On 1/14/2011 10:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> nor an invalidation of Warp's claim.
>
> Or, to put it another way, it seems very odd to say "No, your definition
> is wrong", and when I ask "Well, what's the right definition, then?" for
> the other party to go on the defensive. I find it's very rare for
> someone to claim that the definition of a scientific word is wrong
> without actually being able to specify what they think the definition is.
>
Scientific terms, like biology, get messy, when they skirt the edges of 
what they *do* define, especially *in* biology. In this case, the 
definition can get fuzzy, since some might argue that producing "any" 
offspring, sterile or not, makes for the same species. Others that this 
isn't any where near sufficient.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message