Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[Nepenthe]

Thanks for the links.

You're welcome.

The current evo myth being we evolved from chimps.

But c'mon newhope101... I obviously disagree emphatically with you but I know you know this is a misrepresentation.

 

[painted wolf]

No, I remember you suggesting that would be a good idea, not actually putting it forward. I also remember you heaping on me when I suggested 1% as a throw off one time. It appears that guess wasn't too far from your educated guess.

You were suggesting that 1% was a definition for "Kinds"... That would make every species a unique "kind".

Unless you are now suggesting that each species is a unique kind now? (which is the point I made then too)

Nonetheless it does not appear counting genes is as straight forward as one may think.

I never said anything about counting genes.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf...So if you happen to be counting MtDNA then the domestic dog is the same species as the grey wolf.

Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D.
“Molecular evolution of the dog family”
Theoretical and Applied Genetics​

“The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence.... ”

 

[Autodidact]

Paintedwolf...So if you happen to be counting MtDNA then the domestic dog is the same species as the grey wolf.

Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D.
“Molecular evolution of the dog family”
Theoretical and Applied Genetics​

“The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence.... ”

The domestic dog is a domesticated sub-species of the gray wolf, canis lupus familiaris. Hybrids are common, and are known as wolf-dogs. Hybrids are fertile.

 

[newhope101]

Auto ..it does not matter that you describe a dog as a subspecies of the wolf. The point is that you have classed these 2 creatures as separate species.

They both fall within PW proposed 2% and therefore according to that definition of 'high genetic similarity' they are the same species. In other words, that definition does not work out according to your species concept.

I'm highlighting that applying a percentage definition to differentiate between species is not going to be that clear cut.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

The domestic dog is a domesticated sub-species of the gray wolf, canis lupus familiaris. Hybrids are common, and are known as wolf-dogs. Hybrids are fertile.

A taxonomical definition that is rather arbitrary...Dogs and Wolves are different phenotypes of the same genotype..like races..as the poster you responded to was trying to say the genotypal difference between Gray wolves and Dogs is minimal...too minimal for the animals to be considered seperate or sub species.


Also of course there is another consideration.

Subspecies (commonly abbreviated subsp. or ssp.) in biological classification, is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank (plural: subspecies). A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one.

Wiki

Thus the Gray Wolf cannot have just the Dogs as a subspecies.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf...So if you happen to be counting MtDNA then the domestic dog is the same species as the grey wolf.

Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D.
“Molecular evolution of the dog family”
Theoretical and Applied Genetics​

“The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence.... ”

Absolutely... the domestic dog is a domesticated subspecies of the Grey Wolf.
The Coyote, with a difference of 4% is a different species.

From the same source: Molecular evolution of the dog family
"In comparrison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence"

We've been over this before.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

A taxonomical definition that is rather arbitrary...Dogs and Wolves are different phenotypes of the same genotype..like races..as the poster you responded to was trying to say the genotypal difference between Gray wolves and Dogs is minimal...too minimal for the animals to be considered seperate or sub species.


Also of course there is another consideration.

Subspecies (commonly abbreviated subsp. or ssp.) in biological classification, is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank (plural: subspecies). A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one.

Wiki

Thus the Gray Wolf cannot have just the Dogs as a subspecies.

The Grey wolf doesn't just have dogs as a subspecies...

There are 39 subspecies of Canis lupus.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Auto ..it does not matter that you describe a dog as a subspecies of the wolf. The point is that you have classed these 2 creatures as separate species.

They both fall within PW proposed 2% and therefore according to that definition of 'high genetic similarity' they are the same species. In other words, that definition does not work out according to your species concept.

I'm highlighting that applying a percentage definition to differentiate between species is not going to be that clear cut.

What?

I highly doubt that Auto ever stated that dogs and wolves are separate species.
And yes, it still works with the species concept... specifically the genetic species concept.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

The Grey wolf doesn't just have dogs as a subspecies...

There are 39 subspecies of Canis lupus.

wa:do

Well in that case you could class the Dog as a subspecies of the Gray Wolf.

Sorry..I am no naturalist..but the term Sub species is as I say taxonomically arbitrary and the more accurate way to describe sub species would be in terms of phenotypal expression.

No need for the insulting gesture..but if you want me to respond similarly I shall and will enjoy it.

I have already realised I dont particularly like you very much but I have tried to remain friendly.

(You seem to me to be thoroughly unpleasent, hopefully I am wrong)

 

[painted wolf]

Well in that case you could class the Dog as a subspecies of the Gray Wolf.

Sorry..I am no biologist..but the term Sub species is as I say taxonomically arbitrary and the more accurate way to describe sub species would be in terms of phenotypal expression.

No need for the insulting gesture..but if you want me to respond similarly I shall

I have already realised I dont particularly like you very much but I have tried to remain friendly.

Sorry but you are going to quote wiki as some sort of research to support your position you should first check that your position is somewhere near correct first. You would have found you were wrong with just a single wiki search into wolves... and saved yourself the embarrassment.

And subspecies isn't totally arbitrary... it recognizes a genetically distinct subpopulation of a particular species. It's not distinct enough to be a unique species, but it's on it's way. Usually by a combination of other factors like isolation due to geography, behavior or lifestyle.

Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different coding sequences of a peptide from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species.
If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.
If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.
Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You should finish reading the article you posted from... it would have helped clear that up for you.

wa:do

ps..."you've realized I'm not pleasant"... you're cute, you know that.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Sorry but you are going to quote wiki as some sort of research to support your position you should first check that your position is somewhere near correct first. You would have found you were wrong with just a single wiki search into wolves... and saved yourself the embarrassment.

Why would I be embarassed?

I don't know much about wolves...I am no wolf expert like you..lol

My only fault was that I did not know how many sub species of Gray Wolf exist*...everything else I said is valid...phenotypal expression is probably far more of a factor in most so called sub species.

*Now I do..39.

Thats the beauty of learning Kiddo.

How about you grow up a bit and try to remember this is a debate site and not a competetion to see who is the most egotistical and anally retentive?

 

[painted wolf]

Would I be embarassed?

I don't know much about wolves...lol

My only fault was that I did not know how many sub species of Gray Wolf exist...everything else I said is valid...phenotypal expression is probably far more of a factor in most so called sub species.

Now I do..39.

Thats the beauty of learning Kiddo.

The problem is you got caught with your pants down.. now you are feeling defensive.

You tried to make yourself seem smarter than someone else and got smacked down by someone that knew better. That is the beauty of learning.

How about you grow up a bit and try top remember this is a debate site and not a competetion to see who is the most egotistical and anally retentive?

Sooo... cute! :faint:

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You tried to make yourself seem smarter than someone else and got smacked down by someone that knew better. That is the beauty of learning.

Wow you knew that there are 39 sub species of Wolf....that must make you so proud.

You will learn that talking to me the way you do will backfire massively...for he who laughs last laughs longest

xxx

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

PS Painted Wolf...

If you ever fancy a one on one with me...any subject you like..don't hesitate to ask...I would thoroughly enjoy showing you what I can do when I want to.

Goes for you too Auto....thou art my real 'target' I like to knock people down who think they are special.

I am anti elective abortion and pro life...if that helps for you to select a topic...go on...I know you must be pro abortion..if not then I have seriously got you all wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

Wow you knew that there are 39 sub species of Wolf....that must make you so proud.

You will learn that talking to me the way you do will backfire massively...for he who laughs last laughs longest

xxx

Not proud, it's just within my field of study and it's painfully easy to double check.
Pride is for things that actually matter... like seeing my son laugh and play.

I do this mostly for the lulz.

Also, I don't talk to you any differently than you talk to others sweetie... (you called me kiddo so I figure this is cool).

I'm not really worried about "backfiring massively"... you haven't exactly shown a very stable let alone threatening persona here. but if you want to take a few deep breaths, realize this isn't making you look mature in the slightest and try starting over that's fine.

Just remember you started this because you didn't like a particular emoticon I chose... not for any genuine insult on my part.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Not proud, it's just within my field of study and it's painfully easy to double check.
Pride is for things that actually matter... like seeing my son laugh and play.

I do this mostly for the lulz.

Also, I don't talk to you any differently than you talk to others sweetie... (you called me kiddo so I figure this is cool).

I'm not really worried about "backfiring massively"... you haven't exactly shown a very stable let alone threatening persona here. but if you want to take a few deep breaths, realize this isn't making you look mature in the slightest and try starting over that's fine.

Just remember you started this because you didn't like a particular emoticon I chose... not for any genuine insult on my part.

wa:do

I am not particularly stable no..(or discernable to you)..but threatening no I dont want to be threatening...I havent had time to make much of an impression here but I am making posts...and yes I found you rude...I am a chemist and would never talk down and crow to someone like you did if they made some elementary but unimportant error in the subject.
(Not that I made any error, I just did not know that 39 sub species of wolf exist, but now I do and all is well)

If you are rude and concieted you will put people off from responding for fear they are going to be ridiculed or berated over every petty thing.

Pull your head out of your butt...then we can start over.

 

[painted wolf]

PS Painted Wolf...

If you ever fancy a one on one with me...any subject you like..don't hesitate to ask...I would thoroughly enjoy showing you what I can do when I want to.

Goes for you too Auto....thou art my real 'target' I like to knock people down who think they are special.

I am anti elective abortion and pro life...if that helps for you to select a topic...go on...I know you must be pro abortion..if not then I have seriously got you all wrong.

*sigh*

You need a better hobby...

I'm not "pro-abortion"... but I am "pro-letting the woman make up her own damn mind and keeping the government and church out of her womb"... two very different things. I don't like abortion but the law isn't based on what I like.

If you really think that "going one on one" will make you feel better and will "knock me down"... meh...

I don't really care what you can "really do". Empty rhetoric never appealed to me, nor do empty boasts.

Many a young buck has thought they were going to come here and shake everything up and show the world how wise and all-knowing they are. I'm sure though, that you will settle down as you mature on the forums.

You need to stop thinking about every discussion as a battle to be won or lost for a start. And that everyone who disagrees with you on a particular subject is your enemy.

Now, if you would be so kind as to stop de-railing this thread, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I am not particularly stable no..(or discernable to you)..but threatening no I dont want to be threatening...I havent had time to make much of an impression here but I am making posts...and yes I found you rude...I am a chemist and would never talk down and crow to someone like you did if they made some elementary but unimportant error in the subject.
(Not that I made any error)

If you are rude and concieted you will put people off from responding for fear they are going to be ridiculed or berated over every petty thing.

Pull your head out of your butt...then we can start over.

I try not to berate people for petty things... pointing out you were flat wrong when you thought you had "one upped" Auto wasn't berating. It was pointing out you made a painfully simple mistake in your over eagerness.

I can be rude if you want me to... but I tend to avoid it with all but the most special people who have earned it.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I don't really care what you can "really do". Empty rhetoric never appealed to me, nor do empty boasts.

No empty boast maam...willing to demonstrate my mettle anytime.

I honestly would not write cheques with my mouth that my mind can't back up.

I swear to Lucifer I will accept any challenge from anyone.