Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

Viewing 39 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11320
      gamila
      Participant

      Biologists talk a lot about species phylum
      the origin of species speciation etc

      they talk about evolution
      they talk about this or that species proving natural selection
      but the fact is

      scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

      quote

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

      "However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

      "Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

      with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species is then he is talking meaningless nonsense

      Take colin leslie dean proving natural selection wrong

      http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf
      ‘THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG’

      many arguments talked about this or that species proving natural selection- but without knowing what a species is then the argument is meaningless and not a refutation of dean at all

      also note in this quote Chien talks on about phylum
      but the fact is biologists dont know what phylum are so his whole argument is meaningless

      http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm

      quote :

      Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

      it would seem definitions of species and phylum are so fluid that biologists can make up what ever definition he needs for his purpose- and they call biology a science

    • #90528
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      it would seem definitions of species and phylum are so fluid that biologists can make up what ever definition he needs for his purpose- and they call biology a science

      Just about everything in science is a constant state of flux. Scientists are constantly revising and updating old definitions and theories to account for new evidence. That’s part of the scientific process; in fact, one could even argue that it’s what makes science "science."

    • #90542
      MrMistery
      Participant

      yeah, gamila, i totally feel you. It’s like that with a lot sciences. Chemists used to say that an atom is indivisible by definition. Then they said it’s made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Now they’re like "well, actually they’re made of quarks". And they call chemistry science…

    • #90550
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      *smirk*

      Yes, science is all nonsense since it clearly cannot provide simple concrete answers to any of our important questions! Who do those so-called scientists think they are, always challenging our simple easy-to-understand explanations of the natural world?

    • #90557
      alextemplet
      Participant

      It’s all some evil plot to challenge our faith and get us to stop believing in the flying spaghetti monster! We must never give in to their apostasy!

    • #90670
      mcar
      Participant

      uhm, always the same thing… *walks around and whistles*

    • #90691
      futurezoologist
      Participant

      Wow, good work.
      Through the definitions of two words you have managed to prove thousands of years of data and people wrong. I bow down to your adept knowledge of our universe…

      One of many flaws in your argument; Biological classifications are created by humans(not natural-like physics for example) – nature always provides an exception to our imperfect classifications. But even so natural selection does not depend on how we name and classify things.

    • #90695
      GaryGaulin
      Participant

      Futurezoologist, after reading your reply it seemed like you are saying that natural selection is responsible for speciation. But from what I have been seeing in computer models that produce information increase speciation is inherent to the molecular mechanism and would still occur where there is no selection at all. Also, the ability to change to a new form must already be present in the genome mechanism or else it can never change, in which case a relatively sudden change in environment would lead to extinction. Therefore logically the only thing natural selection can do is alter morphology in a direction the genome is already capable of going on its own, otherwise there can be no variation in the population at all.

      I was wondering what you think.

    • #90974
      futurezoologist
      Participant
      quote :

      after reading your reply it seemed like you are saying that natural selection is responsible for speciation

      Yes

      quote :

      But from what I have been seeing in computer models that produce information increase speciation is inherent to the molecular mechanism and would still occur where there is no selection at all

      Yes, but is there any such occasion in the natural world? There will always be selective pressure on an organism.

      quote :

      Also, the ability to change to a new form must already be present in the genome mechanism or else it can never change

      I’m not sure that i know what you mean. There is no ‘ability’ to mutate genes that i know of, it is a random event, a mistake.

      quote :

      in which case a relatively sudden change in environment would lead to extinction.

      Again I’m not sure we are on the same wavelength. A sudden change in the environment could cause a population to become extinct but it would depend on the severity of the change and the effect on the organism, organisms with certain genetic traits which help them survive better in the new changed environment may survive and pass on their genes and the population would live on.

      quote :

      Therefore logically the only thing natural selection can do is alter morphology in a direction the genome is already capable of going on its own

      The fact that a genome can mutate in any ‘direction’ is a mechanism in the process of natural selection.

      If you could reply and correct any misinterpretations of mine that would be great as i don’t think i understood what you meant.

    • #90981
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote futurezoologist:

      I’m not sure that i know what you mean. There is no ‘ability’ to mutate genes that i know of, it is a random event, a mistake.

      That would depend on how you define a "mistake." Some species are more efficient than others at correcting and preventing mutations in their DNA, whereas others are more likely to mutate because they have to be. Bacteria and viruses are good examples, because they are constantly trying (and usually succeeding) to stay at least one step ahead of the best antibiotic drugs we can throw at them. Thus, even though these organisms have a higher mutation rate, it’s hard to call that a mistake when it helps them survive so well.

    • #90992
      futurezoologist
      Participant
      quote :

      it’s hard to call that a mistake when it helps them survive so well

      Yes it is hard when we look at them as a species, but at a cellular level it is a mistake no matter how you define it.

    • #91001
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote futurezoologist:

      Yes it is hard when we look at them as a species, but at a cellular level it is a mistake no matter how you define it.

      I guess you have a point there.

    • #91034
      AstusAleator
      Participant
      quote GaryGaulin:

      But from what I have been seeing in computer models that produce information increase speciation is inherent to the molecular mechanism and would still occur where there is no selection at all.

      How is that supposed to work? Maybe I’m being obtuse, but I can’t think of a situation where selection does not exist. Furthermore, how can speciation occur without some form of differentiation? Computer models are great, but that sounds like some faulty math to me.

    • #91036
      AFJ
      Participant
      quote :

      Dr. Paul Chien stated…
      “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

      Gamalia, this is a great quote, and we need to pay attention here. I don’t see anything here that would be trying to make the point –flux of definition. But he is saying that there were more phylum in the beginning…period.

      Would evolution predict fully formed "modern animals" and "living fossils" mixed in with other fully formed extinct organisms? No it would not. It should look like the evolutionary ancestral trees with lots of transitions. But its not there.

      quote :

      Wikipedia
      This diversification of lifeforms was relatively rapid, and is termed the Cambrian explosion.

      In other words there was relatively nothing except bacteria and then at "543 million" suddenly everything is there all mixed together. Boy the genomes were busy, busy, busy!!

    • #91051
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Gamalia, this is a great quote, and we need to pay attention here. I don’t see anything here that would be trying to make the point –flux of definition. But he is saying that there were more phylum in the beginning…period.

      Would evolution predict fully formed “modern animals” and “living fossils” mixed in with other fully formed extinct organisms? No it would not. It should look like the evolutionary ancestral trees with lots of transitions. But its not there.

      the article by Dr. Paul Chien is meaningless without a definition of what a phylum is how can he identify the phylum
      it seem with no agreement on what a phylum is someone else might come up with different figures
      so when biologists start pontificating about the species that phylum
      the fact is they really dont know what they are talking about

      take this for example

      quote :

      But from what I have been seeing in computer models that produce information increase speciation is inherent to the molecular mechanism and would still occur where there is no selection at all.

      all sounds so darn scientific till you realise they dont know what a species is how in hell can they then talk about speciation= if biologist dont know what a species is then they cant talk about speciation

    • #91187
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
      “However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3″

      note this YOU POOR STUDENT

      http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i6f.htm

      quote :

      The species problem isn’t well known by the general public because it isn’t mentioned in public school high school biology classes. The presentation of facts like these are opposed by groups like the National Center for Science Education, whose goal is to censor scientific information so as not to confuse the students with the facts.

      note

      quote :

      Because Nature [The journal Nature ] has such a limited audience, the authors of the papers published there can be frank about the serious problems with the theory of evolution, without worrying too much about the general public learning the dirty little secrets of biology.
      quote :

      The second thing you can learn from this paragraph is that nobody else has solved the species problem. If anybody had, Schwartz would not have tried to solve it. Or, Szathmáry would have criticized Schwartz for trying to solve a problem that has already been solved. But the origin of species is still a mystery, so evolutionary scientists are still looking for an answer

      again

      quote :

      The other part of the problem is that there isn’t a foolproof way to tell if two living creatures are the same species or not.

      The commonly used definition says that if two critters can mate and produce fertile offspring, they are the same species. This definition isn’t perfect. A perfect definition would be transitive in the mathematical sense. In other words, if Critter A is the same species as Critter B, and Critter B is the same species as Critter C, then Critter A is the same species as Critter C.

      Sometimes evolutionists argue that there are some instances of “circular discontinuity” in populations of mice and certain birds, where the geographically closest populations can interbreed, but the most widely separated populations can’t. They claim this shows speciation in progress, but it really just shows that the definition of species is imperfect.

      again

      quote :

      Jody Hey’s recent book on the subject of the species problem 3 prompted Kerry Shaw to wonder if the species concept is valuable at all. 4

      again

      quote :

      The traditional evolutionary “tree of life” was based on similarity of physical characteristics. Things that look the most alike are (according to evolutionists) the most closely related to a common ancestor. The criteria used for determining “most alike” are subjective and arbitrary. So, evolutionists turned to DNA analysis to see which critters are most closely related. They got absolutely no help there.

      The view that data should take primacy in putting the species problem to rest may be a welcome, or even obvious, point. However, if the answer were easily gleaned from nature we probably wouldn’t have a species problem. Making matters worse, it certainly appears that the species problem has intensified in recent years as molecular research reveals “species” that experience some level of ongoing gene flow with other “species.” 8

    • #91250
      futurezoologist
      Participant

      We made up the term ‘species’ so we can define it how we like. We could have categorized organisms by their age instead of their gene similarity but that wouldn’t have suited our purpose, but it wouldn’t have made our classification wrong. I believe you are referring to the clashing of classifications, they only clash if you try to fit them together, you can’t add an age group classification with a gene similarity classification, they are separate, they are not meant to fit together, this is the same as the morphological species concept and the biological species concept, they are two different classifications of species, two different definitions.

      Note: Please don’t reply with 5 paragraphs of quotes hoping that one or two sentences might have some relevance. I tried to be as ‘straight to the point’ as i could and i would appreciate it if you responded to my comments directly.

    • #91257
      gamila
      Participant

      [quote]We made up the term ‘species’ so we can define it how we like[/quote
      fine
      but

      you dont know what your made up term ‘species’ is

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
      "However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

      thus you cant use it to locate objects for investigation as you dont know what a specires is

    • #91277
      futurezoologist
      Participant

      There is no "we don’t know what it is" because it is nothing except what we say it is. There are multiple definitions and none of them are wrong, they cant be wrong unless a species doesn’t fit.

      quote :

      thus you cant use it to locate objects for investigation as you dont know what a specires is

      We don’t use it for investigations. We use investigations for it.

    • #91278
      Zongo
      Participant

      Hello all! I’ve decided to stop goggling at the idiocy of the Evolution forum and think on where that idiocy comes from.

      Colin Leslie Dean, supposedly. So, let’s Google him:

      First result: A forum user by the name of Nightdreamer. Take a look at his posts. Hey, guess what, it’s all about … Colin Leslie Dean and Gamahucher Press!

      Second result: A Y!A question. Read the question and the best answer.

      Nothing else really shows up for a few more entries, then it gets interesting again:
      http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/446991
      http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi … 432c3f8532
      http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/T60G82JS0IKV23S72
      And two very interesting results:
      http://www.volconvo.com/forums/general- … eslie.html
      http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=162638

      I’m pretty confident that everything here is just a very bad advertising tactic for Colin Leslie Dean and Gamahucher Press.
      I would think that CLD is simply made up, except that he is recognized by the National Library of Australia, which I would hope would catch this.

      Sorry, gamila, I have gone off topic a bit. Why don’t you tell us why we should trust what CLD says? What makes him qualified? "zomg he proved XXX wrong he be brilliant1" doesn’t count, kk?

    • #91283
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      . Why don’t you tell us why we should trust what CLD says? What makes him qualified? “

      he has 9 degrees
      including 4 master degrees-that makes him more qualified than most biologist or any one else for that matter

      B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
      M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

    • #91284
      futurezoologist
      Participant

      It really doesn’t matter whether he is made up or not or how many degrees he has, the words he(?) provide are either right or wrong even if he has 20 degrees, and in this case they are wrong as has been proven on other topics.

    • #91295
      Gavin
      Participant

      Hi Colin. Remember me? We’ve met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.

      A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You’re just the latest. The guy’s not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You’re certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:

      1) you’re stupid
      2) not quite all there
      3) have nothing better to do
      4) am having fun

      Back to you Colin: I’ll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

      Till we meet again.

      Gavin

    • #91307
      alextemplet
      Participant

      Am I the only one who notices that not a single one of CLD’s degrees has anything to do with science?

    • #91312
      futurezoologist
      Participant

      Good observation alex, heh i think colin tried to hide that fact by abbreviating it and bunchin’ it all up.

    • #91314
      Zongo
      Participant

      Okay, so my PM to gamila "Are you Colin?" has pretty much been answered.

      I was 99% certain, anyway.

      Thanks for popping on here! Now, can we just delete the vast majority of the evolution forum?

    • #91316
      alextemplet
      Participant

      Zongo, get used to important questions getting ignored. AFJ still hasn’t given me a simple yes or no answer on my offer for a private discussion through e-mail. Apparently AFJ and gamila aren’t interested in having a fair discussion on the matter; they seem more inclined to try to fictional viewpoints on us and then call us closed-minded for sticking to facts. 🙄 What is this world coming to?

    • #91320
      gamila
      Participant

      he has a Bsc
      cant you see that

    • #91328
      futurezoologist
      Participant

      ❗ Oh i see sorry gamila,
      Alex! I trusted your judgment!!! 😥
      Heh naa ss’k i forgive you.

      gamila, you mean you have a Bachelor of science right?, I think it has been found now that you are Colin, i will assume that you are if you ignore that comment.

    • #91334
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      gamila, you mean you have a Bachelor of science right?, I think it has been found now that you are Colin, i will assume that you are if you ignore that comment.

      my answer was in regard to colin leslie dean qualifications
      any thing else about gamila is irrelevent to the thread

    • #91335
      wbla3335
      Participant

      Hi guys. Just dropped by to see how the circus was going.

      So gamila actually is this Dean fellow he’s always going on about. Interesting. Colin, why are you pretending not to be who you are? Fear? Guilt? Shame? Schizophrenia? If you have opinions (sorry, truth) to express, why the secrecy?

      Maybe it”s time to come out of the closet. We won’t think any less of you as Colin than as gamila. Not more, either, but not less. Come on, it’s easy. Just say "I" instead of "he". If you do, I’ll tell you what the first bird mated with.

    • #91336
      futurezoologist
      Participant

      wbla joins the game…

      btw, lets keep the comments a little under harsh eh wbla…

    • #91341
      alextemplet
      Participant

      Ironic, and hypocritical, that gamila/Colin is preaching to us about relevance to the thread! 🙄

    • #91357
      Zongo
      Participant

      The evolution forum is better than the funnies.

      We need our own newspaper.

      Just to print out this forum.

      Colin the Horrible, Dilbird, Evofield.

    • #91366
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      Clearly internet forum junkies are the only people that will even read his… stuff, much less consider it worth their time.

    • #91372
      alextemplet
      Participant

      I’m starting to feel ashamed to even be here. I wonder how many students are in need of serious help with tough questions, and they’ll never be able to sort out the real answers from all the spam. So sad. Doesn’t that defeat the entire purpose of this forum?

    • #91463
      mcar
      Participant

      You’re geting tired of these don’t you?

    • #92005
      gamila
      Participant

      scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

      quote

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

      "However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

      "Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

      with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species is then he is talking meaningless nonsense

    • #92010
      AstusAleator
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      I’m just kidding guys. Colin Leslie is my pseudonym, and all those degrees are just a bunch of crap. I’m just trying to mess with all of your heads and piss you off. It’s so easy. I guess I just like the attention. I have to just keep repeating those same basic phrases because if I actually tried to defend them you’d all figure out that my (Colin’s) intelligence is only average and I’m not actually smart enough to come up with an argument sufficiently water-tight to challenge current scientific theory. It’s been fun though, right? Thanks for all the replies. Regards. –Colin

      FINALLY!! 😀 😮 😀 😮

    • #93419
      gamila
      Participant

      looks like your biology ends in meaninglessness as your classification system is meaningless

Viewing 39 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.