You may rest assured that I did both, before commenting.
6 Likes
That explosion you hear off in the distance is a million irony meters bursting into flames.
Perhaps you should read what is in the link you posted and understand what it says.
4 Likes
2 Likes
I took another look at NonLinâs opening article.
And most of you were right, he doesnât have a clue what the article is about⌠Here is the key quote:
âCategorizing species can get especially hazy at small, microbial scales. After all, the classical definition of species as interbreeding individuals with sexually viable offspring doesnât apply to asexual organisms.â
^^ The author is arguing how to those kinds of life that do not sexually reproduce. NonLin doesnât even acknowledge the âclassical definitionâŚinterbreeding individuals with viable offspringâ for any species. Which even the author doesnât reject!
"Examining shared DNA [for life forms like bacteria] doesnât help either: collectively, E. Coli bacteria have only 20 percent of genes in common. " â⌠Mikhail Tikhonov ⌠asks: Could organism interactions be described without mentioning species at all?â
^^ Again, this is about microscopic asexually reproducing creatures.
âThe species question is an exciting challenge for theoretical physics,â said Tikhonov. . . âIntuitively [speaking], introducing some classification seems unavoidable, and alternatives are difficult to imagine."
^^ And even Tikhonov argues that some classification seems unavoidable!
1 Like
I did argue the case. It seems youâre not interested enough to follow the condensed version of my argument that I presented. Do feel free to read and respond someday if you care to learn more and engage further. Until then, Lord bless you!
4 Likes
Your questions have been answered.
Then why do you still claim gradualism? Where do you see gradualism when everything in biology is 100% discrete from sub-atoms to atoms, molecules, genes, chromosomes, each element of cell structure and cell process, sexes, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, dominant-recessive, etc. etc.?
Did you see the title of this topic? 'More voices rise against the concept of âSpeciesâ â - apply some logic if you can - this doesnât mean I and the author align perfectly. Addressing your accusations is a waste of time in general and in this particular case.
The case is âspeciesâ, not language. And, if you insist on language, you should know itâs a mark of intelligence as in Intelligent Design. More intelligence - more language, less intelligence - less language as in âdumb as a rockâ.
More qualified commenters than I am had already made that case (on âspeciesâ), and had done so quite clearly (from my perspective, anyhow). You seemed to be struggling with grasping his arguments at the time, so I was honestly just trying to help by coming at it from a different angle. Apparently the metaphor didnât work for you. No harm, no foul!
Iâm not sure I understand your comments on language, tbh â perhaps you may want to be âless conciseâ if you want me to understand. 
But that ought to be on a different thread if you want to pursue it.
Meanwhile, have a blessed night.
Phyletic gradualism does not claim that there is an absolutely smooth spectrum of species change over time.[quote=âNonlinOrg, post:49, topic:36715â]
Did you see the title of this topic? 'More voices rise against the concept of âSpeciesâ â - apply some logic if you can - this doesnât mean I and the author align perfectly. Addressing your accusations is a waste of time in general and in this particular case.
[/quote]
As shown by the article, those voices are rising against the concept of species in the context of asexual organisms interacting in an ecological setting. Nowhere does it support your claim that species donât exist at all.
1 Like
As many voices are rising against the concept of redundant threads where one person faces off against every scientist on the Forum, I think this one can be safely closed.
2 Likes