This is because of physical barriers. But couldn’t a St. Bernard bitch be successfully impregnated with Chihuahua sperm?
I do think that zoologists would be liable to classify St. Bernards and Chihuahuas into different species if not for the context of domestication, and that this shows division of animals into species to be somewhat arbitrary.
Now, if someone could spot the origin of a new genera, that would be really impressive.
Gamete incompatibility is sufficient to define a new species, even though the underlying genetic material is compatible.
There are species of insects defined only by the physical structure of their genitals. That physical imcompatibility aside, they cannot be distinguished from other species.
*"The point, then, is that the definition of life is somewhat subjective, if, at these fine levels of detail there becomes a sort of blur between which category to put an object in. Does the virus go in the “life” pile, or the “not life” pile?
Milum’s analogy (which instead is likely to become an entirely separate discussion), then, illustrates is that there is a similar subjectivity to the determination and assignment of species."*
-** Darwin’s Finch **
Ah yes Darwin’s Finch, but my carefully constructed questions were more hopeful and ambitious in scope with the intent to build a fully comprehensible semanic platform for a mutual understanding of the nature of the process of evolution.
But first, since most here have shown themselves to be biocentric, I felt that it was important at the outset to debunk biocentricism.
But now, as I hope we all agree, inanimate matter evolves (such as crystaline growth and suns) as well as the animate, and the distinction between the two is only a functional evolutionary construction of man (such as the reinforced outlines that our eyes have evolved see in order for us to see objects as clearly distinct entities) and we have come to realize that life-forms interact with non-life forms (such as energy, atmosphere, and gravity) to form systems that allow continuation of these groupings through time.
These systems themselves evolve or don’t evolve and here we are today.
So. What about the inert matter that is us? Can we form ideas outside of the dictates of evolution? Ideas, for example, that can successfully explain evolution?
I think yes.
Biocentric?
Milum, I want you to understand something very simple. Optimus Prime is a cartoon character. He is not real.
That stated, I’m afraid you’re using words that you don’t understand. These sentences above do not make any sense.
“As I hope we all agree” I’m sure you hope that, but I’m afraid that you have shown no evidence of it being true. You hope we agree “inanimate matter evolves.” Inanimate matter does not evolve. Being nonliving, it can not evolve. It is a series of chemical or nuclear processes. Crystals can develop in interesting and unusual ways, but they are in no way or definition living beings.
“Reinforced outlines”? “Continuation of these groupings through time?”
“Inert matter that is us”? You have an odd and interesting definition of inert.
I think you have something approximating an idea, and are seeking to explain it, but are not doing it properly.
I also think you don’t quite understand the scientific method.
A: Form hypothesis.
B: Create test. Test hypothesis.
C: Analyze results.
D: Revise hypothesis. Go to B.
What, exactly, in your idea of “ideas outside the dictates of evolution” is testable? Do you even have a hypothesis?
What is “biocentrism?”
What is a “dictate of evolution?”
What is an “idea outside the dictates of evolution?”
Yeah, we get it. Life interacts with non-life. It’s all one big happy system. It’s all part of the space-time continuum. Everything is one. I’ve read Alan Watts. So where are you going with this?
Why do you use such elaborate terms (a little too elaborate for your typing skills, it seems) for such simple ideas? Just out with it!
You’re using two different definitions of the word evolution. Evolution, as in “the theory of evolution” is not something that almost any inanimate matter can do, because it requires self-replication with only slight modification. Evolution, as you are using it to refer to inanimate matter, is a more colloquial sense of the term. Crystals are a fairly good place to point to a fuzzy distinction, the fact is that if we don’t have actual self-replication, we can’t really be talking about the theory of evolution.
Perhaps, instead of spreading out your hints throughout many poasts, you could come out and tell us what you are thinking all at once?
And, it seems, even simple terms are too complex for MY typing skills. 
I disagree with this statement. For evolution – in the sense that is applicable to biological evolution – to occur, three criteria must be met: replication, mutation, and differential survivability. Thus, certain non-biological “things” can be said to evolve: language, social conventions, etc. Inanimate matter, such as crystals or stars, do not meet the criteria, thus do not evolve in the same sense; there may well be vernacular usages which might be applicable, but such processes are not akin to biological evolution. In many cases (such as with stars) the processes are more akin to biological development than to evolution.
My, my, boys, we do quibble.
The problem, I think, is that you fellows don’t seem to understand a refined use of the language.
This explaination is embarrassing to me as it is a public admisssion that I overestimated those to whom I spoke.
Oh well this is tedious but here goes…
I knew going in that you folks had tired and trite ideas about evolution. Some of you, I decided, were too young and were likely still chanting textbooks thoughts and dogmas, and some of you were too old to think and to take the time to consider original ideas. So I devised a plan. It was a simple plan, kinda socratic, I planned to slowly introduce short components of the Grand Idea into my posts on this board and then see who was a smart enough fish to recognize a worm when he sees it and take a bite.
And slowly but surely I was getting a few nibbles and then a noisy boat with** E-Sabbath, Diogenes, Finch and Apos** in it pulled up and scared off all the smart fish.
[Explaination of hard words and tricky terms]
Biocentric: like heliocentric, homocentric, ethnocentric. Get it? The Universe as viewed from the viewpoint of biology. This is a nonce word that should be self-explanatory that conveys a touch of light ironic humor. Its use should have helped set up any open minds toward a new frame of reference.
Inert matter that is “us”: the obvious state of the soul, essence, or self, in a universe that is governed by Deterministic Evolution. In other words is there a “we” that is only along for the ride?
The evolution of stars: Strange. Our biological evolution is totally dependent on the birth, transformation and death of stars. But if you wish to consign it to definition #2 in our proper arbitrary dictionary, go ahead, it was only an allusion to demostrate that evolution is directing system with many masks.
Everything is one. I’ve read Alan Watts. So where are you going with this? ~ Apos
I think you have something approximating an idea, and are seeking to explain it, but are not doing it properly. ~ E-Sabbath*
Perhaps, instead of spreading out your hints throughout many posts, you could come out and tell us what you are thinking all at once? ~ Diogenes
Sorry. I’ll do what I think best.
I’m sorry, but “refined” is not a synonym for “sloppy.” Being precise about what you mean is a key element to any discussion of objective fact, let alone science. The problem is not that you aren’t speaking English, but rather that the things you say are so vague and cryptic that they could be interpreted in many different ways. This sort of sloppy use of language almost always leads to sloppy thinking.
We know what the words might mean. We don’t understand your odd usage of the words. You accuse people of being “biocentric” without any argument or explanation of what you mean by that (in what way it is wrong) and why people are guilty of it.
No, evolution is a description of very particular mechanism, as distinct from more colloquial concepts of evolution (like the “evolution” of stars). The mechanism may well deliver us insights into other things, but you should not get sloppy and start using the term for anything you fancy, when the main criteria are not met.
Apparently, that doesn’t include keeping track of who said what in this thread.
Well, the question is really how much you can interfere to make interbreeding successful. One one end of the spectrum, you have giving the Chihuahua bitch a stool on which to stand, and on the other end you have modifications being done on the genetic level (say, removal of an extra chromosome); however, neither would happen in the ordinary course of things.
Now, I’ll agree with Milum about the arbitrary nature of live versus non-life, micro/macro, etc., but so what? This isn’t new, and hardly poses a problem to the manifestation of mutation, natural selection, and inheritance in the realm of applicable entities.
Wtf? You can’t edit your own posts here? Bullshit. Anyway, that first paragraph should read:
Oh, and let’s make that “Chihuahua male,” as the original poster had it. I suppose a Chihuahua female could be impregnated by a very aggressive St. Bernard. O_O
We understand it just fine. Thus far you haven’t used any.
[quote]
!.) Give us an example of one our “tired and trite ideas” about evolution (do not use scientifically vacant terms like “biocentric” unless you are prepared to give a specific definition).
2.)Socratic method is based on questions designed to lead a subject to a specific conclusion. It is somewhat syllogistic in nature. You have not followed a Socratic format in your posts. you’ve simply posted cryptic, semantically ambiguous and scientifically meaningless pseudo-philosophy and then responded with unmerited condescension when we asked for clarification. Socratic method is lucid not mystic.
It’s meaningless to this discussion. We’re talking about evolution, which is, by definition. a biological science. You frankly don’t seem to have a very good grasp of the meaning of evolution. You should go look it up…right now…before you misuse it again.
“Inert” means unmoving. In chemistry it means a substance which does not change or interact with other substances. You seem to be trying to define as “inert” some amorphous sense of “self” or personal consciousness which you see as unchanging and “unmoved” by the universe. Fine, Alan Watts again? Or maybe you just read the Tao Te Ching. Anyway, your definition is self-contradictory since this “inert matter” you speak of has no material substance, “Soul” and “essense” are essentially meaningless words so you’ll have to try again. This time, please make an attempt to connect “inert mass” the subject under discussion.
“Evolution is directing system…?” 
Dude, what are you talking about. Please, speak English. Speaking in pseudo-mystical gobbelty-gook doesn’t make you clever or provocative, just hard to read. Do you have anything substantive to bring to this discussion? What are you debating, exactly?
You really should pay attention and get your quotes right while you’re at it.
Indeed. There is the definition of a word as a word… and then there is jargon. Jargon is the meaning of a word in a specific field.
Theory is a good example. A theory, in everyday use, is defined as a “guess.” In scientific terms, however, it is a hypothesis that may or may not have been tested. The Theory of Gravity is for all intents and purposes, a law. Though even this very day we are working on attempting to define the far edges of gravity… for example, the speed at which it propigates.
But no-one would be foolish enough to deny gravity exists, would they? Now, as I said, Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots are not real. Thus… what mean you by biocentric? Certainly, it is possible for non-carbon life forms to exist… but crystal formations and the sun’s progressive cycle through time do not qualify. And, yes, only living things evolve.
Unless you have some great insight?
As far as “Inert matter that is us”… sorry, still not understanding you. Are you talking about free will and self-awareness? Well… darned if I know how it works, either. We can map certain general actions to parts of the brain, but that’s about as far as we can go right now. There are theories, but none of them are, as yet, testable.
Apos? Darwin’s Finch? Diogenes the Cynic? E-Sabbath? I suspect that you are too new to remember Phaedrus, although you may have seen fatherjohn at work in one of the race threads.
Judging by the posts to this thread, to date, Milum is simply an example of Phaedrus redivivus. The M.O. follows the general line (there are variations):
Ask for a definition without providing any context;
make snarky remarks about responses, followed by a new open-ended definition request;
point out “errors” in responses by using mixed terms in different “definitions” to claim contradictions;
make snarky remarks about responses, throw out a loaded phrase that begs a question;
respond to challenge of loaded phrase with a request for a separate definition; (this will lead to a split discussion and will permit him to take mixed terms from the separate discussions to claim contradictions in future posts)
make snarky remarks about responses, seek new open-ended definition (while claiming that the discussion cannot “begin” until everyone is on the same page regarding the terminology);
continut ad nauseam.
Now, such a thread can be amusing for some. Certainly, with the number of crank claims that are refuted or debunked, we can go a long way toward fighting ignorance among those in the audience. However, it can be exhausting to have to battle the hydra who, because he never actually takes a position, is free to simply switch discussions or invent tangents whenever it amuses him. There is nothing wrong with embarking on such a thread, but you should probably be aware of what you’re getting into before you invest too much energy.
Note that in fatherjohn’s No such thing as race? thread, the OP never quite gets around to explaining exactly what use the term has or how he would use it in a meaningful way. His whole point is simply to cause others to post explanations that he can pick at or deny without claiming any exact position of his own.
The archetypical example, of course, was the Flat Earth thread, that Phaedrus interrupted with a claim that Darwinism had been “debunked.” He then spent five or six pages of thread demanding ever more elaborate evidence, all the while claiming that the discussion could not get started until all the terms were resolved. He never did provide the evidence of the debunking. (It also seems that that thread has disappeared (perhaps mercifully) during one of the board crashes.)
Feel free to engage, but realize where you are going.
I lurked for a year before I registered, Tom. I remember him… I just don’t mind the chase.
Fine,** tomndebb,** you and Apos, Darwin’s Finch, Diogenes the Cynic, E-Sabbath, and other likeminded folk, discuss things in the manner that you like, and I will say things the way I think they should be said.
Ignore me.
“snarky” ???
No one needs to be “likeminded” to participate, here. It helps, of course, if one participates with an honest intent for dialogue. Given that about 200 or so of your 220 posts, to date, have been nothing more than nasty little jabs at other posters, in which you paint whole groups with broad terms that are both inaccurate and, apparently, outside your understanding, I wait with bated breath to see you actually participate in a thread. I simply thought it was only fair to let the other participants understand how you intend to participate (especially since it appears that you accept my description of how you will proceed).
Well, I suppose I could have said “sophomoric” or “childish” or “acting like a jerk,” but I believe that snarky adequately describes: