(April 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:The species definition you linked to is ambiguous and doesn't give a single definition suitable for all purposes. Did you even read it? I would say nice try back to you, but it wasn't even a nice try. Heck, it gives one definition, then says "failing that..." and gives another, thereby demonstrating my point.(April 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm)alpha male Wrote: Yes. So is family. So is species - there's no single definition suitable for all purposes. So what?
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
There is a definition for both. Nice try.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 16, 2024, 10:43 pm
Thread Rating:
A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)