|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: A Few Simple Questions |
 |
|
I have a few questions for apobetics, adman, Gabriel, old man joe, Ray
Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
of evolution?
What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
to the theory of evolution?
Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
address it?
I await your postings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
|
And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! 
| Quote: |
earle
*
Spin -- you're a fucking idiot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 27 Jun, 23:28, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Brazen and blatant lie: we have argued and shown evolution to be
scientifically false. I have personally shown evolution to be a false
interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
mechanism to accomplish change.
On the issue of evolution being false, you have declared that you have |
evidence that will refute the theory of evolution but you have NEVER
presented it.
And why is that?
Because you claim it is taking along time to put together a "quality
work" for publication.
If your evidence is so damn good, you should present it to everyone
right here and right now.
Otherwise you will continue to make yourself look a complete fool in
front of everyone in these newsgroups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 28 Jun, 01:14, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article
0fbe1a28-bc3b-43b6-82bb-ebecd2846...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I have a few questions for apobetics, adman, Gabriel, old man joe, Ray
Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
of evolution?
***
In the spirit of saving those busy people (especially Ray!) some time, I
will provide the answer that they would come up with: Genesis 1:1.
I hope that is clear to you.
***
What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
to the theory of evolution?
***
Young-earth creationism.
***
Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
address it?
***
The Holy Bible (King James Version)
***
earle
*
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dana Tweedy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:926d720f-2bfd-4c82-bffd-bd8c1e3cde52@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 12:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0dd66fe4-6a2f-4b57-9d34-a27d5035cc91@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
of evolution on religious grounds.
We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
Yet you haven't produced any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
You've only offered religious objections. Whatscientific findings to you
feel are in conflict with evolutionary theory?
Brazen and blatant lie: we have argued and shown evolution to be
scientifically false.
|
Who is the "we" you are referring to, Ray, and when did anyone "show" this?
You've made the claim, but never, ever produced any scientific reason to
accept your claim.
| Quote: |
I have personally shown evolution to be a false
interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
mechanism to accomplish change.
|
When have you done this? You've made some wild claims, and bizarre
assertions, but never shown any reason to accept your claims.
The mechanism of evolution is well known. Variation in populations and
natural selection acting on those variations over generations has been
demonstrated in many studies to produce allele frequency change in those
populations.
For examples see:
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evol_3/0,8018,849374-,00.html
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/04/09/news/shaw/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm
Most recently, a study of E. coli bacteria by Dr. Richard Lenski has shown
the emergence of a new ability of E. coli to use Citrate.
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
Certainly you have heard of this, you even commented on a thread about this
study recently.
Why do you claim there is no mechanism, when the mechanism is not only well
known, but demonstrated in many scientific studies to work?
| Quote: |
What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
"kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature
belongs
to?
Genesis tells us plainly what a "kind" is.
|
What chapter and verse, please. What is a "kind" according to Genesis?
| Quote: |
Your question contains a
false presupposition.
|
Such as? Also, the above demonstrates your "scientific" concepts to be
nothing of the kind.
| Quote: |
Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
What verse or verses are you referring to?
Maybe it was a "typo" and he meant Genesis, as in Genesis 7:14.
"They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all
livestock
according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything
with
wings."
That being said, do you agree that "everything with wings" is a bird?
|
No answer, Ray? Are any animals with wings, birds?
| Quote: |
Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
female) tells us the answer.
Ray, can you please explain how Noah managed to get a pair of every
species
(both living and now extinct) into the "Ark" with the dimentions
described
in the Bible, and keep them alive for over a year? Here's some other
practical problems with the Noah's Ark
story.....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
DJT
First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
|
But not nearly large enough to carry representatives of all species. Even
creationist authors have acknowledged this. Woodmorappe's book tries to
solve the problem by severely limiting the number of "kinds", but he still
comes up with over 130,000 individual animals. You don't have that
ability, as you've claimed that species are immutable, and such
"kind"=species.
| Quote: |
It was over
two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
|
Even at 200 yards long, it would still be much too small for the job.
See:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13377.htm
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/insurmountable_problems_of_ark.htm
| Quote: |
And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
|
Even if you ignore the marine species, (which would have been killed by such
a global flood), all plant species, and the millions of species of insects,
the Ark is still too small. You are the one who is trying to claim that
species are immutable, so that there can't be any evolution within 'kinds'
to reduce the number of individuals on board the Ark. Do you have any idea
how many species of land animals there are, and were? There are at least
20,000 species of ammonites (ie land dwelling vertibrates, excluding
amphibians). Double that number (and multiply by 7 for "clean" animals) and
maybe you'd get some idea of the sheer biomass involved.
Then, what about extinct land vertibrates ? There are over 300 known
genera of dinosaurs, some of which were the largest land animals ever known.
How many species of Apatosaurus, Stegasaurs, Brachiosaurus,
Pachycephalosaurs, Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians, etc did Noah have to make room
for? What about the large Carnivorious dinos? Are Tyrannosaurs clean,
or unclean? Can you imagine trying to care for seven pairs of T. rex?
Then, you have the large extinct mammals. Not only do you have the two
species of Elephants living today, but the dozens of species of Mammoths,
Mastodons, etc. There are many more species of extinct Rhinos than are
alive today, and the Titanotheres (10 foot tall), Entelodonts (think of
pigs, 7 feet tall) and other megafauna. Why were they left off the
Ark?
| Quote: |
So what are you talking about?
|
I'm talking about the insurmountable practical problems with the Noah's Ark
story, not the least of all is the impossibility of getting representatives
of both living and extinct species onto the boat, and keeping them alive for
over a year. Have you ever considered that problem? Even if you only
are dealing with land animals (which would have died out without plant
species) the space available within an "Ark" is just too small.
Then you have the problem of caring for the animals with only a crew of 8.
The fact that many animals require specialized food, fresh water, exercise
space, light, waste removal, etc, etc, etc... has to be addressed as well.
DJT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Earle Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:14 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
In article
<0fbe1a28-bc3b-43b6-82bb-ebecd2846cff@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Devil's Advocaat" <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
I have a few questions for apobetics, adman, Gabriel, old man joe, Ray
Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
of evolution?
|
***
In the spirit of saving those busy people (especially Ray!) some time, I
will provide the answer that they would come up with: Genesis 1:1.
I hope that is clear to you.
***
| Quote: |
What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
to the theory of evolution?
|
***
Young-earth creationism.
***
| Quote: |
Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
address it?
|
***
The Holy Bible (King James Version)
***
earle
* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Earle Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
Martin Andersen <dur@ikke.nu> wrote:
| Quote: |
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
|
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
earle
*
Spin -- you're a fucking idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mark VandeWettering
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 2008-06-27, Devil's Advocaat <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 27 Jun, 19:33, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2008-06-27, Devil's Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I have a few questions for apobetics, adman, Gabriel, old man joe, Ray
Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
of evolution?
What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
to the theory of evolution?
Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
address it?
I await your postings.
Honestly, what is the purpose of these kind of postings? Do you
honestly think that suddenly someone is going to come forward with
something we haven't seen before? Or even more unlikely, that whatever
response you have in mind will convince them of the error of their ways?
I like to bait people as much as the next guy, but how many thousand
times do you have to ask Ray Martinez these kinds of questions before
you just get bored and move on?
Mark
I am not just aiming my questions at Ray Martinez, but at all those
who seem to have difficultly backing up their claims with supporting
evidence that doesn't contain any references to matter that fall
outside of the realm of real scientific inquiry. Its a simple request,
which should be simple enough for them to answer.
|
Isn't this kind of passive/aggressive? I mean honestly, they will hang
themselves out to dry by the stuff they say unprompted: why bother
asking them to stick their heads into the noose?
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Wombat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 28 Jun, 00:28, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 12:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0dd66fe4-6a2f-4b57-9d34-a27d5035cc91@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
of evolution on religious grounds.
We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
Yet you haven't produced any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
You've only offered religious objections. Whatscientific findings to you
feel are in conflict with evolutionary theory?
Brazen and blatant lie: we have argued and shown evolution to be
scientifically false. I have personally shown evolution to be a false
interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
mechanism to accomplish change.
What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
"kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature belongs
to?
Genesis tells us plainly what a "kind" is. Your question contains a
false presupposition.
Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
What verse or verses are you referring to?
Maybe it was a "typo" and he meant Genesis, as in Genesis 7:14.
"They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock
according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with
wings."
That being said, do you agree that "everything with wings" is a bird?
Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
female) tells us the answer.
Ray, can you please explain how Noah managed to get a pair of every species
(both living and now extinct) into the "Ark" with the dimentions described
in the Bible, and keep them alive for over a year? Here's some other
practical problems with the Noah's Ark story.....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
DJT
First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive. It was over
two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
|
Yes, and what stops such a huge, wooden vessel either breaking up
under its own weight, breaking up under the stresses of hogging and
sagging or, since it was unpowered, broaching to in the massive waves
in your flood and being turned over?
Wombat
| Quote: |
And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
So what are you talking about?
Ray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:47 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
Devil's Advocaat <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots!
|
I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Painter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
| Quote: |
On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
|
I know a woman who is a witch. She can make almost any man turn into a
motel.
(They were auto courts when I first heard that.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:28:57 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 12:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0dd66fe4-6a2f-4b57-9d34-a27d5035cc91@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
of evolution on religious grounds.
We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
Yet you haven't produced any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
You've only offered religious objections. Whatscientific findings to you
feel are in conflict with evolutionary theory?
Brazen and blatant lie:
|
From you? Yes, but we have come to expect that Dishonest Ray.
| Quote: |
we have argued and shown evolution to be
scientifically false.
|
Liar!
| Quote: |
I have personally shown evolution to be a false
|
Liar!
| Quote: |
interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
mechanism to accomplish change.
|
Liar!
| Quote: |
What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
"kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature belongs
to?
Genesis tells us plainly what a "kind" is.
|
Then how come there are so many different explanations.
| Quote: |
Your question contains a
false presupposition.
Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
What verse or verses are you referring to?
Maybe it was a "typo" and he meant Genesis, as in Genesis 7:14.
"They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock
according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with
wings."
That being said, do you agree that "everything with wings" is a bird?
Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
female) tells us the answer.
Ray, can you please explain how Noah managed to get a pair of every species
(both living and now extinct) into the "Ark" with the dimentions described
in the Bible, and keep them alive for over a year? Here's some other
practical problems with the Noah's Ark story.....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
DJT
First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
|
So impossibly massive that we know it cannot be real on that basis
alone.
| Quote: |
It was over
two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
|
Cite?
The Royal Cubit, which seems to have been the one most used in that
part of the world, is 523.881mm or 20.6252362inches. So, you need to
back up this 25" claim.
| Quote: |
And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
|
It does imply it.
| Quote: |
So what are you talking about?
|
Reality. What are you talking about?
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Vernon Balbert
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 6/27/2008 9:47 PM, John Wilkins went clickity clack on the keyboard
and produced this interesting bit of text:
| Quote: |
Devil's Advocaat <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
|
The hospital I was born in turned into a Scientology building.
--
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-
bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the
road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. - Douglas
Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mark VandeWettering
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 2008-06-28, Devil's Advocaat <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots!
|
I've never seen a man-eating lion, but I have seen a man eating cabbage.
Mark
| Quote: |
earle
*
Spin -- you're a fucking idiot.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
Martin Andersen <dur@ikke.nu> wrote:
| Quote: |
John Wilkins wrote:
Martin Andersen <dur@ikke.nu> wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <4864fa65$0$90271$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Martin Andersen
dur@ikke.nu> writes
John Wilkins wrote:
Martin Andersen <dur@ikke.nu> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
Species don't merge. They split.
Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
How does that work out if species are defined the way they are? IOW.
how can they hybridize if they aren't interfertile?
Species aren't defined the way that you think they are. Absolute
reproductive isolation between species is not part of the definition.
Then how are they defined? 50% reproductive isolation? 75%? Anything
less than 100%?
There's no magic number. Species may range from 0.0001% genetic exchange
per generation to 100%, and interbreeding can range similarly. The thing
to realise about species is that they are not all of one type. What
works well for mammals may not work well for birds (especially ducks),
insects, arthropods, crustaceans, flowering plants, ferns, or bacteria.
Each group of organisms has a common or typical kinds of species, but
even then there are exceptions, like the asexual lizards we keep
finding.
Ernest Major may say that he's a species-realist, but you and him make
it sound like the concept is completely illusory. I'm a little shocked
that appearantly there isn't any "magic number", or even several for all
the major groups, that you use in your line of work. As if species
classification is as vague as determining the genre of music and equally
unneccesary.
Is "species", as a term used by biologists, going the way of the "race"?
That "race" would vanish as a meaningful biological term I could
understand, since you guys figured out that the meaningful resolution to
look at these things is at the allele level, but what about "species"?
|
The assumption here is that things named as species aren't real if
there's nothing universally and uniquely true of all of them. I like to
compare "species" with "mountain". Now try to tell somone that this
mountain over here is not a real thing...
| Quote: |
As long ago as the 1840s, naturalists like Darwin were rejecting
interfertility as the test of being a species. It turns out there is not
set of necessary and sufficient properties that all and only species
have. Instead, species are like a family in themselves: you can see the
family resemblances, but no single member has everything that the family
represents.
As you may recall, horses and donkeys are interfertile. If you do more
research you can find observations between many other pairs of species
(for example any group of birds widely kept in aviaries - such as
waterfowl, gamefowl, parrot, pigeons, hawks, falcons, finches - has
numerous hybrids known).
|
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
