Isn't coywolf oxymoronic?

Shouldn't they be Wolfotes?

Maine's had big coyotes since way before I even was growing up there. We called them coydogs, people thought they were coyote/domestic hybrids but it turns out that's not true. Nothing new here.

I almost hit one of these on the Pike the other week.

We call them Coydogs in KY too.

"The notion of species has been rendered little more than religious dogma."

Okay, produce offspring with a cat. Or, better yet, an oak tree.

Or, given your position on religious dogma, are we supposed to interpret your comment as a compliment?

joe:

Nothing new anywhere.

The coyote (Canis Latrans) is a type of wolf, related to the dog. They are the same species.

Tom:

I'm untroubled by their need for a religion, but they picked an evil one.

bart:

Yes, all Canidae are--welcome to the ranks.

To describe two animals as being of the same species does not mean that one denies the existence of speciation.

No, just speciation by Natural Selection.

No, just speciation by Natural Selection.

Nothing new anywhere. - July 4, 2005 08:29 AM

NASA Cracks Open Comet to Bare Cosmic Mysteries
Posted by Orrin Judd at July 4, 2005 09:22 AM

Fifty-three minutes between making a statement and then self-refuting it - that's pretty quick, even for you.

Michael:

It was the same species that fired the rocket, not a new one.

OJ:

You start out by denying the validity of species, then end up by agreeing with the concept, but making claims about the process.

Fifteen hours and 27 minutes encompasses self inflicted incomprehension.

Jeff:

There is no process.

"No, just speciation by Natural Selection."

How does your post support that assertion? Seems you're leaping to a conclusion baselessly.

But as you said, nothing new anywhere, right?

"There is no process."

That in itself is a claim about the process.

Recursion is a process.

And unless you aren't the child of your parents, or you and your wife aren't the parents of your children, then life is recursive.

Now what's that you were saying about there being no process?

Jeff Guinn:

Wow, I had no idea there were any other BroJudd regulars up this late...

Jeff:

No one's denying reproduction.

No, they're just denying variation.

It is hard to get the antidarwinists to hold onto any position.

First they deny intergrades but endorse species.

Then, when the intergrades are found all over the place, they deny species.

But you won't find them denying both in the same sentence.

Try this one, because the beginning grades aren't different species to begin with, the notion of intergrades is just another bit of fabulism.

There's plenty of variety, things just don't get varied enough to speciate.

Matt:

More like up early--I unexpectedly had a few spare minutes before having to leave for work.

OJ:

In a previous thread, in denying recursion you denied reproduction. And above you said there is no process.

News flash: reproduction is the recursive process.

What, did you think the stork brang them? Of course there's a reproductive process. Adam and Eve discovered it well before Darwin.

OJ:

You are the one who denied natural history is recursive--don't blame your incoherence on me.

Jeff:

You're getting yourself confused about simple recursion, which reproduction obviously is, and the type of computer programming recursion you want it to be with a set of rules that will render Darwinism. The latter is possible. The former is certain.