Increases in Genetic Information

Granny Magda
Would you say that the Chihuahua and the Great Dane are recognizably the same? Yet they are the same species (Canis Lupus).... just different subspecies.I would classify Lions and Tigers the same species but different subspecies and they should be.

Can they interbreed? Can you show me the puppies?According to your definition, they are separate species. So you're just going to ignore the source you just cited? Why bother to cite a source if you're just going to contradict it the moment it becomes inconvenient?Mutate and Survive

Good point. Artificial insemination would probably be the only option for those two. If you did that they might be able to have fertile offspring.but you could mix larger breeds with the chihuahua and smaller breeds with the Dane together until you get them to mix back together over a period of a couple generations.

They don't meet the definition you quoted. Do you still maintain that it is the fault of the participants here that we don't all have the same definition of species? You don't even agree with the references you cite.What is pretty clear is that lions and tigers developed distinct characteristics despite their ability to interbreed, because it turns out that they never do in the wild. What does that suggest to you about the assumptions in your OP?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's the problem; they would require artificial help. That's what makes your definition so poor.Remember that in nature there is no artificial insemination. If any natural species diverged to the point that chihuahuas and great Danes have, they would be effectively reproductively isolated. Just as Bluejay was trying tell you, what matters is that the two daughter populations are effectively isolated. It's not a matter of whether they could, in principle, interbreed, it's a matter of whether they do, in fact, interbreed.So to recap, you have acknowledged that a species can diverge to the point where they can no longer naturally interbreed. In essence, you have conceded that macro-evolution occurs.Mutate and Survive

And I dislike intensely that I can catch you in errors and lies with little to no effort. Particularly when the error is personal. I challenge you to cite an unsupported claim from me in this thread. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In what way does it not fit my definitions?

They are not genealogically isolated because you can breed them with dogs that are slightly larger or smaller than it, until it's descendants become big enough to breed with the Great Dane. Therefore the gene pool is not isolated so their genes can be remixed.

Dogs are all of the same species. The only thing maintaining any breed of dog as breed is humans stepping in to through buckets of cold water onto the heat. Examples using dogs don't prove much of anything, one way or the other about evolution.And female mules can be made pregnant using artificial means.The big problem for your definition is that complete inability to breed is not the defining characteristic of how species are classified. It is 'usually' the case that species cannot interbreed. But despite your desire to otherwise require such a thing, lions and tigers are two different species.I'd also argue that this part of the discussion is actually moving away from a point you wish to establish. In the case of lions and tigers it is pretty clear that no absolute inability to breed is required to maintain or even develop diversity. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

.... Completely unsupported claim.... or maybe you just don't know what we are talking about and you got a little confused....

What makes them different species NoNukes?

Back in Message 30 I brought up the differences between Australopithecus and modern humans as an example of macro-evolution.A reminder, in case you have overlooked it.

But they still don't agree with the definition of species that you present. Earlier, you said that all that mattered was that they are able or unable to reproduce. Now you have changed your tune.
So which is it?Lions and tigers are quite clearly different species, yet they can, in captivity at least, reproduce together.Great Danes and chihuahuas are the same species, yet they cannot reproduce.Clearly your definition does not work.Mutate and survive

name even one...

No one can even prove what species that is. There is no genetic information. For all we know it could be classified as Human if it was still alive today. The fact that scientist classify this as a different species goes right to the heart of the species definition problem.