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.
In light of complex life being on this planet for almost a billion years, yes, 20my isn't much.
Natural selection is very slow as its selection pressures are determined by the environment - not by what "the breeder" has set his goal on. And the environment is very slow changing, mostly. Generation times of complex animals is also measured in decades. Put two and two together and you're talking thousands of years, at least, and a rather quick changing environment for the amount of changes you would like to be able to observe.
Well, in this case, there's some explanation required, because these two animals are quite distinctly different genetically and don't share anywhere near as much in their DNA as we do with Chimpanzees. How do you explain that, wouldn't a common designer have just reused genetic blueprint because of their similar niche roles?? A common designer doesn't explain this anywhere near as well as Evolution does... but I'm open to your point of view on this...
So, Wait, you now acknowledge that we do evolve into different breeds after all, along with the Mastiff and Husky evolving from the Wolf lineage?
Except all the mutations that made them Asians apart from their common ancestor with the African lineage, right?
How far back would we need to go to find the first non-Asian and first non-African that gave birth to the first African and Asian respectively?
this is also Evolution in action too, you know that, right? Even you can't deny that we've gone from the Wolf lineage to Husky, Chinook and Mastiff lineages for a start, all very different to the Wolf lineage from whence they came, wouldn't you agree...?
I'll take you up on this since nobody else has taken up my earlier challenge on this... Some quick questions to start:
You are often hung up on outward differences, such as the extremely minor differences between human races, of which there is no trait unique to just one race. At least, no outward ones, which you constantly bring up.
The ALX1 gene regulates the development of the skull and facial structures, and controls the expression of a group of genes. Regulatory genes like that can result in drastic differences in physiology, so it is entirely possible for the species barrier to be passed due to a mutation on one. This is part of why I say the species label is a bit arbitrary; since, in animals, it is highly based on interbreeding, it only takes 1 mutation to pose a huge barrier to reproduction between two populations. Not that this is the only genetic difference between dogs and wolves; they are different enough that some people have suggested that no modern wolf species is the one that dogs descended from, and that the one they are descended from had all wild populations go extinct.
Which 3? Also, did you forget that I don't think all dog breeds should be considered the same species already?
Lion and tiger offspring have terrible health problems, reduced fertility, and only are produced in irresponsible zoos that force the two species to be in close quarters with each other. Also, if only 1 gender pairing works, that is a mark of distinct species, and this applies to the fertility of offspring as well. Female mules have a small chance of being fertile, but most aren't and male mules are never fertile. Thus, horses and donkeys are different species. Also, I would be amazed if a chihuahua managed to mount a great dane, quite frankly. However, since I have never seen this cross, it is entirely possible that these two breeds actually can't interbreed, even with human intervention. You are free to try and give it a shot, if you want.
-_- humans don't have subspecies, and our species is notoriously not picky about physical color. The type of race distinction you are thinking of only existed within the past 400 or so years.
I'm outright stating that 1 mutation can be enough, but I would need your source for your claim that this mutation alone is responsible for the species distinction in order to adequately address that specific example.
Which. Species. Are. You. Talking. About.
I need you to name them so that I can accurately do the research on my own! If I don't have names, I don't know what to type into the search engine, gosh, it shouldn't be hard for you to at least give me this much! I don't even know if you are referring to the finches or members of the same genus as dogs at this point, you've made it that unclear. If it is the finches, people have already told you that your source was very deviant from the vast majority of studies on the subject, and since I have read that source, it doesn't actually say that 3 species are merging together.
Don’t give me that when you don’t even believe your own rhetoric. There is nothing with those finches that allow you to classify them as separate species. Nothing but those arbitrary physical differences you claim I am the one that is fixated on. Yet despite those arbitrary physical differences in finches, dogs and humans, I’m not the one hung up on those differences. I recognize despite the physical differences they are each the same species in their respective class. It’s instead you that seems to be hung up on those physical differences. After all, it was mere physical differences which made them classify the Triceratops a separate species from the Torosaurus, even if one was merely a sub adult and the other the adult.
And those arbitrary labels, which don’t fit the way any other animal is labeled, still designate them all as the same species. I have no complaints at all if you wish to label them correctly as different subspecies instead of breeds. Or in the case of humans subspecies instead of races. But hey why classify things correctly when it comes to these two.
And those finch genotypes are so mixed from interbreeding, the physical characteristics of beaks is your only designation. Are you claiming mutations to the ALX1 gene is sufficient a reason to designate them as separate species?
Agreed, just as Asians in the past selectively chose to breed with others with Asian characteristics until that genetic variability was reduced. Because the genome once had all racial characteristics within, and through selective breeding our genetic variability has been reduced. Which is why Asians remain Asian despite generations of mutations.........
And will never change an Asian into any other race, let alone a species. You have observed thousands of generations of mutations and yet the Asian remains Asian and no new race appears until they mate with another race. Your mutations lack any credible observational data.
Which leads to mere differences in length of nose, hair color, etc.... but I thought those mere physical traits that you claim I was hung up on were unimportant. Yet despite this claim of yours, Asian remains Asian and no new race appears until they mate with another race. Yet you expect me to believe that despite mutations not even being able to cross the race border, they magically cross the species border?
Oh most have quite obvious affects, we call them birth defects.......
Yet Asian remain Asian, African remains African, Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remain Mastiff. You need to reread what you wrote about that reduction in genetic variation, then stop contradicting yourself with this PR rubbish that direct observation falsifies. Make up your mind, did we interbreed and reduce the genetic variation from the original which contained more genetic variation, or did we not?
Fixed as in reduction of genetic variation? Of course the Asian genes are fixed in that population, that’s why they remain Asian despite you trying to convince yourself they can become something other than Asian.
Oh no, I agree on how it works. I agree that through selective breeding between the same strain genetic variation is lost, never gained. That only when selectively breeding with a different genetic strain is more variability introduced. You know, Asian remains Asian and African remains African, and only when those two mate is a new variant observed? I agree wholeheartedly, it’s you that seems to keep vacillating back and forth in what you believe while ignoring the facts.
Oh I did, perhaps you didn’t?
Apparently you didn’t even read your own evolutionists supporters post about inbreeding characteristics and reduction in genetic variability, or you would know how it came about.....
But the Asian population remains Asian and the African population remains African until they interbreed. We agree, it’s simply the means of that change in populations we disagree on. Since that change arose from interbreeding, in a mere nine months, not mutations over millions of years....
