RE: Creationist "Kind" - A Classification with No Definition
March 18, 2018 at 11:41 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2018 at 11:49 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(March 18, 2018 at 10:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(March 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Actually no because kind is not a valid definition for species in biology. Which is why it's not used in biology . Thus it remains undefined and only retains validity in the imaginations of creationists . Dumbass .
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/t...iology/v-1
Quote:The issue of natural kinds in biology is important because such kinds serve as a basis for prediction and explanation in science. Furthermore, biological kinds are taken to be real categories in nature. For these reasons, the topic of natural kinds in biology is of special interest to the philosophy of science and metaphysics.
You were saying?
That goes for your butt boi Anomalocaris also.
Butt boi? Tsk tsk. What would Jesus do to your butt when he heard such language.. I guess you don't really believe in him to use such language, do you now...
You do realize you actually have to quote from articles in the field before you can pretend to have gotten you paws on a gotcha in that field, right? Quoting carpenter about iron working might be cute, but doesn't say you have any clue about what the fuck you are talking about.
And you know quoting within the field just get you to the pretend stage, right?
You actually need to understand the article and be able to assess it's standing in the field before you get past the clowning around stage, right? You need to, gasp, study the subject! But if you did that, Where would you find time to be jesus' butt boi?
Try some humility. No amount is enough for you but any amount would be a enormous improvement for you.
