Funny looking "gills":
Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A lion can breed with a tiger. What does that tell you?
Your "leap" is still a huge one. Dogs are still dogs--goats are still goats.
It'd be easier to work with insects--shorter life cycle, simpler creature.
Careful, your real motivations are showing...
"I think that pretty little artist's rendering (which has the horse in the wrong "swoop" of evolution, btw) ought to be recreated in stained glass and mounted on an altar to Hopeless Tenure Track and Our Lady of Perpetual Unemployability."
Good response!
A team looking for a new mascot? There are many mules in nature. I think, we once had this conversation. You said there was a mule that was not sterile, and I then inquired..."Who's his baby?"
I'm a dinosaur. My kids say so. ;)
re: dogs, wolf spp, coyotes etc.
Diminished fertility is a sign that speciation is not complete. There are ring species (seriously neat...adjacent neighbors can interbreed but when they reach the extreme ends of their range, overlapping populations can't breed.
>=can breed with X=can't breed with
a > b > c > d > e > f X a.
somewhere along the line they (let's say a and d) can breed but have fewer or weaker offspring.
That's similar to what goes on with wolves, dogs and coyotes. No one is going to seriously argue that a chihuahua male could impregnate a wolf female, or that a chihuahua female could either be impregnated by, or bear the offspring of, a wolf.
The biologists' definition of species is critters that don't interbreed in nature, but on the way to species is diminished fertility. That would explain the occasional hybrid in various canid populations.
The only way for more dinosaurs to come about would have been for other surviving reptiles, such as crocodiles, to evolve in that direction or for birds to regain their dino features. There was no environmental pressure pushing reptiles and birds back into the dinosaur direction.
Furthermore, the empty niches left by the extinct dinos were quickly filled by various other types of animal, such as mammals.
My "cylinder index" is currently at around 23 counting the 9.8hp Merc. that needs a tune-up to run. thanks for asking. shalom
How old are you, twelve?
It's a very easy thing to give an answer of yes or no. Is the wolf and the dog the same species?
By which definition of species?
(Hint: "Species" is a human classification. Nature makes no such distinctions.)
But yes, by most definitions of species, dogs and wolves are different species. Why do you ask (over and over and over again)?
If we agree that the wolf and the coyote are sufficiently different to be considered two distinct species, even though they are clearly closely related and quite similar animals both physically and tempermentally, and when wolves and coyotes interbreed they produce viable offspring who are not mules, then I would answer 'no,' the wolf and the dog are sufficiently different to be considered two distinct species.
Funny looking "gills":
Much of our increase in height is based on environmental issues, such as better nutrition, rather than genetic traits. We're not really getting genetically any taller, it's just that due to better nutrition and medical care, we are able to live up to our genetic potential these days when it comes to height.
As for how tall we can get as a species? In Earth's gravity, humans start to develop problems once they get up into the upper 6' range.
It is actually about a 12hp Merc. They put 9.8 on the label to get past state registration requirements.
This is where you lost all credibility.
But, there was no fly.
These are not scientists as much as they are priests. They don't present a reasonable theory, they insist I ascribe to it lest I be "ignorant".
I don't know how life began, and I don't credit these erstwhile Darwin-thumpers who claim to know, either. I have beliefs--but I don't call people "superstitious" or "ignorant" who don't happen to agree.
If this is science, it should be demonstrable and accountable--anything else is theorizing. Theorizing is OK--it's truth-seeking, but it's not truth itself.
"Naaa...just looking for evidence of something that is classified as both plant and animal."
At one time Slime Molds were thought to possibly be both. At least one group has their own kingdom now.
Fungi used to be classified as plants, now they are known to be closer to animals.
You didn't answer my question. Who is trying to prove that no gods exist?
Shoot. I was hoping for something more exciting like the Venus Fly-Trap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.