Martin Hutchison (
8 Feb 1995 11:35 MST

In article <dexter.791854229@aries>, (Frosch) writes... (Martin Hutchison) writes:

> "biologists agree, zoologists agree..." what do they agree?
> more than one poster has made the point that there is not a clear
> and unambiguous definition of species. if you claim that "most
> (if not all) textbooks in the world" use the same definition, what
> is the definition they use? i have some trouble believing that you
> have read "most (if not all) textbooks in the world" on this issue,
> the linguistic difficulties alone are rather overwhelming.

>Do you have trouble believing that my zool professor would not lie about what
>is the accepted standard?

i don't recall ever meeting your zoology professor, although i
doubt that the person in question is infallible (does the pope teach
zoology? anyone?). zoology professors aside, what is the definition
of species, on which you claim most or all textbooks agree?
What the hell make you so perfect to judge easily verifiable facts w/o one
ounce of effort or thought?
GO to your library, check out the Into. level Zool book, and read a few
It is not my desire to prove that the universe exists to dolts.

> >[...] The burden of proof is
> >always on the challenger, not the other way around.

> you have a strange concept as far as the burden of proof goes.
> does that mean that if i claim god is a lesbian sadomasochist living
> in san francisco and i know her address, i have no burden of proof,
> but that you have to disprove it?
>You aren't very bright, babes. You are challenging the accepted ideas about god
>if you propose that it is really a "lesbian.....", so YOU prove your image of
>god if you want to change convention.

actually, she is a lesbian, and she gives a VERY good ... well,
no, you don't want to know that.
If you challenge convention, YOU must provide compelling proof.