So, according to you, if biologists debate a definition, no definition exists?
No, not according to me, but according to any system of logical argument. That's what science is ya know. It's just a logical paradigm.
If you build your logical arguments on words that don't have definite meanings in context then the whole argument is worthless, because it's foundations are meaningless.
For instance Biology is the study of life. Well please pray tell how we can have a science that can't even define what it is studying. Within Biology, evolution is built on loose definitions. Macro evolution is defined as one species evolving into another. Well please explain how you can falsify something that you can't even define.
No other science is like Biology. In Biology you have no problem defining DNA, RNA, a cell, a mitochondria, but a species and life are difficult to define.
This is the foundation of abiogenesis, and it is the foundation of evolution. It is bad logic.
Of course biologists define species. Open any biology textbook. Definitions differ to some degree, but the vast majority are are built around the biological species concept developed by Ernst Meyer and others during the so-called Grand Synthesis of the 1920s and 1930s.
Ive read many Biology textbooks. You were the one bragging that you could define a species. So do it. I'm waiting patiently. I'm tired of evos complaining about kinds when we define it clearly yet they brag about species when the definitions are unclear.
It is true that no single definition adequately covers all of the different situations found in nature, but why should it? Why would we expect nature to comport itself in a way that comfortably lends itself to the linguistic and mental categories devised by us humans?
Because logic is built on definitions. That's why. And if we all descended from some sort of simple bacteria, then we should be able to define clearly what a bacterial species is. But we can't. Why is that?
I think the answer is simple. Once a definition has been fixed, the the process of falsification can begin. But if you leave the definitions open to evolve, then the theory evolves along with it. That's why it is poor logic, and not good science.