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

[painted wolf]

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.

Of course they can still reproduce... you've never heard of wolf-dog hybrids?
Little dogs manage to impregnate large ones pretty frequently.

Again, the only barrier to dog breed mixing is human intervention.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Of course they can still reproduce... you've never heard of wolf-dog hybrids?
Little dogs manage to impregnate large ones pretty frequently.

Again, the only barrier to dog breed mixing is human intervention.

wa:do

I will bet you £1000 a male Chiauhuahua cannot impregnate a female full grown Irish Wolf Hound...(unassisted)..how are they meant to turn back to back...that would be a sight worth seeing...also in fact wouldnt the penis of an Irish WolfHound be of somewhat gargantuan proportions in relation to the vagina of a female Chiahuahua?

Hell I am no gynaecologist...but I am bisexual so I have some limited experience in this matter....certainly my eyes water at some point.

(Using bluntness as a weapon here because people seem to fail what I am trying to say but nevermind I have lost sight of why I even care no offence Painted Wolf xxx)

I am TALKING about very very little dogs trying to impregnate great big HUGE ones.

The actual physics just dont allow it...in extreme cases as discussed...surely...?

Or is there something vital about canine sex I do not know about?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Again, the only barrier to dog breed mixing is human intervention.

Not the only barrier as I have argued vis a viz relative size difference...but nevertheless a good point.
Worth using in an argument that considers taxonomy a rather arbitrary system of classification at sub species levels particularly when dealing with sub species of domesticated species.

Like mine basically.

 

[painted wolf]

I will bet you £1000 a male Chiauhuahua cannot impregnate a female full grown Irish Wolf Hound...how are they meant to turn back to back...that would be a sight worth seeing...also in fact wouldnt the penis of an Irish WolfHound be of somewhat gargantuan proportions compared to that of a female Chiahuahua?

Hell I am no gynaecologist...but I am bisexual so I have limited some experience in this matter....

I am TALKING about very very little dogs trying to impregnate great big HUGE ones.

The actual physics just dont allow it...in extreme cases as discussed...surely...?

Or is there something vital about canine sex I do not know about?

1) a very little dog does not have to impregnate a very large dog for gene flow to occur between the breeds... there are medium sized dogs a plenty.

2) go to youtube and try searching for Chihuahuas and Great Danes...

3) the only thing that maintains these breeds at their extreme forms is human intervention. Remove that barrier by allowing dogs to breed freely and in time you get pariah dogs... This is documented globally. I've already shown this.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

1) a very little dog does not have to impregnate a very large dog for gene flow to occur between the breeds... there are medium sized dogs a plenty.

That adds a rather huge dimension to the qualifying definition of a sub species I was not aware of.

Is that what you are saying?

2) go to youtube and try searching for Chihuahuas and Great Danes...

No ta.

3) the only thing that maintains these breeds at their extreme forms is human intervention. Remove that barrier by allowing dogs to breed freely and in time you get pariah dogs... This is documented globally. I've already shown this.

Yes I know...I have no disagreement with that.

 

[painted wolf]

That adds a rather huge dimension to the qualifying definition of a sub species I was not aware of.

Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that dogs as a domestic group are poor examples in this case. Genetically, dogs are deserving of subspecies as a whole, individual breeds are not distinct enough from each other to qualify as individual subspecies.

No ta.

dogs are indiscriminate breeders... but Mallard Ducks and Cane Toads are worse.

Yes I know...I have no disagreement with that.

then why are we discussing this?

wa:do

 

[David M]

I will bet you £1000 a male Chiauhuahua cannot impregnate a female full grown Irish Wolf Hound...(unassisted)..how are they meant to turn back to back...that would be a sight worth seeing...also in fact wouldnt the penis of an Irish WolfHound be of somewhat gargantuan proportions in relation to the vagina of a female Chiahuahua?

There has been a Chiahuahu/labrador cross, and the labrador was the male.

There are 2 flaws in your agument. Firstly it is that dogs are a poor example because the differentiations are wholly artifically maintained. Stop the control of breeding and you will get back to all dogs being mutts because every breed can reproduce with at least a whole bunch of other breeds. Its assistance that maintains the breeds.

Secondly species/sub-species defitions are about populations not individuals, take a large population of domestic dogs of various breeds and they will interbreed over time and remain a breeding population. They wont remain distinct subgroups within that population.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Secondly species/sub-species defitions are about populations not individuals, take a large population of domestic dogs of various breeds and they will interbreed over time and remain a breeding population. They wont remain distinct subgroups within that population.

The flaw in your argument is that Chiahuahuas are a population, a population that cannot breed with the Great Dane population (Or Mastiff or Irish Wolf Hound populations)
So if all dogs except Chiahuahuas and Great Danes survived some canine virus that decimated almost all dogs...then they would not be able to interbreed and the two breeds would immediately by the terms of of what defines a species the measurement of biodiversity (which includes phenotypal expression) and genetic relatedness speciate into new distinct species...canis familiaris biggus and canis familiaris smallus or something...
Thus in retrospect of this hypothetical situation occuring it would hardly have seemed logical to have labelled the two distinct breeds and populations the same species and not sub species of each other....

 

[painted wolf]

The flaw in your argument is that Chiahuahuas are a population, a population that cannot breed with the Great Dane population (Or Mastiff or Irish Wolf Hound populations)
So if all dogs except Chiahuahuas and Great Danes survived some canine virus that decimated almost all dogs...then they would not be able to interbreed and the two breeds would immediately by the terms of of what defines a species the measurement of biodiversity (which includes phenotypal expression) and genetic relatedness speciate into new distinct species...canis familiaris biggus and canis familiaris smallus or something...
Thus in retrospect of this hypothetical situation occuring it would hardly have seemed logical to have labelled the two distinct breeds and populations the same species and not sub species of each other....

Yes under this circumstance you would have disruptive selection and possible sympatric speciation given enough time... but the two ends of the population spectrum are not subspecies to start with. They don't have enough genetic variation between them.

Subspecies have nearly enough genetic variation to be a distinct species but not quite enough. Dogs do not have this amount of variation.

C.f.biggus would be a sub-subspecies... technically. If it was going to be called a species it would be Canis biggus.

Even if all other dogs were gone and just the very small and very large dogs were left, we would know they are the same species by their genetics. Just like we can today.

wa:do

 

[David M]

The flaw in your argument is that Chiahuahuas are a population, a population that cannot breed with the Great Dane population (Or Mastiff or Irish Wolf Hound populations)
So if all dogs except Chiahuahuas and Great Danes survived some canine virus that decimated almost all dogs...then they would not be able to interbreed and the two breeds would immediately by the terms of of what defines a species the measurement of biodiversity (which includes phenotypal expression) and genetic relatedness speciate into new distinct species...canis familiaris biggus and canis familiaris smallus or something...
Thus in retrospect of this hypothetical situation occuring it would hardly have seemed logical to have labelled the two distinct breeds and populations the same species and not sub species of each other....

IF...

And thats why they are not classed as different subspecies at the moment. This does not mean that they may not eventually become so in the future. And no Chiahuahuas are not a populationm they are members of a population they can freely interbreed with - domestic dogs.

 

[Autodidact]

The flaw in your argument is that Chiahuahuas are a population, a population that cannot breed with the Great Dane population (Or Mastiff or Irish Wolf Hound populations)
So if all dogs except Chiahuahuas and Great Danes survived some canine virus that decimated almost all dogs...then they would not be able to interbreed and the two breeds would immediately by the terms of of what defines a species the measurement of biodiversity (which includes phenotypal expression) and genetic relatedness speciate into new distinct species...canis familiaris biggus and canis familiaris smallus or something...
Thus in retrospect of this hypothetical situation occuring it would hardly have seemed logical to have labelled the two distinct breeds and populations the same species and not sub species of each other....

Interesting hypo. I think you're right--if we had only Great Danes and Chihuahuas, and no artificial breeding, and a few hundred generations, I think we would get two species out of it.

But we don't. We have chihuahuas breeding with corgis breeding with labradors breeding with St. Bernards breeding with Great Danes.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

But we don't. We have chihuahuas breeding with corgis breeding with labradors breeding with St. Bernards breeding with Great Danes.

Irrelevant in my view...but nvm.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Yes under this circumstance you would have disruptive selection and possible sympatric speciation given enough time... but the two ends of the population spectrum are not subspecies to start with. They don't have enough genetic variation between them.

That does not matter with sub species definitions as you have already pointed out yourself.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

IF...
And no Chiahuahuas are not a populationm they are members of a population they can freely interbreed with - domestic dogs.

Except Great Danes and Irish Wolf Hounds etc... and in fact yes they are a population, a breed...do you have a different definition of 'population' that you would like to clarify for me?

 

[painted wolf]

That does not matter with sub species definitions as you have already pointed out yourself.

Yes, it does, it's really all that matters... I've been clear about that from the beginning.

I say it explicitly in posts: 434,446,449 and again here.

Subspecies are genetically distinct from the rest of the population, but not distinct enough to be a separate species. Morphology alone does not cut it as morphology can be influenced by environmental factors.
Nor does isolation of the population count if there is enough gene flow to maintain a homogeneous genepool and reduce genetic diversity.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

In biology a population is all members of the same species that within a given geographical area. Thus all Dogs in the USA are a population... all dogs in New York City are a population and so on.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Yes, it does, it's really all that matters... I've been clear about that from the beginning.

I say it explicitly in posts: 434,446,449 and again here.

Subspecies are genetically distinct from the rest of the population, but not distinct enough to be a separate species. Morphology alone does not cut it as morphology can be influenced by environmental factors.
Nor does isolation of the population count if there is enough gene flow to maintain a homogeneous genepool and reduce genetic diversity.

wa:do

What arbitrary measument of genetic distinction is used to seperate sub species from a species?

At what % deviation is the organism considered a sub species?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

In biology a population is all members of the same species that within a given geographical area. Thus all Dogs in the USA are a population... all dogs in New York City are a population and so on.

wa:do

Well as we are defining the terms species and sub species I think I can use the term population to describe the numbers of animals in a breed I consider to be technically a sub species (insurmountable barrier to reproduction) of the Dog sub species...

 

[Autodidact]

Irrelevant in my view...but nvm.

Actually it's not. I think that's what other people more knowledgeable than I are trying to convey--that's what makes them all the same species, and will continue to do until all the chihuahuas get marooned on one island, and all the Great Danes on another.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Actually it's not. I think that's what other people more knowledgeable than I are trying to convey--that's what makes them all the same species, and will continue to do until all the chihuahuas get marooned on one island, and all the Great Danes on another.

Except they cant breed in a natural state now either, with or without the islands to seperate them...

They (the islands) are irrelevant.