Should Homeschooling be Illegal?

[Dragoria]

Yes but this does not demonstrate that point in a way that contradicts the actual argument being made by creationists. It also does not show anything about speciation.

In biology, All the colors above are still one species because a species is not defined by "looking different".

It's defined as being able to reproduce successfully. If this were an accurate analogy one would be unable to "breed(mix)" yellow with "red" to get orange.

Since all these colors can be mixed to produce another viable color (which can still reproduce), you can't call separate colors species.

The definition of species allows for animals that look "different" to an observer to still be the same species.

Again a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. If we oversimply so much that we let red be a species and blue be a species then we must conclude that red and blue are the same species.

A species is a group of individuals that can breed to create another individual like themselves. Your comparison of red & yellow is false. Horses and Donkeys make mules, like red and yellow make orange, but are different species. Because horse + donkey = NOT a horse OR donkey but instead mule, the way red + yellow = NOT red OR yellow but instead orange.

[Natapoc]

Yes but this does not demonstrate that point in a way that contradicts the actual argument being made by creationists. It also does not show anything about speciation.

In biology, All the colors above are still one species because a species is not defined by "looking different".

It's defined as being able to reproduce successfully. If this were an accurate analogy one would be unable to "breed(mix)" yellow with "red" to get orange.

Since all these colors can be mixed to produce another viable color (which can still reproduce), you can't call separate colors species.

The definition of species allows for animals that look "different" to an observer to still be the same species.

Again a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. If we oversimply so much that we let red be a species and blue be a species then we must conclude that red and blue are the same species.

A species is a group of individuals that can breed to create another individual like themselves. Your comparison of red & yellow is false. Horses and Donkeys make mules, like red and yellow make orange, but are different species. Because horse + donkey = NOT a horse OR donkey but instead mule, the way red + yellow = NOT red OR yellow but instead orange.

Ugh you don't get it at all do you. Just because you agree with something does not mean you should just accept the argument uncritically. It gives everyone a bad name.

A horse and a donkey breed to create an animal that is sterile. Red and Yellow mix to create a color that is able to continue to be mixed with other colors. Your analogy fails.

[Conscentia]

The point is that very small changes can eventually add up to a large and noticeable change, similar to how individual mutations add up & eventually lead to speciation.

Yes but this does not demonstrate that point in a way that contradicts the actual argument being made by creationists. It also does not show anything about speciation.
In biology, All the colors above are still one species because a species is not defined by "looking different".
It's defined as being able to reproduce successfully. If this were an accurate analogy one would be unable to "breed(mix)" yellow with "red" to get orange.
Since all these colors can be mixed to produce another viable color (which can still reproduce), you can't call separate colors species.
The definition of species allows for animals that look "different" to an observer to still be the same species.
Again a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. If we oversimply so much that we let red be a species and blue be a species then we must conclude that red and blue are the same species.

You are over-analysing.

[Knowlandia]

If it follows a government-set curriculum, I don't see why it should be banned...

Just because the government decides it doesn't mean it's good, or right.

Why make it illegal. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Natapoc]

Yes but this does not demonstrate that point in a way that contradicts the actual argument being made by creationists. It also does not show anything about speciation.
In biology, All the colors above are still one species because a species is not defined by "looking different".
It's defined as being able to reproduce successfully. If this were an accurate analogy one would be unable to "breed(mix)" yellow with "red" to get orange.
Since all these colors can be mixed to produce another viable color (which can still reproduce), you can't call separate colors species.
The definition of species allows for animals that look "different" to an observer to still be the same species.
Again a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. If we oversimply so much that we let red be a species and blue be a species then we must conclude that red and blue are the same species.

You are over-analysing.

I'm not. I'm showing why this example may make people who use it feel good but won't convince any skeptics.

Those arguing for evolution should provide rational arguments (see origin of species), facts, and figures.

Just because the ignorant use faulty arguments and analogies does not mean we should join them. Oversimplification invites ridicule.

[Dragoria]

A species is a group of individuals that can breed to create another individual like themselves. Your comparison of red & yellow is false. Horses and Donkeys make mules, like red and yellow make orange, but are different species. Because horse + donkey = NOT a horse OR donkey but instead mule, the way red + yellow = NOT red OR yellow but instead orange.

Ugh you don't get it at all do you. Just because you agree with something does not mean you should just accept the argument uncritically. It gives everyone a bad name.

A horse and a donkey breed to create an animal that is sterile. Red and Yellow mix to create a color that is able to continue to be mixed with other colors. Your analogy fails.

But the colors resulting from mixing with orange are not pure red or pure yellow, as the original parents were. That's an essential part of being a species. The offspring have to be viable, yes, but they also need to be like their parents and produce more offspring like their parents. Your analogy fails because the offspring does not meet the criteria to be classified with its parents. Orange is a hybrid.

[Neo Art]

A species is a group of individuals that can breed to create another individual like themselves. Your comparison of red & yellow is false. Horses and Donkeys make mules, like red and yellow make orange, but are different species. Because horse + donkey = NOT a horse OR donkey but instead mule, the way red + yellow = NOT red OR yellow but instead orange.

Ugh you don't get it at all do you. Just because you agree with something does not mean you should just accept the argument uncritically. It gives everyone a bad name.

A horse and a donkey breed to create an animal that is sterile. Red and Yellow mix to create a color that is able to continue to be mixed with other colors. Your analogy fails.

You mean his analogy is not completely and utterly on point in every single regards but rather supports a broad proposition by comparing salient points to another circumstance despite faux intellectual pedantic nitpicking? Just like an analogy is supposed to do, despite this profoundly stupid idea of yours that analogous means identical?

You mean his analogy is an analogy?

Alert the mother fucking presses!

[Natapoc]

Ugh you don't get it at all do you. Just because you agree with something does not mean you should just accept the argument uncritically. It gives everyone a bad name.

A horse and a donkey breed to create an animal that is sterile. Red and Yellow mix to create a color that is able to continue to be mixed with other colors. Your analogy fails.

But the colors resulting from mixing with orange are not pure red or pure yellow, as the original parents were. That's an essential part of being a species. The offspring have to be viable, yes, but they also need to be like their parents and produce more offspring like their parents. Your analogy fails because the offspring does not meet the criteria to be classified with its parents. Orange is a hybrid.

No orange is not a hybrid. It's a color just like red, blue, and purple. Orange can continue to reproduce to form more colors. For example you can breed orange with red again to produce a redder orange or keep "mixing" more and more red until orange is pure red.

This indicates that orange and red are simply variations within a species (similar to how all dogs are one species but can have multiple colors of coats)

[Natapoc]

Ugh you don't get it at all do you. Just because you agree with something does not mean you should just accept the argument uncritically. It gives everyone a bad name.

A horse and a donkey breed to create an animal that is sterile. Red and Yellow mix to create a color that is able to continue to be mixed with other colors. Your analogy fails.

You mean his analogy is not completely and utterly on point in every single regards but rather supports a broad proposition by comparing salient points to another circumstance despite faux intellectual pedantic nitpicking? Just like an analogy is supposed to do, despite this profoundly stupid idea of yours that analogous means identical?

You mean his analogy is an analogy?

Alert the mother fucking presses!

No his analogy is an oversimplification to the point of being nothing more than a meaningless assertion.

I never claimed that analogous means identical. Perhaps you'd like to check your reading comprehension.

[Dragoria]

But the colors resulting from mixing with orange are not pure red or pure yellow, as the original parents were. That's an essential part of being a species. The offspring have to be viable, yes, but they also need to be like their parents and produce more offspring like their parents. Your analogy fails because the offspring does not meet the criteria to be classified with its parents. Orange is a hybrid.

No orange is not a hybrid. It's a color just like red, blue, and purple. Orange can continue to reproduce to form more colors. For example you can breed orange with red again to produce a redder orange or keep "mixing" more and more red until orange is pure red.

This indicates that orange and red are simply variations within a species (similar to how all dogs are one species but can have multiple colors of coats)

It is. Red, blue, and yellow are primary, or "pure" colors. Green, purple, and orange are secondary, or "hyrbid" colors, made by mixing two primaries together. Mixing a primary with a secondary makes a tertiary, "evenmorehybrid" color, not a new primary.
Different enough to be considered different species.
We put colors into classes (warm and cool), and families (reds, blues, greens, etc.) the same way we classify species.

[Natapoc]

No orange is not a hybrid. It's a color just like red, blue, and purple. Orange can continue to reproduce to form more colors. For example you can breed orange with red again to produce a redder orange or keep "mixing" more and more red until orange is pure red.

This indicates that orange and red are simply variations within a species (similar to how all dogs are one species but can have multiple colors of coats)

It is. Red, blue, and yellow are primary, or "pure" colors. Green, purple, and orange are secondary, or "hyrbid" colors, made by mixing two primaries together. Mixing a primary with a secondary makes a tertiary, "evenmorehybrid" color, not a new primary.
Different enough to be considered different species.
We put colors into classes (warm and cool), and families (reds, blues, greens, etc.) the same way we classify species.

Would you claim that black cats are a different species from white cats?

[Neo Art]

You mean his analogy is not completely and utterly on point in every single regards but rather supports a broad proposition by comparing salient points to another circumstance despite faux intellectual pedantic nitpicking? Just like an analogy is supposed to do, despite this profoundly stupid idea of yours that analogous means identical?

You mean his analogy is an analogy?

Alert the mother fucking presses!

No his analogy is an oversimplification to the point of being nothing more than a meaningless assertion.

I never claimed that analogous means identical. Perhaps you'd like to check your reading comprehension.

The analogy was quite fine for the purpose it served. Your nonsensical insistence that it cover circumstances beyond its scope not withstanding.

your criticism seems to stem either from a profound ignorance of the meaning of the term "analogy" or some need to act intellectually superior by whatever means possible. Even through a complete abandonment of honesty and integrity

Whichever it is however, it is nobody's problem but your own.

[Dragoria]

It is. Red, blue, and yellow are primary, or "pure" colors. Green, purple, and orange are secondary, or "hyrbid" colors, made by mixing two primaries together. Mixing a primary with a secondary makes a tertiary, "evenmorehybrid" color, not a new primary.
Different enough to be considered different species.
We put colors into classes (warm and cool), and families (reds, blues, greens, etc.) the same way we classify species.

Would you claim that black cats are a different species from white cats?

Cats are not defined solely by what color they are.
Colors ARE defined solely by what color they are.

Edit: Shade (darkness/lightness) notwithstanding, speaking solely on a RYB basis. Colors with the same RYB value but a different darkness/lightness would be considered similar to black/white cats.

[Chinese Regions]

If it follows a government-set curriculum, I don't see why it should be banned...

This

[The Joseon Dynasty]

You mean his analogy is not completely and utterly on point in every single regards but rather supports a broad proposition by comparing salient points to another circumstance despite faux intellectual pedantic nitpicking? Just like an analogy is supposed to do, despite this profoundly stupid idea of yours that analogous means identical?

You mean his analogy is an analogy?

Alert the mother fucking presses!

No his analogy is an oversimplification to the point of being nothing more than a meaningless assertion.

I never claimed that analogous means identical. Perhaps you'd like to check your reading comprehension.

From what I understand, it was illustrating, not corroborating, the concept.

[Natapoc]

Would you claim that black cats are a different species from white cats?

Cats are not defined solely by what color they are.
Colors ARE defined solely by what color they are.

Which is why colors are a good analogy for species in the context of an argument about macroevolution?

[Chinese Regions]

lol wtf why are we arguing about colours?

[Dragoria]

Cats are not defined solely by what color they are.
Colors ARE defined solely by what color they are.

Which is why colors are a good analogy for species in the context of an argument about macroevolution?

When you're arguing that changing the feature that a species is determined by does not change the species...
Making a cat black instead of white still makes it a cat, they're not defined by color. Making a cat an herbivore instead of a carnivore changes an essential part of the animal's classification (cats = carnivores), and DOES change the species.

Making a color a different color (changing a feature that it's "species" is determined by) DOES change the species.

[Chinese Regions]

Cats are not defined solely by what color they are.
Colors ARE defined solely by what color they are.

Which is why colors are a good analogy for species in the context of an argument about macroevolution?

The the ability to understand that "macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution" is what the analogy is about not comparing evolution itself to changing colours.
Walking to across your bedroom is possible but walking to the supermarket by Creationist logic is impossible, same analogy. It's just creationists failing to understand that "macro" is a lot of "micro".

[Dragoria]

lol wtf why are we arguing about colours?

Someone made the comparison between species and colors. I like colors, and someone saying "lol red and orange are the same "species" lol" is offensive to me as an artist. Do they not teach basic color theory in schools anymore? I mean, I learned primaries and secondaries in elementary school...

Edit: If they're not teaching colors in schools, I am so going to start homeschooling kids. Not mine, as I don't have any, don't want any. Maybe I'll be a part-time home-color-schooling tutor.

[Natapoc]

Which is why colors are a good analogy for species in the context of an argument about macroevolution?

When you're arguing that changing the feature that a species is determined by does not change the species...
Making a cat black instead of white still makes it a cat, they're not defined by color. Making a cat an herbivore instead of a carnivore changes an essential part of the animal's classification (cats = carnivores), and DOES change the species.

Making a color a different color (changing a feature that it's "species" is determined by) DOES change the species.

Ah but I'm not arguing that.

The whole premise of the argument is that we accept the assertion that a change in color is equal to a change in species and a different color is a different species.

There is no reason we should believe that assertion. Any skeptical and rational person will be unpersuaded by this argument. It's the same form of argument used by all kinds of pseudoscience proselytizers.

If it was a creationist using this form of argument you'd all be ridiculing him/her for the claims. But since most of you (as you should) agree with the end claims made (that evolution is true) you accept it because of the irrational human tendency to use a different standard for those who agree with them than for those who disagree.

All I'm saying is let's be rational and not resort to flawed, oversimplified analogy.

[Dragoria]

When you're arguing that changing the feature that a species is determined by does not change the species...
Making a cat black instead of white still makes it a cat, they're not defined by color. Making a cat an herbivore instead of a carnivore changes an essential part of the animal's classification (cats = carnivores), and DOES change the species.

Making a color a different color (changing a feature that it's "species" is determined by) DOES change the species.

Ah but I'm not arguing that.

The whole premise of the argument is that we accept the assertion that a change in color is equal to a change in species and a different color is a different species.

There is no reason we should believe that assertion. Any skeptical and rational person will be unpersuaded by this argument. It's the same form of argument used by all kinds of pseudoscience proselytizers.

If it was a creationist using this form of argument you'd all be ridiculing him/her for the claims. But since most of you (as you should) agree with the end claims made (that evolution is true) you accept it because of the irrational human tendency to use a different standard for those who agree with them than for those who disagree.

All I'm saying is let's be rational and not resort to flawed, oversimplified analogy.

lolno, it's not. The premise is that small, gradual changes eventually add up to enough to be a big enough change to alter one of the defining characteristics of a species.
Whether that defining characteristic is the RYB value that defines a colorspecies or the dietary habits that define a carnivorous species. Change a defining characteristic, you change the species. When frogs gradually dried out, got lumpier skin, and stopped hopping quite as far, they evolved into toads. But it happened via a long series of small steps, not just "lol, later wetlosers, I'm a toad now".

[The Emerald Legion]

I am utterly in favor of home-schooling.


If by home schooling you mean removing children from their parents home and giving them a new home at the school.

[Natapoc]

Ah but I'm not arguing that.

The whole premise of the argument is that we accept the assertion that a change in color is equal to a change in species and a different color is a different species.

There is no reason we should believe that assertion. Any skeptical and rational person will be unpersuaded by this argument. It's the same form of argument used by all kinds of pseudoscience proselytizers.

If it was a creationist using this form of argument you'd all be ridiculing him/her for the claims. But since most of you (as you should) agree with the end claims made (that evolution is true) you accept it because of the irrational human tendency to use a different standard for those who agree with them than for those who disagree.

All I'm saying is let's be rational and not resort to flawed, oversimplified analogy.

lolno, it's not. The premise is that small, gradual changes eventually add up to enough to be a big enough change to alter one of the defining characteristics of a species.
Whether that defining characteristic is the RYB value that defines a colorspecies or the dietary habits that define a carnivorous species. Change a defining characteristic, you change the species. When frogs gradually dried out, got lumpier skin, and stopped hopping quite as far, they evolved into toads. But it happened via a long series of small steps, not just "lol, later wetlosers, I'm a toad now".

No frogs did not evolve into toads.

Frogs and toads have a common ancestor who was in some ways similar and in other ways entirely different. Yes this happened by a long series of adaptations and mutations.

[Dragoria]

lolno, it's not. The premise is that small, gradual changes eventually add up to enough to be a big enough change to alter one of the defining characteristics of a species.
Whether that defining characteristic is the RYB value that defines a colorspecies or the dietary habits that define a carnivorous species. Change a defining characteristic, you change the species. When frogs gradually dried out, got lumpier skin, and stopped hopping quite as far, they evolved into toads. But it happened via a long series of small steps, not just "lol, later wetlosers, I'm a toad now".

No frogs did not evolve into toads.

Frogs and toads have a common ancestor who was in some ways similar and in other ways entirely different. Yes this happened by a long series of adaptations and mutations.

But you get my point.
Big changes come from gradual small changes (why did I just write toads? Changes come from small toads. Dafuk?), and this, over time, is enough to create a new species.