SmOn Do some people here just want to believe fallacies without finding the truth just like the theists do? I belong to the Skeptic Society, and I will debate and seek out the facts until the cows come home to find out if I'm right or wrong. If anyone here has a problem with that---YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 12:24:12 AM
SmOn Do some people here just want to believe fallacies without finding the truth just like the theists do? I belong to the Skeptic Society, and I will debate and seek out the facts until the cows come home to find out if I'm right or wrong. If anyone here has a problem with that---YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Solitary
Uhhhhhhhh...... what?
It's not as far as I know. We generally like facts here.
(http://pearlsofprofundity.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/panties-in-a-bunch-3.jpg)
Solitary, most of us here are atheists or agnostics, I believe looking for truth and facts in a world of bullshit is par for the course.
I generally prefer facts and evidence to wild conjecture
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 12:24:12 AM
SmOn Do some people here just want to believe fallacies without finding the truth just like the theists do? I belong to the Skeptic Society, and I will debate and seek out the facts until the cows come home to find out if I'm right or wrong. If anyone here has a problem with that---YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Solitary
Do you have some evidence to back up your story? :)
Need some context. :P
(http://www.mysugardaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BEAN-say-what.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlpRBLkgcBo
Bored now.
Entertain me.
Well, you could always learn this stuff yourself. Or failing that, start a thread about it and ask people there instead of facepalmingly insisting that all bees are the same species even after being corrected a couple of times (though, to your credit, you eventually got it correct), bizarrely claiming that the species definitions are "like reading the Bible", then after a couple people asked you to drop the matter, you insist that they "want to believe fallacies without finding the truth just like the theists do".
There's a difference between asking questions while legitimately trying to learn and attempting to debate a topic that one has an alarming inability to grasp while simultaneously demanding answers, ignoring them, and getting irate at the same time.
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 12:24:12 AM
SmOn Do some people here just want to believe fallacies without finding the truth just like the theists do? I belong to the Skeptic Society, and I will debate and seek out the facts until the cows come home to find out if I'm right or wrong. If anyone here has a problem with that---YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Solitary
I believe that your frustrations came from another thread involving the definition of "species", in particular what is a species in regard to bees. I believe there was miscommunication and that was resolved with Hydra's last post (correct me if I'm wrong).
But this OP also raises a few issues. 1) What is the truth? We can easily fall into the conundrum of objective/subjective nature of truth. 2) Also from logic, we know that "true/false" values are attributed to statements about facts, and not to facts. 3) Your OP also raises the question of understanding. For instance, one can go through my bloq Einstein's Derivation of the Famous Equation, E=mc2 (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/06/einsteins-derivation-of-famous-equation.html) a dozen times and never understand how Einstein reached his conclusions. It's good to see that you have a sceptic mind, we need more people like you in the world, but a word of caution if you can allow me: do not let your scepticism lead you into solipsism or nihilism, pitfalls that are fruitless and counter-productive.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on September 07, 2014, 01:23:53 PMI believe that your frustrations came from another thread involving the definition of "species", in particular what is a species in regard to bees. I believe there was miscommunication and that was resolved with Hydra's last post (correct me if I'm wrong).
I thought it was as well. Apparently, it wasn't nearly as resolved as I thought.
The thread topic definitely seems to hint otherwise.
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 02:03:09 PMThat's you opinion!
(http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Articles/20080331/425.the.incredible.hulk.033108.jpg)
I'M NOT ANGRY!!!!
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 02:01:05 PMI also learned---"on my own"---that who's right or wrong about bees being a species depends on what definition is used
I guarantee you that you will never find a biologist (or even someone passingly acquainted with biological classification) that will say that all bees are the same species. Ever. The fact that you still think that this is up in the air is pretty alarming.
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 03:06:53 PMSo how do you explain this then?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtm
If just one species becomes extinct, like bees, we will too. Note: Bee's plural. My post.
Let’s start by defining a species.
Defining a Species
A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
All the bees you show can interbreed, therefore bees, including all of those you show, are a species.
An exact duplicate (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=6081.msg1039903#msg1039903) of your other post, to fully complete the picture that I'm essentially arguing with a brick wall.
(http://www.geekbinge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rick-and-Morty-Something-Ricked-This-Way-Comes.jpg)
Stay scientific, Jerry.
Rick and Morty!
Guys, maybe it's time to get some sleep?
Solitary, from when I read that other thread, you were pretty set on how "bees are a species" and were having a hard time wrapping your head around how there could be different species of bees.
In other words, the thread you just started here applies more to you than Hydra or anyone else on this forum.
Everyone just get some food in your stomachs, take a nap, and chill out.
"A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature."
This is sort of correct, the individuals breeding have to produce viable offspring that can also breed. This definition of course has a BIG asterisk next to it because we're dealing with biological organisms and it's never that simple.
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 06:43:35 PM
Did someone report to a moderator because they can't handle the truth? Where in the heck did you gather that? If bees aren't a species of animals explain what they are then. There are species and sub species, but there is still a species called bees because they can interbreed with the sub species. This is a fact that I gave given evidence for from Berkeley biologists, not my opinion. Why wouldn't I be stuck on it---look at my logo, I'm not exactally a dunch with biology. Does this have to be taken to a formal debate because someone got their butt hurt? This is exactly what I was talking about, giving facts to support an argument is looked down at. You want me to leave I will, but don't tell me to cool it, and not give my evidence. Is everyone here a teenager that can't face the truth, or just pedantic jerks that can't handle a forum unless everyone agrees with them? Isn't this a forum? Or just a proselytizing place of presumptions for pedantic posers. Solitary
Think of bees as a family of species. It's a group of species. Similar to how humans and chimps are apes.
Sent from your mom
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 09:04:57 PMI am very much aware of that, and just the point I'm trying to make. Solitary
If that was actually the case, I would have nothing to correct you on. But that's not the case. Hence the ongoing disagreement.
That's an awful lot of research to still be just as wrong as you were 5 min ago. They were actually different species. Anyone who can read would see the different species names.
"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48)[1]
"No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson (1872) p. 20[52]
"Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937) p. 310[18]
"The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956)[45]
"The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001)[48]
"First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require - but cannot be settled by - empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003)[21]
"An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)"[53]
"We show that although discrete phenotypic clusters exist in most [plant] genera (>80%), the correspondence of taxonomic species to these clusters is poor (<60%) and no different between plants and animals. ... Contrary to conventional wisdom, plant species are more likely than animal species to represent reproductively independent lineages."[54]
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 09:35:59 PM
So "you" say, but the guide says subspecies in front of each one. I guess they are wrong, so you are correct after all.
What if I told you that we're both correct and it's just that you don't fully understand what you're looking at. The link actually contains lots of different species and their subspecies and you pretended that the only differences between all of them was that they belong to different subspecies.
I just can't tell if you did that deliberately so as to not have to admit that there's actually a ton of different species there and you've been talking bollocks this whole time or you looked at the page and simply didn't understand basic taxonomic terminology for the 10th consecutive time.
Are horses and donkeys the same species?
Solitary, is there some sort of medication that you skipped this morning? Seriously, you took one statement about bees (a common name that does not necessarily bear any taxonomic heft in the first place) and its importance to our own civilization, and have somehow woven it into this gigantic biological conspiracy to turn a single species into the almighty superfamily of Apoidea.
You need to go back to your cage.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on September 07, 2014, 11:04:08 PMSolitary, is there some sort of medication that you skipped this morning? Seriously, you took one statement about bees (a common name that does not necessarily bear any taxonomic heft in the first place) and its importance to our own civilization, and have somehow woven it into this gigantic biological conspiracy to turn a single species into the almighty superfamily of Apoidea.
Hooray! So I'm not the only one who noticed that!
I'm only harping on it because I'm very much a stickler from getting the facts straight. And most people will hear me out, figure out the mistake, and amend it. Then there's no problem. But every now and then, there's that one stubborn person who's too cocksure to be wrong...
*mod mode* Solitary. Stop belaboring bees and get some rest or something. This is getting ridiculous.
[/thread]
Quote from: Solitary on September 08, 2014, 01:46:04 AM
Thanks for showing I was correct saying that some people look down at people trying to find facts here. I have had my intellect insulted, called names, had derogatory pictures posted, pompous condescending remarks made at this subject, and all I have done is post facts from the internet. Or maybe I am wrong, it seems to be the staff too that doesn't want to find out what the facts are. I am very much aware that there are different species of bees, sub species. But don't tell me bees are not a species of animal. Why is debating all at once ridiculous? But name calling , insults, pompous condescending remarks OK between atheists at the forum not? Since my search for facts and the truth is not wanted here I'm leaving permanently just like AP and so many other atheists that got tired of being belittled here. Good luck keeping members when you are so many childish acting pompous ass know-it-all jerks that think because they are educated and young they can disrespect anyone trying to find the truth in all matters of knowledge because they are young or older. Believe me, your day is coming quicker than you think. I came here to learn and have fun---THANKS FOR NOTHING!
Solitary.
-You said something that was incorrect. And while that wasn't the problem, what WAS the problem, was that when you were corrected by MANY people with correct information, you started arguing with them because you insisted that you were right, when you weren't.
You then started a new thread about how you were so frustrated about people's stubbornness about being right, when it was you that is the person being stubborn.
THEN you continued to insist that you were right (when you weren't) practically throwing a tantrum about it.
Now you are calling people "pompous ass know-it-all jerks"? No one is disrespecting you for not knowing the truth. We are correcting you so you have the right information. After all you just said you're here to "learn and have fun" right? How does someone learn if they insist that the person teaching is wrong?
I've made some incorrect comments myself, but when I've been corrected and explained to why I was wrong about something, I look at it and say "Oh wait, you guys are right"
Trust me, Solitary. You are one of the last people on here I wanted to close a thread on. But you haven't been yourself lately...
Fuck me. Is this shit still going.
Yes. Solitary apparently was assaulted by a bee when he was a young man, and now doesn't give them the decency of having a full clade of organisms with many member species.
I know this has been mentioned before but…
Capable of breeding with each other is not the be all end all for the definition of the term species. The definition of the term species is fuzzy at best. The ability to breed is a general guideline. I gave an example in “the bee thread†of lions and tigers. Lions and tigers are separate species yet they can and do interbreed.
Lions (Panthera leo)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Lion_waiting_in_Namibia.jpg)
Tigers (Panthera tigris)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Tigress_at_Jim_Corbett_National_Park.jpg/640px-Tigress_at_Jim_Corbett_National_Park.jpg)
Each of these species has its own sub species.
Lions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Subspecies
P. l. persica, known as the Asiatic lion or South Asian, Persian, or Indian lion, once was widespread from Turkey, across Southwest Asia, to India and Pakistan,[23] now around 400 exist in and near the Gir Forest of India.[24]Genetic evidence suggests its ancestors split from the ancestors of sub-Saharan African lions between 203 and 74 thousand years ago.[15]
P. l. leo, known as the Barbary lion, originally ranged from Morocco to Egypt. It is extinct in the wild due to excessive hunting, as the last wild Barbary lion was killed in Morocco in 1942.[25][26] This was one of the largest of the lion subspecies,[27] with reported lengths of 3.0â€"3.3 m (9.8â€"10.8 ft) and weights of more than 200 kg (440 lb) for males. It appears to be more closely related to the Asiatic rather than sub-Saharan lions. A number of animals in captivity are likely to be Barbary lions,[28] particularly the 90 animals descended from the Moroccan Royal collection at Rabat Zoo.[29]
P. l. senegalensis, known as the West African lion, is found in western Africa, from Senegal to the Central African Republic.[30][31]
P. l. azandica, known as the northeast Congo Lion, is found in the northeastern parts of the Congo.[30]
P. l. nubica, known as the East African or Masai lion is found in East Africa, from Ethiopia and Kenya to Tanzania and Mozambique;[31] a local population is known as the Tsavo lion.
P. l. bleyenberghi, known as the southwest African or Katanga lion, is found in southwestern Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Angola, Katanga (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Zambia, and Zimbabwe.[31]
P. l. krugeri, known as the southeast African or Transvaal lion, is found in the Transvaal region of southeastern Africa, including Kruger National Park.[31]
P. l. melanochaita, known as the Cape lion, became extinct in the wild around 1860. Results of mitochondrial DNA research do not support its status as a distinct subspecies. The Cape lion probably was only the southernmost population of the extant P. l. krugeri.[17]
A newly discerned lion subspecies could exist in captivity in Ethiopia's capital city of Addis Ababa.[32] Researchers compared the microsatellite variations over ten loci of fifteen lions in captivity with those of six different wild lion populations. They determined that these lions are genetically unique and presumably that "their wild source population is similarly unique." These lionsâ€"with males that have a distinctly dark and luxuriant mane seam to define a new subspecies perhaps native only to Ethiopia. These lions were part of a collection of the late Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia.[33]
Tigers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies
Bengal tiger (P. t. tigris), also called the Indian tiger lives in India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh, and is the most common subspecies. In 2011, the total adult population was estimated at 1,520â€"1,909 in India, 440 in Bangladesh, 155 in Nepal and 75 in Bhutan.[14] It lives in alluvial grasslands, subtropical and tropical rainforests, scrub forests, wet and dry deciduous forests, and mangroves. It is the second-largest of the surviving subspecies. Males attain a total nose-to-tail length of 270 to 310 cm (110 to 120 in) and weigh between 180 to 260 kg (400 to 570 lb), while females range from 240 to 265 cm (94 to 104 in) and 100 to 160 kg (220 to 350 lb).[15][16] In northern India and Nepal, the average is larger; males can weigh up to 235 kilograms (518 lb), while females average 140 kilograms (310 lb).[17]
Indochinese tiger(P. t. corbetti), also called Corbett's tiger is found in Cambodia, China, Laos, Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 2010 the total population was estimated at about 350 individuals.[18] Their preferred habitat is forests in mountainous or hilly regions.[15] Males average 108 inches (270 cm) in total length and weigh between 150â€"195 kg (331â€"430 lb), while females average 96 inches (240 cm) and 100â€"130 kg (220â€"290 lb).[19]
Malayan tiger (P. t. jacksoni) Exclusively found in the southern part of the Malay Peninsula. Was not considered a subspecies in its own right until a 2004 genetic analysis showed that they are distinct in mtDNA and micro-satellite sequences from the Indochinese subspecies.[20] As of 2014 the total population is estimated at 500 individuals.[21] Males range in total length from 190â€"280 cm (75â€"110 in) and weigh between 47.2 to 129.1 kg (104 to 285 lb), while females range from 180â€"260 cm (71â€"102 in) and 24 to 88 kg (53 to 194 lb).[22]
Siberian tiger (P. t. altaica), also known as the Amur tiger inhabits the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, with the exception of a small population in Hunchun National Siberian Tiger Nature Reserve in northeastern China, near the border of North Korea.[23][24] In 2005, there were 331â€"393 adult and subadult Siberian tigers in the region, with a breeding adult population of about 250 individuals. As of 2014, the World Wildlife Fund estimates a total population of 400.[25][26] It is the largest subspecies and ranks among the largest felids ever to have existed. Males have a head and body length of between 190â€"230 cm (75â€"91 in) and weigh between 180 to 306 kg (397 to 675 lb), while females average 160â€"180 cm (63â€"71 in) and 100 to 167 kg (220 to 368 lb). Tail length is about 60â€"110 cm (24â€"43 in).[15] Compared to other subspecies, Siberian tigers have thicker coats, paler hues, and fewer stripes.[27][28]
Lions and tigers. Same Genus. Different Species. Multiple sub species of each.
How about sheep and goats? They can and do interbreed. Are they the same species? Scientists certainly don’t classify sheep and goats as the same species even though they can interbreed. In fact they don’t even classify them as the same Genus. Sheep are of the Ovis Genus. Goats are of the Capra Genus. Not only that but their chromosome count is off even further than the human chimp chromosome count. Sheep have 54 chromosomes, and goats have 60. If that isn’t enough to make them separate species then I don’t know what would.
Quote from: Solitary on September 09, 2014, 01:35:18 AMI've made some incorrect comments myself, but when I've been corrected and explained to why I was wrong about something, I look at it and say "Oh wait, you guys are right" I did say that---remember?
Yes, you did. And I was more than willing to drop it there, as my post clearly shows. But then you immediately went back to your original position, which was still very much in the wrong, and persisted in it, despite being frequently corrected by multiple people.
QuoteAnd after I studied on the internet I was getting conflicting information that was being ignored until it was said: We may both be correct.
You never got conflicting information - only information that you apparently misunderstood and used it to claim that bees are merely different subspecies within a single species, rather than separate species in their own right.
Though you may tell yourself otherwise, we were never both correct.
QuoteI don't like insults instead of evidence when I am wrong, it is not productive to finding the truth.
You got both in spades, and the former only when it was plain that the latter wasn't getting through.
QuoteI know there are many species of bees, but when insulted I will fuck with anyone that does it to me by frustrating them, and that was the real problem here, people not being civil with me by insulting me by words or pictures. It had nothing to do with me not believing what others were saying about the subject.
At last, the truth. You knew that your claim was false the entire time, yet stubbornly clung onto it out some sort of foolish notion of honor. Having intellectually honest discussions is a big deal here, and doing this community harm by abandoning that principle was the much greater offense than simply being stubbornly wrong.
You say you are leaving. Assuming that is true, I wish you farewell.
Solitary, let it go. I can't believe you guys are having an argument about bees. From what I have read you haven't been insulted anymore than anyone else around here. Just let it be and move on. Nothing more to be gained. The amount of energy expended researching and debating about this subject eclipses most other arguments on this forum including "Is there a God?" Let's all hug and have a beer or something. Jeez.
Quote from: Desdinova on September 09, 2014, 01:49:56 PM
Solitary, let it go. I can't believe you guys are having an argument about bees. From what I have read you haven't been insulted anymore than anyone else around here. Just let it be and move on. Nothing more to be gained. The amount of energy expended researching and debating about this subject eclipses most other arguments on this forum including "Is there a God?" Let's all hug and have a beer or something. Jeez.
*mod* ^What Desdi said. Let it go, guys. This conversation hasn't even been close to productive for quite a while now. For the sake of everyone, I'm closing both threads.