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

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is a horrible person.

All hail sava, genius of the internet. Long may we bask in his glory.

[Ben Kenobi]

And Ben was talking about how he wanted to make out with snoopy in that other thread.

Which thread was this?

[notyoueither]

[Edit:] x-post, this is in relpy to nye. I have to remember to update threads before replying if I've been doing something else.

Yes. Which is a marked genetical dissimilarity. Had the Americar remained isolated, there would have been more differences.

Resistance to disease is picked up relatively quickly. They are the children of the survivors, but yes you are correct. Human colonists on another planet cut off from Earth would become quite different from humans remaining on Earth given a long enough period of time.

I read your original post to say they lost resistance to diseases. They never had it to begin with.

[kentonio]

I was merely pointing out that the analogy that kentonio used doesn't really work because color is a perception. A species is not a perception. So it's a bad analogy.

Except it isn't a bad analogy, because species is absolutely a perception. When does a cat stop being a cat? For that matter, what the **** is a cat? It's all just definition.

How am I factually incorrect here?

Setting aside the obvious..

You're argument is basically this:

"species aren't empirically defined ergo they cannot be successfully empirically defined.".

No-one said that. You could define a species as being within a set amount of genetic deviation of a strictly defined genetic sequence. Probably. The trouble is that the genetic sequence you chose as your base point AND the amount of deviation you chose as the point where it qualified as a new species would both be basically arbitrary.

That's actually an argument against biology as a physical science, btw. If we can't accurately define what a species is, why are we putting one of the pillars of biology based on them? It makes no sense to me.

That's because you're so tied up in your own arrogance that you never actually listen. The only person who thinks that evolution requires species to matter is you, and because you can't let go of that idea you insist that everything else must fit around it.

All I'm arguing here is that species are real, they pertain to the substance of animals and that we can accurately define them in an empirical fashion. And people say I'm not the scientist? For realz?

Yes, for realz.

[Kidlicious]

Except it isn't a bad analogy, because species is absolutely a perception. When does a cat stop being a cat? For that matter, what the **** is a cat? It's all just definition.

A cat doesn't stop being a cat. What are you talking about? You don't know what a cat is???

It doesn't matter that we've defined what a cat is. We defined it. We learned what a cat is from other human beings. So a cat is a cat. A cat will always be a cat. It's the same thing with the Sun. If the Sun were to change somehow, and we were to survive, it would still be the Sun. The Sun is going to have a new definition, but it's still going to be the Sun. I doubt if we would call it anything else. And that's all that matters, what we call it.

[kentonio]

A cat doesn't stop being a cat. What are you talking about? You don't know what a cat is???

It doesn't matter that we've defined what a cat is. We defined it. We learned what a cat is from other human beings. So a cat is a cat. A cat will always be a cat. You're babbling.

Actually you're just agreeing with me in your own special way.

[Kidlicious]

Actually you're just agreeing with me in your own special way.

Well, my point is that we are the "species" that defines things. Cats do not define things. Little green men on other planets don't define things. And that is significant. When cats start defining things or you find little green men on other planets defining things, things will be different.

[snoopy369]

This really is meaningless babble. I was merely pointing out that the analogy that kentonio used doesn't really work because color is a perception. A species is not a perception. So it's a bad analogy.

And I pointed out that you are incorrect; either it's a very good analogy, or it's a bad analogy because color is _more_ an element of the physical world. Color is a human classification of a physical property. Species is one step removed from that; it's a human classification of the outcome of a combination of physical properties [we don't classify genes into species, we classify organisms].

I really don't understand why non-scientists try to argue a non-scientific argument in scientific terms. It is a very bad idea. Religious ideas are not scientific theories; if that's your cup of tea, then have it, but trying to pretend you know **** about science just makes you look like an idiot.

[Kidlicious]

And I pointed out that you are incorrect; either it's a very good analogy, or it's a bad analogy because color is _more_ an element of the physical world. Color is a human classification of a physical property. Species is one step removed from that; it's a human classification of the outcome of a combination of physical properties [we don't classify genes into species, we classify organisms].

I really don't understand why non-scientists try to argue a non-scientific argument in scientific terms. It is a very bad idea. Religious ideas are not scientific theories; if that's your cup of tea, then have it, but trying to pretend you know **** about science just makes you look like an idiot.

Sir. Light has physical characteristics. Color is just a perception.