why don’t you make a point other than: look what questions aren’t completely understood!!!

in fact, i don’t understand the points of your posts, most biologists know about the species problem from their sophomore year in college.

what you are trying to point out, i believe, is that their is a philosophical discrepancy to the definition of species. some believe that its an invented term and some believe that it is a natural term…. roughly.
the species definition is only blurred in some cases though, like different but related species (related cats, related dogs, related horses, etc) being able to interbreed despite being different species, and bacteria, which don’t multiply sexually, but rather through binary fission and transduction and specialized transduction

so we all know about this stuff, lets move on to something productive

Perhaps taxonomically they are considered different species, but evolution-wise they have not completely speciated.

the first bird mated with the last reptilebird
so colin leslie dean paradox is rendered to meaningless nonsense

Biology is not a science? So then Astrophysicists came up with vaccines and antibiotics. Or did we all just stumble upon those by accident.

Actually, that would be an example of technology. But biology is a science because the concepts that make it up are formed by the scientific method. You can’t declare biology a non-science just because you don’t like the major theories on specieation. Well you can, but you’ll just look ridiculous

Biological research led to those technologies.

Woooow! What other of your posts are you going to recycle?

The Scientific Method
-Observation
-Create a hypothesis based on the observation
-Use said hypothesis to make predictions
-Test the predictions made by said hypothesis by experimentation or further observations.
-Based on results modify hypothesis. If hypothesis stands to tests and observations it may be promoted to a theory.

Of course tests and observations can prove a hypothesis or theory wrong so than you modify the hypothesis or theory.

biologists know what species is
thus
colin leslie dean speaks meaningless nonsense

Gamila you can’t just say "Blank’s theory was shown to be false, therefore…."
when you talk about fundamental science

why don’t you spread your born-again /psychobabbble-disinformation to a crowd that is vulnerable like middle schoolers, you guys used to be great at that.

He don’t even think science is real. Jets use faith to fly.

Negative, the belief that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow is base on knowledge from observations and verification thru experimentation.

biologists know what species is
so
coline leslie dean talks meaningless nonsense

Gamila,

People like you bask in the glory of ignorance. How ignorance has become a virtue in your community is beyond me.

If the laws of physics were to change tomorrow, which has been sufficiently proven they will not, I assure you we would not be around tomorrow to observe them.

Then perhaps Dean can tell us what biology is. It is definitely a field of study that has researchers which have discovered many things, like DNA, and mapped out the human genome using state of the art technology. So if it isn’t science, then a field of study which uses technology and has discovered real facts–helpful facts for medicine and other fields of study is not science.

All you have to do is watch two male whales sparring for breeding rights and you see NS. If you see extinction you in some cases see NS. If you death because of deleterious mutations, or disappearance of a harmful or useless trait then you see NS. But NS as a sole mechanism for evolution is wrong as it can add no new information to the genome–you are correct

I am creationist, but acknowledge Darwin’s accomplishment in the theory of NS (albeit exaggerated conclusions in my opinion). He was not alone, but he was the propagator of the theory. It is speculated that Darwin read some of Edward Blythe’s material, who was creationist in a time of Lamarckian evolution. He was not alone in his observations–the interpretations were different.

I agree. Natural selection is not the only thing that drives evolution. You, also, have mutation for natural selection act upon.

So tomorrow gravity could no function?

Wow. Tomorrow all the planets in the solar system could be flung out of their orbits.

Gamila, are you serious? Or is this a joke.

And now your going to ask for sources into my obvious sarcasm. OMG

gamila is a forum-troller, he just posts stupid shit and contradicts people in every way.
but if you are asking for a theory and who proved it, i believe it was newton originally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
and then later evidenced in apollo 15 by David Scott, with the hammer and the feather, although you are certainly too young to remember that
go do something with ur life gamila

ok im allready scared about 2012 you dont need to scare me more

Postmodernism and its follower like C.L Dean and the fawning airhead admirer (or alias for self-agrandization and massive stupidity evidenced by 3rd person self-reference) are way scarier that hypothetical end of of the world build by poorly educated conspiration theorist that cannot grasp the complicated working of positional counting.

I think you are putting away something important for the speciation definition, even more important from the evolutionary point of view than from taxonomical one. non-fertile offspring is not the only barrier for interspecifical breeding. Ecological habitat, phisical barriers, sexual behavior, and a lot of other things are also important. Bactrian and common camel are barely if any inhabitating the same ecological region, I think, so interbreeding is naturally avoided. So they can have fertile offspring, so what? They are still segregated populations in a specie-commited evolutionary pathway. The same with the two horse species. In categories Iike specie I likely to be Abelardian, they not exist by itself, but reflects real differences, agrupped by the mind in logical boxes, not arbitrary ones.