No....they are different 'kinds' within the same main specie.
Animals are animals, but there are many different kinds.
Just because 2 kinds can't breed doesn't make them different main species.
A cat and a dog are both the same main specie...animal...but they can't breed.
One main specie can never morph into another main specie !....absolutely impossible !
34 comments
Oh, this guy is a classic. Practically every word he types is worthy of this site.
Particular gems in this case include the following:
(1) The use of "specie" intended as the singular form of "species" (never mind what those pesky dictionaries say).
(2) The idea that "species" can be so inclusive as to have both cats and dogs be considered the same species, but that there are "kinds" within species that differentiate those which can breed with each other (never mind what those pesky biologists claim).
(3) The specious argument that species never "morph" into other species -- as if biologists ever claimed that in the first place, which they had not.
Theme-Investor: Expert ignoramus.
~David D.G.
A note: a specie (which this moron refers to four times) is an archaic word for coin (if I remember correctly). As such, this post is just one long non-sequiter(sp?).
Side note: This is my first comment! Let the correction-storm begin! Gawd, I love this site [sarcasm]
"No....they are different 'kinds' within the same main specie."
Define "kind".
"Animals are animals, but there are many different kinds."
is that kind, or 'kind'? If it's the former, duh. If it's the latter, see above.
"Just because 2 kinds can't breed doesn't make them different main species."
'main' species? WTF?
"A cat and a dog are both the same main specie...animal...but they can't breed."
wait... 'animal' is a 'main species'? So... by 'main species', you actually mean 'kingdom'?
"One main specie can never morph into another main specie !....absolutely impossible !"
Hmmm. Well, for the most part, that's true. Plants will never 'morph' into animals. We're agreed on that. However, animals and plants evolved from a common ancestor... oh, hell, why am I even bothering to explain it? The people who read FSTDT probably already know, and in the unlikely event Theme_investor reads my explanation, s/he wouldn't get it, anyhow.
ETA: Hadanelith, according to google, it refers to any coinage made of precious metal.
I stand corrected (see, I told you the correction storm would begin). It has just occured to me, however, that this fundie is right in one sense. One coin of a precious metal will never morph into one of a different precious metal. The point remains, regardless, that this guy is an idiot (one who has no conception of standard grammar, spelling, punctuation, or anything else important to civilized writing).
Most Informed Creationist Award?
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, AND Species? Apostate! Abomination! Science is LIES. Highly organized, testable, provable, too hard for me to understand LIES!!! (three makes it true!!!)
Oh good god. Theme_investor has a classification system on par with that of a three year old. His extent of identification seems to be 'animal', 'plant', 'neither'.
Fortunately the three year old will eventually broaden their understanding, unless they're raised as a fundy.
If you drop the preconceived notion that a "main specie" has anything to do with a Linnean "species", what this guy actually appears to be saying is that evolutionary transitions are possible up to the kingdom level; his only example of a main specie is "animal", and the Animalia are traditionally considered a kingdom.
In other words, he seems to allow for a common ancestry of men and corals, but not for men and toadstools.
Hadanelith, you knew more about what a specie was than I did (before I googled it out of curiousity after reading your post).
TLC, see my other post in this thread. He doesn't necessarily exclude common ancestry, so long as you assume that "main specie" corresponds to "modern kingdom"...
Hmm. Just so long as he doesn't deny that one domain can "morph" into another domain, anyhow.
Not that I think he really has the slightest clue what he's talking about. I just like joking about the ambiguity inherent in ignorant posts like those of Theme_investor.
I always thougt that "kind" was used to signify the larger group consisting of related species instead of the other way around, as this guy does. This because it would be a usefull tool to save "ark-space", since Genesis says about the pairs Noah brought on his ark "eacht to their kind".
Someone quoted here on fstdt (was it last month?) said that kind means whatever fits the bible literalists best in a given situation (and he was a fundie!)
Fundies prefer the word "kind" over species because unlike the latter, "kind" is an ambigous term with multiple definitions. On the other hand, "species" has only one definition: a population who can interbreed and produce healthy fertile offspring.
No....they are different 'kinds' within the same main specie.
Animals are animals, but there are many different kinds.
For my sanity...main specie means kingdom, right? RIGHT?!
One main specie can never morph into another main specie !....absolutely impossible !
No-one's claiming that...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.