pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Ultimately there is no such thing as a species.

There is such a thing as species, you just can't find it in the wild.

Are you suggesting that clear seperation of 'kinds' can not be observed.
Astonishing. perhaps I have just jumped in mid way to something deep and meaningful .. do share.

Paul.

See comment posted here

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Ultimately there is no such thing as a species.

There is such a thing as species, you just can't find it in the wild.

Are you suggesting that clear seperation of 'kinds' can not be observed.

Um, clearly not - try reading what I wrote and seeing if I mentioned the word 'kind' at all.

The reason I didn't is that the term 'kind' is a pre-scientific notion that has no meaning or value in modern science.

I said there is no such thing as 'species' in the wild, but there is no such thing as 'kind' anywhere in the biological sciences. You do find it in the Bible, though - if that's where you're getting your drawing your scientific knowledge, it explains a lot.

pfrankinstein wrote:Astonishing. perhaps I have just jumped in mid way to something deep and meaningful .. do share.

Everyone else reading would have understood.

Species is a conceptual tool; a model we impose onto a population of organisms based originally on comparative morphology, but today more often by genetic comparison.

The concept is, as Dawkins phrased it, an example of the tyranny of our discontinuous minds. That population of organisms today has a wide range of morphology and genes comprising many differences we fudge together, and that population of organisms has existed iteratively for generations upon generations. When we impose the species concept onto that population, we are idealizing both the current population, ignoring the variety for sake of the model, and idealizing that population from a contemporary moment without comprising the many differences each generation entails.

It's an important concept for communication, for measuring and making measurements, but biologists are very much aware that the concept is a fudge.


ETA: try searching google for 'separation of kinds' - you won't find anything related to biology in the results.

The Bible, though:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So yeah, if your comprehension of Biology is about 2000 years out of date and religious in nature, then you may well think the concept of 'kind' is relevant to discussion about genetics.

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Ultimately there is no such thing as a species.

There is such a thing as species, you just can't find it in the wild.

Are you suggesting that clear seperation of 'kinds' can not be observed.
Astonishing. perhaps I have just jumped in mid way to something deep and meaningful .. do share.

Paul.

See comment posted here

Aye, or you could have just read what was already posted: fancy that!

I ran into this again. Again, it's just an assertion. This is his post:

"Mengels laws of genetics, heard of em? They don't do the theory of evolution any favors. The laws of kind are real. You're looking at a pre made swiss watch (life) and trying to tell people it had no designer. It's a dumb position!"

And my request for an explanation, preferably a citation to wherever he's getting this argument:

"I keep hearing this claim can you please expound on how anything Mendel (not Mengel) had to say contradicts evolution? I'd prefer a citation to where ever you're getting this argument if you can provide one. Not looking to argue I just want what the actual argument is and why it's a defeater to evolution."

We'll see if he provides one.

LOL at 'laws of kind' - ask for chapter and verse.

And of course, a pre-made swiss watch is not alive, so therefore serves as a stunningly shite analogy for living organisms.

Yes sir, you do indeed need to beg the question because the only way this juvenile belief works is if you start out by assuming that which you're seeking to prove.

Just close-minded and stupid - you can't change this dude's mind, but you can write stuff that will give the better informed something to chuckle about.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Ultimately there is no such thing as a species.

There is such a thing as species, you just can't find it in the wild.

Are you suggesting that clear seperation of 'kinds' can not be observed.
Astonishing. perhaps I have just jumped in mid way to something deep and meaningful .. do share.

I really think that if anyone feels inclined to respond to this fatuous question, it should not be on this thread, which is thoughtful, useful, and interesting.

Unlike Paul's random yet dogged determination to remain utterly and wilfully ignorant of any actual science.