Nicker on 26/6/2009 at 23:25
My understanding is that populations which can produce fertile offspring are members of the same species but if those populations are isolated by morphology (chihuahua vs great dane) or by behaviours or geology or other factors, those populations are subspecies (populations which can, but do not normally interbreed).
What we call dog breeds are actually subspecies. This is the first stage of speciation and this is why selective breeding supports and demonstrates the process of natural selection.
Given a hundred thousand years or so, the descendants of chihuahuas and great danes will no longer produce viable offspring, with or without step ladders. They will be distinct species.
Namdrol on 26/6/2009 at 23:28
Quote Posted by Harvester
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, CREATIONISM IS JUST AS MUCH A SCIENCE AS EVOLUTIONISM, AFTER ALL EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY WHEREAS CREATIONISM IS PROVEN BY THE BIBLE!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:p
This is a joke isn't it? Please, say yes.
I keep judging the mood wrong and you are using capitals which means you are joking right, oh, maybe not.
Oh shit, I might have fucked someone else off.
I'm a dumb fuck noob who don't know shit from shinola.
And in case you're not joking look up the lexical meaning of science in any dictionary, please.
I was going to start swearing at you but that's not nice.
I know a little about comparative religion and a little about the scientific method and you are talking more than total fucking shite...
Edit; Now I'm sober I've spotted your sticky out tongue. There's a relief, you were joking :D
gunsmoke on 27/6/2009 at 02:49
Ugh :eww:
there's like pimentos and shit in there
uncadonego on 27/6/2009 at 10:45
Quote Posted by Nicker
My understanding is that populations which can produce fertile offspring are members of the same species but if those populations are isolated by morphology (chihuahua vs great dane) or by behaviours or geology or other factors, those populations are subspecies (populations which can, but do not normally interbreed).
What we call dog breeds are actually subspecies. This is the first stage of speciation and this is why selective breeding supports and demonstrates the process of natural selection.
Given a hundred thousand years or so, the descendants of chihuahuas and great danes will no longer produce viable offspring, with or without step ladders. They will be distinct species.
I think that rather than being subspecies they're just (artificially) isolated gene pools, like different races of humans, though we're all the same species. A Zulu could still mate with a Pygmy (I apologize if that comes off sounding like it's not intended). It may not be likely that a Chihuaha would mate with a St. Bernard, but remember that if something killed humans and dogs ran free, the artificial gene pool separation would disappear fast (dogs have no KKK after all). You know what? Chihuahas wouldn't last a year on this planet on their own. Same species or not, a pack of hungry wild dogs with no owner to put bowls of food in front of them would eat them.
On topic but off topic at the same time, I hate it when I hear people express their disdain about mixed race couples. Makes me sick. Kiss off you....OK no name calling.
Nicker on 27/6/2009 at 11:11
A colony of chihuahuas on the Galapagos Islands, left to their own designs (figuratively speaking) could do quite well after a few millennia. [Cue nature documentary of the distant future - "The Mystery of the Giant Galapagos Chihuahua]
Isolating gene pools IS the first stage of speciation - whatever that cause, artificial or natural.
There are certain lemurs which are very territorial and "racist". Though they could produce fertile offspring (subspecies), they are particularly sensitive to facial markings and will not tolerate even the presence of other members of their species if their facial markings differ in the least. This behaviour alone is sufficient to cause their eventual separation into distinct species.
uncadonego on 27/6/2009 at 11:24
comparing territorial instincts in animals to human racism. Beautiful. I doubt David Suzuki will drop by. Too bad.
Nicker on 27/6/2009 at 11:38
Please read more carefully - I said territorial AND """""racist""""" <--- note the qualifying quotes. Two separate but related compulsions.
Anyway, if their rejection of a mate is made purely on the grounds of arbitrary variations in appearance, then racism is a close enough analogy...
rite?
Vivian on 27/6/2009 at 12:30
Quote Posted by uncadonego
comparing territorial instincts in animals to human racism. Beautiful.
Sounds plausible to me.
uncadonego on 27/6/2009 at 13:36
Well, I don't think so because human racism is more of an intellectual, taught and learned behaviour. Lemurs may see others with different markings and become aggressive, and also not mate with the other. In human racism however, one may believe that based on skin colour or nationality they are superior, but still be attracted to them. How many slave owners, even Jefferson, even members of the KKK slept with negroids? Also, I think if different facial markings were sufficient, we would have instinctive aggressive reactions between say, people of light hair and eyes and dark hair and dark eyes. Racism is a taught prejudice. I hope most people would agree it's not a biologically driven mechanism.
