Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The problem here is that, in the case of fruit flies, the "behavior" is 
> genetic, but your counter example is not. 

What counter-example do you think I'm claiming?

 > Thus, it cannot represent
> either a valid counter example, nor an invalidation of Warp's claim. 

I'm not trying to invalidate Warp's claim. Nowhere did I say Warp was wrong 
in his claim. I just asked him how he defines "species" beyond "it's 
genetic". Because by *his* definition, two men are not of the same species.

> Show that the behavior of the fruit flies can be "trained", or otherwise 
> altered, without changing the genetics, 

Well, you take a homogenous group of fruit flies. You put them in a two 
different environments for a while. You bring them back together. Their 
behavior is changed. I don't know if the change is genetic or not. It would 
seem to me that fruit flies have very little behavior that isn't dictated 
genetically - it's not like you can train them to do tricks. I didn't see 
anything in the reference I gave that said the fruit flies were still 
genetically compatible. Warp seems to be asserting that the fruit flies are 
still genetically compatible, and it's just that they're not sufficiently 
friendly with the other group any more or something.

I'm simply asking Warp to tell me what test he would use to find out if two 
individuals are the same species. You can't just say "it's genetic." Yes, we 
understand that, but the details are what we're arguing about.

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

Post a reply to this message