wolfwing writes:
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.
It's worth noting that these events occur in captivity, under artificial conditions and pressures.
Plus it gets hung up on the creationists term Kind and get into semantic arguments.
I'd recommend against semantic arguments with creationists. There's neither profit nor joy in it.
Is there a better word that could be used other then species, or some way to make species fit more what we actually see?
No.
The world we see is complicated, and any one word is simple. How light does it get before it isn't dark? Creationists think the simple shorthand of "species" is problematic because they don't know or care to know or understand the qualifications and exceptions familiar to scientists (or informed laypersons).
Our language maps the world, but (as a wise orangutan was once fond of saying), the map is not the terrain. Like Grace Slick sang, "The human name doesn't mean shit to a tree."
Tell them that humans could almost certainly breed with chimps.
Ask them, would a humanzee mean we are not different species?
Would it mean we are the same "kind"?
I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp
Real things always push back.
-William James