On 17-1-2011 16:46, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
>
>> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
>> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
>
>    Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
>
>    Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.

No, and I am surprised that you still dare say that without any backup 
sources.

> A group of humans
> deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
> species.

Not if it is just for one or a few generations. And it depend on the 
reason why.
Note that this remark is either inconsistent or an open door as we would 
not call both groups humans if it were different species.

>    The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.

Perhaps in a universe where all species were independently created, but 
not in this one. Sometimes I wonder why the whole world has to conform 
to your ideas of how it should be. Why can you not just simply admire 
its complexity?

Post a reply to this message