Replies

Squishy definitions, like SPECIES.

The definition of "species" is not "squishy". It is somewhat ambiguous at borders, because of the nature of speciation, but the term is well-understood regardless.

Crappy logic like evolution is both a theory and a fact.

How is this logic "crappy"? Please explain to show that you understand what is meant by the statement.

The definition of "species" is not "squishy". It is somewhat ambiguous at borders, because of the nature of speciation, but the term is well-understood regardless.<<

Since the advent of the theory of evolution, the conception of species has undergone vast changes in biology; however no consensus on the definition of the word has yet been reached. The most commonly cited definition of "species" was first coined by Ernst Mayr. By this definition, called the biological species concept or isolation species concept, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". However, many other species concepts are also used (see other definitions of species below).<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

That doesn't sound squishy to you? It is not well understood, it is flexible to the point of uselessness.

>>Crappy logic like evolution is both a theory and a fact.<<

>>How is this logic "crappy"? Please explain to show that you understand what is meant by the statement.<<

Evolution cannot be both a theory and a fact. Biologists have been remiss in their duty to use language rigorously. ToEs attempt to explain the observations that are really the fossil record. Of course once you say the word evolution, everything gets written in stone (I hope you appreciate that!). Now we have whole populations of scientists that think in terms of evolution...but they really don't have mountains of results from it.

The psych term for it is homosocial reproduction. You choose your successor based on self image.

This is a mechanism that helps assure paradigm shifts won't occur easily. But we are near one in biology. I'm looking forward to it.

I have mentioned several biological tech advances that don't require any evolutionary belief or training, but are far more important to humanity. When I ask about the usefulness of ToEs, I get sent to pages that describe computer genetic algorithms that spit out obscure circuit designs or other bizarre fringy stuff.

But there is one thing I have to note:

Please explain to show that you understand what is meant by the statement.

I have not asked you to show me that you know what you write. I may dispute what you write. I may disagree with you. I may try to persuade you. I may ask more about things you say. If insulted, I WILL return the favor. I will always remind the pompous if they said something foolish. A very bright moron once said we don't use epistemology in science. I still laugh at him and he hates it.

So why am I obligated to prove my knowledge to you?

BTW I love citations.

This is not a tagline or a gotcha, I would really like to know why you feel that?

DK

"The definition of 'species' is not 'squishy'. It is somewhat ambiguous at borders, because of the nature of speciation, but the term is well-understood regardless."

LOL

It is somewhat ambiguous at borders, because of the nature of speciation

That is circular logic at its finest.