There is no difference between man bringing a Husky and mastiff together to mate, than natural causes like famine, geological changes, etc, except for time......
There are extreme differences. Humans tend to breed for traits which are outwardly obvious far moreso than nature selects for such traits. Not only that, but humans very often select for traits that HURT survival chances, causing many of the animals we have domesticated to rely on us to persist. Natural selection would never select for the squashed nose of a pug, because all it does is cause breathing problems.
Not only that, but nature would not produce so many genetic bottlenecks in so many different regions of the world for just 1 species. Hundreds to thousands of different isolated, small populations of dogs selectively bred for different traits, accommodating drastically different environments and human whims. Name a single species that has experienced this without human intervention. Just 1.
Why would I expect to show you the same variation when if left alone dogs would only have a few variations themselves? What you see in dogs is simply nature sped up a billion fold.
Not quite. There is one thing humans couldn't speed up, and that was mutation. This is how different a species can outwardly look in various populations without actually deviating genetically all that much. This is what multiple isolated populations selectively bred for different (and not necessarily useful) traits can get you, even when working with relatively few mutations.
Regardless, you have tried to claim that fossils that appear different are actually the same species, on the basis that dogs appear different yet are (mostly) the same species. Tell me, who was there to selectively breed members of Ceratopsia? Yes, dogs outwardly appear different because we utilized every single mutation we could, but nature doesn't do that. You cannot assert that various fossil organisms could be the same species, because you aren't accounting for the fact that it takes many more mutations in nature to produce notably different phenotypes than it does with selective breeding. You are not accounting for the fact that the major source of populations diverging is the degree at which their genomes have become dissimilar, not changes in physical appearance.
Knowing that, we must conclude that any fossil species as different in skeletal structure as a chihuahua and a bloodhound MUST be significantly more genetically different from each other than a chihuahua and a bloodhound are, because natural selection will not result in maximum phenotypic difference with as little genetic change as possible.
Or can you not honestly admit to yourself that there would be no difference between a Mastiff mating with a Husky brought together by man or if left to natural occurrances like famine causing relocation except time itself?
Dogs in general would not exist without human intervention. We made the husky. We made the mastiff. There'd be another wolf species without our involvement, or another subspecies of wolf.
We have had this discussion. You know they come from the same lineage. You may call them subspecies if you like.
It's not about what I like. You claimed that we have never seen a species change over time gradually, in your own words "we always find them fully formed, not becoming something else". I was informing you that our classification system doesn't accomodate transitional species very well. I mean, what are you going to classify something that has 50% dinosaur traits and 50% bird traits? As a bird or as a dinosaur? There isn't a way to classify an organism like that as both, so arguments ensue, attempting to utilize the tiniest details to sway it one way or another. Even creationists have problems like this, with some trying to claim that Lucy was a chimp, and others trying to claim that she was a member of our species. The reality is, she's pretty much smack dab in the middle.
And finches who's DNA is so mixed they cant even distinguish one species from another genetically?
-_- citation please. I am pretty sure other sources you have cited before that used genetic testing contradict that claim, since they can distinctly tell if a gene came from one species or another.
No grey areas indeed. Watching them breed right in front of their eyes. Please, the PR is getting really old.....
Your reliance on wingnuts is getting old too. We've explained this to you over a dozen times, they aren't breeding frequently enough for the populations to actually merge, and the hybrids have a rough time finding mates. The influence on the populations is being greatly exaggerated.
When they decide to reclassify finches as the same species, I'll believe they are serious whenh it comes to what the DNA says.
Again, I recall your own sources contradicting your new claim that the species cannot be distinguished genetically. As in, your own source is from a guy that claims that they should be divided into MORE species. You don't get to cherry pick like that.
its called breeding the same type over and over with those of similar type. Its how we got Asian features and African. Not by magical evolution, but by those with the same features selectively breeding with those of similar features. Just as those with less dense bone and therefore different body features, selectively bred with those with similar features. It's how dogs end up with less dense bone than other dogs with denser bones. Its an abnormality from inbreeding, not an advancement in evolution.....
-_- dude, how would any humans know the bone density of another human and decide, hmm, I'm attracted to people that break their bones more easily? Furthermore, inbreeding generally only inflicts people with the various recessive detrimental mutations already present within the population. Why are ALL of the ancient human bones we find denser than ours, with the density gradually decreasing to modern times if inbreeding would be sufficient to inflict it? If this is what inbreeding does, then why aren't cheetahs all cripples? They are so inbred that two random cheetahs can be tissue donors to each other.
Face it, inbreeding reduces variation and change; it cannot increase variation in and of itself.
Thats what they said about mules and horses until a mule gave birth.....
I've told you before that about 1/100 female mules are fertile. Also, that no males are. When infertility is that prevalent, it is impossible for two populations to naturally merge together once more. Not to mention that mules are a product of human intervention in and of themselves.
