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

[outhouse]

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.

I dont beleive your special in any sense. You do like to argue with professionals that know what there talking about.

you can talk down to people all you want, this doesnt make you right

and what does the pro-life stance have to do with anything in this thread????

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

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

Auto I am sure is big enough and ugly enough to answer her own posts...but of course you had every right to point out that my assumption that there wasnt a variety of gray wolf sub species, only Dogs and their relatives like the Dingo, was incorrect.
I thank you for that education...and hope very much to return the favour soon

hehehe

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

and what does the pro-life stance have to do with anything in this thread????

Nothing...outhouse...nothing at all.

 

[Skwim]

C'mon you two, we had a decent thread going here. How about wrapping it up.

Thanks

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

C'mon you two, we had a decent thread going here. How about wrapping it up.

Thanks

*Zips mouth up*

 

[painted wolf]

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.

That's nice... I'm sure you'll get the chance someday...

Auto I am sure is big enough and ugly enough to answer her own posts...but of course you had every right to point out that my assumption that there wasnt a variety of wolf sub species, only Dogs and their relatives like the Dingo, was incorrect.

I'm sure she can.. Though, the subject of discussion was originally between me and newhope.

I thank you for that education...and hope very much to return the favour soon

hehehe

I'm sure you will... we are all here to learn. You're welcome btw.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

C'mon you two, we had a decent thread going here. How about wrapping it up.

Thanks

My bad

I must stop letting my inner wolf chase these sorts of things... I'm getting soft in my old age. :slap:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No, I haven't. They're the same 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.

Yes, it does. They are the same species, under both definitions.

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

It's clear cut, but may in some cases yield a different result than if you use a different definition.

 

[painted wolf]

Here I'll re-post to newhope so they don't have to wade through all that to find it.

newhope101[/b]]
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

 

[David M]

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.... ”

lol.

Domestic dogs are a sub-species of wolf. That means they are not different species.

 

[Autodidact]

Newhope: What is the basis for humans being an exception to your definition of kind?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

lol.
Domestic dogs are a sub-species of wolf. That means they are not different species.

Taxonomy is interesting.
If species is a measurement of biodiversity (including phenotypal expression) not just relative genetic deviance... and then the term sub species is a coverall term for barriers to the reproduction of fertile offspring...
Barriers to reproduction include geography, attraction, behaviour and of course genetic incompatability.
These however in sub species of a species are all apart from geography and genotypal considerations, phenotypal expressions of an essentially identical genome.
So while we know breeds of Dogs are of different phenotypal expressions and we also know there are no genetic barriers to their reproduction so they are not sub species or are they?

Ever seen a Chihuahua mount a Great Dane or a Gray Wolf?

In fact because of the insurmountable barriers to natural reproduction (without human interference) the Chihuahua would have to be considered sub species at least to both animals.

So anyway the term sub species is very generalistic and arbitrary...it does not correspond necessarily in practice to the order of the tree or rather bush of life...and here is where taxonomy becomes qualified subjectively.

 

[David M]

Taxonomy is interesting.
If species is a measurement of biodiversity (including phenotypal expression) not just relative genetic deviance... and then the term sub species is a coverall term for barriers to the reproduction of fertile offspring...
Barriers to reproduction include geography, attraction, behaviour and of course genetic incompatability.

Not genetic incompatibiliy, thats what involved in speciation. Its external barriers that are involved in sub-species classification.

These however in sub species of a species are all apart from geography and genotypal considerations in different ways phenotypal expressions of an essentially identical genome.
So while we know breeds of Dogs are of different phenotypal expressions and we also know there are no genetic barriers to their reproduction so they are not sub species or are they?

Genetic barriers would make them different species. Not having genetic barriers is what makes them subspecies.

Ever seen a Chihuahua mount a Great Dane or a Gray Wolf?

No, but that would be a physical barrier not a genetic one.

But you can crossbreed Chihuahuas and Corgis (which are at least twice the size and can mass up to 5 times as much as a Chihuahua).

In fact because of the insurmountable barriers to natural reproduction (without human interference) the Chihuahua would have to be considered sub species at least to both animals.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[painted wolf]

Taxonomy is interesting.
If species is a measurement of biodiversity (including phenotypal expression) not relative genetic deviance... and then the term sub species is a coverall term for barriers to the reproduction of fertile offspring...
Barriers ot reproduction include geography, attraction, behaviour and of course genetic incompatability.
These however in sub species of a species are all apart from geography and genotypal considerations in different ways phenotypal expressions of an essentially identical genome.
So while we know breeds of Dogs are of different phenotypal expressions and we also know there are no genetic barriers to their reproduction so they are not sub species or are they?

Ever seen a Chihuahua mount a Great Dane or a Gray Wolf?

In fact because of the insurmountable barriers to natural reproduction (without human interference) the Chihuahua would have to be considered sub species at least to both animals.

So the anyway the term sub species is very generalistic and arbitrary...it does not correspond necessarily in practice to the order of the tree or rather bush of life...and here is where taxonomy becomes qualified subjectively.

Dogs are not varied enough within themselves to count as subspecies individually... The only thing that keeps dog breeds from interbreeding is human control. Hence the existence of mutts. Indeed mutts tend to revert to a basic phenotype the "pariah dog".
Examples: Mediterranean

South Asian

African

American

However between dogs and wolves there are some key differences in breeding and other behavior that separate them. Wolves for example only breed once a year while dogs breed year round. Wolves only breed within the rules of the pack structure while dogs are indiscriminate breeders. Just to name a couple of examples.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Not genetic incompatibiliy, thats what involved in speciation. Its external barriers that are involved in sub-species classification.

Genetic incompatibility can still lead to live fertile births...just rare enough to justify a sub species tag but if you say so....perhaps you are right.

Not genetic incompatibiliy, thats what involved in speciation. Its external barriers that are involved in sub-species classification.

Interesting because then when I mention the non genetic barrier that prevents Chiahuahaus from mating Great Danes and Wolves you say

No, but that would be a physical barrier not a genetic one.

Yes...as you define a Sub species...a non genetic barrier.

So your next statement....

No, it wouldn't.

is sheer illogical...when I assert the Chiahauhau by those parameters you confirm make it a sub species to most large canines.

But you can crossbreed Chihuahuas and Corgis (which are at least twice the size and can mass up to 5 times as much as a Chihuahua).

Twice the size is likely...twenty times the size is something else.

 

[Autodidact]

It is odd that this

and this

are the same species.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Dogs are not varied enough within themselves to count as subspecies individually... The only thing that keeps dog breeds from interbreeding is human control. Hence the existence of mutts. Indeed mutts tend to revert to a basic phenotype the "pariah dog".

So the definition for sub species does not include insurmountable reproduction problems due to phenotypal expressions like physical dimensions?

 

[painted wolf]

The joy of selective breeding.
It gets even more wild with plants....

but genetically you can still trace the lineage to shared common ancestors.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

So the definition for sub species does not include insurmountable reproduction problems due to phenotypal expressions like physical dimensions?

Nope... subspecies do not have insurmountable barriers. If they did they would be candidates for species or genus level placement.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Nope... subspecies do not have insurmountable barriers. If they did they would be candidates for species or genus level placement.

wa:do

Insurmountable barriers to common place reproduction and hybridization perhaps then.

If they were genetically identical (almost) like very little doggies and very big wolves?
But could never actually mate let alone give birth in a 1000 attempted couplings?

By what basis are they the same species if they cannot reproduce?

Because the reproductional capacity between them is remote if not nil.

Qualifying them for sub speciation as I have said at least but I think you might be on to something actually.