Question

selfinflikted · Aug 19, 2014

It's a fair example. Chihuahuas did descend from wolves, and wolves are still around. It's basically the same question the OP has asked.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
You said: "Chihuahuas who". I can't help but wonder when Chihuahuas became people.

It would appear that Morton's Demon prevents you from understanding analogies.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002

Chihuahuas and wolves are, of course, a bad example. Since chihuahuas and wolves can breed, it's arguable that they are not two species, but rather one.

Show me a half wolf, half chihuahua.

Zosimus · Aug 19, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Show me a half wolf, half chihuahua.

Do you, then, deny that dogs and wolves can and routinely do breed and provide fertile offspring?

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
Do you, then, deny that dogs and wolves can and routinely do breed and provide fertile offspring?

I deny that there are examples of chihuahuas and wolves interbreeding.

Subduction Zone · Aug 19, 2014

Loudmouth said:
I deny that there are examples of chihuahuas and wolves interbreeding.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2014

Subduction Zone said:

You expect us to accept a cartoon as evidence?

Zosimus · Aug 19, 2014

Loudmouth said:
I deny that there are examples of chihuahuas and wolves interbreeding.

Don't dodge the question. Do you deny that it is possible for a male chihuahua to impregnate a wolf either through natural or artificial insemination and that said offspring would be fertile? Given that the most common definition of "species" requires the two members of said species to be able to produce fertile offspring, could it not be argued that they are members of the same species?

Subduction Zone · Aug 19, 2014

Seriously you might be able to artificially inseminate a female wold and produce a wolf/chihuahua mix. If you did artificial insemination the other way around the female would probably self abort the puppies since that is how dogs react when there is a size issue.

A male chihuahua would have no chance with a wolf in the wild. He would be looked upon as prey and not as a suitor. When animals stop breeding together naturally that is the first step in speciation. You may still be able to force a breed back in the laboratory, but it will not happen in the wild. The next step is limited fertility of young, and eventually the two species will not produce even a hybrid.

There is no part of the process where you can draw a hard line and say before this point they were one species and after this point they were two species. Creationists very often want an artificial creationist type of definition of "species" to exist. Since reality disagrees with that concept there will be no hard definition of the word in science.

Subduction Zone · Aug 19, 2014

Loudmouth said:
You expect us to accept a cartoon as evidence?

Hey!!! I am trying to give the creationists a hand

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
Don't dodge the question. Do you deny that it is possible for a male chihuahua to impregnate a wolf either through natural or artificial insemination and that said offspring would be fertile?

I deny that chihuahuas and wolves do interbreed when given the chance, making them separate populations. Given the interbreeding through several intermediately sized dog populations, dogs and wolves represent a ring species, a set of populations in the process of speciation.

Given that the most common definition of "species" requires the two members of said species to be able to produce fertile offspring, could it not be argued that they are members of the same species?

The most common definition of speciation requires that they DO produce fertile offspring. It is a working definition, not an abstract idea. Species are defined by real world interbreeding, not possibilities.

Delphiki · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
So blue words are a different species from red words? You learn something new every day.

So, you don't do well with analogy, I suppose.

Blue words are different than red words. Species is a word used in biology. In this case, it's used to illustrate an example. Words don't reproduce, or eat and poop, but that's why it was an analogy, in attempt to simplify an explanation so that those who aren't educated in a subject can better understand it. Feel free to let me know if I need to make it simpler.

Subduction Zone · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
Don't dodge the question. Do you deny that it is possible for a male chihuahua to impregnate a wolf either through natural or artificial insemination and that said offspring would be fertile? Given that the most common definition of "species" requires the two members of said species to be able to produce fertile offspring, could it not be argued that they are members of the same species?

As I said there is no hard definition of "species".

Usually when two different groups will no longer naturally interbreed they are considered to be different species.

That does not mean under pressure of some sort the speciation process could not be stopped or even reversed to some extent. For example most eastern coyotes have been found to be part timber wolf (gray wolf for non-Minnesotans). Man upset the balance of nature enough so that some male wolves ended up breeding with some female coyotes and voila, a new "subspecies".

Coywolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delphiki · Aug 19, 2014

AV1611VET said:
So I've heard.

Okay, so you demonstrated an analog process (evolution) with a digital example.

In other words, you're expecting the reader to fill in the gaps.

And that's another pet peeve of mine: evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

Talk about having your cake...

You're too simple minded to understand something as simple as evolution, yet when someone makes it simple to understand, you complain that it's too simple. This how we can all tell you're lying.

If it looks too gradual to you, then you have a problem with it. If I show you it's not as gradual as it seems, then you still have a problem with it.

AV, if someone who wasn't our pastor showed you a duck to your face, you would deny it was a duck until your last breath. If you stop playing games and trolling, maybe people will stop treating you like you're a moron.

Zosimus · Aug 19, 2014

Delphiki said:
So, you don't do well with analogy, I suppose.

Blue words are different than red words. Species is a word used in biology. In this case, it's used to illustrate an example. Words don't reproduce, or eat and poop, but that's why it was an analogy, in attempt to simplify an explanation so that those who aren't educated in a subject can better understand it. Feel free to let me know if I need to make it simpler.

Species is a word drawn from the Latin language. Since you apparently do not speak a Romance language, as I do, perhaps it will be of use to note that the meaning of the word "species" is not as clear cut as you might think.

I could say, for example: ¿Qué especie de auto manejas? That is, literally, what species of car do you drive? Of course, the literal translation is not the best one. No English speaker would say this, rather he or she would say "What kind" or "What type" of car do you drive?

In short, all the word species means is kind or type. Now you have said that you want to convert this word into some sort of a technical word, in science, with a clear scientific definition to be used in that context alone. Fine! I think that would be a splendid idea.

As soon as you come up with a definition for the word, that scientists can all agree on, let me know. Until then, let me remind you that there are dozens of species concepts, many of which are completely incompatible one with another.

Meanwhile, if you think that your red to blue text demonstrates something about evolution, then perhaps you'll think that

I Didn't Know That - How Dolls Are Made - YouTube

demonstrates creationism.

Delphiki · Aug 19, 2014

...and Zosimus: Before you go criticizing the definition of "species", do us all a favor and tell us what a "kind" is.

Zosimus · Aug 19, 2014

Delphiki said:
...and Zosimus: Before you go criticizing the definition of "species", do us all a favor and tell us what a "kind" is.

Oh that's easy. http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=especie

Especie: Conjunto de cosas semejantes entre sí por tener uno o varios caracteres comunes.

It's right there in plain Spanish.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
As soon as you come up with a definition for the word, that scientists can all agree on, let me know. Until then, let me remind you that there are dozens of species concepts, many of which are completely incompatible one with another.

There are dozens of species concepts because there are dozens of contexts that the word is used in. Obviously, you can't use the same definition for both asexual and sexual species. You can't use interbreeding concepts for fossil species.

Real scientists are trying to understand the real world and real evidence. Creationists are trying to obfuscate and make the evidence go away. Your post is a perfect example of that. You are trying to cloud the issue as much as possible so that you don't have to discuss the actual science.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
Oh that's easy. http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=especie

Especie: Conjunto de cosas semejantes entre sí por tener uno o varios caracteres comunes.

It's right there in plain Spanish.

We are talking about the specific use of the term in a specific field. Please stop with the semantic fallacies and the obfuscation.

Zosimus · Aug 19, 2014

Loudmouth said:
There are dozens of species concepts because there are dozens of contexts that the word is used in. Obviously, you can't use the same definition for both asexual and sexual species. You can't use interbreeding concepts for fossil species.

Real scientists are trying to understand the real world and real evidence. Creationists are trying to obfuscate and make the evidence go away. Your post is a perfect example of that. You are trying to cloud the issue as much as possible so that you don't have to discuss the actual science.

Great except I'm not a creationist. Nice false dichotomy, though. Keep it up with the logical fallacies. It makes my job as a critic much easier.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2014

Zosimus said:
Great except I'm not a creationist. Nice false dichotomy, though. Keep it up with the logical fallacies. It makes my job as a critic much easier.

Says the person using a semantic fallacy while running away from the evidence.

Question

Under Deck

Contributor

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Regular Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Well-Known Member

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Contributor

Contributor

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency