A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds

[John V]

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

And? I didn't say that no definition exists. I said that the definitions are vague and "there's no single definition suitable for all purposes." Your own sources support me on this. You're arguing against a straw man.

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

Yes, I did. Did you read past the first paragraph? That source also agrees with me that the BSC has ambiguities and isn't suitable for all purposes.:

That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not—in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually. a dividing streptococcus bacterium

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups—but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?[quote]
[quote]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

Is a liger a species?

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.

We apparently don't classify fossils by their reproductive capabilities, so give me the definition of species used in paleontology. If you can do this, you'll further support my claim that "there's no single definition suitable for all purposes."