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

[Primordial Annihilator]

I am just saying I think sub species definitions seem somewhat arbitrary particularly when dealing with domesticated species.

The Dog is one of the worst examples it seems.

 

[Autodidact]

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

They (the islands) are irrelevant.

But their genes remain in the species gene pool, because of the chihuahua => corgi => labrador => St. Bernard => mixing process. Imagine an individual male chihuahua, Pepe, and an individual female Great Dane, Inga. In the future, there will be an individual mutt with some of Pepe's genes and some of Inga's, via Shorty, Flossie and Fido. That's what makes them all a (sub) species.

 

[newhope101]

I am just saying I think sub species definitions seem somewhat arbitrary particularly when dealing with domesticated species.

The Dog is one of the worst examples it seems.

Yes, I agree. In evolution any immediate decendant species phase in the evolutionary line can be seen as a subspecies really.

Canis is a genus containing 7 to 10 extant species, including dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals, and many extinct species. (Wiki)

At the genus level many can interbreed. Then at the species level the same names appear and can interbreed and then again at the subspecies level, and can interbreed. Mmmm, interesting...

I wonder what percentage of shared genes goats and sheep have.

 

[Autodidact]

newhope: You must have missed this question:

What is your rationale for humans being an exception to your definition of "kind?"

 

[painted wolf]

I am just saying I think sub species definitions seem somewhat arbitrary particularly when dealing with domesticated species.

The Dog is one of the worst examples it seems.

1) Gene flow between the breeds is not insurmountable. Gene flow does not have to be direct from very small to very large, there are even more intermediate sizes to facilitate gene flow. And gene flow among dogs is extremely high.

2) Population is not defined as all individuals sharing a particular morphology... redefining terms at your whimsy is worthless to discussion. Population already has a defined meaning in biology: All individuals of a particular species in a given area.

3) Genetic heritage is not arbitrary... The exact delineation between subspecies may be a matter of opinion, the fact that all breeds of dogs are essentially genetically indistinguishable refutes the idea that breeds are somehow unique populations rather than just morphs of the same subspecie.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Sheep and goats are different genus... and are more genetically dissimilar than Canids who are all of the same genus. I'll see if I can track down some more solid numbers.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

1) Gene flow between the breeds is not insurmountable. Gene flow does not have to be direct from very small to very large, there are even more intermediate sizes to facilitate gene flow. And gene flow among dogs is extremely high.

Nonsense there is in practice very little gene flow between Chiahauhaus (and other minature dogs) and large dogs.
Reproduction between them is for all intents and purposes insurmountable...and gene flow between the two extreme sizes almost nil.
A Chiahuahua is a pedigree anyway...and it is hardly likely any Chiahuahua on earth has Great Dane or Irish wolfhound ancestors...and visa versa.

2) Population is not defined as all individuals sharing a particular morphology... redefining terms at your whimsy is worthless to discussion. Population already has a defined meaning in biology: All individuals of a particular species in a given area.

You utterly fail to grasp my point then...that I am arguing the case for a sub species...which is not ********** whimsy you arrogant.....

3) Genetic heritage is not arbitrary... The exact delineation between subspecies may be a matter of opinion, the fact that all breeds of dogs are essentially genetically indistinguishable refutes the idea that breeds are somehow unique populations rather than just morphs of the same subspecie.

wa:do

The facts is all breeds of dog are not genetically identical are they, essentiallyisnt the same as is...whats your quantifying definition?
Your argument is entirely semantic....and I never said genetic heritage is arbitrary I asked you at what particular % of genetic deviation do you sub speciate at?
Something I KNOW you cannot answer LOL

If you had bothered to read the post properly...you might have realised this.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

But their genes remain in the species gene pool, because of the chihuahua => corgi => labrador => St. Bernard => mixing process. Imagine an individual male chihuahua, Pepe, and an individual female Great Dane, Inga. In the future, there will be an individual mutt with some of Pepe's genes and some of Inga's, via Shorty, Flossie and Fido. That's what makes them all a (sub) species.

Thats hypothetical...Chiahuahuas are a pedigree and people aim to keep it that way generally.

Gene flow in practice between the very large and very small pedigrees I would say is almost nil.

 

[Autodidact]

Nonsense there is in practice very little gene flow between Chiahauhaus (and other minature dogs) and large dogs.

But there is, and it's because of all the corgis, labradors and St. Bernards in between. Not to mention the mutts.

Reproduction between them is for all intents and purposes insurmountable...and gene flow between the two extreme sizes almost nil.

No, see above.

A Chiahua is a pedigree anyway...and it is hardly likely any Chiahuahua on earth has Great Dane or Irish wolfhound ancestors...and visa versa.

No, but there are mutts with both--get it?

 

[Autodidact]

Thats hypothetical...

No, it's actual. Actual chihuahas actually mate with actual corgis.

Chiahuahuas are a pedigree and people aim to keep it that way generally.

And yet the world is full of mutts.

Gene flow in practice between the very large and very small pedigrees I would say is almost nil.

You are mistaken. Don't forget Spot, the ******* offspring of Skipper and Fido, whose ancestors include Inga and Pepe.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I am done here...

I have failed to get my point across...and now its like flogging a dead donkey.

I am obstinate that however if you consider my little hypothetical dog virus again you will see the logical angle I am trying to come from.

But I have had enough of this discussion...sub species definitions remain arbitrary and subjective...IMHO...take it or leave it.

 

[David M]

But I have had enough of this discussion...sub species definitions remain arbitrary and subjective...IMHO...take it or leave it.

You're wrong, take it or leave it.

The fact that as soon as humans stop locking pure-breeds away when they are ready to breed those dogs freely reproduce to produce mutts across the whole size spectrum who are also interfertile means there are no domestic dog species.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You're wrong, take it or leave it.

The fact that as soon as humans stop locking pure-breeds away when they are ready to breed those dogs freely reproduce to produce mutts across the whole size spectrum who are also interfertile means there are no domestic dog species.

No you just dont have an eye for detail...

Pure breed Chiuahuahuas cannot reproduce with pure breed Great Danes.
Thus if all dogs bar them ceased to exist the dog sub species would immediately speciate, that instant...not in time.
The same cannot be said if all breeds but Labradors and Collies perished..no speciation would occur as they can reproduce freely.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I am not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I understand the arguments people have made...however....I dont think I am necessarily RIGHT David M...lol...I dont think there are any real facts anyway, philosophically speaking


Its the that instant (of speciation) that I have difficulty with...because prior to the hypothetical dog virus that wipes out almost all breeds there was only one sub species that includes all domesticated Dogs...suddenly when the last Border Collie dies and only Chiahuahua and Great Danes are left you instantly have a new sub species, the Chiahuahua, because it cannot breed with the surviving Great Danes for physical reasons nor other wild canines like Dingos and Wolves for geographical as well as physical ones.

Its the that instant fact which reveals an inconsistency with the idea of sub species...

But I will shut up now...and David M please feel free to call me wrong or ignorant or whatever....thats cool....I can live with it.
Not an issue...not here to win prizes...just here to challenge basic preconceptions as far as I can get away with it....learn from the enemy....mwahahahaha...

 

[newhope101]

I am not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I understand the arguments people have made...however....I dont think I am necessarily RIGHT David M...lol...I dont think there are any real facts anyway, philosophically speaking


Its the that instant (of speciation) that I have difficulty with...because prior to the hypothetical dog virus that wipes out almost all breeds there was only one sub species that includes all domesticated Dogs...suddenly when the last Border Collie dies and only Chiahuahua and Great Danes are left you instantly have a new sub species, the Chiahuahua, because it cannot breed with the surviving Great Danes for physical reasons nor other wild canines like Dingos and Wolves for geographical as well as physical ones.

Its the that instant fact which reveals an inconsistency with the idea of sub species...

But I will shut up now...and David M please feel free to call me wrong or ignorant or whatever....thats cool....I can live with it.
Not an issue...not here to win prizes...just here to challenge basic preconceptions as far as I can get away with it....learn from the enemy....mwahahahaha...

Regardless of what anyone says if we look up Wiki Canidae "Classification and relationship" the info speaks to the confusion within the Canidae taxa at Family level. If leading researchers are unclear, I doubt anyone here will be able to have the last word.

The wolf, coyote, and golden jackal diverged around 3 to 4 million years ago. In Genus there appear 15 species with only 6 of them surviving today.

I see in Wiki, all the species within Canis (GENUS) that have survived today can genetically interbreed. They have 78 chromosomes.

Wiki: Members of the genus Canis species can, however, all interbreed to produce fertile offspring, with two exceptions:the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal. Although these two could theoretically interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring, they cannot hybridize successfully with the rest of the genus Canis.

Of the 6 genus level taxa that survive today, should they not have been at least as equally genetically sexually compatible 2-4 million years ago as they are today, not only at the Species rank but also at the Genus rank? Canis lupis, canis simensis, canis rufus, canis latrans etc should have been genetically more similar at the Genus level than today, if after all these years of evolution they are still able to interbreed today. Wouldn't they be more genetically similar as they got closer to the common ancestor?

Are we unable to extrapolate or infer this from current genetic knowledge?
　
Generally it appears to me that all, or most, of the Canis species at Genus level should fit into the general definition of one "species", that are able to successfully interbreed...and still can today.

What am I not seeing?

 

[Autodidact]

What am I not seeing?

Apparently you're not seeing the question I have asked you 5 times: What is your rationale for humans being an exception to your definition of "kind?" Because you would never be so rude or evasive to just ignore a reasonable and pertinent question, right?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Apparently you're not seeing the question I have asked you 5 times: What is your rationale for humans being an exception to your definition of "kind?" Because you would never be so rude or evasive to just ignore a reasonable and pertinent question, right?

This is where most scientists avoid the word race and refer to phenotypes instead...the amount of people I have met who try to claim that different races equate to different sub species...always a good laugh.

 

[Autodidact]

This is where most scientists avoid the word race and refer to phenotypes instead...the amount of people I have met who try to claim that different races equate to different sub species...always a good laugh.

The question is really for Newhope, and is not about race or any scientific term, either, it's about "kind," which is a religious term.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

The question is really for Newhope, and is not about race or any scientific term, either, it's about "kind," which is a religious term.

Never heard of it.

But I do enjoy creationist christians addressing the sticky issue of taxonomy and homo sapiens sapiens...always illuminating.

 

[painted wolf]

Regardless of what anyone says if we look up Wiki Canidae "Classification and relationship" the info speaks to the confusion within the Canidae taxa at Family level. If leading researchers are unclear, I doubt anyone here will be able to have the last word.

There is never a "last word" in science... so, I totally agree here.

The wolf, coyote, and golden jackal diverged around 3 to 4 million years ago. In Genus there appear 15 species with only 6 of them surviving today.

I see in Wiki, all the species within Canis (GENUS) that have survived today can genetically interbreed. They have 78 chromosomes.

Wiki: Members of the genus Canis species can, however, all interbreed to produce fertile offspring, with two exceptions:the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal. Although these two could theoretically interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring, they cannot hybridize successfully with the rest of the genus Canis.

Of the 6 genus level taxa that survive today, should they not have been at least as equally genetically sexually compatible 2-4 million years ago as they are today, not only at the Species rank but also at the Genus rank? Canis lupis, canis simensis, canis rufus, canis latrans etc should have been genetically more similar at the Genus level than today, if after all these years of evolution they are still able to interbreed today. Wouldn't they be more genetically similar as they got closer to the common ancestor?

Absolutely... though dissimilarity can be exaggerated by genetic drift and bottle neck effects. (which is why mtDNA is preferred as it shows these sorts of changes better than nuclear DNA).
Those of the genus Canis are all closer to each other than they are the other canids such as the Maned Wolf, African Wild Dog, Raccoon Dog and others.
If you compare all the canids genetics you can figure out who is closest to who.

You end up with a family tree like this:

Are we unable to extrapolate or infer this from current genetic knowledge?

Sure can!
　

Generally it appears to me that all, or most, of the Canis species at Genus level should fit into the general definition of one "species", that are able to successfully interbreed...and still can today.

What am I not seeing?

You could ague that, if you define species solely on who can breed with who... but if species can vary by 4% of mtDNA or more then We and Chimps are the same species. (though interbreeding studies haven't been done with apes... it's an icky subject)

wa:do