All in the Family

[Glenn]

Gloria cheated on Mike, and they eventually divorced. But they are all still all in the family. Which reminds me,

"Which species are assigned to a genus is somewhat arbitrary. Although all species within a genus are supposed to be "similar", there are no objective criteria for grouping species into genera. There is much debate among zoologists whether large, species-rich genera should be maintained, as it is extremely difficult to come up with identification keys or even character sets that distinguish all species. Hence, many taxonomists argue in favor of breaking down large genera. For instance, the lizard genus Anolis has been suggested to be broken down into 8 or so different genera which would bring its ~400 species to smaller, more manageable subsets"

"Most genera have only one or a few species"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

[RonO]

The tree of life isn't a one way ladder it is more of bushy tree with
many branches. Descent with modification does that because a successful
species can create multiple subpopulations at any given time in it's
existence. What is the IDiotic explanation?

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

I don't think that's a response to what Glenn said, though of course
what Glenn's point may have been is never stated, if indeed he had one.

He seems to think it odd that "genus" has no criteria for determination,
but of course that's true for every taxonomic rank except species. Ranks
are arbitrary. So what? The connection to Mr. and Mrs. Meathead is obscure.

[RonO]

Glenn doesn't state what he thinks that he is doing because he knows
that he doesn't want to understand what it is.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Who can tell what Glenn does or doesn't want or understand?

[Glenn]

I'm no more an "IDiot" than an idiot evolutionist, so it is ok with me that you consider "evolution", "species" and "genera" to be "bushy".

[Glenn]

Now that's real scientific of you.

"We view species as arbitrary just in the sense that there are various real historical assemblages of individuals that exist and that a choice must be made among them as to which will be called “species”"
https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/66/4/644/2682288

https://www.google.com/search?q=species+concept+%22arbitrary%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=3nYuY4qYJszakPIP68WL0As&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiK_7nqu6z6AhVMLUQIHeviAroQ8tMDegQIARA7&biw=1024&bih=620&dpr=1

[Glenn]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:55:19 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

Is this your idiotic explanation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inosculation#/media/File:John_Wesley's_beech_trees,_Lambeg,_Co._Down_-_geograph.org.uk_-_165436.jpg

[Joe Cummings]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 23:04:13 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

In contrast, I suggest Glenn gives us his authoritative definition of
the biblical "Kind," as used by his creationist friends.
After all, creationism is propsed to be a better theory. Remember?

Now, c'mon, Glenn, show your expertise.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[RonO]

By what he snips and runs from. They seem to always be things that he
doesn't want to understand even if he posted the junk.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Why keep lying? Who keeps going back the ID perps that have been
running the bait and switch on creationist rubes like yourself for over
20 years. Who can't deal with their Top Six evidences for IDiocy, but
you can still go back to them for their second rate denial junk.
Doesn't that make you an idiotic IDiot?

Do you know the difference between a bush and a corn stalk? A bush
grows from a base and then keeps branching out, and the branches have
branches of their own and each branch can have multiple branches growing
from it.

You could try to understand what you don't want to understand, but that
doesn't seem to be an option.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Fusion of branches can happen, but just like biological evolution and
descent with modification it is not a common event once the branches get
far enough from each other. It can still happen and we can even graft
buds onto different species of trees and get them to grow. You have put
up an example where transposons got tranferred between species by ticks.
They suck the blood of one animal and then go to another and the DNA
that they transfer can get intergrated into another genome.

These things are all possible by understood mechanisms, so what is the
IDiotic explanation?

The picture that you put up isn't normal and it looks like there is some
type of disease that is afflicting the tree in order to form tumor like
growths that seem to be able to fuse together. You can find plants that
this has been done to in order to form patterns that some people like.
This type of tangle can be forced by tying branches together until they
fuse, so I don't know what happened to this tree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 2:15:20 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 23:04:13 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:55:19 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2022 9:06 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >> > Gloria cheated on Mike, and they eventually divorced. But they are all still all in the family. Which reminds me,
> >> >
> >> > "Which species are assigned to a genus is somewhat arbitrary. Although all species within a genus are supposed to be "similar", there are no objective criteria for grouping species into genera. There is much debate among zoologists whether large, species-rich genera should be maintained, as it is extremely difficult to come up with identification keys or even character sets that distinguish all species. Hence, many taxonomists argue in favor of breaking down large genera. For instance, the lizard genus Anolis has been suggested to be broken down into 8 or so different genera which would bring its ~400 species to smaller, more manageable subsets"
> >> >
> >> > "Most genera have only one or a few species"
> >> >
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus
> >> >
> >> The tree of life isn't a one way ladder it is more of bushy tree with
> >> many branches. Descent with modification does that because a successful
> >> species can create multiple subpopulations at any given time in it's
> >> existence. What is the IDiotic explanation?
> >>
> >Is this your idiotic explanation?
> In contrast,

In contrast to what?

>I suggest Glenn gives us his authoritative definition of
> the biblical "Kind," as used by his creationist friends.
> After all, creationism is propsed to be a better theory. Remember?
>
> Now, c'mon, Glenn, show your expertise.
>

Alright, tell me why you imply I remember that creation is proposed to be a better theory.
Readers may assume that I hold that position, and you seem fine with that.

Now you can show your expertise by explaining that, as well as why you would have readers assume that I have an authoritative definition of "kinds".

[Glenn]

On second thought, forget it. Won't happen anyway. And I have enough evidence to determine your "expertise".

[Joe Cummings]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 10:16:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

This is not surprising.
It seems that our Glenn, a consistent critic of evolution, is
distancing himself from creationism.

Now that's fine, if he indeed has a different theory to explain the
origin of species. But I've seen no evidence of such a theory from
Glenn. I'll stand to be corrected if anyone can give evidence of sich
a theory.

According to Glenn, there are nowfour theories of ori

[Joe Cummings]

Apologies, Glenn. It's either the computer or me; the likelihood is
that it's my clumsiness. I'll continue:

Reading Glenn , are we to believe there are now four theories of
origins: the two pilot thories, the sky pilot and the space pilot,
mentioned in a celebrated posting of mine :"...Incredulity 2,"
Evolution, and now a Secret Theory of Glenn's.?

(If you want to know who celebrates my posting ".....Incredulity2",
it's me)

Of course, following the party line he may say he doesn't have a
theory yet, as did ANN. This follows the creationist's binary
assumption that there are only two "beliefs:" evolution and
creationism, and that if you abandon one you've got to have the other.

It's up to Glenn now to put us out of our misery by explaining his
position.
I'm not holding my breath.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Glenn]

Arrogant fools are not usually surprised.

> It seems that our Glenn, a consistent critic of evolution, is
> distancing himself from creationism.

So by my being a critic of evolution makes me an embracer of creationism, assumedly now that you have caught me I'm hiding away pretending not to regard whatever you call "creationism" as a scientific replacement for evolution.

>
> Now that's fine, if he indeed has a different theory to explain the
> origin of species. But I've seen no evidence of such a theory from
> Glenn. I'll stand to be corrected if anyone can give evidence of sich
> a theory.

So I simply must have a theory.

>
> According to Glenn, there are nowfour theories of ori

How do you define "according to"?

[Glenn]

What happened to "according to Glenn"? Seems you assume that without reservation, make up theories out of thin air, and add "Secret Theory" in caps as if you had evidence of it.

>
> (If you want to know who celebrates my posting ".....Incredulity2",
> it's me)
>
> Of course, following the party line he may say he doesn't have a
> theory yet, as did ANN. This follows the creationist's binary
> assumption that there are only two "beliefs:" evolution and
> creationism, and that if you abandon one you've got to have the other.

Just amazing. And you really think that you are in any position to determine the validity of a scientific theory. The mind boggles.

>
> It's up to Glenn now to put us out of our misery by explaining his
> position.
> I'm not holding my breath.
>

It is not up to me to do anything. You can't even take a breath without sarcasm and arrogance filtering it.

I've shown my expertise in exposing you. Thathathat's all folks.