Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me try to simplify it for you. Are there species according to evolutionists, or is there only one specie?

Who do you think knows more about ice cream flavors? Me or some plant disease guy?

Don't you think that is a disagreement in science?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, so no such concept of kind' in science you say. So beetles did not evolve to become lions after a long time of biologic mutations?

Yes, Biblical mythology of the concept of 'kind' plays no role in science.

Actually, according to the science of evolution 'beetles do not evolve to become lions after a long time of biologic mutations.'

It remains that your lack of scientific knowledge and English comprehension is appalling.

 

[shunyadragon]

So again, science has never born false witness because you say science is not a person.

So again, again and again this has nothing to with science. Science does not bear false witness to anything. Your going over the deep end anthropomorphizing science as some sort of person.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please explain what you mean when you say that all species can be defined as referenced in the definition, which includes defining the evolutionary relationship over billions of years between ALL species. can you be a bit more specific? (not necessarily as species specific, because it seems that you are saying all species belong to one species. If not, can you be a bit clearer and give examples? If all species come from one thing at the beginning, and evolved, it seems that you are saying there really are no species. If there are, please delineate briefly, if possible. thank you.

The reference provide and the references footnoted answer your questions. I believe not only your appalling knowledge of science is an issue, compounded by a ancient religious agenda, but also your reading comprehension in the English language. The references provided are high school level English.

 

[metis]

Well, maybe we can start a new thread about the definition of kind and species, and if there is a difference.

Some have already beaten me on this, and that is that we don't use "kinds" in science the way you are using it. You are using it in the biblical context, not the scientific context.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So -- does science have the (right) answer? If I answer your question on the basis of what would be considered the correct response theoretically by mainstream definitions, I'd say what category scientists would place you in. And I'm learning here that there really (according to what I'm reading here) are no distinctive species in a certain sense, It's all like one but not the same*. On the other hand, I'll leave it up to you to decide if you and I are a species. You're the expert, so hopefully you will have a definitive answer.
*OK, from what I'm learning here, maybe it's not all like one but not the same.

I am.
I'm me.
A person, a species.
A lover of entomology.

My group has it's place on the tree.
No pelican can say don't look, don't see.
We all are apes come down from the trees
The evidence of that brings doctrine to its knees.

Species exist. Individuals they are not. Groups of individuals, a single species can be. Or you can have a group of species as individuals at a species party. A little get to know you where guard it is dropped. The dogs don't chase the cats. Chop, chop, chop.

I hope that helps clear things up for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But they don't know the history of the fossil discoveries? Ok then.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they know the history of fossil discoveries, given that they are experts in their fields.
I have no idea what your point here is supposed to be.

Thanks for butchering my post and responding only to a single sentence though. We're not going to get anywhere that way, which explains a lot, actually ....

 

[YoursTrue]

I asked if you thought science was a person. I never said anything one way or the other.

Do you think science is a person?

You're supposed to be the expert. You answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am.
I'm me.
A person, a species.
A lover of entomology.

My group has it's place on the tree.
No pelican can say don't look, don't see.
We all are apes come down from the trees
The evidence of that brings doctrine to its knees.

Species exist. Individuals they are not. Groups of individuals, a single species can be. Or you can have a group of species as individuals at a species party. A little get to know you where guard it is dropped. The dogs don't chase the cats. Chop, chop, chop.

I hope that helps clear things up for you.

So you are a member of a species. A specific species. Beetles are not members of your species.

 

[Astrophile]

It wasn't silly at all. Meantime,'science' doesn't believe in what is termed kinds, but does believe in species, or perhaps rather, specie.

Let me try to simplify it for you. Are there species according to evolutionists, or is there only one specie?

The word 'species' is both singular and plural. The word 'specie' means 'coin as opposed to paper money'; it has no connection with biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is the point of this question? Have you ever heard that biologist recognize only a single species?

What do you think?

I wouldn't have asked if I didn't hear someone allude to everyone being of one species, by that meaning coming from the same origin of the cellular beginning. When I come across it again I'll let you know.

 

[YoursTrue]

The word 'species' is both singular and plural. The word 'specie' means 'coin as opposed to paper money'; it has no connection with biology.

Yes, I just read that also and corrected it in my post. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I asked if you thought science was a person. I never said anything one way or the other.

Do you think science is a person?

Based on your replies, like clouds, science never makes a mistake. Clouds are not composed of persons who do make mistakes. Maybe you think science is like that.

 

[metis]

Science tends to be self-correcting over time, which is not the case with religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is the point of this question? Have you ever heard that biologist recognize only a single species?

What do you think?

I am going to ask you the same question I asked shunyadragon. Rephrasing it a bit, however. Are beetles in the same species as humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

Science tends to be self-correcting over time, which is not the case with religion.

Science is self correcting? Let's examine that a bit. As Dan touched on, would you say science is a person?

 

[Jose Fly]

OK, because you know so much more than I do, let me try to understand this again about species. You said,
"In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity

OK, so a species (in biological terms) is "often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction."
(That's one way of defining species according to what you sayis the biological terminology of species. So that would be the largest group of organisms in which individuals that can mate with another can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. In otder to understand this, re: sexual reproduction as the typical way, what other way would there be? and can you please give examples of what you say above might be the largest group?)

You also said there are (if I understand you correctly), other ways of defining species, "Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecoogical niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined."

Not that I know what karyotype is, and how the other things fit into defining a species, but regardlesss, does that relate to the first definition you put forth? (basic unit of classification of those organisms that can mate with one another and produce, I suppose, viable, sustainable and mateable offspring)?

What is or is there a difference between the first definition you gave, according to science, and the second definition of species, also which you seem to indicate is according to science.

Sorry bud, but I have zero interest in trying to teach you....well, anything. I've watched countless others try to get you to understand even the most basic, uncontroversial things only to grow frustrated with your refusal or inability to learn, and eventually give up.

If you really, truly want to learn about evolutionary biology, then go take a course or buy a layperson-friendly book on the subject.

 

[tas8831]

Yes. For starters Johansson himself was convinced that some of the jawbones belong to a different taxon. After several visits he finally agreed that they could be also considered part of the Australopithecus species.
And then based on a few similar looking jawbones and cranial material they claimed the entire collection of around 300 bones and bone fragments all belong to a single humanoid species.
All of the Homo and ape like bones that they had reported as belonging to separate species were all now assigned to one.
Including bones that they and others has described as looking at pretty much identical to H. sapiens .
He also insisted that the footprints must be Lucy's although they had no feet bones

And when they presented this finding to the world a number of predominant members of the Paleo community expressed strong opposition. They argued that the variation seem in the sample is far too extensive to be from a single species.

Interesting - can you provide your source for this? I would like to read it myself.

 

[tas8831]

Look up: "Lucy's child, the discovery of a human ancestor by early man publishing Incorporated 1989.
And "origins reconsidered: in search of what makes us human" anchor books 1992
And, "a new species of the genus Australopithecus. " 1978

Yes I'm paraphrasing.. no direct quotes from anything.

You read all of those, and came away only with 'controversy'? I find that hard to believe. If you did, surely you have more information, like page numbers or at least chapters, right? I mean, you studied them so intensely that you were able to glean the 'detail' you did.

 

[tas8831]

The evidence fits fine into other paradigms.

Explain.