A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds

[Duke Guilmon]

[quote='ThePaleolithicFreethinker' pid='657496' Ya again no. We can tell what a species is. If you want a more detailed explanation just ask.

OK, let's hear it.

Also to add lets read it shall we.

Sure!

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.

Usually and failing that indicate ambiguity. Further, definitions based on fertility are not applicable in paleontology.

Failing that means that the offspring that two different species has like a (lion and a tiger making a liger) can not have offspring.

Except, female ligers are fertile. So, you fail three ways.
[/quote]

Its bad to see that I already put the defenition there.

A. It does not say failing in indication. Did you read the source from Berkeley I gave you? Also it means failing to reproduce.

B. So what? A female liger is fertile, some species can interbreed some can't. Are you suggesting tigers and lions are the same species? If so source the paper

C. we can tell different species in paleontology. There is more than just DNA. Anatomical structures are another way. This is sad to see that on your part.

So not only did I give you definitions for the word species and the fact we can tell, you had to quote mine the source twice without reading it, and you are trying to take down the word species in order to make kind look good. So I can give a valid definitions of species and I can keep doing it, the problem is that you just want to make species look vague so you can use the word kind.