Do our resident conservatives and republicans truly believe women are biologically suited to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

[Aeson]

Yes. By definition, removing the concept of a species means you no longer believe in evolution.

No it doesn't. It just changes delineations across a spectrum ... and in a way that makes them far more specific.

I'm saying that species definitions should be defined along genomes, not physical characteristics. You're response, "species" don't really exist.

There's no need for species definitions to make delineations based on genomes. Those delineations already exist. You'd just be calling those delineations "species" instead of what we already call them. It's unnecessary.

"Clap your hands and we believe". Sorry. Science doesn't work that way. Yes, we DO need labels.

We don't need to label something for it to exist. (Unless that something is in fact, a label.) We certainly don't have to label it a specific way for it to exist.

You're just a moron. Even if I didn't call you a moron, you'd still be a moron.

Appearances can be deceiving. Just because two species look similar does not mean that they are related.

Juniper trees don't look similar to armadillos. How bad is your eye-sight again?

Once again bad terminology = bad science. You equate all 'genetic change' with evolution. This is wrong. Not all genetic changes are evolutionary changes.

Yes they are. That is what evolution is. The sum of genetic changes in a lineage over time.

As opposed to using even more arbitrary lines and even fuzzier reasons? Absolutely.

Whether a genetic code has changed or not is not fuzzy or arbitrary. It can be tested and verified.

Whether we still call the resulting organism X or Y is rather arbitrary and imprecise. Of course you want to tie evolution to necessarily needing imprecise and arbitrary delineations, so you can ignore the reality that genes are changing all the time. Then you just label these changes something other than evolution, pretending you've accomplished something other than to change a label.

Yes, actually it is. Go read Darwin. He explains it all in a little book you might have forgotten. I believe it's called the 'Origin of Species'. Wonder why.

Thankfully science and it's theories can evolve to be more and more precise about a subject over time. We now understand much more about evolution than Darwin did. We understand the underlying reasons for differentiation between and within species, and how species definitions are not the bright lines between types of organisms that they once were thought to be. This is a natural conclusion of evolution. That there are no bright lines separating organisms. An organism is an expression of it's genetic code, and thus changing the genetic code changes the organism.

[kentonio]

The theory of evolution cares about the classification. Hey, it's the way the theory works. No species = no evolution.

Yes. By definition, removing the concept of a species means you no longer believe in evolution.

Stop being goddamn stupid, seriously. Darwin was born into a world where animals were classified into species based on human observations of their differences. Obviously he mentioned species in his theory, but what he really did was to show once and for all that 'species' is basically a meaningless term.

Evolution is evolution. It doesn't matter whether its at a micro or macro scale, the only difference is time and the number of changes involved. It's not even a complex idea for goodness sake, change something enough times in even tiny ways and eventually it becomes barely recognizable as its original form.

You mentioned colours before, so here's a simple test for you. Create a new image in Paint that is completely green. Then every few seconds change the colour of a single pixel to a different colour. At what point does the image stop being green?

[N35t0r]

GREEN DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE AAAH WHY DO YOU HATE COLOURS!!!!!!

[Kidlicious]

Color is not a good example. Colors are merely perceptions. Species are definite things.

[snoopy369]

I've not read enough to even know which side you're arguing on, but that's most certainly not true. If anything, it's the opposite; Species are delineations defined by man while colors are physical properties (albeit the 'green' nomenclature is applied by man). In particular, the color green emanating from the monitor is a 510nm wavelength beam of light. Objects have colors, but of course that's somewhat different - they have the physical property of absorbing light other than 510nm light (or whatnot) and reflecting light in that wavelength, or in some combination of wavelengths that appears to be around one wavelength [more precise physics explanation coming from some resident physicist].

Really this is a good example, though; if you think about people arguing about colors - take something roughly turquoise in color, is it blue or green? You can make either argument, and they're both reasonable. That's because they are rough delineations of a spectrum that does not have strict quanta.

[snoopy369]

More specifically, 'species' is a classification created to attempt to delineate groupings of organisms that, inside that species, share sufficient genetic material such that when two organisms of the same species mate, they both produce viable fertile offspring, and produce offspring identifiable as being related to both parents (or similar if non-sexual reproduction). It's for convenience of the scientists, it's not some sort of physical properties. You find over time that sometimes the definitions are found to be wrong, and sometimes the definitions are fairly arbitrary; organisms X, Y, and Z are defined into two species X and Z, but Y can reproduce with either X or Z - which species is it, X or Z? Who cares?

You also find all sorts of corner cases, such as dogs who are technically the same species but due to size/etc. couldn't possibly reproduce (oftentimes split into separate species for that reason, but not always). Like any 'rule', it's not quite accurate for all cases, and that's fine.

[Felch]

Ben, you realize that the Catholic Church isn't creationist, right?

[loinburger]

Pope Ben will put a stop to that bit of evilutionist nonsense

[Kidlicious]

I've not read enough to even know which side you're arguing on, but that's most certainly not true. If anything, it's the opposite; Species are delineations defined by man while colors are physical properties (albeit the 'green' nomenclature is applied by man). In particular, the color green emanating from the monitor is a 510nm wavelength beam of light. Objects have colors, but of course that's somewhat different - they have the physical property of absorbing light other than 510nm light (or whatnot) and reflecting light in that wavelength, or in some combination of wavelengths that appears to be around one wavelength [more precise physics explanation coming from some resident physicist].

Really this is a good example, though; if you think about people arguing about colors - take something roughly turquoise in color, is it blue or green? You can make either argument, and they're both reasonable. That's because they are rough delineations of a spectrum that does not have strict quanta.

Turquoise isn't blue or green. It's turquoise. We both know what turquoise is so we don't have to argue about it being either blue or green. If you tell me it's green, I can say no it's actually turquoise and you will hopefully agree with me because that's the way you perceive it. The same way that I perceive it. You might want to look at the way kentonio used the definition of color. That's the normal way of using the word color. It is merely a perception.

As far as a species goes, yes it is something that has been defined by us so that we can talk about it. Why do we talk about it? Because it is a definite thing. Are there cases were there are gray area? Yes. That doesn't mean that there aren't species.

[Kidlicious]

Using kentonio's suggestion if you slowly add blue you would first perceive green, then turquoise then blue. But the actual pixels are green and blue, not turquoise.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you realize that the Catholic Church isn't creationist, right?

Felch, you realize that I'm not creationist either?

I've never believed that the universe was created 6k years ago.

I'm just not convinced that evolution is the correct understanding as to how things did work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who cares?

This is a sensible argument. The reason for this is to help understand how different types of animals are related to one another. Moving the definitions to specific genomes is going to be easir in the long run to work with.

[Ben Kenobi]

Stop being goddamn stupid, seriously. Darwin was born into a world where animals were classified into species based on human observations of their differences. Obviously he mentioned species in his theory, but what he really did was to show once and for all that 'species' is basically a meaningless term.

Umm. No. Just no. I read what he wrote. He states that understanding that animals were species and divided into species and that you could use it to organize and classify living things, and that they was a theory as to how they became the way they did - species are crucial to Darwinian natural selection. He'd be the first to say so. Again, he uses the term in the goddamn title ffs.

Evolution is evolution. It doesn't matter whether its at a micro or macro scale

Yes, it does matter.

, the only difference is time

This is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

and the number of changes involved. It's not even a complex idea for goodness sake, change something enough times in even tiny ways and eventually it becomes barely recognizable as its original form.

It's apparently so simple yet you still get it wrong.

You mentioned colours before, so here's a simple test for you. Create a new image in Paint that is completely green. Then every few seconds change the colour of a single pixel to a different colour. At what point does the image stop being green?

Good question and analogy. Colors are defined precisely by pixels. One more pixel over the end of the color range will make it a different color.

[Ben Kenobi]

No it doesn't. It just changes delineations across a spectrum ... and in a way that makes them far more specific.

Arguing that because they are all interrelated that there is no reason to keep the distinctions is a terrible argument.

There's no need for species definitions to make delineations based on genomes.

Yes, there is, because genetic analysis has shown that some of the previous classifications were in fact wrong.

Those delineations already exist.

Yes, and they are wrong in some places. So they have been corrected to reflect the genome not the prior evidence which was less accurate.

You'd just be calling those delineations "species" instead of what we already call them. It's unnecessary.

It's very much necessary.

We don't need to label something for it to exist.

You get pissy when people don't use the labels that you know in the way you want to use them and then turn around and say, "we don't need labels"? Absolutely we do. You'd correct someone who insisted that a duck was a goose.

Now, turn it around. I see you going and saying, "but we already can tell", umm, no, no, we couldn't. There are many cases where using physical resemblence has lead to erroneous conclusions.

You're just a moron. Even if I didn't call you a moron, you'd still be a moron.

Basing an empirical definition on 'physical appearance' is a ****ty way to do science. Chemistry moved beyond this centuries ago.

Juniper trees don't look similar to armadillos. How bad is your eye-sight again?

How many species of armadillos are there?

Not all genetic changes are evolutionary changes. Yes they are.

No, they aren't. Someone irradiated in Hiroshima has undergone some genetic changes. Is this evolution?

Everyone's going to endure some genetic changes as they age. Is this evolution? Also no. Wake me up when you understand the definition of 'somatic'.

That is what evolution is. The sum of genetic changes in a lineage over time.

Some genetic changes are associated with evolution. Some are not. This is basic biology.

Whether a genetic code has changed or not is not fuzzy or arbitrary. It can be tested and verified.

Yes, and? Just because there's some changes to it doesn't mean that those changes are due to evolution.

Then you just label these changes something other than evolution, pretending you've accomplished something other than to change a label.

Actually, I define evolution in a precise fashion and then go on to examine how these genetic changes are occurring. Then I question whether transmutation (change between a species), has in fact occurred.

Your counter argument, "Species don't exist". Terrible counter argument. I hope you aren't priding yourself on defending evolution, because you've convinced me even more that you don't understand it.

Thankfully science and it's theories can evolve to be more and more precise about a subject over time.

Yes, and that understanding states very clearly that species can and do exist.

This is a natural conclusion of evolution.

Actually, no, this isn't true at all.

That there are no bright lines separating organisms.

Yes, there are. As you yourself stated, juniper trees aren't armadillos.

[DinoDoc]

Ben: Why are you a bad Catholic? The official church position is basically one of accepting the validity of the theory according to Pope John Paul II.