Should the term species be used?

This was a topic I had started on another forum, and just curious about in general.The term species works, but in reality looking at long time, it doesn't exist. We've found many fossils of various animals, and call some species like T-rex, triceratops and so on, but in reality what were seeing is a snapshot of a continual line of animals. We have species today, but what were seeing is a snapshot of the animal lines that exist today.If we had a picture of every single animal from early bacteria bush at the base of the evolutionary tree, all the way up to every single living animal now along with every single extinct animal along the way, what we would find is snapshots of groups that we could call a species. Or even a line, say mine all the way back to the common ancestor of chimps and us, taking a section of the timeline you could say this was say aferensis, and this section past it is the next species. Of course the problem would be that the line is arbitrary, since if you took the section between the two you could call that a species just as easily.Reason I say this is that as we keep finding with animals alive now, there really isn't any easily defined definition of species even using animals alive, what many would consider a species, like lions/leopards/tigers can still interbreed and ocasionally produce reproductive capable offspring. Plus it gets hung up on the creationists term Kind and get into semantic arguments. Is there a better word that could be used other then species, or some way to make species fit more what we actually see?It's just a weird thought I had :> SOmething I had been wondering about for a bit.

This was more of a thought experiment is it worth doing it. Just something I was thinking of, sort of what I was talking about is.Lets say there is a species of hermaphoditic animals on some planet that evolve rapidly, something simular to almost like pokemon, they have a high rate of mutations and their nature allows them to change alot, so each generation is only able to mate with those before and afterwards the mother or the daughter. So you get something like.A - B - C - D - E - F with only those to the left or right able to mate. Is each individual one a species? Is every two a species? Is every 3 a species? This is sort of a extreme example, but it's what we see with populations and such in RL and in the fossil record. While there are speciation events that make C descendants unable to mate with each other, thre is no clear definition backwards along those lines. I'm not talking about species on the same point of time but along the timeline of that species. indviduals from A1's third generation can't mate, but C can mate with B and D.Not sure if I'm explaining what I mean right. Lions and tigers are on the same time line and as a snapshot due to various reasons can be considered a species. but along the timeline from tigers to the common ancestor to lions and tigers while if we found fossils we would consider the ancestor a seperate species, the line that divides it between tiger and itself in the time line still interbreed and if you took that you could consider that section it's own species. I'm just thinking if maybe a better way to divide the line, like instead of thinking of species, think of them as being more of a series.Mehh....sorry if not making sense :> Might be completly stupid and pointless, but it was a thought I had wanted to hear peoples thoughts, or ideas of how this could be useful. heh I think too much some times :>

hmmm lets look at my example here again this is sort of what I mean.These is the line of my hypothetical species, but can consider it snapshots in the RW of species, just this is a example to simplify it down.we could if all we saw was find the fossils of B and D consider them their own unique species and someone would say, show B evolving into D. And you might get this (ABC)(DEF) of the actual organisms being defined as a species as they can interbreed. BUT it could also be shown that (BCD) where you end up with 3 species, ABC, DEF, and BCD, where BCD is actually overlapping the other two species. This is sort of my point when we look at fossils and species now, all were seeing is ABC DEF as unique species, or in RL case were seeing is C with B extinct and D yet to evolve from C.It works as snapshots, but it doesn't work when trying to describe evolution, the creationists want and many people get confused by expecting to see B evolve into D or even E not realizing that at the borders between what we call species B and E they could just as easily be considered their own unique species if thats the only snapshot we had. If that makes any sense. I just think that species works, but when put into evolutionary terms it just confuses and muddies the water giving the picture of snapshots when it's a smooth gradual line.Take Dawkins example *I think it was him* of a paper with the left side black, and the right side white and shading it so that it gradually becomes more white. You could take the colour at every inch and show that colour and say this is X colour, but when you compare them on the paper and say, when does X colour become Y colour you can't because the border line between them is bluired. This is how it is in evolution/modern day terms for species, your taking a thin slice of the line and giving it a name and saying species, but if you had a entire line from ancestor of chimps and humans, and showed every female up to humans, at any given point there be no difference to the left and right it's when you take snapshot of every 100 or 1000 you see enough change to call this a species.Edited by wolfwing, : No reason given.Edited by wolfwing, : No reason given.

heh sorry on the not using replies, I did it partly because when there is 3-4 people replying rather then make 3-4 seperate posts and spaming the topic I tend to try to consolidate then into a single post that makes it less spammy.If it's prfered I can do it to individual :> Just trying to keep the topic cleaned up heh.as for restating, I wasn't sure if I was making it completly clear enough I have a hard time putting into words what I visualize in my head, if I had a blackboard I could explain it, why I went with the more specific example in the last time.

I agree it's useful and handy, and most here hopefully know what it means. I'm not exactly posting these ideas strictly to fix problems with creationist missunderstanding, but that the term species feels inadequate a term for long time. For all I know species is the best word to use, I'm just wondering if it couldn't be done in a better way that fits more the DATA in long time. Were always changing words, or using new words or old words in new ways to fit our understanding.Einsteins theories replaced newtonian physics because they worked better in describing what was seen. Yes Newtonian was adequate, but for larger scales it doesn't work.Thats sorta what I feel here with the current definition or idea of species, that it's adequate in short time or snapshots, but doesn't erally work for long time in my mind.Maybe ring species is the best example in snapshot of what I'm refering too.And I'm not sure were talking past, I understand what you guys are saying, I'm just not sure species is adequate a word for what we see, it fits, and is useful, but might there not be a better way to describe what we do see.

BTW :> A general apology if it appears I ignore anyone, I'm not trying too, some posts like the T.rex post *hope I got it right this time heh :>* I found more informative then something I really knew enough on to reply to directly so instead used made the reply part of my other post as a general response.not a excuse :> But a bare with me, I have AD/OS so my mind tends to go a mile a second and get easily distracted, or hyper focused on something. You guys made great replies and even if in the end we disagree hope we can get along.

Well there certainly could be better education, and I guess Clade works, just felt too broad for me.I guess it works for the moment though.