A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds

[John V]

[Duke Guilmon]

[John V]

[quote='ThePaleolithicFreethinker' pid='657496' Ya again no. We can tell what a species is. If you want a more detailed explanation just ask.[/QUOTE]
OK, let's hear it.
[quote]Also to add lets read it shall we.[/quote]
Sure!
[quote]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.[/quote]
Usually and failing that indicate ambiguity. Further, definitions based on fertility are not applicable in paleontology.
[quote]Failing that means that the offspring that two different species has like a (lion and a tiger making a liger) can not have offspring.[/quote]
Except, female ligers are fertile. So, you fail three ways.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[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]

Except in reading comprehension, understanding of Biology, and knowing Alpha Male is dumb as a sack of bricks.

[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.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Can't wait to see these semantic acrobatics from someone with Alpha Male's third grade reading ability. Perhaps he'll be able to source a paper and sound out enough of the "big words" by following them along the screen with his finger to make a truly entertaining argument.

[Duke Guilmon]

Can't wait to see these semantic acrobatics from someone with Alpha Male's third grade reading ability. Perhaps he'll be able to source a paper and sound out enough of the "big words" by following them along the screen with his finger to make a truly entertaining argument.

Most creationist don't read past the abstract.

[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."

[Duke Guilmon]