Definition of "Species," please

From: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM (
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 12:30:31 EST

  • Next message: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM: "RE: Old-Earth Creationism"

    Adrian Teo did an admirable job of trying to defend us OECs, but this is a
    hard room to please...

    But one item that he seemed to be taken to task is the common complaint that
    "kinds" in the OT is rather vague at best, not aligning well with modern
    classification categories.

    But I have found that the prime unit of evolution theory, "species," as in
    "Origin of the....," is often more than a little flexible, especially when
    defending evolution.

    I mean, kids, and gullible adults, are told that new resistant "species" of
    bacteria are appearing every day, this "proving" evolution. But, the
    dictionary definition of species, " category...comprising related organisms
    or populations potentially capable of interbreeding...," fails when
    categorizing asexual organisms. The temptation to equate "strains" and
    "species" seem a little too hard to resist, or justify.

    But I have found scientists like to put a spin on the definition concerning
    larger critters. I had a heated discussion a year ago about some new
    species of fish supposedly found in Canada. Trying to stifle this
    evolutionist's enthusiasm concerning this new proof of "speciation," I
    inquired whether this fish could mate with a member of the species from
    which it "evolved." I was told that, for what ever reason, these critters
    like to stay with "their own kind." So I suggested trying artificial
    insemination. "Oh my goodness, no! Why would anyone want to do THAT?" was
    basically the response.

    And I hear this rationale over and over...such as claims that many breeds of
    dog is of a different "species." When they say that a Chihuahua can no
    longer interbreed with a Great Dane, I ask has it been tried using
    artificial insemination, with the Great Dane carrying the litter, of course.
    The answer was the same as above.

    What amazes me is, at other sites, of course, evolutionists tend to try to
    come off with a rather "fearing neither man or God" persona, but when it
    comes to proving speciation, they seem to claim that if interbreeding is not
    achieved through soft music, and a candle-lit dinner, then the results are
    unwarranted, illegal, and possibly, invalid.

    I would like any comments about this observation.

    Norm Woodward
    Warner Robins Georgia

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 12:31:31 EST