Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 423 of 450 (625740)
07-25-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Admin
07-25-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
I'm not kidding myself that I can convince you your view is wrong, but perhaps I can convince you that I *will* enforce the Forum Guidelines as I see them, and I wrote them.
So long as you enforce them equally.
I'm still waiting to see you delete some of Joseph's posts the way you delete mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 11:15 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 12:13 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 426 of 450 (625749)
07-25-2011 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Admin
07-25-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Whatever faults IamJoseph had, incivility is not among them, and I find that incivility is the main cause of threads spiraling out of control as more and more participants begin engaging in a verbal fisticuffs contest of one-upmanship instead of discussing the topic. The Forum Guidelines request that participant try to maintain a dispassionate tone.
But really, what's more rude than simply *** and ignoring the other person?
How is this thread any different than the "why are their no apes alive today" thread?
In both cases it's a Creationist making a blanket statement about the definition of a word which exists only in their own reality. No amount of reasoning or evidence assails that position in the slightest.
Why not just lock down threads at post 2.
Post 1: "The bible says that kind is a species"
Post 2: "No, that's factually incorrect."
End of thread.
Post 1: "There are no apes alive today"
Post 2: "No, that's factually incorrect."
End of thread.
Look, if Creationists are going to insist on being dishonest, you have to allow us to mix it up. If we're forced to treat them with respect they don't deserve, you are rewarding them for bad behavior. There's no motivation for them to stop ***.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 12:13 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 429 of 450 (625822)
07-25-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 4:35 PM


More advanced understanding is required
I think the definition of species is going to be problematic for some time to come. It is a concept that has no defining lines, obviously, so the blur from species to species, will always be vague, I expect.
That's why we don't really use "species" all that much any more. It's sort of the "child's version" of biology. It's the dumbed down version to help people who don't have enough education.
Clades are more accurate and better represent what's going on in the real world. But, you can't start out someone's education with clades.
When educating children, we are forced to dumb things down and teach in layers.
In the States, very young children learn about "Thanksgiving" - a holiday in which the friendly Indians and the friendly Puritans got together and shared their food.
Is that real? In only the most basic sense. But a 3rd graders isn't sophisticated enough to go into the politics of cultural contact, or the fact that the settlers were starving to death.
Later, they learn a little more.
Then later still they learn even more.
Layers.
You are starting to grasp the basic concept of species. Time for you to get a look at the next level of education.
There is no such thing as "species". It doesn't exist. It's not real. It's a completely made up term invented by humans to facilitate communication between humans.
Without this made up term and the made up rules that surround it, every conversation would have to describe in detail the animal involved.
"Hey I saw one of those flying things that has feathers that are black on the head and it is about the size of my fist"
vs
"Hey, I saw a chickadee".
Nature doesn't have "species".
Nature has different animals which are more or less related genetically. Nature has gene flow between populations of similarly related animals.
Animals which are not closely related have no gene flow.
Animals which are closely related have some gene flow.
Animals which are very closely related have a lot of gene flow.
So, asking whether or not Neanderthals were Homo Sapiens or Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis is missing the point.
Here's the reality:
They were a population which was closely related to our population. There was some, but not much, gene flow between the two populations shortly after our population left Africa.
Any discussion about how they should be classified is just a discussion between two humans about which socks go in which drawer. It has no bearing on reality in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 4:35 PM Mazzy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024