Biologists dont know what a species is: thus evolutionary theory is nonsense

Biologists dont know what a species is: thus evolutionary theory is nonsense

Biologists tell us a species are those animals that can only mate with themselves with fertile offspring
species hybridization show this to be wrong
the Dromedary and Bactrian camels are called different species yet they mate with fertile off spring
the wolf and dog are called different species
they mate with fertile off spring
on and on we can go
showing the notion of species is contradicted by the biologist own examples

evolution is about the evolving of species but if we can tell what a species is so what is evolving

thus with out the notion of species evolution ie the evolving of species is nonsense

Biologist don’t know what a species is
Biology end in meaningless nonsense as its idea of species ends in self contradiction species is a basic concept in biology

“In biology a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank”
Yet biologist don’t know what a species is-so much for a science that cant even identify its object of investigation

Many e seem to think biologists know what species are We hear biologist and such figures as dawkins gould talks about speciation ie the appearance of new species BUT biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is some argue that species can breed with each other“

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring... [this following part will be discussed in the appendix where it will be shown leads to nonsense and again biologist cant agree on what a species is] While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological nicheyet this definition is shown to end in meaningless nonsense

Biologists cant tell us what a species is

"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3""

"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless
Some comments.

The idea of all species fitting somewhere along an evolutionary tree is an unsuitable description. That is the 'tree' as a metaphor and as a diagram doesn't fit. What does fit rather better is a net or a mesh structure where branches don't simply diverge, but criss-cross like a mesh.

The crossing points which are plentiful correspond with hybridisation. The difference between classifying something as a species in its own right or as a hybrid can be simply a matter of words, depending on the later progress of that creature.

The idea that hybrids are always sterile is more a matter of belief than of fact. Also, sometimes very disparate types of creature can hybridise. The very idea of this often causes horrified shock as though it was against God's law - even among non-believers. There is a long legacy of the religious background in Western culture which lingers even among those who reject any formal affiliation. Human social and sexual taboos too abound in this area. There is thus a lot of emotional and cultural baggage to overcome before the ideas of hybridisation can be discussed calmly and dispassionately.