Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Let us reason together.
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 152 (34005)
03-09-2003 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
01-30-2003 4:46 AM


Species
Quetzal wrote:
The truth is that "dog" and "wolf" shouldn't be considered different species, since fertile backcrosses occur in nature. Wolves and dogs share 99%+ the same genomes. Here's a good site discussing wolf-dog hybridization Wolf-Dog Hybrids, which includes some of the genetics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's been a decade since I did my biology degree so I may have this wrong, but I wanted to clarify the above. And it probably should be a new topic but it's a wee thing: doesn't the definition of "species" include not only "able to produce fertile offspring" but also some consideration of behavioural patterns to allow individuals to recognise each other?
There are many species that are easily cross-mated in theory, but would not mate with each other in the wild because they have evolved incompatible mating rituals. I wonder if a poodle let loose in a wolf lair would actually mate with the wolves? (Well, maybe it would think that was fun - especially if it had led a sheltered life.)
Yeah, I will figure out this quote thing in my own time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 01-30-2003 4:46 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2003 4:17 AM greyline has replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 152 (34034)
03-10-2003 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Quetzal
03-10-2003 4:17 AM


Re: Species
Thanks, Quetzal. It's all coming back to me now... And considering how much I've forgotten, the longer the better.
Speaking of which, I would imagine the great dane and chihuahua would have incompatibly sized pink bits even if all else is peachy (in its doggy way) within the relationship.
As a complete and utter aside, it amazes me how quickly new breeds of dogs were developed over the past however-many hundreds or thousands of years. Goes to show how pliable the genome can be when pressures are extreme (if manmade, in this case).
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2003 4:17 AM Quetzal has not replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 152 (34442)
03-15-2003 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by drummachine
03-14-2003 10:56 PM


Answers at ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG
I went there but I couldn't find any. Is that false advertising?
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by drummachine, posted 03-14-2003 10:56 PM drummachine has not replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 152 (34724)
03-19-2003 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by drummachine
03-19-2003 7:58 PM


Have I not explained evolution?
Well you explained *something* I guess, but it sure as heck wasn't evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by drummachine, posted 03-19-2003 7:58 PM drummachine has not replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 152 (34832)
03-20-2003 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by drummachine
03-20-2003 10:07 PM


I don't like the term "lower organism" - it implies that values are placed on different organisms, whereas Nature makes no such judgements. I know that lower and higher are terms used in evolution all the time, but I wish that wasn't the case - it confuses the issue, especially when trying to explain things to a creationist.
Just thought I'd set that straight.
My answer to drummachine is: the evidence shows that man has evolved from an organism that wasn't man, and furthermore that man and other organisms have a common ancestor. Some organisms have a more recent common ancestor than others - for example, man and apes have a more recent common ancestor than man and bumble bees.
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by drummachine, posted 03-20-2003 10:07 PM drummachine has not replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 152 (35150)
03-24-2003 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by nator
03-24-2003 8:21 AM


I don't know if this is really the topic of the thread, but vestigial organs in general - especially those that appear as throwbacks in only some individuals of a species - are a huge argument against creationism. Much of nature can be "explained away" with creationism and a dose of doublethink, once you accept a supernatural origin of life, but why do some whales have vestigial hind limbs? Why do baleen whale fetus grow normal tooth buds which are then reabsorbed before birth?
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 8:21 AM nator 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