Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And this differs from your definition of species, exactly how?
Care to explain why Tigers and Lions are different species, when the interbreed and produce fertile offspring?
...
"Most ligers suffer from embryonic fatality or premature death, those that survive are often genetically or physically sterile and therefore unable to reproduce and continue their lineage."
Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---------------
How are things going over at Cosmoquest?
Even assuming that fertility is a true test of species, something I disagree with completely, there are a number of obstacles to overcome, for example:
How exactly can you determine whether two fossils were of the same species? Can you warp back in time to determine the extent to which reproductive compatibility existed?
Since bacteria never breed sexually, how can you determine whether two bacteria are the same species?
Since a chihuahua is incapable of producing fertile offspring with a St. Bernard, would you classify them into two distinct species?
Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor).[7] Breeding experiments in Germany with Poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of communication (even after a few generations)....The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species."
However, at FAQ we are assured that there are actually three different species of wolves. Red wolves can breed with coyotes. Grey wolves are not supposed to breed with coyotes, but DNA studies have shown that they do. Can grey wolves breed with red wolves? I assume so! How do we know that they're different species?
Bats don't all look the same, except they are all bats. They represent an entire order, Chiroptera. Here is a drawing showing all the variety of bats.. you really can't mistake certain bats from others (Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)Not really because the example I was using was for the species of bats. So there are 1000 bat species that all look like bats but for the purpose of evolution they are different species even though they look the same. We are talking about the morphing of one shaped animal into another when talking about transitions and whether the features of that animals are signs of those transitions or just natural features they have within the same species. So thats where this ambiguity comes in with species that look the same yet are used to show how evolution works. So are the similar looking creatures with similar features just variations within that shaped animals or is it a sign of evolution and them morphing into a new shaped animals.
It is all natural variation as far as nature is concerned. Nature does not create species, genera, orders, classes, etc. Just populations. Bats can be considered a variation of mammal, just as mammal can be considered a variation of animal. If common descent is correct, then that is to be expected. Special creation, on the other hand, demands separate categories that are distinct and have no common heredity. Yet, no creationist can give us a list of all the specially created "kinds," because they cannot figure out how to differentiate between what are supposed to be distinct creations. Why would these kinds be made form the same "blueprint?" There should be separate blueprints for separately created kinds. They may share some characteristics, but they certainly wouldn't fit into a nested hierarchy, like genetic descent creates automatically. That is the big problem with special creation.say its hard to tell just like the species level is always up for debate. You may have to go to a higher level of order to get a clearer picture of distinct animals. The question is how far can natural variation within the same animals go and where the line is for what evolution cites as evidence for transitions between two completely different shaped animals. This has been the area that has been disputed even between evolutionists when it comes down to the features of animals and what it represents. Especially when only using observations methods. Here they can cite one or two features to say this is evidence of a transition. But those features may just be the natural variation of that creature that can extend towards similarities of another creature. After all if all creatures are made from the same blue prints then they are going to have some similarities across the board. But evolution will say that is evidence for common decent.
What are the 'true tests' for determining species?Even assuming that fertility is a true test of species, something I disagree with completely,
Have you considered some courses in palaeontology?there are a number of obstacles to overcome, for example:
How exactly can you determine whether two fossils were of the same species?
As soon as my time machine is back from the cleaners.Can you warp back in time to determine the extent to which reproductive compatibility existed?
DNA differences.Since bacteria never breed sexually, how can you determine whether two bacteria are the same species?
Where did you get this idea from? Even if they could not physically mate, their descendants could still potentially share genetic material.Since a chihuahua is incapable of producing fertile offspring with a St. Bernard, would you classify them into two distinct species?
Define how you are using "species" in this context.Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor).[7] Breeding experiments in Germany with Poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of communication (even after a few generations)....The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species."
However, at FAQ we are assured that there are actually three different species of wolves. Red wolves can breed with coyotes. Grey wolves are not supposed to breed with coyotes, but DNA studies have shown that they do. Can grey wolves breed with red wolves? I assume so! How do we know that they're different species?
Your post did not answer my objection.[serious];67159305 said:Species describes the population, not the individual. Per wikipedia, "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." emphasis mine.
So a chihuahua and a great dane might not be able to mate, but both can mate with poodles. Since they are both part of a shared reproductive pool, they are both in the same species. One could also look at any number of ring species to see a similar situation in which the groups at opposite margins may be unable to mate directly, but they are still part of the same species due to the presence of groups they can both mate with.
Now, there are some grey areas where there is reduced fertility between two groups, but it isn't completely impossible for gene transfers to occur. This is the fairly narrow grey area in speciation. The process of a species split is a gradual as one would expect.
What are the 'true tests' for determining species?
Have you considered some courses in palaeontology?
As soon as my time machine is back from the cleaners.
Since when is the delineation of species limited to reproductive compatibility?
DNA differences.
Where did you get this idea from? Even if they could not physically mate, their descendants could still potentially share genetic material.
Define how you are using "species" in this context.
Is there point in there somewhere?A list of 26 Species Concepts Evolving Thoughts
As I said, there is no universally-accepted and meaningful definition of the word "species." The above link contains fully 26 different species concepts, many of which are mutually exclusive.
I did not claim that claim that DNA differences are sufficient to delineate creatures into different species.You have claimed that DNA differences are sufficient to delineate creatures into different species. My DNA is different from that of my father. Does that make me part of a different species?
How different is sufficiently different?
So what? The concept is only a set of classification methodologies that we project upon the biology of the planet. There is no stamp underneath each critter or twig to see if it is "true".There is no meaningful, universally-accepted definition of the word "species."
How so?Accordingly, it is impossible to say whether macro evolution occurs.
So what? The concept is only a set of classification methodologies that we project upon the biology of the planet. There is no stamp underneath each critter or twig to see if it is "true".
How so?
Since macro evolution is a "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa" one cannot claim that macro evolution occurs until the species problem is solved.
Since macro evolution is a "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa" one cannot claim that macro evolution occurs until the species problem is solved.
Your post did not answer my objection.
Since no single bacterium can breed, your definition requires that every bacterium be a different species.
"Most ligers suffer from embryonic fatality or premature death, those that survive are often genetically or physically sterile and therefore unable to reproduce and continue their lineage."
Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---------------
How are things going over at Cosmoquest?
Even assuming that fertility is a true test of species, something I disagree with completely, there are a number of obstacles to overcome, for example:
How exactly can you determine whether two fossils were of the same species? Can you warp back in time to determine the extent to which reproductive compatibility existed?
Since bacteria never breed sexually, how can you determine whether two bacteria are the same species?
Since a chihuahua is incapable of producing fertile offspring with a St. Bernard, would you classify them into two distinct species?
Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor).[7] Breeding experiments in Germany with Poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of communication (even after a few generations)....The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species."
However, at FAQ we are assured that there are actually three different species of wolves. Red wolves can breed with coyotes. Grey wolves are not supposed to breed with coyotes, but DNA studies have shown that they do. Can grey wolves breed with red wolves? I assume so! How do we know that they're different species?
This is what is being found more and more as we map the genome of animals and find the great complexity. Animals are being separated more by their genetics because they are finding more function that goes with each animal. The observational evidence used in the past is being shown wrong is many cases. Darwin's tree of life is being turned into a hedge or orchard instead. It may not be a single common ancestor but many lines of creatures that branched out to make the animals kingdom. I think I have cited support for this before with you so I will only do this if you insist on me finding them again.
Whatever gave you the impression that I was involved in the classification process?And why did you leave out this?
"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y). According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[22]
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[23] In 2013 the same pair of an African lion and a female liger produced three more female cubs."
So you choose to disregard your own main classification,
Where did I state this?simply because you once believed it was impossible.
Where have I argued this?Now knowing better, you still argue against it, because you simply don't want to admit you were wrong.
What is this "truth" that you allude to?Just as those that point to the fossil record were wrong, and don't want to admit it either.
One of your own even showing half the things you believed to be false, yet you still have great faith. You still ignore and refuse to investigate the millions of claimed species, knowing they will end up like these, simply of the same Kind. You run from the truth,
Provide a scientific, testable definition of what you mean by "kind" in this context.because it speaks words you do not want to hear. Because it turns everything you believed upside down and leaves you with no clear links to anything in the past. Run Forest run.
I saw why you were banned. You have inspired your own Urban Dictionary entry:Banned of course, did anyone ever expect anything different when the questions became too much for them to answer?
Banned of course, did anyone ever expect anything different when the questions became too much for them to answer?
And why did you leave out this?
"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y). According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[22]
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[23] In 2013 the same pair of an African lion and a female liger produced three more female cubs."
So you choose to disregard your own main classification, simply because you once believed it was impossible. Now knowing better, you still argue against it, because you simply don't want to admit you were wrong. Just as those that point to the fossil record were wrong, and don't want to admit it either.
One of your own even showing half the things you believed to be false, yet you still have great faith. You still ignore and refuse to investigate the millions of claimed species, knowing they will end up like these, simply of the same Kind. You run from the truth, because it speaks words you do not want to hear. Because it turns everything you believed upside down and leaves you with no clear links to anything in the past. Run Forest run.
[serious];67159305 said:Species describes the population, not the individual. Per wikipedia, "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." emphasis mine.
So a chihuahua and a great dane might not be able to mate, but both can mate with poodles. Since they are both part of a shared reproductive pool, they are both in the same species. One could also look at any number of ring species to see a similar situation in which the groups at opposite margins may be unable to mate directly, but they are still part of the same species due to the presence of groups they can both mate with.
Now, there are some grey areas where there is reduced fertility between two groups, but it isn't completely impossible for gene transfers to occur. This is the fairly narrow grey area in speciation. The process of a species split is a gradual as one would expect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?