What are the implications of 2 species from separate genera, or subfamily, being able to produce fertile offspring?
-
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.
question
- Thread starter randman
- Start date
OK, here is the deal. A killer whale, "pseudorca," has mated with a porpoise, and produced a fertile offsrping, which I understand means they are actually a single species.
Now, these 2 large animals were classified in 2 separate subfamilies actually, and for good reason. They look and are significantly different.
My point in bringing this up is if we had found these 2 animals as fossils, we would see that one is far larger than the other, and has twice the number of teeth, and a whole range of differences. We would place them, as we did already, in different subfamilies, and in fact, if one was found earlier than the other one, someone may even insist this was an example of evolution.
But we would be wrong, as we were wrong, on not realizing they are same species.
Therefore, by comparing and examining this species, its wide range, this should show us that greatly varied fossils may not represent as many different species as once conceived.
I have also wondered concerning human fossils, what if a tribe of dwarfs left r emains in one area, and another tribe was unusually tall, say averaging 6' 10". Evolutionists would probable claim these were different species, when in fact there are such examples of people around today.
In general, I don't see evolutionists when they compare fossils taking these things into consideration.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walk...ld/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.pseudorca.html
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/w-index.html
Now, these 2 large animals were classified in 2 separate subfamilies actually, and for good reason. They look and are significantly different.
My point in bringing this up is if we had found these 2 animals as fossils, we would see that one is far larger than the other, and has twice the number of teeth, and a whole range of differences. We would place them, as we did already, in different subfamilies, and in fact, if one was found earlier than the other one, someone may even insist this was an example of evolution.
But we would be wrong, as we were wrong, on not realizing they are same species.
Therefore, by comparing and examining this species, its wide range, this should show us that greatly varied fossils may not represent as many different species as once conceived.
I have also wondered concerning human fossils, what if a tribe of dwarfs left r emains in one area, and another tribe was unusually tall, say averaging 6' 10". Evolutionists would probable claim these were different species, when in fact there are such examples of people around today.
In general, I don't see evolutionists when they compare fossils taking these things into consideration.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walk...ld/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.pseudorca.html
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/w-index.html
Upvote
0
Umm randman, that's not a killer whale, but a false killer whale which is a type of porpoise, IIRC.
Upvote
0
It's still in a different subfamily, and it is the polar extremes within that family, and it is in a large, major species, presumably well advanced due to its reported intelligence.
Upvote
0
The false killer whale is the only species in the genus Pseudoorca. The existance of the 'wholfin' indicates that the taxonomists were a little too hasty in assigning it to its own genus. But the self correcting nature of science will adjust to this new evidence.
Like I said before this situation indicates that the original classification was wrong. It does not indicate that they are the same species since the existance of rare hybrids between species is not considered evidence that their is just one species.
Like I said before this situation indicates that the original classification was wrong. It does not indicate that they are the same species since the existance of rare hybrids between species is not considered evidence that their is just one species.
Upvote
0
"Too hasty" really? care to back that up.I included studies which were quite extensive that illustrate the wide range of differences between these 2 animals. Basically, noone can point to any flaw based on normal criteria, and that is the point, that the standards for judging fossils/bones is wrong, as this example shows.
Your attempt to minimize the differences here is telling though.
Your attempt to minimize the differences here is telling though.
Upvote
0
"Head and body length is up to 610 cm in males and 490 cm in females. Dorsal fin height is about 40 cm, and weight reaches 1,360 kg (Scheffer 1978b; U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 1978). The coloration is black throughout. Pseudorca bears some resemblance to Orcinus but can be distinguished by its uniformly dark color, more slender build, more tapering head, smaller and more backwardly curving dorsal fin, and tapering flippers, which average about one-tenth of the head and body length. There are usually 8-11 teeth on each side of each jaw."
"The young are usually 160-200 cm long at birth, gestation lasts 15.5 months, lactation is estimated to continue for about 18 months, and sexual maturity is attained at 8-14 years. Some individuals have lived up to 22 years (Perrin and Reilly 1984; Purves and Pilleri 1978)."
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walk...ld/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.pseudorca.html
"This family of 17 Recent genera and 34 species inhabits all the oceans and adjoining seas of the world, as well as the estuaries of many large rivers. Some species occasionally ascend rivers. The porpoises of the family Phocoenidae (see account thereof) sometimes have been included in the Delphinidae. Rice (1984) divided the Delphinidae into five subfamilies: Stenoninae, with the genera Steno, Sousa, and Sotalia; Delphininae, with Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, and Grampus; Globicephalinae, with Peponocephala, Feresa, Pseudorca, Globicephala, Orcinus, and Orcaella; Lissodelphinae, with Lissodelphis; and Cephalorhynchinae, with Cephalorhynchus. Barnes, Domning, and Ray (1985) accepted the same subfamilies but placed Orcaella in its own subfamily, Orcaellinae, and transferred it to the family Monodontidae. Pilleri and Gihr (1981b) considered the Stenoninae to be a full family with the name Stenidae."
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.html#genera
If you will note, pseodoorcas are in the same sub-family as killer whales(Orcinus), and considered closer to killer whales than the porpoises that are mentioned.
You are basically just wrong in your assertions.
"The young are usually 160-200 cm long at birth, gestation lasts 15.5 months, lactation is estimated to continue for about 18 months, and sexual maturity is attained at 8-14 years. Some individuals have lived up to 22 years (Perrin and Reilly 1984; Purves and Pilleri 1978)."
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walk...ld/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.pseudorca.html
"This family of 17 Recent genera and 34 species inhabits all the oceans and adjoining seas of the world, as well as the estuaries of many large rivers. Some species occasionally ascend rivers. The porpoises of the family Phocoenidae (see account thereof) sometimes have been included in the Delphinidae. Rice (1984) divided the Delphinidae into five subfamilies: Stenoninae, with the genera Steno, Sousa, and Sotalia; Delphininae, with Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, and Grampus; Globicephalinae, with Peponocephala, Feresa, Pseudorca, Globicephala, Orcinus, and Orcaella; Lissodelphinae, with Lissodelphis; and Cephalorhynchinae, with Cephalorhynchus. Barnes, Domning, and Ray (1985) accepted the same subfamilies but placed Orcaella in its own subfamily, Orcaellinae, and transferred it to the family Monodontidae. Pilleri and Gihr (1981b) considered the Stenoninae to be a full family with the name Stenidae."
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.html#genera
If you will note, pseodoorcas are in the same sub-family as killer whales(Orcinus), and considered closer to killer whales than the porpoises that are mentioned.
You are basically just wrong in your assertions.
Upvote
0
Also, basically, what you have is a killer whale mating with a normal dolphin as you would see off the beach. The fact that its title is pseudo-orace shows it looks like a killer whale, and the fact it is in the same subfamily as a killer whales in general, and the porpoise is not in that subfamily is evidence that there is huge difference in appearance, and anatomy.
Surely, you are not stating that if a paleontogist found fossils of these that they would place them in the same biological species?
More to the point, this is evidence that all of these species within this family, when you dig into it, may have descended from the same original Kind, the original species.
Surely, you are not stating that if a paleontogist found fossils of these that they would place them in the same biological species?
More to the point, this is evidence that all of these species within this family, when you dig into it, may have descended from the same original Kind, the original species.
Upvote
0
Probably not. If they do not freely interbreed in their natural environment, and only interbreed in captivity, they are probably best classified as different species. If they can still interbreed under artificial conditions, they probably are best classfied, but do not do so in nature, they are probably best qualified as different species of the same genus. Pseudorca, then, is probably a poorly classed genus.
Take some time to find out about taxonomy, and how it works. You wouldn't think a cataloguing system could be so revealing but it is.... Some species diverge sharply and yet retain chromosomal compatability, some diverge only slightly and lose the ability to produce fertile (or any) offspring. It is interesting when you take the time to learn about it.... and it is no more a problem for evolution than Van der Waals forces are for Boyle's Law.
Upvote
0
The link you posted did not describe any sub-families. It went straight from family to genus. Delphinus, Pseudorca & Orcinus are all genera of the family Delphinidae.. I am still working on checking your assertions, but you could save me time by providing references.
Upvote
0
Randman, you're missing the point. The existance of this 'wolphin' is evidence that the classifications need to be reconsidered. The classifications that you have brought up predate this evidence. Can you provide something more rescent, perhaps using genetic data?
You should also realize that there are slightly different criteria for determining fossil species than extant species. The scientific community is well aware of this distinction and are constantly trying to improve their techniques.
This link discusses such differences.
You should also realize that there are slightly different criteria for determining fossil species than extant species. The scientific community is well aware of this distinction and are constantly trying to improve their techniques.
This link discusses such differences.
Upvote
0
P.S., I don't mean the references you have already posted. I mean ones that show that Pseudorca is in a sub-family with the Orcines, and that Pseudorca is considered to be a closer relative to the Orcines than to the Dolphins... FYI.
Upvote
0
re: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp
It appears that the author does not understand much about concepts of what a species is.
From context, it is clear that this article is using the biological species concept for its definition. So lets apply it. It appears that the crosses discussed by AiG are artifical: they would not happen in nature. That would actually make them different species according to the biological species concept. It is not just the physical possiblity of mating that counts but also whether or not they actually do mate.
Furthermore it is often not clear what a species is: it is very hard to define in ways that are both consistent and easy to apply. Think about ring species. Think of two "species" of Artic tern. Take one of them. It interbreeds with nearby terns which breed with nearby terns, so on and so forth all away around the world. By the time one gets back to starting point the terns are the second "species." By the biological species concept the two local populations of terns are distinct species and from a larger point of view they are part of a whole. This is one reason why, in practice, the concept of the species is often blurred. Another way is that somewhat different populations sometimes can easily interbreed and other times only rarely do so. It is not an all or nothing thing.
And if the concept of species was not sometimes blurred and arbitary that would have been perfect evidence for creationism. But alas the evolutionary expectation is correct yet again.
It appears that the author does not understand much about concepts of what a species is.
From context, it is clear that this article is using the biological species concept for its definition. So lets apply it. It appears that the crosses discussed by AiG are artifical: they would not happen in nature. That would actually make them different species according to the biological species concept. It is not just the physical possiblity of mating that counts but also whether or not they actually do mate.
Furthermore it is often not clear what a species is: it is very hard to define in ways that are both consistent and easy to apply. Think about ring species. Think of two "species" of Artic tern. Take one of them. It interbreeds with nearby terns which breed with nearby terns, so on and so forth all away around the world. By the time one gets back to starting point the terns are the second "species." By the biological species concept the two local populations of terns are distinct species and from a larger point of view they are part of a whole. This is one reason why, in practice, the concept of the species is often blurred. Another way is that somewhat different populations sometimes can easily interbreed and other times only rarely do so. It is not an all or nothing thing.
And if the concept of species was not sometimes blurred and arbitary that would have been perfect evidence for creationism. But alas the evolutionary expectation is correct yet again.
Upvote
0
Um, guys, the articles I posted have links, and clear statements that you are obviously not reading. For one, they do not predate the knowledge these 2 can mate, and have done so in t he wild. It is SPECIFICALLY mentioned, as are the subfamilies.
Why don't ya'll bother to read before commentting?
"Rice (1984) divided the Delphinidae into five subfamilies: Stenoninae, with the genera Steno, Sousa, and Sotalia; Delphininae, with Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, and Grampus; Globicephalinae, with Peponocephala, Feresa, Pseudorca, Globicephala, Orcinus, and Orcaella; Lissodelphinae, with Lissodelphis; and Cephalorhynchinae, with Cephalorhynchus. Barnes, Domning, and Ray (1985) accepted the same subfamilies but placed Orcaella in its own subfamily, Orcaellinae, and transferred it to the family Monodontidae. Pilleri and Gihr (1981b) considered the Stenoninae to be a full family with the name Stenidae."
Note this is the second time I quoted this above. The link is provided above, and it clearly states the subfamilies that some have placed these animals into. Note that orcas and psuedo-orcas are in the same subfamily, and that the porpoises mentioned is another.
Also, from the same web-site. This is a link with photos of all of the genera in he family including this porpoise, and killer whales.
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.images.html
Check out this quote.
"Such hybridization now is known to have occurred both in the wild and in captivity, and hybrids also have been produced in captivity through interbreeding of Tursiops with the genera Pseudorca, Steno, and Globicephala (Sylvestre and Tasaka 1985)."
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walk...rld/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.tursiops.html
Why don't ya'll bother to read before commentting?
"Rice (1984) divided the Delphinidae into five subfamilies: Stenoninae, with the genera Steno, Sousa, and Sotalia; Delphininae, with Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, and Grampus; Globicephalinae, with Peponocephala, Feresa, Pseudorca, Globicephala, Orcinus, and Orcaella; Lissodelphinae, with Lissodelphis; and Cephalorhynchinae, with Cephalorhynchus. Barnes, Domning, and Ray (1985) accepted the same subfamilies but placed Orcaella in its own subfamily, Orcaellinae, and transferred it to the family Monodontidae. Pilleri and Gihr (1981b) considered the Stenoninae to be a full family with the name Stenidae."
Note this is the second time I quoted this above. The link is provided above, and it clearly states the subfamilies that some have placed these animals into. Note that orcas and psuedo-orcas are in the same subfamily, and that the porpoises mentioned is another.
Also, from the same web-site. This is a link with photos of all of the genera in he family including this porpoise, and killer whales.
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.images.html
Check out this quote.
"Such hybridization now is known to have occurred both in the wild and in captivity, and hybrids also have been produced in captivity through interbreeding of Tursiops with the genera Pseudorca, Steno, and Globicephala (Sylvestre and Tasaka 1985)."
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walk...rld/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.tursiops.html
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
And what is the point of this Randman?
What does it prove/disprove in either the evolution or creation theories?
Do you have a point or are you just spewing your hate of a theory that contradicts your preconcived notions of who God is?
I am just tired of seeing these stupid flame wars where christians take joy in killing eachother. So unless you have an honest question, not just another "Look you were wrong again" why bother us? If evolution is as blatenly wrong as you say it is it will fall apart in less than ten years at the rate biology as a science is advancing.
What does it prove/disprove in either the evolution or creation theories?
Do you have a point or are you just spewing your hate of a theory that contradicts your preconcived notions of who God is?
I am just tired of seeing these stupid flame wars where christians take joy in killing eachother. So unless you have an honest question, not just another "Look you were wrong again" why bother us? If evolution is as blatenly wrong as you say it is it will fall apart in less than ten years at the rate biology as a science is advancing.
Upvote
0
Geesh, this is why I say a portion of evolutionism is a cult. You can't even agree on a basic fact, clearly seen, if you are suspicious that this fact could be used against your belief system.
My point is quite clear. Here we have a pretty amazing pehnomenon. I am asking if theorists have incorporated the fact of this type of phenomena into their analysis of fossils, and the relevance of how such huge differences in bone structure can actually not be outside of what a layman thinks of as species, the ability to produce fertile offspring.
But it is apparent that you guys are so afraid of just taking honest looks at data that any piece of data that you are afraid of, you basically try to deny its existence.
How can on edebate people who basically deny the meaning of what is is.
My point is quite clear. Here we have a pretty amazing pehnomenon. I am asking if theorists have incorporated the fact of this type of phenomena into their analysis of fossils, and the relevance of how such huge differences in bone structure can actually not be outside of what a layman thinks of as species, the ability to produce fertile offspring.
But it is apparent that you guys are so afraid of just taking honest looks at data that any piece of data that you are afraid of, you basically try to deny its existence.
How can on edebate people who basically deny the meaning of what is is.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
