Is god a code monkey?

[Skwim]

I assume you mean why animals of different species cannot interbreed. This is because their genomes have diverged so far through mutation, selection and drift that their chromosomes are no longer compatible.

Actually, some species can. Canis lupus (wolf) has easily interbred with Cains latrans (coyote). In fact, the resulting animal C. latrans var. (Eastern coyote) has been so successful that populations of the animal, called a coywolf, have almost replaced the wolf in the south of Ontario and the southern margin of Quebec. And dogs (C. lupus familiaris) and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, coydogs, although as far as can be told they are not as healthy as the Eastern coyote. The there's the beefalo, which are fertile animals resulting from the mating of a cow (Bos primigenius taurus) and the American bison (Bison bison), which obviously aren't only of different species, but different genera as well.

 

[johnhanks]

Actually, some species can. Canis lupus (wolf) has easily interbred with Cains latrans (coyote). In fact, the resulting animal C. latrans var. (Eastern coyote) has been so successful that populations of the animal, called a coywolf, have almost replaced the wolf in the south of Ontario and the southern margin of Quebec. And dogs (C. lupus familiaris) and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, coydogs, although as far as can be told they are not as healthy as the Eastern coyote. The there's the beefalo, which are fertile animals resulting from the mating of a cow (Bos primigenius taurus) and the American bison (Bison bison), which obviously aren't only of different species, but different genera as well.

I think all this does is underline the inevitably artificial and arbitrary nature of man-made nomenclature for species and genera. Out there in the real world there aren't populations of animals thinking "we're Bos primigenius taurus" or "we're Canis latrans" - there are just populations whose genomes do or do not allow them to interbreed with each other. They are wholly indifferent as to how humans want to label them.

 

[Skwim]

I think all this does is underline the inevitably artificial and arbitrary nature of man-made nomenclature for species and genera.

Actually, species nomenclature, and especially definition, has a long and varied history, and is far from arbitrary, as are the taxons of the other ranks.

Out there in the real world there aren't populations of animals thinking "we're Bos primigenius taurus" or "we're Canis latrans" - there are just populations whose genomes do or do not allow them to interbreed with each other.

Hmmm, you don't think so, huh.

They are wholly indifferent as to how humans want to label them.

Well, they told me differently. They said they care very much how we label them.

 

[rusra02]

Science already has an answer. There is no known mechanism that limits the amount by which a DNA base sequence can change. You are the one claiming that there is such a limit: it is for you to explain how that limit is imposed.
I assume you mean why animals of different species cannot interbreed. This is because their genomes have diverged so far through mutation, selection and drift that their chromosomes are no longer compatible. What you have yet to do is explain why there should be a limit on the extent of that divergence.

I believe that what is not known would fill countless libraries. The fact remains, animal families, animal kinds are distinct, and reproduce only within their respective kind, just as Genesis stated 3,500 years or so before the discovery of DNA. Your statement as to why animals cannot interbreed is simply unsubstantiated evolutionary speculation

 

[johnhanks]

I believe that what is not known would fill countless libraries. The fact remains, animal families, animal kinds are distinct, and reproduce only within their respective kind, just as Genesis stated 3,500 years or so before the discovery of DNA.

Do I detect a certain nostalgia here? If only that pesky DNA had stayed undiscovered...

You have still to address the question you have been asked repeatedly in this thread. That DNA sequences in populations change over time is not a matter of debate, but a widely observed and documented fact. You are the one insisting that they cannot change beyond a certain limit. So let's try one more time.

WHAT MECHANISM SETS THAT LIMIT?

Your statement as to why animals cannot interbreed is simply unsubstantiated evolutionary speculation

No, it's standard high school biology, supported by evidence from decades of solid research.

If your same-kind-can, different-kinds-can't idea were true, why would we have so many examples of closely related species mating to produce sterile hybrids? In other words, if "kinds" are real, why are their boundaries so blurred?

 

[savagewind]

WHAT MECHANISM SETS THAT LIMIT?

The power of God. It is like the power that keeps Earth in it's proper place. Let's call the set boundary of "kind" gravity. OK?

 

[secret2]

Your statement as to why animals cannot interbreed is simply unsubstantiated evolutionary speculation

Once again, we all know that, and why, some animals cannot interbreed. That is NOT what we are questioning.

 

[johnhanks]

The power of God. It is like the power that keeps Earth in it's proper place. Let's call the set boundary of "kind" gravity. OK?

You can call it Mary Poppins, if you like. It has about as much resemblance to reality.

 

[savagewind]

You can call it Mary Poppins, if you like. It has about as much resemblance to reality.

Yes I know. From your point of view. I wonder how many times you are going to say the same thing? Do you use a different fictional character each time? I'm thinking Popeye.







Disclaimer. Trolling with a happy face is not trolling. That I know for sure.

 

[johnhanks]

I wonder how many times you are going to say the same thing?

I've been wondering that, too. Perhaps until the question is understood and addressed. All I'm getting at the moment is evasion.

 

[Ouroboros]

Science already has an answer. There is no known mechanism that limits the amount by which a DNA base sequence can change. You are the one claiming that there is such a limit: it is for you to explain how that limit is imposed.

Right on.

I think there's a project right now where they are trying to establish how many types of protein that can be made. The number is extremely large. I can't find the reference right now, but there's only something like 10,000 known proteins in our biosphere (in use by organic life), if I remember right. And the potential variation is in trillions or something. The funny thing is that there's only 20 different codons. Each codon (with a few exceptions) produce one peptide each, but a chain (polypeptide) can be combined in so many ways. Another funny thing, the peptides are manufactured from "dead" material (ingested), and it becomes part of the "living" organism. So that whole "living from dead matter" argument is silly since it's happening constantly and continuously in our body all the time.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually, some species can.

And there are debates about if chimpanzees and humans could interbreed too. It's just not ethical, but that's another issue.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think all this does is underline the inevitably artificial and arbitrary nature of man-made nomenclature for species and genera. Out there in the real world there aren't populations of animals thinking "we're Bos primigenius taurus" or "we're Canis latrans" - there are just populations whose genomes do or do not allow them to interbreed with each other. They are wholly indifferent as to how humans want to label them.

Exactly. Just look at ring-species. They're the same species and another species simultaneous. Ring species are a good observation of how speciation actually do happen.

 

[Skwim]

And there are debates about if chimpanzees and humans could interbreed too. It's just not ethical, but that's another issue.

And considering that they belong different genera there's liitle chance of success.

 

[Ouroboros]

And considering that they belong different genera there's liitle chance of success.

It's not because they belong to different genera that there would be little chance of success, but rather that we have a different chromosome count. My understanding from the debate is that this is the only major difference. Nature doesn't follow human made words or categories.

 

[Skwim]

It's not because they belong to different genera that there would be little chance of success, but rather that we have a different chromosome count.

Good grief. Of course it's genetics and not our classification. I just thought that pointing out the difference in genus would be enough of an indication that there was next to no chance of a successful mating. I didn't think it necessary to spell it out.

 

[Ouroboros]

Good grief. Of course it's genetics and not our classification. I just thought that pointing out the difference in genus would be enough of an indication that there was next to no chance of a successful mating. I didn't think it necessary to spell it out.

Sorry. It sounded weird. I misunderstood you.