Biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

[AstusAleator]

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.

[AFJ]

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.

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!!

[gamila]

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

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

[gamila]

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

[futurezoologist]

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.

[gamila]

[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

[futurezoologist]

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.

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.

[Zongo]

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?

[gamila]

. 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)

[futurezoologist]

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.

[Gavin]

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

[alextemplet]

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