Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

To reiterate for the nth time...

As long as they can mate...they are of the same species. Levanay failed.


Please take some biology courses then come debate with me.

Once again, your definition of species is flawed. Donkeys and horses are not the same species, nor is every single asexual creature it's own species.

You can tell me to take some biology courses after you take one or two and get the basic facts straight.

[Alchemist]

Once again, your definition of species is flawed. Donkeys and horses are not the same species, nor is every single asexual creature it's own species.

You can tell me to take some biology courses after you take one or two and get the basic facts straight.

Once again your wrong!

I have a degree in biology sir.

Donkeys and horses do not produce viable offspring. A Mule is a sterile creature that cannot pass its own gene, hence donkeys and horses are not of the same species!

This definition of species is a scientifically accepted definition!

Would you like to define what a species is in your own words then?

I have asked you to provide one 10 times now, but you never do.

You are childish.

[ozymandias]

Once again your wrong!

I have a degree in biology sir.

Clearly a worthless one, given that you make elementary mistakes in the most basic concepts of biology. What possible school would allow someone that treats the field so sloppily, misunderstands basic fundamentals of biology, and cannot even examine the evidence presented to them?

Donkeys and horses do not produce viable offspring. A Mule is a sterile creature that cannot pass its own gene, hence donkeys and horses are not of the same species!

But your definition of species does *not* include a 'viability' clause -- not to mention the fact that a mule is clearly viable -- they are often born alive -- and some of them are even fertile. The point is that you are using a sloppy, flawed definition, and claiming to prove things with it.

This definition of species is a scientifically accepted definition!

Indeed it is. Why don't we start using the scientifically accepted definition, instead of yours? Not only that, but the definition needs to be applied carefully. Any definition of species that relies solely upon sexual reproduction is necessarily incomplete, and cannot be applied to asexual organisms. You would think anyone with a rudimentary understanding of biology would understand that.

Would you like to define what a species is in your own words then?

I have asked you to provide one 10 times now, but you never do.

You are childish.

I have told you, repeatedly, that if you ask me politely, I will do so. I have stated that I will *NOT* provide that definition to you when you are being rude, and calling names. Ask me politely.

[graveyardofempires]

this american is just pplaying smart, while knowing not...................

[ozymandias]

this american is just pplaying smart, while knowing not...................

Feel free to educate me, or provide evidence to back up your claims I am just 'pplaying smart' or 'knowing not'. I welcome the chance to further my education.

[graveyardofempires]

Feel free to educate me, or provide evidence to back up your claims I am just 'pplaying smart' or 'knowing not'. I welcome the chance to further my education.

you quoting "pplaying"

exactly my point

[ozymandias]

you quoting "pplaying"

exactly my point

I'm sorry, I guess I still missed your point. *shrug*

[graveyardofempires]

I'm sorry, I guess I still missed your point. *shrug*

you have always missed th epoint thats why you are clueless.

start all over again and this time be curious instead of being arrogant american.

[Manzareh]

Ozymandias,

Would you kindly take the time out to write a sentance or two on your definition on what a species is please.

Thank you.

[Alchemist]

But your definition of species does *not* include a 'viability' clause -- not to mention the fact that a mule is clearly viable -- they are often born alive -- and some of them are even fertile. The point is that you are using a sloppy, flawed definition, and claiming to prove things with it.

y.

A mule is sterile. A male mule is always sterile therefore a mule can't cross with another mule. Reason being that a Horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62 chromosomes, a mule, which is a HYBRID has 63 chromosomes.

The definition is sound but your objection to it is sloppy and flawed.

Here is a scientist, who believes in evolution, proving you wrong:

Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and create viable offspring. In other words, a species can have babies that can have babies too.

This is why a mule is not really a new species. When a donkey and a horse get together, they produce a mule. The mule, though, is sterile -- it cannot have or make new mules.

If mules could have foals with other mules, then it might be a new species. And even better would be if the mules could only mate with other mules and not with horses or donkeys. This would really be a new species.

For a variety of reasons, this road to a new species is tricky for larger animals like these. So how might evolution work for these sorts of animals?

One of the simplest ways is if two groups of the same species become separated for a long period of time. These two groups of animals change over time creating two new species. When they meet back up again, they can no longer make babies -- they are separate species.

by Dr. Barry Starr, Stanford University

So here I gave you proof from the horses mouth. But somehow you will manage to delude your self into thinking that the definition that I have consistently presented as one being accepted by the scientific community is "sloppy and flawed".

You should hang your head in shame for being an arrogant douchebag for challenging a widely accepted SCIENTIFIC definition.


If you want to discuss yeast "evolution"...I'd be happy too but you should first learn as much about it as you can before making a jackass of your self again.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Once again your wrong!

I have a degree in biology sir.

.

You're lying, you told me you had a degree in psychology, not biology

faking credentials won't win debates.

[ozymandias]

you have always missed th epoint thats why you are clueless.

start all over again and this time be curious instead of being arrogant american.

Read my first post in this thread. The whole thread is about curiosity, and not arrogance. Others assumed I am arrogant simply because I was different. That's their loss.

[ozymandias]

A mule is sterile.

False. Mules *have* been successfully breed. But that's beside your point. Your definition has been 'can they mate'. You state nothing about ability to bear young together, let alone the fertility of the young -- which is my point. The definition that you keep throwing around is incomplete.

A male mule is always sterile therefore a mule can't cross with another mule.

So what? A male mule is alive, which meets your second definition. In fact, according to *any* of your definitions, a mule would not be a species then. Sterile beings cannot even *have* young, so they cannot meet your definition. So every asexual creature is it's own species, according to you, and sterile creatures are no species. Gotcha.

Reason being that a Horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62 chromosomes, a mule, which is a HYBRID has 63 chromosomes.

Right -- all facts your definition does not address.

The definition is sound but your objection to it is sloppy and flawed.

You have that backwards.

Here is a scientist, who believes in evolution, proving you wrong:

Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

Actually, no. His definition is more complete than yours -- but he is still using a simplistic definition, as it does not address sterile individuals, or asexual creatures. That article proves exactly what I am saying -- your definition would state that horses and donkeys are the same species -- you need to extend the definition that you have been using to prevent that. You have the same problem with asexuality -- according to your definition, all asexual creatures are their own species, since they cannot interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

So here I gave you proof from the horses mouth. But somehow you will manage to delude your self into thinking that the definition that I have consistently presented as one being accepted by the scientific community is "sloppy and flawed".

It is sloppy and flawed -- but it is good enough for most discussions. You have to be aware of the limits of the definitions when you use them, though. How could you *possibly* have a species of asexual creatures, using that as the definition of 'species'? You cannot, because no two asexual creatures can interbreed. Period. That's why they are asexual. You are taking a definition, and trying to abuse it to prove a point that is outside the definition itself.

You should hang your head in shame for being an arrogant douchebag for challenging a widely accepted SCIENTIFIC definition.

Funny. It's like you are talking to yourself when you say things like this.

If you want to discuss yeast "evolution"...I'd be happy too but you should first learn as much about it as you can before making a jackass of your self again.

Let's not even bring up yeast. We already have drug resistant bacteria and E.Coli on the table. Both of these are examples of asexual creatures, and both of these examples you have tried to apply your inappropriate definition to. You need to use a definition that takes into account asexuality when discussing speciation of asexual creatures.

I am trying to make this point -- using your definition, how could you possibly decide when speciation occurs in E.coli? Your definition precludes any such use. Your definition is acceptable in general, but when discussing a creature outside it's scope it is not acceptable.

[ozymandias]

You're lying, you told me you had a degree in psychology, not biology

faking credentials won't win debates.

No matter if he has such a degree (which I doubt, due to his failure to understand the basics), he would still be making a fallacy:



I think I am going to pull out the illustrated logical fallacy pictures again.

[Alchemist]

I have a double degree...


besides...ozy is now challenging a scientific definition of species.

Clearly he is not credible to carry on this debate.

The point of the definition is to show you what a species is in order to know what "Speciation" means. Asexually reproducing organisms form clones of themselves so there aren't "variations", which is a necessary premise for "natural selection.

You are going on needless tangents. And still you refuse to provide a definition of species. You are trying to prove, I suppose, that there is no such thing as a "species"? Why don't you just invent your own theories, we will call them Ozzyphoria.