A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds

[Duke Guilmon]

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.

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.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...cies.shtml

Ya again no. We can tell what a species is. If you want a more detailed explanation just ask.

Also to add lets read it shall we.

An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

Failing that means that the offspring that two different species has like a (lion and a tiger making a liger) can not have offspring. So it means failing at making a offspring that can reproduced. Try again and one more thing man

---

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.

Prepare yourself for redefining the words, or failing that, the rules that define the words themselves.

Like when you point out a contradiction in a holy text, and theists reply with "well if you redefine what a contradiction is it's no longer a contradiction!"

:-|

^ your comment was on point he in fact tried to get rid of the definition.