Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1014 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 16 of 385 (562242)
05-27-2010 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
05-26-2010 5:18 PM


I don't think this would satisfy Peg at all, for the simple fact that, while the two populations never actually interbreed due to occupying different niches, this doesn't say that they're not interfertile if you forced them together in laboratory conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 05-26-2010 5:18 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Huntard, posted 05-27-2010 4:11 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1014 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 21 of 385 (562261)
05-27-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
05-27-2010 10:19 AM


Re: Current baraminology
Funnily enough, this 'Biological Character Space' sounds exactly like Dawkins metaphor - he called it the Museum of Possible Organisms, or somesuch. Makes me suspicious that they just borrowed it from him but want to insist that there are impassable regions between existing organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 05-27-2010 10:19 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 05-27-2010 12:02 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1014 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 25 of 385 (562737)
06-01-2010 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Fiver
05-30-2010 5:02 PM


I think you're missing Peepul's point. The term is clearly and unambiguously defined by many creationists. It is defined as 'a created pair of animals and all those descended from it'. The problem is not that the definition is unclear, it's that there's no useful way of applying to the real world, because it's based on a fictional creation myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Fiver, posted 05-30-2010 5:02 PM Fiver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2010 6:33 AM caffeine 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