Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think one of the reasons that it's difficult to be precise about a species is that it's really just a human invention that is used to categorize all living things.
A specific example of the fuzzy nature of species is what's called a ring species. This is a series or chain of populations of animals that can mate with populations neighboring them, but as you go along the chain, the species from one end can't successfully breed with those on the other. Take a simple example with 5 groups :
A <-> B <-> C <-> D <-> E
Each species can breed with it's nearest neighbors but not groups that are further away. A can breed with B, B can breed with A and C, C can breed with B & D, D can mate with E and C, and E can mate with D. But A and E are different enough that they can't mate. Same with A and D, B and D, and B and E.
So the question here is what is the species? Is it the entire group, is A a different species from E even though you can connect a chain to them via B, C and D? Or is species a fuzzy term that only makes sense in certain situations?
Considering that Berlinski is an ardent advocate of ID and doesn't even have the right credentials to be an expert in the area of life sciences which would deal with such issues as evolution, there's therefore no reason to take him at all seriously.
Considering that Berlinski is an ardent advocate of ID and doesn't even have the right credentials to be an expert in the area of life sciences which would deal with such issues as evolution, there's therefore no reason to take him at all seriously.
The fact that is an advocate of ID does not mean he is wrong or can't speak out against evolution. One doesn't need a Ph.d in biology to argue against evolution.
The fact that is an advocate of ID does not mean he is wrong or can't speak out against evolution. One doesn't need a Ph.d in biology to argue against evolution.
True, but that certainly doesn't make him right either.
One doesn't need a Ph.d in biology to argue against evolution.
That's true, I don't have one either but I've studied the subject for a long time. By the way, does the statement below your screen name describe your area of expertise?
Soon you may be able to order life and have it shipped to you in the mail. If you have a chance the NOVA site has a bunch of nice movies and also if you get a chance watch the full episode from the segment above.
Empirical: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
You nor anyone else have ever observed evolution in progress. This does not change Darwin's requirements for success or failure of his theory. Where are the crossover species?
The AIDS virus is a perfect example of encapsulated evolution. It evolves in order that it may continue to propagate. Viruses are living organisms. What do all living organisms have in common? Survival and reproduction.
As an Anthroplogy major, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that evolution is doesn't exist. I've held the skulls of Homo hablis and Homo heidelbergensis in my hands. If evolution is no more than a scientific wet dream, then your sky daddy sure is big on practical jokes.
I've held the skulls of Homo hablis and Homo heidelbergensis in my hands.
Err.....pieces of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.