Unless you can show how what you learned from the program relates to the topic of this thread about the definition of species, I think you're off-topic. I was letting it go under the assumption that it would be a short diversion from the topic, but you seem to want to play 20 questions.
This is actually veering back round to the original topic as what we were discussing previously was the distinction between morphospecies and genetic distance based species definitions. Specifically many of us were trying to make Big_Al understand both the arbitrary nature of species definitions and the disconnect between morphology and DNA which meant that morphologically identical species could be significantly divergent in their genomes. This then took us on to discussing morphological variability which was not genetically determined, something Big_Al appeared not to believe in.
Thanks for explaining how this relates to the topic. Carry on, everyone.
I'm going to recuse myself from discussion as Percy for a couple days, then beginning Monday morning I will take on a moderator role as Admin. I'll be looking for continuity in discussion, where lack of continuity is defined as lines of inquiry being suddenly initiated and equally suddenly abandoned. I'll also be making sure that discussion isn't wondering aimlessly but is focused on identifiable goals.
This is a science thread. The Bible can provide the inspiration for your definition of species, but you cannot cite the Bible as evidence for your definition. In science threads evidence comes from the real world, not revelation.
Please do the following:
Please provide a clear and concise statement of your definition of species.
Please provide scientific evidence that "life was initiated in a dual gendered form."
Fearandloathing stated in the very message you replied to that climate was off-topic in this thread and said he would provide a bump for you over at the Climate Change Delusion thread, which he did, yet you replied in this thread anyway.
Saying it's "uncivil" to call someone out on their tactics basically is telling the entire science side of the debate to go home.
I hope not many on the science side think that pasting derogatory labels on things proves anything or that motivation is relevant to whether a position is right or wrong. Motivation can be a short cut for detecting underhanded tactics, but it isn't evidence.
The science side should stick to the facts they claim support their position and negate the other side's position. The science side should focus on the support or lack thereof of a position and not on their perceived foibles of the person promoting the position.
Actually, that's good advice for both sides.
If you'd like to discuss creationist tactics then there's a couple appropriate threads still open:
I'm still waiting to see you delete some of Joseph's posts the way you delete mine.
We almost never delete messages here at EvC Forum. The only exception these days are the Dennis Markuze threads.
Your message isn't deleted, only hidden. If you like you can click the edit button, bring it into comformance with the Forum Guidelines, then unhide it.
I don't think you really want me to treat you the same way I treated IamJoseph. All I did was hide the text of one of your posts. IamJoseph I suspended.
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.
Mazzy has done an excellent job describing the creationist position on kinds, but most notably she makes this comment about species:
I think the definition of species is going to be problematic for some time to come.
Nuggin posted an equally excellent reply noting that Mazzy has come to the precise same conclusion as science. The real world is a messy place and resists the human need to place things in neat categories. The commonly understood concept of species of clearly demarcated animal types is a human construct, and scientists understand that reality is much more nuanced.
Species is nearly the lowest rung of our classification ladder (it's not necessarily the lowest because of subspecies or races), and perhaps reaching a mutual understanding on the definition of species and how vague it can sometimes be will be helpful in understanding why science places humans, chimps and gorillas in the same classification category, which should be helpful in the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread.