 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
trettep
Lion
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 910
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: What is the scientifically embraced definition of a species? |
 |
|
I have asked some evolutionists before what the scientific definition of a species is with respect to evolution and I seem to get different answers. Can anyone post a scientifically embraced definition of the word "species" as it applies to evolution.
Thanks,
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5881
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical.
Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain.
2. Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits do not fossilize.
From talkorigins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6840
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I didn't quite understand the answer... Are you saying that the definition of species changes to whatever the evolutionist wants it to be in order to fit the current 'evidence' or evolutionary change? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5881
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simply that defining species is more difficult than we'd like.
Did you notice that middle paragraph? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1694
Location: Macau, China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carico
Tadpole
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | 1. Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical.
Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain.
2. Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits do not fossilize.
From talkorigins. |
According to the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, there are no fuzzy boundaries about what a species is. They define a species as; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with simliar characteristics, capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." Therefore, humans and apes cannot be the same species.
Children also can tell one species from another. It is scientists who get confused about the issue. They call humans apes which is why they get so confused about how apes can turn into humans. They either do not know that apes and humans cannot interbreed, or they know it and are lying about it. It's one or the other. And as I've said repeatedly, one species cannot simply change (evolve) into another species without being able to breed with that species. This is not only common sense, but reality as well. But again, calling humans apes is the degree that some people will go to deny there's a God. This is not only severe denial of reality, it is perverse in its insinuation that apes and humans can interbreed because that's what they are suggesting by calling humans apes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trettep
Lion
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | Simply that defining species is more difficult than we'd like.
Did you notice that middle paragraph? |
So FFT - is there NOT an embraced scientific definition of a species?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trettep
Lion
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
2.0 Species Definitions
A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.
I was criticized in another thread for the observation that the leaders in biology are at odds over evolution. Well it seems even at its core that is the case. And I'm criticized for saying its difficult to understand.
So the answer appears from the article that there is NO "embraced definition" of what a species is among science. Instead depending on your expertise in the field of biology you will define speciation depending on one of the respective definitions.
That article should be read by every person that believes in creation especially if talkorigins is the leading voice of the evolution communication campaign.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carico wrote: | | According to the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, there are no fuzzy boundaries about what a species is. |
Yeah, and dictionaries are great if you are writing a paper in grade school. Other than that, the real world is more complicated than the simplistic stuff found in dictionaries.
| Quote: | | They define a species as; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with simliar characteristics, capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." Therefore, humans and apes cannot be the same species. |
You really haven't bothered reading up on this, have you? Humans are none of the apes. Apes are a biological "Family" (The next ranking above "Genus").
And your classification completely ignores hybrids, ring-species and so on.
| Quote: | | Children also can tell one species from another. |
Ah, like wolfs and dogs (which happens to be the same species? Or the empidonax which are (in the US) 4 different species only distinguishable in the field by their song and what tree they sit in?
| Quote: | | It is scientists who get confused about the issue. |
Well, that kind of fits with the dictionary. Kids go with the minimalist, simplified approach like what you showed in the dictionary and the Scientists in the real world deal with what is more complicated than that.
So it is fair to say that you are more at the simplistic dictionary level of understanding, right?
| Quote: | | They call humans apes |
Which they are.
| Quote: | | which is why they get so confused about how apes can turn into humans. |
Which they don't, your false claim none withstanding.
| Quote: | | They either do not know that apes and humans cannot interbreed, or they know it and are lying about it. |
Or rather, no scientists, and certainly not the science has EVER claimed that a current ape would turn into a current human. Your claim is outright false, it is a serious misrepresentation of the Science, so you are bearing false witness big time here.
| Quote: | | It's one or the other. |
As the very premise of your claim is flat-out false, no it isn't. Are you REALLY under the impression that if you can come up with a lie and disprove that lie, then you have disproved evolution?
| Quote: | | And as I've said repeatedly, one species cannot simply change (evolve) into another species without being able to breed with that species. |
Your claim is false. References has been provided where it has been directly observed. When we provide references and you ignore them, you are bearing false witness. Is your argument really so weak that it ONLY can be made through outright falsehoods?
| Quote: | | This is not only common sense, but reality as well. |
Your claim is false.
| Quote: | | But again, calling humans apes is the degree that some people will go to deny there's a God. |
What utter nonsense claptrap is this? Having humans classified in the Biological family "Apes" doesn't deny there is a God. Why do you make such silly claims?
| Quote: | | This is not only severe denial of reality, |
The denial of reality is when creationists like you repeat the same false claim after having been given evidence that the claim is false. You are deliberately bearing false witness, you are spitting God in the eye.
| Quote: | | it is perverse in its insinuation that apes and humans can interbreed |
And no scientist have made that claim. That is a claim produced by lying creationists, not anybody else. But I am glad that you agree such creationist lies are perverse. The question then is why you repeat perverse lies?
| Quote: | | because that's what they are suggesting by calling humans apes. |
Nope. Your argument reveals an astonishing ignorance of even the basic aspects of Evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trettep wrote: | | I was criticized in another thread for the observation that the leaders in biology are at odds over evolution. |
Because they aren't.
| Quote: | | Well it seems even at its core that is the case. |
Nope. The change in a population is observable and measurable regardless. And there are clear and distinct differences that unambiguously show speciation.
| Quote: | | And I'm criticized for saying its difficult to understand. |
No. You are not criticized for saying it is difficult. You are criticized for saying that it is difficult to understand and then going ahead and making absolutist, false claims.
| Quote: | | So the answer appears from the article that there is NO "embraced definition" of what a species is among science. Instead depending on your expertise in the field of biology you will define speciation depending on one of the respective definitions. |
Correct. It is like rounding. Are 3.5 closer to 3 or to 4? It depends on the math skills and the purpose of the numbers. Does that mean that math is not accurate?
| Quote: | | That article should be read by every person that believes in creation especially if talkorigins is the leading voice of the evolution communication campaign. |
I agree. That would eliminate some of the more insanely ignorant creationist claims.
But be careful. Remember that Evolution comes from Satan and you might get sucked in and seduced by the dark side by reading it  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trettep
Lion
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since evolutionists claim that species is multidefines depending on application. I'm curious then what definition did Darwin use regarding the definitions that have been embraced with respect to his Theory of Evolution?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5881
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carico wrote: | | According to the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, there are no fuzzy boundaries about what a species is. They define a species as; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with simliar characteristics, |
That's the easy part. It's the classification bit that's fuzzy.
| Carico wrote: | | capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." Therefore, humans and apes cannot be the same species. |
Duh. Where the **** are you getting this from? No one's saying that humans and apes are the same species.
| Carico wrote: | | And as I've said repeatedly, one species cannot simply change (evolve) into another species without being able to breed with that species. |
Guess what? You've been wrong every time. Repeating something over and over does not make it reality.
| Carico wrote: | | This is not only common sense, but reality as well. |
Common sense would typically dictate that repeating something over and over does not make it true.
| Carico wrote: | | But again, calling humans apes is the degree that some people will go to deny there's a God. |
No one is calling humans apes, so where are you getting this?
| Carico wrote: | | This is not only severe denial of reality, it is perverse in its insinuation that apes and humans can interbreed because that's what they are suggesting by calling humans apes. |
Enough.
Who has said that humans and apes are the same species, or that they can interbreed? I've had enough of your ad nauseum ejaculations of nonsense.
| trettep wrote: | | So FFT - is there NOT an embraced scientific definition of a species? |
There is. Classifying individual organisms into specific species is the difficult bit.
| trettep wrote: | | Since evolutionists claim that species is multidefines depending on application. I'm curious then what definition did Darwin use regarding the definitions that have been embraced with respect to his Theory of Evolution? |
Irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trettep
Lion
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Carico wrote: | | According to the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, there are no fuzzy boundaries about what a species is. They define a species as; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with simliar characteristics, |
That's the easy part. It's the classification bit that's fuzzy.
| Carico wrote: | | capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." Therefore, humans and apes cannot be the same species. |
Duh. Where the **** are you getting this from? No one's saying that humans and apes are the same species.
| Carico wrote: | | And as I've said repeatedly, one species cannot simply change (evolve) into another species without being able to breed with that species. |
Guess what? You've been wrong every time. Repeating something over and over does not make it reality.
| Carico wrote: | | This is not only common sense, but reality as well. |
Common sense would typically dictate that repeating something over and over does not make it true.
| Carico wrote: | | But again, calling humans apes is the degree that some people will go to deny there's a God. |
No one is calling humans apes, so where are you getting this?
| Carico wrote: | | This is not only severe denial of reality, it is perverse in its insinuation that apes and humans can interbreed because that's what they are suggesting by calling humans apes. |
Enough.
Who has said that humans and apes are the same species, or that they can interbreed? I've had enough of your ad nauseum ejaculations of nonsense.
| trettep wrote: | | So FFT - is there NOT an embraced scientific definition of a species? |
There is. Classifying individual organisms into specific species is the difficult bit.
| trettep wrote: | | Since evolutionists claim that species is multidefines depending on application. I'm curious then what definition did Darwin use regarding the definitions that have been embraced with respect to his Theory of Evolution? |
Irrelevant. |
FFT, your answer to my question was irrelevant - can you expound on that? Are you saying that Darwin didn't have a definition for species when he created the Theory of Evolution?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
