Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (383451)	5/9/2008 2:38:40 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586821

"Then why dogs have a latin name canis lupus familiarus, the latter term meaning a subspecies of canis lupus?" Well, they are also called canis familiaris. Welcome to the world of taxonomy. You have lumpers, who like to put as many into a particular classification as possible, and splitters, who like to split them out. It looks like the lumpers have won out again. Ok, then. They should be subspecies. "Sure. But its not a creation of a new species. You can obscure that point by talking about definitions of what a species is." It is not obscuring anything. It, in fact, is the core of the argument. Sure, if you start inventing your own terminology, like your definition of a species, then you can argue that no new species have been created. The creationist tried that decades ago. Instead of species, they introduced the concept of a "kind". And new kinds could not be created, only God could do that. And kinds were, rather recursively, defined as being unchangeable. So by creating your own definitions and grinding it with your own logic rules, you can "prove" almost anything.