Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   lion vs tiger
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 54 of 91 (571745)
08-02-2010 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Big_Al35
08-02-2010 6:42 AM


Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
However, genetically, these creatures are almost identical. They can mate and produce offspring. So it wouldn't surprise me if the odd lion could beat the odd tiger.
The fact that they can mate doesn't necessarily make them almost identical genetically, in fact amongst the Pantherine cats they are one of the more distantly related pairs. I also don't really see the relevance of that to the occassional reversal of fortune you might see in a face off, that seem to me much more likely to be an issue of variability within populations rather than anything to do with relatedness.
I can see how a rabbit, which is considerably less similar genetically, might always lose in a fight but mostly it seems that the genetics are totally irrelevant to your point that Tigers would usually win but not always.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 6:42 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 7:19 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 56 of 91 (571748)
08-02-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Big_Al35
08-02-2010 7:19 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
If you could suggest a pantherine cat that is more related to the tiger than a lion I would be intrigued to know.
The snow leopard. Conversely the leopard and the jaguar are both more closely related to the lion (Johnson et al., 2006 (PDF); Davis et al., 2010).
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 7:19 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 9:02 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 71 of 91 (571779)
08-02-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Big_Al35
08-02-2010 10:38 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
Wikipedia - great apes to homo sapiens. 15 million years.
That still isn't very informative. Are you basing this on twice the time since the human-chimp lineage divergence, which wikipedia gives as 5-7 million years ago?
*ABE* alternatively did you perhaps misread the wiki Timeline of human evolution and think that the 15MYA date it gives for the great ape lineage diverging from that of the lesser apes was in fact the date for the homo lineage diverging from that of the great apes?*/ABE*
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Added alternative explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 10:38 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 11:20 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 82 of 91 (571979)
08-03-2010 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Big_Al35
08-03-2010 6:15 AM


Once more IDist/creationist says not to bother with research.
We have already established that lions and tigers are almost indistinguishable in terms of bones etc in the modern age.
Not really, you claimed this was the case but you didn't provide any evidence to support that claim. In contrast here is a blog post showing several differences between lion and tiger skulls.
However, if you were to discover certain bones of a chimpanzee they might be indistinguishable from a small child or an adult human. Finding a common ancestor therefore would be a fruitless task.
This makes no sense. The fact that a partial incomplete specimen can be misclassified doesn't provide the least bit of justification for the claim that looking for remains that resemble a plausible common ancestor would be fruitless. After all, we don't want to find partial inconclusive remains.
As evidenced by Nebraska man, Peking man, Piltdown man etc.
I don't see how those examples evidence any such thing. 1 hoax 1 misidentified tooth and 1 hominid fossil don't seem to suggest that looking for a species resembling a plausible common ancestor is fruitless.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Big_Al35, posted 08-03-2010 6:15 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Big_Al35, posted 08-03-2010 7:13 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 85 of 91 (572006)
08-03-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Theodoric
08-03-2010 9:16 AM


Re: Lets compare
I assume the quote should have been ...
The skeleton of the lion and tiger are so alike that without the skin it is almost impossible to tell them apart, presenting even the best experts with a great challenge.
... did you forget to press ctrl-c after selecting the text? I do that all the time, especially since I switched from routinely using linux to using windows.
As an aside a paper available on Scribd, here, gives a more sophisticated multivariable morphometric approach which they claim can distinguish tiger and lion skulls 100% of the time.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2010 9:16 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Big_Al35, posted 08-03-2010 9:57 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024