The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[ironduck]

That's a concise definition? It says that it doesn't follow that if two species cannot 'hybridize' that they do not belong to the same kind. In other words, there is no clear definition of 'kinds' other than a theory that the current species originate from them. Not very useful, is it?

 

[civ2]

One more thing to add to what classical_hero wrote:
The "scientific" definition of a species DOES NOT actually "DEFINE" it!
It's rather like taking a random group of elements out of a variety and "grouping" them according to your wish!
The very word "species" has NO real-life meaning!
With just the same ease you can call all mammals one species and all birds the other one.
And that would be still logically correct!
There is only one somewhat real-life grouping - a population of animals.
But this has nothing to do with any definition of species - though looks quite similar.
I mean that the nowadays species-definition and eg. Lamarkian (or any other) one are basically equal in that they don't reflect the real life - only a "language-like" feature.
I mean as much as the very words are based on agreement between people - so are the "species".
Best example - not ALL people can interbreed for different reasons (including physical and relationship-based) - would you call it a different species?
And the last thing (I already said this):
Scientists never really examined ALL the species - not even a single percent of them.
They couldn't do it simply because they didn't make "Noah's job" of collecting all the animals all over the globe.
If someone states he found a new species - what can he provide as a proof?
Only the outside look of that new-found animal - nothing more.
So how would you know whether that animal can or can't interbred with another million of close species?
Especially insects.
Try to realize this please.

 

[Perfection]

One more thing to add to what classical_hero wrote:
The "scientific" definition of a species DOES NOT actually "DEFINE" it!

What definition are you refering to?

It's rather like taking a random group of elements out of a variety and "grouping" them according to your wish!

Generally, reproductive barriers provide the differentiation among species.

Best example - not ALL people can interbreed for different reasons (including physical and relationship-based) - would you call it a different species?

Of course not, because the fact is that the vast majority of post-menstrel-pre-menopausal females can succesfuly have children with the vast majority post-pubescent males.

Scientists never really examined ALL the species - not even a single percent of them.

By saying this you are implicitly giving credence to the idea of a real world definition of a species...

So how would you know whether that animal can or can't interbred with another million of close species?

You overestimate the amount of species that a biologist has to take into account. Generally since insects are often confined to a relatively small area, only the local insects are ones you have to worry about.

Really though, you're just looking for cases where the species definition finds a few ambigious cases, which certainly do exist. However, the existance of ambigious cases doesn't make the non-ambigious cases ambigious or the definition deeply flawed.

 

[civ2]

Perf
Nay, I just wanna say that the scientists never or rarely take a population of "the new species" and try to interbreed it with all its neighbours.
But how then can they be sure it's not just another color variation or something similar?
(Actually I never heard of any such attempts at all! I doubt if scientists do it. They definitely often rely on the outside descriptions.)
Also - flying insects are not quite glued to a certain area - they can easily migrate many miles in a short time and gain a new look though remaining the same species.
And even more the birds.
(Basicallly ALL animals and even plants can migrate all over the world as fast a the wind. Especially together with people.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

And about the croc - WHY then it didn't become a whale-like creature???

You are aware there have been marine crocs with flippers and tail-fins?

 

[civ2]

"Have been".
Any living examples HUH???

 

[Perfection]

Perf
Nay, I just wanna say that the scientists never or rarely take a population of "the new species" and try to interbreed it with all its neighbours.
But how then can they be sure it's not just another color variation or something similar?
(Actually I never heard of any such attempts at all! I doubt if scientists do it. They definitely often rely on the outside descriptions.)

It sounds like you're arguing from a point of total ignorance, I'm not an entomologist and I have relatively little knowledge in entomology so I can't really answer your questions on thier methology. However, given the fact that you have no idea of how entomologists actually do thier jobs I really don't think you're in a position to criticise.

Also - flying insects are not quite glued to a certain area - they can easily migrate many miles in a short time and gain a new look though remaining the same species.

A few miles isn't very far. I'd hazard to gues most insect species fall within those confines.

And even more the birds.

I wasn't talking about birds, don't put words in my mouth.

(Basicallly ALL animals and even plants can migrate all over the world as fast a the wind. Especially together with people.)

I think you're understimating the importance of regionalism when it comes to most insects.

 

[Babbler]

The boundaries of the ‘kind’ do not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as ‘species’, genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the term ‘kind’, it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system, not the term ‘kind’.

What the difference between 'kind' and Linnaeus nomenclature? They are both man made.

 

[warpus]

I can't believe somebody (ie. Civ2) would ridicule the scientific definition of 'species' while supporting the creatonist definition of 'kind'..

especially considering that the definition of kind seems to be if they look the same then they are of the same kind.

Wow.. that's pretty scientific!

 

[Pyrite]

It had to be simple to gain acceptance from the population base of those who support these sort of beliefs..

 

[civ2]

Perf
Only thing you can do is say I'm not educated to critisize - but you also say YOU aren't educated (eg. entimologist).
How come you know what do I know?

warpus
I didn't say a word about "creationist kind".
I just tell that the scientists never could examine if their theoretical species are really "specific" in the real life.
for this they would need some 1000 of each species taken into breeding reactions with some other 10000 individs.
(Or similar numbers big enough to prove the statistics reliable.)

 

[Perfection]

Perf
Only thing you can do is say I'm not educated to critisize - but you also say YOU aren't educated (eg. entimologist).

Indeed, that's why I'M not criticizing what they do! I don't criticize how a profession does their job when I don't even now how they do it.

How come you know what do I know?

God told me.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That is a concise definition.

How, if I may ask, could land vertebrate kinds diversify massively post-deluge if no new "information" was added beyond that contained in the very small genepools of the critters on the Ark? Did each individual have multiple genomes or what?

 

[civ2]

Perf
But you do critisize my critics - so you show that you "know" about them.
Otherwise you wouldnt critisize my critics.

 

[Perfection]

Perf
But you do critisize my critics - so you show that you "know" about them.
Otherwise you wouldnt critisize my critics.

It doesn't take an entomology degree to see that you're wrong...

The fact is, you have no clue what you're talking about, so get educated read up and then I'll listen.

 

[The Last Conformist]

"Have been".
Any living examples HUH???

So, if an animal is extinct, it has never existed?

 

[civ2]

TLC
It is not the kind of proof I accept - face it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

TLC
It is not the kind of proof I accept - face it.

Translation: I put my fingers in my ears and shout LALA-LAH! when I hear something I don't like.

 

[Birdjaguar]

TLC
It is not the kind of proof I accept - face it.

What kind of proof do you accept in these matters?

 

[civ2]

Birdjaguar
Anything that IS NOT either theory or a heap of dead bones.
By dead I mean that they can be manipulated however you want and wont "resist" like any living animal can.
I mean you wouldn't dare calling a dog - a frog since anybody can find a dog and prove it's not a frog.
But you can't prove this heap of bones is not that it is supposed to be- you can't provide a living example.
And I don't accept such "proof" - you are easy (fast to do) with saying "scientists think so and so".
But neither they nor you have any real proof - only theories.

A slight off-topic:
Even the DNA test doesn't prove relationship between DISTANT "types" of animals - only that their bodies are similar in structure.
I mean most animals have hearts and legs - but that only proves that their bodies are similar.
Imagine:
You get to a toy factory and see lots of somewhat different toys.
But they all are made of say plastic and wool.D )
would that mean that their designer created them all on a single basis?
Not nessesarily - it proves only that plastic and wool are good materials for toys.
Same with DNA - a living cell has its "list of source materials" and an organism has its "list of nessesary organs".
Thus most cells and most organisms are very similar.
But that doesn't prove they EVOLVED one from another - rather that this type of structure is adquate and good for all of them.
It's just that these materials are useful for all types of living creatures - not that they really appeared one from another.