Well, that’s what I was talking about…
And of course this depends…
And this is hopefully obvious…
Neither could I. I think it was all about the OP’s desire to be self-referential.
I’m coming to understand that this sort of thing is his modus operendi.
fatherjohn
Comment # 1 - A nitpick - The specific epithet in a species name is never capitalized, the genus name is always capitalized. Hence it is Larus fuscus, not Larus Fuscus.
Comment #2 - If there are no significant traits distinguishing a Herring Gull from a Lesser Black-Backed Gull, then yes, perhaps they should not be considered separate species. Changes in classification happens all the time, by “lumpers” like Lemur866 or there evil nemeses the “splitters” 
. You’re making the mistake of assuming that just because these two entities are currently listed as separate species in the literature that everyone agrees that this is so. I assure you this is probably not the case.
Since there is still gene-flow between the populations ( albeit through a roundabout and tortured route ), someone who subscribes to the Evolutionary Species Concept would probably reject the old nomenclature and consider them a single species, despite the fact that there is reproductive isolation at the terminal points of the ring.
Just as a counter-example, the ring termini of Ensatina eschscholtzii seem to be reproductively isolated as well and are very different in appearance, but they’re NOT considered separate species. Though some people think they should be.
That’s why ring species, parthenogentic species, and other “oddball” groups are so problematic. There is no yes or no answer to these questions unless you are zealously in one particular philosophical camp. Even then the person in the opposite camp(s) will disagree with you.
None of which has anything ( or very, very little ) to do with the situation of race in humans.
Comment # 3 - I’ve hanging around and enduring the torture of seeing you refer to yourself in the third-person, because I want to see what your big reveal is. But you’re taking too damn long and my patience is slipping. Just spit it out. Why do you consider race in humans a biologically valid categorization? Don’t worry about your arguments being shredded. You can always try and defend them after the fact. I guarantee it won’t be any easier to do, just because you attempted to lay out some rhetorical traps that seek to lock in some specific definitions that support your reasoning. Just lay it all out and explain your definitions and thought processes as you go, if it’s so important to your case.
Okay, I’ve been staying out of this; but I feel it’s time for a Public Service Announcement:
It might be time to check out some of the threads in the Pit:
Sensitive ass SUV drivers (Page 4 and on)
Silly Useless Vehicles
Stickers to Put on Offensive Cars - Illegal? (This one is in GQ. He started the thread, then “contributed” no more to it.)
busted
Free Electricity From the Sun
fatherjohn is not known for answering direct questions (even when they are asked repeatedly and it is pointed out to him that he has not answered), nor is he known for coming to a point.
I agree that “ring species” don’t have much to do with race in humans. They were offered as a dramatic example to show that the definition offered by collounsbury fails.
Note that as a less dramatic example, fatherjohn offered two adjacent subspecies.
You ask a good question of why I feel the need to “lock” an opponent into his position.
The reason is as follows: If you look back at the debate, you will see a cycle emerges.
(1) My opponents offer an reason for rejecting racial distinctions.
(2) fatherjohn comes up with a distinction or classification to which that same reason arguably should apply, and yet it would be absurd to reject the distinction.
(3) My opponents distinguish the classification from racial classifations, in effect coming up with a new reason to reject racial classifications.
Since one can ALWAYS find a way to distinguish one thing from another, this could go on forever, with my opponents forever slowly shifting their rationale.
The easiest way to deal with this problem is to lock one’s opponent into a position, and then destroy that position.
In any event, nobody forced collounsbury to define his terms. That he attempted to do so and failed is noble.
And if he wants to propose another definition for the word “useful,” that’s fine with me – I’m happy to give him a second chance.
Or, if anyone wants fatherjohn to propose a definition for “useful,” and use that definition to defend racial classifications, I will. fatherjohn always keeps his promises.
This is worthy of special comment. It is totally irrelevant to the argument whether Larus fuscus and Larus argentatus are different species.
The point is as follows:
If someone were to do a study claiming that Larus fuscus can fly faster than Larus argentatus, nobody would dismiss the study because the distinction is invalid, even if they believed that the two groups should be seen as part of the same species.
Yet, the logic of collounsbury requires such a dismissal.
P.S. Thanks. fatherjohn will try to follow this rule in the future.
Hoohoo.
Anyways folks, let’s stop feeding the creature from under a bridge.
Isn’t this kind of comment generally frowned upon around here?
It is. And you could have noticed that the poster who wrote it has been banned since. I would point out also that this thread is more than three years old, and that ressucitating very old threads is frowned upon too.