved, quantam mechanics will move, IMHO, the ball even further toward a coherent theory of a directed evolution. Stay tuned.
Thank you. I take it you give me a "C". I didn't think it was all that good.Third rate rhetoric.
I think you are making my point.One of my cousins was a welder in a shipyard. Another, somewhat more distant, was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Citations, please.Lest you need a translation - cousins are similar, but they are not identical. Moreover your picture illustrates cultural evolution, not biological evolution. And, for that matter, chimps also exhibit cultural evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?