| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZpiralZone" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2005 01:07:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Evolution science? |
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
02 Jan 2006 09:58:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:38:10 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-0101061838100001@pm4-broad-5.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
There is an excellent summary of creation science at this site:
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/fossearl.html
Actually not, it is some complaints about evolution, but very little
about creation science. Do remember that their "science" asserts a
young Earth, a global flood, and some very odd things about genetics,
none of which gets discussed.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 06:24:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:40:01 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061340010001@pm4-broad-25.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <UlXtf.65014$8d.43925@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0101061212300001@pm4-broad-51.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
Did any of various species of birds and reptiles (mentioned above) evolve
into species in new families or classes?
In other words, did any of the birds evolve into creatures that were
no longer in the Aves class?
Species evolve into other species. You've been told this already.
I know that--that's microevoltion.
Then why did you say that speciation was macro-evolution in another
post. Give us a definition of the specific, testable differences between
what you call 'macro-evolution' and what you call 'micro-evolution', and
stop playing games with their meanings. These definitions should be so
clear that anyone familiar with the science will be able to see exactly
the boundary that you claim exists. Until you provide such a definition,
it will remain clear that you don't understand what you are stating.
The advocates of creation science believe that microevolution is a fact.
They are religious zealots. They hate science and the discoveries that
have been made because of it.
You did not answer any of the above questions. I'll repeat them:
Did any of various species of birds and reptiles (mentioned above) evolve
into species in new families or classes?
In other words, did any of the birds evolve into creatures that were
no longer in the Aves class?
No. What is the point of your question? Do you have one? Can you do
anything with it? Is all evolution within Aves microevolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 06:46:06 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:9dsgr1tphqfev5jtbhcnsqdgqbk7bfud1d@4ax.com...
Then why did you say that speciation was macro-evolution in another
post.
Ain't it great the way I set him up on that? I'm claiming spank on this
clown.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 09:58:10 PM |
|
|
In <jason-3012051855530001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <AfqdneYeXameSSjenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-3012050651590001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <hj9ar1hj63rakurpbj5r46ql85dbi47slb@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:00:33 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in news message
<87c8r11qhgpe38lfeh091fkl2v4ohnljf4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:09:57 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-2812052109570001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[-----]
The advocates of creation science infer that God created life. We
claim that we have evidence (eg fossils) that God created life.
No you don't.
If evolutionists can infer things that they can not prove with
evidence (eg skeleton of common ancestor) than the advocates of
creation science can do the same thing.
You need to learn what infer means. I asked before, I will ask
again, please present that chain of inference that takes you from
the data to the conclusion.
Seems like:
1. God® exists and created everything. 2. Living creatures are
among the things that God® has created. 3. Fossils are the remains
of those created living creatures. 4. Therefore, evolution is wrong.
The only thing that is wrong is point number 4. 4 should be: 4.
Therefore, microevolution is a fact and macroevolution is a myth.
So, how many changes are allowed at the genetic level before the
mysterious "kind" barrier stops them?
It's my opinion that if animals evolve outside their family--that would be
an example of macro-evolution. For example, there are 45 species of deer
in the
Cervidae family. If some of those deer (e.g. antelope) evolved into a
unique animals that were no longer part of the Cervidae family--that would
be macroevolution. The new species (in the new family) would not be able
to produce offspring with antelopes or any other species of deer.
That's not what I was asking you but let's run with it.
Are you saying that if a deer population were split and lived in isolation
(that is, no longer interbred) that they could never become separate
species?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
31 Dec 2005 11:14:09 AM |
|
|
In article <g7mdnbaxjdRPnCveRVn-iw@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-3012051855530001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <AfqdneYeXameSSjenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-3012050651590001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <hj9ar1hj63rakurpbj5r46ql85dbi47slb@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:00:33 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in news message
<87c8r11qhgpe38lfeh091fkl2v4ohnljf4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:09:57 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-2812052109570001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[-----]
The advocates of creation science infer that God created life. We
claim that we have evidence (eg fossils) that God created life.
No you don't.
If evolutionists can infer things that they can not prove with
evidence (eg skeleton of common ancestor) than the advocates of
creation science can do the same thing.
You need to learn what infer means. I asked before, I will ask
again, please present that chain of inference that takes you from
the data to the conclusion.
Seems like:
1. God® exists and created everything. 2. Living creatures are
among the things that God® has created. 3. Fossils are the remains
of those created living creatures. 4. Therefore, evolution is wrong.
The only thing that is wrong is point number 4. 4 should be: 4.
Therefore, microevolution is a fact and macroevolution is a myth.
So, how many changes are allowed at the genetic level before the
mysterious "kind" barrier stops them?
It's my opinion that if animals evolve outside their family--that would be
an example of macro-evolution. For example, there are 45 species of deer
in the
Cervidae family. If some of those deer (e.g. antelope) evolved into a
unique animals that were no longer part of the Cervidae family--that would
be macroevolution. The new species (in the new family) would not be able
to produce offspring with antelopes or any other species of deer.
That's not what I was asking you but let's run with it.
Are you saying that if a deer population were split and lived in isolation
(that is, no longer interbred) that they could never become separate
species?
For the sake of discussion, let's say that a herd of antelopes was being
moved (on a cargo ship) from Africa to America as a result of a massive
drought. There is a major storm and the cargo ship sinks near a huge
island that has no deer living on it. All of the antelopes swim to the
island. The crew members are saved but a decision is made to leave all of
the antelopes on the island. After 200 years--do you believe the
antelopes would evolve into a new species that were no longer members of
the Cervidae family?
It's my opinion that micro-evolution would take place and the antelopes
might even have evolved into a unique species. However, the antelopes
would still be members of the Cervidae family. They would also be able to
produce offspring if they were bred with Antelopes still living in Africa.
What's your opinion?
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
31 Dec 2005 11:34:28 AM |
|
|
In <jason-3112050914100001@pm4-broad-8.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <g7mdnbaxjdRPnCveRVn-iw@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-3012051855530001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <AfqdneYeXameSSjenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-3012050651590001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
In article <hj9ar1hj63rakurpbj5r46ql85dbi47slb@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:00:33 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in news message
<87c8r11qhgpe38lfeh091fkl2v4ohnljf4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:09:57 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) in
<jason-2812052109570001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net> wrote:
[-----]
The advocates of creation science infer that God created life.
We claim that we have evidence (eg fossils) that God created
life.
No you don't.
If evolutionists can infer things that they can not prove with
evidence (eg skeleton of common ancestor) than the advocates of
creation science can do the same thing.
You need to learn what infer means. I asked before, I will ask
again, please present that chain of inference that takes you from
the data to the conclusion.
Seems like:
1. God® exists and created everything. 2. Living creatures are
among the things that God® has created. 3. Fossils are the
remains of those created living creatures. 4. Therefore,
evolution is wrong.
The only thing that is wrong is point number 4. 4 should be: 4.
Therefore, microevolution is a fact and macroevolution is a myth.
So, how many changes are allowed at the genetic level before the
mysterious "kind" barrier stops them?
It's my opinion that if animals evolve outside their family--that
would be an example of macro-evolution. For example, there are 45
species of deer in the
Cervidae family. If some of those deer (e.g. antelope) evolved into a
unique animals that were no longer part of the Cervidae family--that
would be macroevolution. The new species (in the new family) would not
be able to produce offspring with antelopes or any other species of
deer.
That's not what I was asking you but let's run with it.
Are you saying that if a deer population were split and lived in
isolation (that is, no longer interbred) that they could never become
separate species?
For the sake of discussion, let's say that a herd of antelopes was being
moved (on a cargo ship) from Africa to America as a result of a massive
drought. There is a major storm and the cargo ship sinks near a huge
island that has no deer living on it. All of the antelopes swim to the
island. The crew members are saved but a decision is made to leave all of
the antelopes on the island. After 200 years--do you believe the
antelopes would evolve into a new species that were no longer members of
the Cervidae family?
In 200 years? No.
It's my opinion that micro-evolution would take place and the antelopes
might even have evolved into a unique species. However, the antelopes
would still be members of the Cervidae family. They would also be able to
produce offspring if they were bred with Antelopes still living in Africa.
What's your opinion?
That you don't know what you're talking about. I mean, 200 years? Are you
kidding?
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to 15,000
years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did you get the
idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
Let's get serious and talk about reproductive isolation of closer to
something like 100,000 years shall we?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
31 Dec 2005 05:08:28 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to 15,000
years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did you get the
idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a great Dane
are effectively different species (if they weren't domesticated) as I doubt
successful mating could happen between them (pity the poor female poodle).
Maybe it could though...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
31 Dec 2005 09:45:05 PM |
|
|
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did you
get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a great
Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't domesticated) as I
doubt successful mating could happen between them (pity the poor female
poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas and
St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross breeding with
ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's not
a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem to
imagine...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 09:35:27 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:wqOdnaV74-zczSreRVn-sg@megapath.net...
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'm sure a test tube clone would work fine, it's the "pre-zygotic" isolation
resulting from, well, size mattering.
Reproductive isolation can result from behavior, mating problems as well as
genetic incompatibility. For example, most puddle ducks in North America
(e.g. Pintail, Mallards, Widgeon) *can* all interbreed but their courting
behavior mostly prevents it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 12:29:48 PM |
|
|
In <3FStf.71666$6e.14573@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:wqOdnaV74-zczSreRVn-sg@megapath.net...
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'm sure a test tube clone would work fine, it's the "pre-zygotic"
isolation resulting from, well, size mattering. Reproductive isolation can
result from behavior, mating problems as well as genetic incompatibility.
For example, most puddle ducks in North America (e.g. Pintail, Mallards,
Widgeon) *can* all interbreed but their courting behavior mostly prevents
it.
I guess it depends on where the lines are and whether you'd say they've
become a separate species because they don't interbreed or it's
impractical or it's unlikely or just flat genetically impossible.
I confess to getting out of my depth here. I'm just in the "well read
layman" category myself. <g>
One of the things I find interesting in general about dogs is that they're
the subjects of one of the longest running human experiments in
evolutionary theory...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 01:26:37 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:J9KdnSgU1pkBgiXenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@megapath.net...
In <3FStf.71666$6e.14573@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:wqOdnaV74-zczSreRVn-sg@megapath.net...
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'm sure a test tube clone would work fine, it's the "pre-zygotic"
isolation resulting from, well, size mattering. Reproductive isolation
can
result from behavior, mating problems as well as genetic incompatibility.
For example, most puddle ducks in North America (e.g. Pintail, Mallards,
Widgeon) *can* all interbreed but their courting behavior mostly prevents
it.
I guess it depends on where the lines are and whether you'd say they've
become a separate species because they don't interbreed or it's
impractical or it's unlikely or just flat genetically impossible.
I confess to getting out of my depth here. I'm just in the "well read
layman" category myself. <g>
Any of Ernst Mayr's work on Reproductive Isolating Mechanisms will set you
in the right direction if you're interested.
A pintail duck tends to do its courtship and nesting farther away from the
wetland than say a mallard. But there is some overlap and if a hen mallard
responds to a drake pintail's advances, you'll get a viable duck out of it.
Trouble is, its courtship behavior will be a mix of the two and not likely
to get it any mates. Same is true of coyotes/wolf/dog - they can all
interbreed, they just usually don't and that's good enough to cause them to
remain separate species.
One of the things I find interesting in general about dogs is that they're
the subjects of one of the longest running human experiments in
evolutionary theory...
So true!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
02 Jan 2006 01:25:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:29:48 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
In <3FStf.71666$6e.14573@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:wqOdnaV74-zczSreRVn-sg@megapath.net...
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'm sure a test tube clone would work fine, it's the "pre-zygotic"
isolation resulting from, well, size mattering. Reproductive isolation can
result from behavior, mating problems as well as genetic incompatibility.
For example, most puddle ducks in North America (e.g. Pintail, Mallards,
Widgeon) *can* all interbreed but their courting behavior mostly prevents
it.
I guess it depends on where the lines are and whether you'd say they've
become a separate species because they don't interbreed or it's
impractical or it's unlikely or just flat genetically impossible.
I confess to getting out of my depth here. I'm just in the "well read
layman" category myself. <g>
One of the things I find interesting in general about dogs is that they're
the subjects of one of the longest running human experiments in
evolutionary theory...
....with mainly disasterous results from the Biblical breeding.
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 03:59:21 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did you
get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a great
Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't domesticated) as I
doubt successful mating could happen between them (pity the poor female
poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas and
St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross breeding with
ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's not
a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem to
imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't (one
breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared, they
found it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic and not
behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 11:03:35 AM |
|
|
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did you
get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a great
Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't domesticated)
as I doubt successful mating could happen between them (pity the poor
female poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas and
St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross breeding with
ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem to
imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't (one
breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared, they found
it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic and not
behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 11:44:01 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem to
imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't (one
breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared, they found
it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic and not
behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
not with each other I imagine, but a St Bernard could probably breed
with a Rotweiler, which could breed with a Labrador etc through to
something which could breed with a Chihuahua. If just St Bernards and
Chihuahas were left, I think they would be isolated from each other (it
seems reasonable at least and the genomic variation to allow them to
significantly increase/decrease their size has most likely been bred out
of them), but if they were in a mixed population of say a dozen species
which bridged the size gap?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 12:37:03 PM |
|
|
In <BxUtf.61886$7p5.23605@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem
to imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't
(one breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared,
they found it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic
and not behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
not with each other I imagine, but a St Bernard could probably breed with
a Rotweiler, which could breed with a Labrador etc through to something
which could breed with a Chihuahua. If just St Bernards and Chihuahas
were left, I think they would be isolated from each other (it seems
reasonable at least and the genomic variation to allow them to
significantly increase/decrease their size has most likely been bred out
of them), but if they were in a mixed population of say a dozen species
which bridged the size gap?
I wonder if they wouldn't end up isolated because of other reasons also.
Aren't St. Bernard's generally adapted to cooler climates? Chihuahuas I
know are better suited to warm climates. Without humans to cart them
around and keep them in climate controlled areas, the ones that are, well,
"out of pocket" might not survive.
(For that matter, if the kibble didn't flow anymore, I wonder if St.
Bernard's wouldn't, well, prey on Chihuahuas?)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 01:08:53 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <BxUtf.61886$7p5.23605@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem
to imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't
(one breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared,
they found it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic
and not behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
not with each other I imagine, but a St Bernard could probably breed with
a Rotweiler, which could breed with a Labrador etc through to something
which could breed with a Chihuahua. If just St Bernards and Chihuahas
were left, I think they would be isolated from each other (it seems
reasonable at least and the genomic variation to allow them to
significantly increase/decrease their size has most likely been bred out
of them), but if they were in a mixed population of say a dozen species
which bridged the size gap?
I wonder if they wouldn't end up isolated because of other reasons also.
Aren't St. Bernard's generally adapted to cooler climates? Chihuahuas I
know are better suited to warm climates. Without humans to cart them
around and keep them in climate controlled areas, the ones that are, well,
"out of pocket" might not survive.
(For that matter, if the kibble didn't flow anymore, I wonder if St.
Bernard's wouldn't, well, prey on Chihuahuas?)
maybe someone should try it. Perhaps some dog expert will be able to
tell us the basis of mate selection in dogs. Would Chihuahas want a
Chihuaha mate, or would the females look for the largest, most powerful
(or whatever criteria)? Or wold it just be whichever male got in their
quickest
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 01:55:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 19:08:53 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> in news
message <9NVtf.63786$uR.10216@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net> wrote:
[-----]
maybe someone should try it. Perhaps some dog expert will be able to
tell us the basis of mate selection in dogs. Would Chihuahas want a
Chihuaha mate, or would the females look for the largest, most powerful
(or whatever criteria)? Or wold it just be whichever male got in their
quickest
Dogs usually aren't that picky, but it is advisable for the female to
be the larger breed of dog. If a chihuahua were to be impregnated by
a St. Bernard, the size of the puppies would most likely kill the
*****. Whereas, if a St. Bernard were impregnated by a chihuahua, the
puppies would likely be smaller than normal for the St. Bernard and
cause no problems. Of course, there is a the size problem in the
actual coupling for a male so much smaller than the female, but
artificial fertilization should work if anyone would really want to
collect the sperm sample from the chihuahua (nasty little dogs that
they are (1).)
(1) And I do mean, Sparky, the dog next door.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 03:23:31 PM |
|
|
In <53cgr155nmiv84r70psn87pkag8jmrki5v@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 19:08:53 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> in news
message <9NVtf.63786$uR.10216@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net> wrote:
[-----]
maybe someone should try it. Perhaps some dog expert will be able to tell
us the basis of mate selection in dogs. Would Chihuahas want a Chihuaha
mate, or would the females look for the largest, most powerful (or
whatever criteria)? Or wold it just be whichever male got in their
quickest
Dogs usually aren't that picky, but it is advisable for the female to be
the larger breed of dog. If a chihuahua were to be impregnated by a St.
Bernard, the size of the puppies would most likely kill the *****.
Whereas, if a St. Bernard were impregnated by a chihuahua, the puppies
would likely be smaller than normal for the St. Bernard and cause no
problems. Of course, there is a the size problem in the actual coupling
<snip>
*And you could fund the research project by submitting the video to one of
those "funniest video" prize shows...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 11:17:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:03:35 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
<Vt-dnfu_aan6liXeRVn-uA@megapath.net>:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did you
get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a great
Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't domesticated)
as I doubt successful mating could happen between them (pity the poor
female poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas and
St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross breeding with
ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem to
imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't (one
breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared, they found
it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic and not
behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
Would Chihuahua's survive more than three weeks if humans disappeared?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 12:40:27 PM |
|
|
In <dk3gr198njlk95rho3ljbqnmdugpp8tefe@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:03:35 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
<Vt-dnfu_aan6liXeRVn-uA@megapath.net>:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did
you get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a
great Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't
domesticated) as I doubt successful mating could happen between them
(pity the poor female poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas
and St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross breeding
with ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull
it off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem
to imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't
(one breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared,
they found it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic
and not behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
Would Chihuahua's survive more than three weeks if humans disappeared?
I'd bet not in the cooler climates at least (they're "native" to Latin
America aren't they?). I would think a lot of the "toy" and "show" types
would die out pretty fast. But small mammals have been damn tenacious in
the past (else we wouldn't be here).
Besides, the image of packs of feral Chihuahuas roaming the countryside is
just not easy to give up...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
02 Jan 2006 01:22:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:40:27 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
In <dk3gr198njlk95rho3ljbqnmdugpp8tefe@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:03:35 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
<Vt-dnfu_aan6liXeRVn-uA@megapath.net>:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did
you get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a
great Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't
domesticated) as I doubt successful mating could happen between them
(pity the poor female poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas
and St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross breeding
with ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull
it off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem
to imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't
(one breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared,
they found it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic
and not behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
Would Chihuahua's survive more than three weeks if humans disappeared?
I'd bet not in the cooler climates at least (they're "native" to Latin
America aren't they?). I would think a lot of the "toy" and "show" types
would die out pretty fast. But small mammals have been damn tenacious in
the past (else we wouldn't be here).
Besides, the image of packs of feral Chihuahuas roaming the countryside is
just not easy to give up...
Cover your ankles......
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
02 Jan 2006 09:17:14 PM |
|
|
In <kavir1dusq7rvrgg1f970rgel3nsef4g2t@4ax.com>, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:40:27 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
In <dk3gr198njlk95rho3ljbqnmdugpp8tefe@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:03:35 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
<Vt-dnfu_aan6liXeRVn-uA@megapath.net>:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did
you get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a
great Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't
domesticated) as I doubt successful mating could happen between
them (pity the poor female poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas
and St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross
breeding with ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull
it off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But
it's not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists
seem to imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't
(one breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared,
they found it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic
and not behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after
we disappeared...
Would Chihuahua's survive more than three weeks if humans disappeared?
I'd bet not in the cooler climates at least (they're "native" to Latin
America aren't they?). I would think a lot of the "toy" and "show" types
would die out pretty fast. But small mammals have been damn tenacious in
the past (else we wouldn't be here).
Besides, the image of packs of feral Chihuahuas roaming the countryside
is just not easy to give up...
Cover your ankles......
One of those little rats taught me the meaning of "ankle biter"...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 09:43:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:17:14 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <kavir1dusq7rvrgg1f970rgel3nsef4g2t@4ax.com>, wrote:
[]
Would Chihuahua's survive more than three weeks if humans disappeared?
I'd bet not in the cooler climates at least (they're "native" to Latin
America aren't they?). I would think a lot of the "toy" and "show" types
would die out pretty fast. But small mammals have been damn tenacious in
the past (else we wouldn't be here).
Besides, the image of packs of feral Chihuahuas roaming the countryside
is just not easy to give up...
Cover your ankles......
One of those little rats taught me the meaning of "ankle biter"...
They're good for that.
--
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
03 Jan 2006 11:09:48 AM |
|
|
In <bs6lr11c96mqg9b39257aecs1do4s804il@4ax.com>, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:17:14 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <kavir1dusq7rvrgg1f970rgel3nsef4g2t@4ax.com>, wrote:
[]
Would Chihuahua's survive more than three weeks if humans
disappeared?
I'd bet not in the cooler climates at least (they're "native" to Latin
America aren't they?). I would think a lot of the "toy" and "show"
types would die out pretty fast. But small mammals have been damn
tenacious in the past (else we wouldn't be here).
Besides, the image of packs of feral Chihuahuas roaming the countryside
is just not easy to give up...
Cover your ankles......
One of those little rats taught me the meaning of "ankle biter"...
They're good for that.
My first reaction was to kick him into Mississippi. But that probably
wouldn't have endeared me to the neighbors...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
01 Jan 2006 12:17:45 PM |
|
|
In article <dk3gr198njlk95rho3ljbqnmdugpp8tefe@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:03:35 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
<Vt-dnfu_aan6liXeRVn-uA@megapath.net>:
In <ZJNtf.63973$a15.55510@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <MbEtf.71284$6e.17485@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:itednW_z1sG5XCvenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@megapath.net...
Different dog breeds have been in reproductive isolation for 12 to
15,000 years now and speciation has not (yet) occurred. Where did you
get the idea anybody was talking about change *that fast?
I would respectfully disagree there. I think a toy poodle and a great
Dane are effectively different species (if they weren't domesticated)
as I doubt successful mating could happen between them (pity the poor
female poodle). Maybe it could though...
I know what you mean and the example I've used before are Chihuahuas and
St. Bernards who I doubt you'd have much success in cross breeding with
ordinary animal husbandry methods. <g>
But are their genes different enough now that you couldn't even pull it
off with a test tube?
I'd say a lot of dog breeds are in the process of speciation. But it's
not a sudden transition, barrier kind of thing the creationists seem to
imagine...
I think the recent sequencing of the dog genome suggested it wasn't (one
breed sequenced and sections from half a dozen others compared, they found
it all very similar). Of course, that is just the genetic and not
behavioural or practical aspects of speciation
Right. Dogs are at an interesting point. Say humans just disappeared
overnight one day. Would Chihuahuas and St. Bernards be able to
interbreed? Genetically speaking, yes but practically speaking? The
practical aspects might enforce the reproductive isolation even after we
disappeared...
Would Chihuahua's survive more than three weeks if humans disappeared?
Good point--LOL
neither would most cats that have never been outside a house.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do | | | | | | | | | |
