Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
> 
>> Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that a 
>> bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two populations 
>> of fruit flies are the same species.  What exactly has to be in the genetics?
> 
>   I don't think you get it. What I said is that the claim "two groups of
> animals have been speciated away from each other if they won't interbreed
> because of instinctual preference" (rather than their genes being
> incompatible) is an incorrect definition.
> 
>   You can't argue pro that definition with the argument "well, you can't
> give a better definition". That argument coulud be used to defend anything.

I'm not arguing against it. I'm asking you what your definition is. You say 
"it's genetics", but that isn't enough. You're treating my question as if 
I'm saying "you're wrong."  I'm happy to be shown you're right, but you 
haven't done that yet.

*You* are the one asserting it's genetics and can't be just behavior. *You* 
are saying *I* am wrong. But you're not supporting that. You're just saying 
it louder.

I'm happy to be shown wrong, but the way to show that isn't to say "you 
don't get it". The way to show me wrong is to provide a *better* definition 
than "these creatures would never have fertile offspring if humans hadn't 
invented artificial insemination."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message