[Dimensio]

You're right. It won't falsify a concept, but does mean you literally don't KNOW what you are talking about. Epistemology hurts.

This is not always the case. It may simply be a lack of communication, where the speaker understand what they mean, but they are unsuccessful in communicating the ideas to others.

Ambiguity in a definition is NEVER good for a scientific explanation.

In this case the ambiguity is simply a consequence of biology not conforming to rigid standards, which is a result of evolution. However, even in the rare cases where "species" becomes ambiguous, there are still means of making distinctions, such as what occurs with "ring species".

Ambiguity in a central definition in a theory is even worse for a theory.

True, however there is no ambiguity in a "central definition" in the theory of evolution.

Reproductive isolation depends on KNOWING isolation occurs.

I do not understand what point you are trying to make. There are known instances of reproductive isolation.

It is a much higher standard than biologists can apply in the real world.

Could you substantiate this assertion?

Either in bones from the past, or current species there is no island, continent, nor ocean that biologists can can claim with reasonable certainty is isolated. Life finds a way.

You are suggesting that a concept in science is not known with complete certainty. This is a meaningless statement, however, because it is true of all concepts in science.

Evolutionist make the claim it is a theory and a fact. Bad definitions again. Crappy science.

Again, this is not a failing of the theory, but rather a failing of those who make the statement without further qualifying it. Evolution as a "fact" refers to the observed events of alelle frequency changes over time. Evolution as a "theory" refers to the body of knowledge explaining common descent of all existing species from common ancestry.

Precisely. See "Black Box" below and then reread your definition of theory.

Very well.

The Black Box stuff avoids actually having to explain a phemonemon. By your own definitions, it defies being a theory. Crappy science.

Evolutionists love to overstate the importance of the "theory/fact".

How do you mean?

Again, if you mean principles like "things change" and it is a "Black Box", that is hardly useful.

I do not understand what you mean by those two phrases, especially "Black Box".

What major applications depend on a ToE in either antibiotic research or agriculure?

Understanding evolution of bacteria is very important for doctors working with antibiotics. The implications for agriculture can be employed to apply specific reproductive pressures to encourage the emergence of traits in the majority of a population of a specific crop.

Or is it good geneticists doing their work in specific, articulable, and scientfic ways with Evolutionists highjacking the credit?

If you believe that any credit is being "hijacked", I would ask you to provide specific examples.

Evolution is political science.

This is an assertion, not an example.

[Dark Knight]

This is not always the case. It may simply be a lack of communication, where the speaker understand what they mean, but they are unsuccessful in communicating the ideas to others.<<

That doesn't sound like a useful case in science. How would you KNOW they understood?

In this case the ambiguity is simply a consequence of biology not conforming to rigid standards, which is a result of evolution. However, even in the rare cases where "species" becomes ambiguous, there are still means of making distinctions, such as what occurs with "ring species".<<

Thanks for the "ring species" comment, I had to look it up.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

I found this comment the most telling:

>>The two groups gradually became different as they moved south. When they met again in southern California, the two expanding fronts were so different that they rarely interbred, and were therefore different species. <<

The still interbreed and are still declared a new species.

>>The birds distinguish between these differences; males respond aggressively to tape recordings of their own songs, thinking that another male has invaded their territory, but they do not respond to songs of the other form. In most species of songbirds, songs play an important role in mate choice; usually, only males sing, and females listen to songs when deciding which male to choose as a mate.12 <<

They tested the wrong thing and came to a bad conclusion. Is the access to females enhanced when they other birds do not provoke an aggressive response. They should have been testing the female response.

Bird studies are problematical. Many bird "species" do interbreed, they just don't get caught by the observing scientist. If the birds can physically and successfully reproduce together, and are not isolated from each other, it probably happens. Isolation is a difficult concept especially for birds, since they have been known to catch a ride on jet streams unexpectedly. I loved the story about the american bird, (I don't recall which species, sorry) showed up in Britain in front of droves of bird watchers, and was promptly eaten by a another bird in front of them.

>>Either in bones from the past, or current species there is no island, continent, nor ocean that biologists can can claim with reasonable certainty is isolated. Life finds a way.

You are suggesting that a concept in science is not known with complete certainty. This is a meaningless statement, however, because it is true of all concepts in science.<<

Sorry, that is not what I am suggesting. I have given a mechanism for nonisolation of birds. Jet streams. The oceans are not isolated physically from each other, there is intermixing, we just don't know the extent. If scientists ignore those factors, in the quest to be right...ToEs occur that really aren't very effective or useful.

>>What major applications depend on a ToE in either antibiotic research or agriculure?

Understanding evolution of bacteria is very important for doctors working with antibiotics. The implications for agriculture can be employed to apply specific reproductive pressures to encourage the emergence of traits in the majority of a population of a specific crop.<<

There is that pesky question about does the devolopement of resistance in a bacterium really indicate evolution of the bacterium or just a change within the same entity that can easily and under the same mechanism change back. I do admit though without evolution, we could not have conquered HIV, the common cold, and cancer.

I am also pleased to know that evolution has replaced Mendelian genetics on the farm. An the GM crops...oops that is intelligent design, sorry.

>>Evolution is political science.

This is an assertion, not an example.<<

Unfortunately it is more than an assertion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585018/posts

If the tools ToEs provide were as powerful as the fanatics that wrote this article suggest, everyone would be flocking to them. They aren't and there is a reason.

It's not that useful.

DK