 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] free fr> wrote:
> More seriously, does such definition get transitive ?
That was already discussed elsethread.
(If you missed it, here's a quick summary: Search for "ring species".)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > It talks about preference, not about capability.
> How do you talk a fruit fly into mating with another fruit fly if it doesn't
> want to?
Ostensibly it can be tested without relying on behavioral patterns.
> I think you think "species" is much more strictly defined than it is.
It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
That would eg. mean there's not one single species of humans currently
living.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:06:52 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> >
> >> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> >> I fail to see how telling
> >> >> people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close
> >> >> to establishing a state-sponsored religion
> >> >
> >> > For fair balance, shouldn't there be a "Nation Day of Atheism"? You
> >> > can
> >> > make the exact same arguments: It's not promoting atheism nor forcing
> >> > anybody to be atheist. You can be atheist if you want, but it's your
> >> > choice.
> >
> >> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
> >> the NDP IIRC.
> >
> > Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?
> >
> > Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.
> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
> brick wall. It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
definite bias.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:03:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
>> brick wall. It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
>
> I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
> is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
> definite bias.
Um, no, my comment was nothing more than a comment on your obstinance.
It should not be taken as an answer to your question, nor should this be.
It's a shame that I have to *explain* that something that isn't an answer
to your question *isn't an answer to your question*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/01/2011 8:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
...
>
> Jim
Mornington Crescent! :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-1-2011 18:01, scott wrote:
>>>>> but maybe that's just because we haven't figured out yet what is
>>>>> driving those events, so they just *appear* random to us.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the answer to this speculation is "no, we have proven that's not
>>>> the case." :-)
>>>
>>> Really? How?
>>
>> Look up "Bell's Inequality." It has recently (in the last couple of
>> years) gone on from there to prove that the problem is not non-local
>> interactions.
>
> But does that really prove that there is nothing else controlling what
> we are measuring? If you liken our universe to a computer simulation,
> then outside of the simulation none of the limitations inside the
> simulation necessarily apply.
The technical term for that is a 'hidden variable theory'; the variable
has a value except we don't know it. Bell has shown that if the universe
can be described by a hidden variable theory some measurable quantities
have different values than if the variable has no value until measured.
Alain Aspect has shown that nature is incompatible with a hidden
variable theory. So Darren is right, and you, Einstein, Podolsky, and
Rosen are proven wrong. Nothing to be ashamed of, I'd say.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2011 12:45, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On 12/01/2011 04:12 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> If you can't, take a look at dogs. Some kinds can't interbreed with each
>>>> other, if only due to huge differences in size. Humans did that.
>>>
>>> I don't think that is what defines a species. It's about genetics.
>
>> How about this: There are two species of grasshopper that never
>> interbreed. The females of species A ignore the songs of males of
>> species B. However, if you mute the male and play back a recording of a
>> male of species A, the two will mate, and produce viable offspring. It's
>> just that this only ever happens in the lab.
>
> The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behavior.
No that is a choice and one that not everybody agrees on. It might be in
your biology book but that does not prove much.
>> Similarly, there are probably classes of birds where you could do the
>> same thing by putting coloured visors over the bird's eyes, or moths
>> where you could mask one chemical pheromone with another. Are these
>> separate species?
>
> It's about genetics, not about behavior.
>
>> You can apparently mate a lion with a tiger, producing either a "liger"
>> or a "tiglon". (Go look them up.) But this never happens in the wild (as
>> far as we know).
Given that their habitats do not overlap...
> Are these separate species?
>
> The offspring must be fertile. Ligers and tigons aren't.
That too is a choice that not everybody agrees on. It is still often
used as a definition, read the origin of species for many examples where
this does not make sense. Among other things offspring of two 'species'
that are more viable than the pure breeds.
No definition of species exists that is not violated in some 'species'.
I think it may be hard to find a biologist in this field that would
supply you with something more than: 'in most cases this will match you
intuitive concept'. I can live with that. People whose mental health
depend on the assumption that there is a clear definition of 'species'
may freely ignore the evidence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2011 13:00, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Surprisingly enough, it really is trivial.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation
>
> It talks about preference, not about capability. Just because some man will
> not mate with fat women doesn't make the man a different species.
>
It talks about both: 'Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive
isolation can develop from mating preferences' see also the discussion
on speciation genes somewhat lower on the page.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:03:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
> >> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
> >> brick wall. It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
> >
> > I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
> > is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
> > definite bias.
> Um, no, my comment was nothing more than a comment on your obstinance.
> It should not be taken as an answer to your question, nor should this be.
> It's a shame that I have to *explain* that something that isn't an answer
> to your question *isn't an answer to your question*.
And it's a shame I have to point out when I'm being sarcastic since you
don't seem to get it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:09:17 -0500, Warp wrote:
> And it's a shame I have to point out when I'm being sarcastic since
> you
> don't seem to get it.
That's what sarcasm tags are for - it's very difficult in a written-only
medium to pick up on those cues.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
