Sea lions are seals

A. Pro’s use of dictionaries is insufficient. My opponent is trying to persuade you that the definition of seals and sea lions are the sole evidence one should need to draw a conclusion that they are the same. When in fact I showed in my argument B2 that human beings have commonly been mistaken about our initial definitions of nature. Definitions, especially scientific, change readily. For example, initially people thought spiders were insects and Earth was the center of the universe. We even changed the definition of Pluto being the 9th planet of our solar system [1]. As seen in this example and from my arguments A and B2, what we we initially observe may not be valid, and cannot be taken as absolute truth.B. Pro makes a major contradiction. First I would like to point out that pro’s source #4 from Round 3 contradicts the statement “I must point out that walruses are not seals because walruses are not members of the family Otariidae nor Phocidae,” when in fact the source states that, “the seal family is a large one, including the huge walrus of the Arctic, the elephant seal, the sea-lion, the fur-seal and many other kinds which are just seals.” By following that logic then, seal should refer to walruses, sea-lions, and seals. Which means seals should be on a taxonomic level that includes all three organisms, and that level in taxonomy would be the sub-order Pinnipeds.Since pinnipeds include 3 very distinct families, the phocids (seals), otariids (sea lions) and odobenids (walruses), and pro already stated that we must distinguish differences between families of seals and walruses, we must also distinguish between phocids and otariids [2]. Therefore, pro’s first premise is contradictory and the conclusion is invalid. This also supports my analogy with polygons and weakens pro’s argument that sea lions are solely a “sub-category” of seals, when clearly they are distinct families on the same level under the classification of pinnipeds. I would also like to briefly mention that pro’s source correlates with all the other definitions that pro has posted. If pro were to recant the validity of this source, then I would argue that this supports that the definitions posted about seals by pro are also outdated and invalid, since source #4 was written and carried out in 1902. C. Pro states fallacious and/or invalid arguments/logic in their rebuttal. 1. “I don't understand the relevance of my opponents discussion over misnomers and misconceptions because my opponent does not relate this discussion to the topic at hand.” Despite what pro may think, I relate my argument B2 with the fact that older definitions can and have been known to be misnomers or misunderstandings. I also state in that an argument which simply states ambiguous nomenclature as pure definitions based on tradition, even if the name is a misnomer or misunderstanding, is an argumentum ad antiquitatem. This supports my argument that we cannot solely base our distinctions of two organisms based on their given definitions, for those definitions may be bias or misleading, and therefore require investigation on how they were obtained. 2. Pro poorly criticizes Argument C. a. Pro’s criticism of source #9, RD 2 Briefly, Pro disregards that my source is a blog post from the site of a respected institution, the National Marine Life Center, which is dedicated to the education of marine animals as well as the rehabilitation of endangered animals, while at the same time conducting research and publishing respectable works [3, 4, 5]. Secondly Brie Myer is, at the least, a biology graduate student (unknown about her degree since she wrote her blog info in 2009) who did an internship at the National Marine Life Center, and submitted that particular blog I sourced while conducting research with other scientist [6, 7, 8]. I will let the reviewing members determine what is reputable or not. b. Pro’s attack of Brie is biased. Pro’s sole criticism of Brie’s blog is that she is wrong because she is “operating under the mistaken belief, that ‘seal’ simply means members of the family Phocidae while "sea lion" simply means members of the family Otariidae.” Yet pro fails to provide evidence showing why her assertion, and subsequently mine, is wrong other than we should take the population definition as absolute (argumentum ad populum). Furthermore, as pro has not shown how Myre is not a reasonable person, it weakens his argument and shows that there are people that do not agree with pro’s given definitions. Pro also fails to provide evidence why the other facts about the differences between seal and sea lion mating, eating, and morphology are absurd (argumentum ad lapidem). c. Pro ignores other sources from Argument C. Pro was hasty to state that Argument C fell apart due to the criticism of source 9 when in fact pro failed to mention sources 8 and 10 which support that: Fur seals are mistakenly named seals even though they are more closely related to Sea lions than actual seals, and thus there is need for re-evaluation on their placement in taxonomy. Sea lions and seals differ in morphology, environmental adaptations, eating habits, breeding habits, as well as genetics. Sea lions, seals, and walruses all have distinct features separating them both physiologically and genetically 3. We must understand taxonomic levels in order to compare if sea lions are seals. a. Pro states they do not understand the need for comparison from species level of taxonomy. If I confused my opponent I am sorry that was not my intention. I am simply asserting that if one is to compare organisms, they must consider species first then genus and slowly get more general. Simply focusing on one level in taxonomy that is broad is not sufficient. As stated before, the term “seals” seems to have been misused and should either relate to phocids only (based on contradictions stated above) or pinnipeds, the latter of which pro has already claimed is not true. Also I believe pro is misunderstanding what it means to be related to a family versus what makes a distinct species. For example, dogs and wolves are related to each other by the family canidae but there is also a clear distinction between a wolf and what is a dog. In light of this, dogs are also related to pinnipeds under the canidae superfamily (which include bears, weasels, skunks, and raccoons too), but one would not call a dog a seal either [9]. If you were to however start at the species level, you can then keep comparing what makes animals different. b. Being related does not mean you are the same. While Pro would have you believe that being related in a family is sufficient enough to claim organisms are the same, this simply is not true, as there is a ~1% genetic difference between chimpanzees and human beings, but we define ourselves completely different and do not refer to ourselves as monkeys/apes [10, 11]. Taxonomy only tells us how we are likely related towards each other. In light of this, studies have shown that sea lion species and seal species differ from each other genetically by 8% or more and range from 10-20% difference between other species including humans [12, 13]. Thus seals and sea lions differ from one another significantly in genetics, morphology, environmental niches, and behavior. Sources: 11-13 in comments. 1. https://www.nasa.gov... 2. http://www.marinemammalcenter.org... 3. http://nmlc.org... 4. http://nmlc.org... 5. http://nmlc.org... 6. http://nmlc.org... 7. http://briemyre.blogspot.com... 8. https://www.blogger.com... 9. http://genome.cshlp.org... 10. http://cmm.ucsd.edu...